IR 401 – ANALYSIS of INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS I

1. Lecture Note Asst. Prof. Dr. Nur Köprülü IR 401 – ANALYSIS of INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS I

2. Emergence of IR as a discipline; Stepping Stones • Hague Conferences of 1899 & 1907 • End of the First World War (1919) • Interwar years (1919 – 1939) • Establishment of “League of Nations” 1920 • Evolution of “Idealism” • Wilson’s 14 Principles • Idealism – Realism Debate; First Debate in IR Theories

3. Hague Conferences (1899 & 1907) • In the Hague Conferences, the European states pledged to establish an international mechanism to settle disputes among nations • In order to achieve this end; the Hague Conferences had come to the conclusion that there should be an international TRIBUNAL to solve the problmes among states! • This was the first step in the foundation of International Court; like Permanent Court of International Justice in 1920 which has been replaced by the International Court of Justice in 1945 under the UN System. • For that purpose the headquarter of ICJ is located at Hague/ the Netherlands today!

4. End of the WWI and establishment of the League of Nations • After the end of the WWI, the victorious powers decided to set up an international organization to avoid any other world war and to maintain peace & security at international level. • In order to cope with this situation, the League of Nations was established which was the first political IGO ever established.

5. Aims of the League... • Non-intervention into domestic affairs • Self-determination • Idea of Collective Security *** • Peaceful settlement of disputes • PCIJ: Permanent Court of Int Justice • Sovereign Equality of states, particularly respect for political independence.

6. Then... • All these dynamics had demonstrated that there should be a separate discipline to analyze and explore the relations among the states and to re-think how states can avoid wars and achieve peace!

7. The result was a discussion on IR and how does it operate? • Who are the primary actors of IR? • How we can prevent another WW?

8. “Idealism vs Realism Debate”: The first theoretical discussion in IR • Idealism and realism are two main images of IR. • For example;those scholars or policymakers idenitfy themselves as realists think that “states are the principal actors” and study the IR as comprised of states, rather than putting the emphasis on non-state actors! • Here, idealism – realism demontrates one of the significant step in the foundation of IR as a discipline where there is a discussion on the methodology and the subject matter of IR...

9. Idealists vs Realists • During the inter-war years the main approach of IR was based on idealism • Basic themes of Idealism; • “Open diplomacy” openly arrived at! • Peaceful settlement of disputes • Wars should be the last resort! • Collective security • Idea of international society • Significance of International Organizations

10. Inter-war years and Idealism • Main precessors of Idealist school goes back to J. Locke, J. J. Rousseau, H. Grotius and I. Kant • During the inter-war years, Edward H. Carr criticized the utopian or idealist thinking and evaluates the more extreme versions of realism that posit the divorce of morality from politics in IR. He argues that; “any sound political thought must be based on elements of both utopia (value) and reality (power). Pure realism can offer nothing but a naked struggle for power which makes any kind of international society impossible”... (p. 63 in your textbook)

11. Realism and Its main concepts • The former realists were Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes and Clausewitz. • Main concepts of realists; • States • Power • System • Anarchy • Balance of power & stability

12. STATES • States are the key actors • IR  inter-state system, for example Stanley Hoffman – realist American policy-maker – thought that “IR is an American Social Science” • IR  is conflictual • IR  is anarchic, due to not only the absence of a higher authority, but also the clash of interests of states

13. POWER: a key theme in realist school of thought • What does power refer to in realism? • Some realists understand power to be the sum of economic, military, technological, diplomatic and other capabilities at the disposal of states (see Viotti & Kauppi) • Others see power not as some absolute value determined for each state as if it were in a vacuum but, rather as capabilitiesrelative to the capabilities of other states!

14. An example; • The power of the United States is evaluted in terms of its capabilities relative to the capabilities of other states...

15. So... • Realist understanding and definition of power is a static assumption & view of power, not changing. • Power is an attribute of the state that is sum of its CAPABILITIES whether considered alone or relative to others. • That’s why for Hans Morgenthau; “international politics is a quest for power & prestige” when he wrote in his famous book Politics Among Nations (1948).

16. SYSTEM: Another key concept of IR and all realists! • In IR, the concept of “system” is very important! • The definition of system varies from one theory to another. Realists have a pesimisitic view of international system. • Given that each system has its own power capabilities distribution of power among states; for instance neo-realists think that characteristics of systems can be classified as unipolar, bipolar and multipolar...

