INST1001 - key theories

Application (Norm): International System Change

For constructivists, Westphalia was not simply the

outcome of military rebalancing after the Thirty

Years War

--> It represent a new shared idea about legitimate

political organization and the right way to

organise politics

--> States that do not conform are often cast as

outsiders - 'rogue' states

historical roots of realism

Thucydides (5th c. BCE) — Peloponnesian War

Machiavelli, Hobbes — power & human nature

E.H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau — 20th century formalisation

the core concern of realism

the failure of the League of Nations and the two World Wars convinced realists that taking power seriously — not relying on treaties and goodwill — was essential to understanding international politics.

anarchy and realism key concept

Anarchy ≠ chaos

Anarchy = no overarching authority above states

Within a states realism

no higher authority than states and internal systems of security

• Police enforce laws

• Courts settle disputes

• Government provides security

• Authority structure exists (however imperfect)

between states (anarchy)

No enforcement of state action, No accountability of states, states remain in charge of the international system

• No world police

• UN can't force great powers

• ICJ has no enforcement army

• No central authority = self-reliance

self help

up to states to maintain, impose authorities and to protect nation against foreign aggressors

Waltz's Metaphor

--> the international system is like a competitive market

Waltz says anarchy forces self-help behaviour whether a state is a democracy or a dictatorship. The structure, not the character of individual states, is what matters.

power definition in itself within r

power is the economic and material abilities to help and defend states interests, material power is central to the understanding of power of the states,

--> how you uphold security and national interests

classical realism basic

hans morgenthau

constant struggle is rooted in human conditions that seeks to impose hierarchies and dominate the natural world order

seeks to impose interests through

--> economic and military power

allows room for prudence

--> wise statecraft means understanding the limits of your power

defensive (structural) realism

Waltz

the structure of the international system, anarchy + distribution of capabilities, explains state behaviour. therefore the state system itself determines how states behave.

Structure = two features

1. Ordering principle: anarchy (no world government)

2. Distribution of capabilities: how power is spread among

major states (bipolarity, unipolarity, multipolarity)

defensive realists note that the system is pushing for you to maximise defensive capabilities, aspiring powers causes other states to rebalance other states power

offensive realism

Mearsheimer

the system doesn't reward constraint, rewards power maximisation, bases the theory on anarchy and that it is the iron cage of the international system, need to become great powers to defend interests

Implication: US-China rivalry isn't a misunderstanding — it's a structural inevitability.

classical realism summary

key figure: Morgenthau

key text: Politics Among Nations (1948)

source of conflict: Human nature

How much power?: Always sought;prudence matters

View of expansion: Depends on leaders

defensive realism summary

key figure: Waltz

key text: Theory of Intl Politics (1979)

source of conflict: System structure (anarchy + capabilities)

How much power?: Enough to be secure; too much provokes

View of expansion: Dangerous — system punishes over-reach

offensive realism summary

key figure: Mearsheimer

key text: Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001)

source of conflict: System structure (anarchy + uncertainty)

How much power?: As much as possible; regional hegemony

View of expansion: Necessary — system rewards it

What was the cuban missile crisis, through realism

October 1962 --> soviets install nuclear missiles in Cuba

classical realism on cuban missile crisis

Focus on leaders. Kennedy exercised prudence — resisted pressure for airstrikes. Khrushchev overreached but backed down. Different leaders might have meant catastrophe.

--> the relationship and role of these leaders, what they did to cool things down and re-escalate,

defensive realism cuban missile crisis

Focus on structure. Bipolarity made the crisis more stable — both sides knew direct war = mutual destruction. The system punished recklessness and rewarded caution.

--> the international system worked to restrain aggressive powers, the system worked

offensive realism cuban missile crisis

Focus on competition. Soviets placed missiles to shift strategic balance. US confronted the challenge — great powers don't tolerate shifts in power. Same dynamics drive US-China today.

--> the soviets were looming for a power move to counterbalance US strongholds in Europe, push back and expand iron curtain

What does realism miss?

realism focuses on great powers

--> ignores smaller states, post colonial states, disregards internal working of states,

territorial integrity

--> how climate and other non material forms of security, only focuses on material aspects of security

change?

--> struggles with why the eu exists or why the cold war ended peacefully

where are the people

--> treats states as units in a system, reduces states to homogenous institutions, whose interests is in the national interest

what is liberalism / core liberal principles

--> Individual Rights

--> Reason & Progress

--> Liberty

--> Limited Government

--> Equality & Rule of Law

The Liberal Response to Anarchy

Liberals accept anarchy — but reject the idea that it must lead to conflict

Combat it through:

Institutions

--> Rules and organisations can temper anarchy and make cooperation rational.

Democracy

--> Democracies rarely fight each other — internal checks and shared norms build trust. cooperating on shared values of capacity for prosperity.

