POSC 1000(056) Introduction to Politics

1. POSC 1000(056) Introduction to Politics Politics and Governance the Global Level/Conclusions and Exam Advice Russell Alan Williams

2. Unit 13: Politics and Governance the Global Level/Conclusions and Exam Advice Required Reading: • Mintz, Chapter 20, pp. 474-499. Outline: • Introduction • Realism and Order in the International System • Liberal-Internationalism • Conclusions

3. 1) Intro – “International Relations”: Observers of international relations believe “politics” is only possible when there is government • Suggest two levels of analyses: • Domestic = politics • International = relations amongst states • “Anarchy”: The absence of central authority • Makes the enforcement of laws etc. difficult • Means “government” not possible???? =International politics must be fundamentally different . . . .

4. “Global Governance”: Process whereby actors (states, international organizations etc.) compete and cooperate, providing some order in international politics. • Two main views of sources of governance or order • “Realism” – focus on competition and power • “Liberal-Internationalism” – focus on institutions, laws and values as basis of order • Two camps have irreconcilable view of how the world works =Study of international politics is highly theoretical and contentious

5. 2) Realism & Order in the International System: “Realism”: Approach to international politics that emphasizes the role of anarchy • Anarchy means states mainly concerned about security and protecting their own sovereignty E.g. Peace comes from strength to ensure deterrence, not from international rules • Anarchy makes international affairs violent and dangerous Key thinkers: • Niccolo Machiavelli: • Wise princes do what is necessary, not what is moral • Thomas Hobbes: • Life without government means everyone is at war with everyone else • E.H. Carr: • International institutions do not overcome the “realities” of anarchy

6. “Realism”: Key Concepts . . . . “National Interest”: Goals states pursue in their foreign policy • Realists believe national interest is normally for a state to pursue power and wealth necessary for state survival “Security Dilemma”: International security is “zero sum” • As one state takes steps to make itself more secure, this makes neighboring states insecure • Others must respond . . . . • Results in a spiral of increasing insecurity • E.g. Weapons races.

7. “Realism”: Sources of order in an archaic world? “International System”: Concept that describes the distribution of power amongst states • Distribution of power can create a system of order • Example: Weak states follow rules set by strong states • U.S. as World’s “policeman” “Pole”: A concentration of power in the international system • Either an individually-powerful state or alliance of states that has potential to play dominant role in the system • Number of poles in system determine basis of order

8. “Multipolar System”: When there are many powers (or “poles”) in the international system • Examples: -European “Great Powers” of 19th Century -Current period . . . . ??????? • Key impact: • States focus on the “Balance of Power”: • States act to prevent their rivals from gaining power relative to themselves • E.g. Seek empires, form alliances, fight wars • “Security dilemma” is high

9. “Bipolar System” or “Bipolarity”: International system in which there are only two leading powers • Other states tend to fall under the influence of one or the other • Examples: The Cold War (1945-1989) -End of WWII left only two great powers • Key impact: • Two states inevitably come into conflict – rivalry dominates all other international politics • Can be more stable then multipoloar system • Cold war never led to open conflict

10. “Unipolar System” or “Unipolarity”: International system dominated by a single great power • Examples: The United States (1989-????) -As survivor of Cold War, US emerged in dominant position • Key impacts: • System should be more stable – conducive to formation of international rules (rules supported by the strong) =“Hegemonic System” or “Hegemony”: Unipolar system in which a single superpower uses authority and leadership to forge international consensus supporting some rules • E.g. United States and free trade • However, all other states have incentives to challenge unipolartiy – could lead to increased conflict • Or, unipolarity can only be temporary

11. 3) Liberal-Internationalism: “Liberal-Internationalism”: An approach to the study of international politics that assumes that anarchy is mitigated by “International/Global Society” • Supported by: • Economic interdependence = economic benefits of cooperation • Cultural and social connections = shared identity and values • “Civil society” = shared norms • Promote the “rule of law” and peace • Key thinkers: • Immanuel Kant: • Human reason means that a liberal pacification of the world is inevitable • Robert Keohane: • Growing interdependence (globalisation) of states makes conflict less likely

12. “Liberal-Internationalism”: Claims . . . . • States are not the only important actors in international politics • Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO’s): Provide some rules and order to international system • E.g. UN and the legitimacy of military interventions • “International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs)”: International organizations whose members are not states but come from global “civil society” • E.g. Red Cross, Greenpeace, Amnesty International and many business groups • Promote new values or “norms” that guide behavior

13. “Liberal-Internationalism”: Claims . . . . • States are not “unitary” actors • State “preferences” or behavior in international politics is driven by domestic politics • Demands of groups in society – states are not “rational security calculators” • “Publics” are interested in prosperity and peace etc. • Individuals can learn, so world politics can be improved from past mistakes = optimism

14. “Liberal-Internationalism”: Claims . . . . • Modern world is interdependent - Results in: • Higher awareness of shared problems • E.g. environmental and health problems • Clearer sense of benefits of cooperation • E.g. economic benefits of trade

15. “Liberal-Internationalism”: Claims . . . . • Level of cooperation has grown – empirical claim Why? 1) Shared morality – unsanctioned use of force to gain power is increasingly illegitimate • War is no longer a tool in foreign policy (???) 2) Shared sense of benefits of cooperation – most states are small • Rule of law favors the weak . . .

16. 3) “International Regimes”: Set of principles, norms, treaties and institutions that regulate international relations in an issue area • E.g. Trade regime– The World Trade Organization (WTO) • Regimes create expectations of future cooperation which encourages states to avoid rule breaking and cheating 4) “Collective Security”: Principle that all members of the collectivity of states are responsible for the security of those facing aggression. Each pledges to come to the aid of those who are attacked • Key principle of UN “sovereignty regime”– makes war riskier for aggressor states • Examples: Korea (1950) and Iraq (1991)

17. 5) New forms of political organization E.g. The European Union = • “Postmodern state”: State in which the meaning and practice of sovereignty have been redefined and the tools of governance are shared • Collective foreign policies • Security no longer based on control of borders

18. 4) Conclusions: • Different views of how the world works create different images of world politics • Realists see “international relations” • Liberal-Internationalists see “international politics” • Also, produces very different views of states’“Foreign Policy” • Theories provide different guides to the real world of global politics . . .

19. Realists think each state’s foreign policy will reflect “national interest” given position in international system • E.g. Canada is a “middle power” so Canada has a middle-power-type foreign policy • Support for rule of law and UN etc. • Liberal-Internationalists think each state’s foreign policies will reflect more complex political processes • E.g. Canada supports rule of law and UN because these reflect Canadian values and political demands • Peacekeeping, humanitarian intervention, human security etc.

20. Thinking about global events usually requires that observers adopt one of these views . . . . • For example: • Why did the U.S. invade Iraq in 2003? • Why is Canada at war with the Taliban in Afghanistan? • Why does Canada want free trade with the United States? • Key point: International politics involves “thinking theoretically”

21. For next time: • Conclusions – Exam advice Essay feedback