17. System as INTERACTIONS p. 67*** • The polarity of the system is then measured by the number of Great Powers • Realists emphasize the relative distribution of power capabilities between specific states or alliances and how shifts in these capabilities influence state behavior, interactions, and hence, the possibility of war!! • Conflicts are primarily relational...

18. So, try to formulate an example in this case... • Cold War Politics? • Super Power relations/ Rivarly?

19. ANARCHY: What the system is made of! • System as anarchy and Its distribution of capabilities is very important... • What is anarchy? • Literally, anarchy is reffered to violence, destruction & chaos • For realists anarchy refers to the absence of a higher authority above states, given the fact that states are the only sovereign actors in IR • No one has the right to dominate another sovereign state; states are rational & unitary actors

20. For realists; • There is hierarchy of power, but not a hierarchy of authority in IR • So anarchy absence of a hierachy of authority • Some states are clearly more powerful than others, but there is no recognized authority higher than that of any state (p. 68) • Anarchy is the defining character of the environment within which the sovereign states interact.

21. The result is no world government in IR • Realists argue that the absence of a central and overriding authority helps us to explain why states come to rely on power, seeking to maintain or increase their power positions relative to other states. • So IR is a zero-sum game • There is no trust among states • Each state faces a self-help situation

22. Given that there is no world government and covenant or agreement to tell states what to do or what not to do; states find themselves in a situation of security dilemma. «The more one state arms to protect itself from other states, the more threatened these states become and the more prone they are to resort to arming themselves to protect their own national security interests».

23. Balance of power • Distribution of power capabilities; Types of Balance of power • Bipolar balance of power (two states with relatively equal power) • Multipolar balance of power (three or more states engaging in check and balances) These are the two main realist categorization of of particular power distributions.

24. Concert of Europe Idea and Post-Napoleonic Wars era; multipolar balance of power • Cold War years (1945 – 1990): bipolar balance of power

25. System Stability – Balance of Power during Cold War Era • Cold War Politics (1945 – 1990): • Two Great Powers / Hegemons (US vs USSR) • Two Blocs: Eastern vs Western: “Iron Curtain” • Nuclear deterence • Arms race • Policy of containment (NATO vs Warsaw Pact Treaty Organization) • Super power discipline

26. What is the significance of balance of power? • Given the emphasis on state and concern with national security issues, we have seen how the concept of balance of power has played a dominant role in realist thought and theory. • For realists; foreign policies of states are determined by their national interests defined in terms of their power capabilities.

27. Hans Morgenthau; a classical realist and founder of contemporary political realism. • His main book: Politics Among Nations (1948) • For Morgenthau; balance of power refers to; • A policy aimed at a certain state of affairs, • An objective or actual state of affairs, • An approximately equal distribution of power (like during the Cold War years) • Any distribution of power shifts in favor of either super power.

28. Hans Morgenthau • His book Politics Among Nations defined the field of international relations theory in 1948 as it heralded the post–World War II paradigm shift in American thinking about diplomacy. • Politics Among Nations emphasized the power interests of states as the driver behind the relations between states. • The period before WWII was on the other hand defined by idealism that focused on values.

29. Balance of Power has been criticized... • Balance of Power has been criticized for leading to WARas opposed to preventing it! • Functioning as a propaganda tool... • Justifying defense spending + foreign adventures • But it is still the main concept in realism!!!

30. So; alliances are very important in realism!! • Like North Atlantic Treaty Organization founded in 1949 • Warsaw Pact Treaty Organization founded in 1955 and dissolved by the end of Cold War in 1990!!! • That’s why for realists; Cold War bipolarity brought us equal distribution of power – balance of power; an equilibrium.

31. Morton Kaplan's Rules of the Balance of Power • All states act to increase capabilities but negotiate rather than fight. • All states fight rather than pass up an opportunity to increase their capabilities. • All states stop fighting rather than eliminate an essential state. • All states act to oppose any coalition or single state which tends to assume a position of predominance within the system. (See your textbook)

32. Please read: • Morton A. Kaplan, System and Process in International Politics (New York, 1957).

33. John J. Mearsheimer • A decade after the cold war ended, policy makers and academics foresaw a new era of peace and prosperity, an era in which democracy and open trade would herald the "end of history." • The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, John Mearsheimer's masterful new book explains why these harmonious visions remain utopian. • To Mearsheimer, great power politics are tragic because the anarchy of the international system requires states to seek dominance at one another's expense, dooming even peaceful nations to a relentless power struggle.

34. Mearsheimer illuminates his theory of offensive realism through a sweeping survey of modern great power struggles and reflects on the bleak prospects for peace in Europe and northeast Asia, arguing that the United States's security competition with a rising China will intensify regardless of "engagement" policies. • "This is the definitive work on offensive realism."

35. Realism & Change, p. 86 in your textbook • Very little possibilitiy of for fundamental and peacful transformation of international politics. • For Robert Gilpin; “the state is the principal actor in that the nature of the state and the patterns of relations among states are the most important determinants of the character of international relations at a given moment... So contemporary nation-state is the ultimate form of political organization”.

36. CLASS DISCUSSION • Hedley Bull’s article on “Does Order Exist in World Politics?”, from Anarchical Society, 1977.

37. THEORIES • Liberal Approaches

38. For political realists, international politics, like all other politics, is “a struggle forpower but, unlike domestic politics, a struggle dominated by organized violence”. • For realists: “All history shows that nationsactive in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in,or recovering from organized violence in the form of war”

39. Three Main “Realist” Assumptions • Three assumptions are integral to the realist vision: • First, states as coherent units are the dominant actorsin world politics. This is a double assumption: states are predominant; and they actas coherent units. • Second, realists assume that force is a usable and effective instrumentof policy. Other instruments may also be employed, but using or threateningforce is the most effective means of wielding power.

40. Third, partly because of theirsecond assumption, realists assume a hierarchy of issues in world politics, headed byquestions of military security: the “high politics” of military security dominates the“low politics” of economic and social affairs. • These realist assumptions define an ideal type of world politics.

41. Each of the realist assumptions can be challenged ! • Political integration among states is slight and lasts only as long as it serves the national interests ofthe most powerful states. • Transnational actors either do not exist or are politicallyunimportant. • Only statesmen succeed in adjusting their interests, as in a wellfunctioningbalance of power, is the system stable.

42. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF COMPLEXINTERDEPENDENCE • In Power and Interdependence;Keohane & Nye analyzed the politics of such transnational issues as trade, monetaryrelations, and oceans policy ...

43. “Power and Interdependence”: Three main (3) characteristics • Multiple channels connect societies, including: informal ties between governmentalelites as well as formal foreign office arrangements; informal ties amongnongovernmental elites; andtransnational organizations (such as MNCs).

44. Interstate, transgovernmental, andtransnational relations • These channels can be summarized as interstate, transgovernmental, andtransnational relations. Interstate relations are the normal channels assumed byrealists. • Transgovernmental applies when we relax the realist assumption thatstates act coherently as units; transnational applies when we relax the assumptionthat states are the only units.

45. Secondly ... “No hierarchy of international issues” • The agenda of interstate relationships consists of multiple issues that are notarranged in a clear or consistent hierarchy. • This absence of hierarchy among issuesmeans, among other things, that military security does not consistently dominatethe agenda. • Many issues arise from what used to be considered domesticpolicy, and the distinction between domestic and foreign issues becomesblurred. (Source: Viotti & Kauppi, IR Theory, Longman)

46. Thirdly .. • Military force is not used by governments toward other governments within theregion, or on the issues, when complex interdependence prevails.

47. What makes the relationship complex then? • These issues are considered in several government departments (notjust foreign offices), and at several levels. • Inadequate policy coordination onthese issues involves significant costs. • Different issues generate different coalitions,both within governments and across them, and involve different degreesof conflict.

48. Multiple Channels – Multiple Actors • These actors are important not only because of their activities in pursuit of theirown interests, but also because they act as transmission belts, making governmentpolicies in various countries more sensitive to one another. • As the scope of governments’domestic activities has broadened – like corporations, banks – and to alesser extent “trade unions” have made decisions that transcend national boundaries,the domestic policies of different countries impinge on one another more and more.(Viotti & Kauppi, IR Theories, Longman)

49. Absence of Hierarchy among Issues • Foreign affairs agendas—that is, sets of issues relevant to foreign policy with which governments are concerned—have become larger and more diverse. • No longer canall issues be subordinated to military security. As Secretary of State Henry Kissingerdescribed the situation in 1975 ...

50. Like Turkey – EU Relations !!! • When there are multiple issues on the agenda, many of which threaten theinterests of domestic groups but do not clearly threaten the nation as a whole, theproblems of formulating a coherent and consistent foreign policy increase. • In 1975; energy was a foreign policy problem, but specific remedies, such as a tax on gasolineand automobiles, involved domestic legislation opposed by auto workers and companies alike