Trade

--> Economic interdependence gives states shared interests that make war costly. Commercial liberalism shared prosperity is the bedrock for cooperation, universal

Institutions & International Law

international institutions

--> mutual benefit from joining these institutions, being part of the International community

International law

--> States consent to rules through treaties, even if there is anarchy there is still mediation, eg law of the sea and the Paris climate agreement/rules based order

norms and civil society

--> NGOs like Amnesty International shape unwritten rules about appropriate behaviour from the ground up and creates global expectations of what human rights standards look like, even if you impose authoritarianism you still want to be seem by the international community to be upholding human rights

The Realist Critique of liberalism

Mearsheimer's 'Great Delusion'

"Liberalism provides no way of moving beyond balance

of power politics." ig trumps America first tariffs on allies, the realist world mearsheimer predicted.

• Anarchy is permanent — institutions can't overcome power politics

• Interdependence is often asymmetric: leverage becomes coercion

• The 'liberal order' only existed during the unipolar

moment (1990s)

is liberalism virtuous ?

The tension between liberal ideals and liberal practice

Imperial Liberalism

--> civilising missions ect, imperialism dressed in liberal values

Human Rights Gap

--> liberal democracies preach human rights but enforce atrocities overseas

Democratic Aggression

--> export of 'democracy' overseas

what is constructivism

the social world is not given, its made

--> international politics is shaped by ideas, norms, actions and practices not just material forces

Who actors are shapes what they want.

--> States don't have fixed, natural interests. Their identities, liberal democracy, rising power, rogue state, shape what they pursue and how they behave, states have a lot of power over their identities, FOR EXAMPLE Australia being a middle power, might inform how they pursue certain things

Rules and norms are real, even when they're not codified

--> The rules of international society (sovereignty, human rights) may be intersubjective, collectively believed and collectively enforced and, thus, powerful.

what does constructivism challenge

Constructivism challenges what realism/liberalism assume: that state identities, interests, and the rules of international society are natural and fixed rather than socially made and contested.

Constructivism and anarchy

Wendt (1992) argues that anarchy is not inherently a competitive "self-help" system, but rather a social construction—anarchy is "what states make of it" not a natural responses to objective conditions.

--> anarchy can create cooperation and conflict

IG, how states view themselves as enemies rival or friends, affects if they work towards cooperation or conflict.

how does constructivism explain how/why we act?

Preferences are socially constructed action are shaped by identity, norms, ideas, structure is ideational (shared beliefs)

logic of appropriateness,,

--> states do things because they are legitimate diplomatic practice

Roles and ideas as social structure

constructivism emphasises constructed roles/ideas that shape interests and behaviour,

EG state A's military modernisation is read as threatening depends entirely on shared beliefs States A and B hold about each other's intentions

types of ideas

normative ideas

--> about what is right (human rights)

causal ideas

--> what produces outcomes (idea that development aid reduces conflict)

identity ideas

--> tied to who we are and roles (liberal democracy vs revisionist state)

rules, norms and logic appropriateness

Social life is defined by certain intersubjective 'rules of the game' or norms of conduct that may be codified or implicit and take on an objective quality

Constructivists and liberals both emphasise norms, but differ in how they conceptualise their origin, function, and their role in shaping behaviour

'Logic of appropriateness' (March and Olson 1989) define what is appropriate in a given social situation; may explain climate agreements/humanitarianism

This is in contrast to the 'logic of consequences' of neorealism/liberal institutionalism

(rational choice and interest-based)

--> constructivism argues that states follow these norms because they want to be considered a rational state

logic of appropriateness

for example

--> china argues that the WTO hurts is material capabilities but membership increases as its a cornerstone of being a legitimate state

--> also explains climate agreements

--> but also based on what it is seen to be right, shaping identity is why states would agree to things against material interests

Norm diffusion and change

how change occurs

--> how international and world society

moves from one set of 'logics of appropriateness' to another -

subject to sustained examination in IR

--> Finnemore and Sikkink argue that non state actors are important norm entrepreneurs

--> Sovereignty defines what states are and what they should and

should not do - i.e. not violate the autonomy of other states

norm diffusion, the three stages, and tipping point

three stages of norm diffusion

norms emergence --> cascade --> internalisation

'tipping point' to becoming a generally shared norms

applications: discourse and securitisation theory

Securitization is not about objective threats — it is about the social process of making something an urgent security threat.

discourse = how language creates reality that defines problems and justifies actions EG, rise in china is framed, through media and discourse, as a fundamental threat to world security,

axis of evil --> Iraq, Iran, and north korea, justified the war on terror and Iraq war, the signals to other global actors

Application: Constructivism beyond security, Economic

helps to understand economic changes too

--> for instance, why is the US dollar dominant and how did it replace the gold standard, not just bc of military strength and economic size but also trust and shared beliefs

--> Bretton woods agreement created a new, internationally accepted 'reality redefining what was 'safe'

norms application: nuclear taboo

Tannenwald in the nuclear taboo argues that there is a taboo around nuclear weapons usage

Tannenwald also argues that this taboo alone does not

explain the non-use: "Norms often do not determine

outcomes, they shape realms of possibility."

Application (Norm): Decolonization

--> The norm of self-determination spread through transnational anti-colonial movements, not primarily through military victory or material interest.

--> The material capability to maintain empire remained. What changed was its legitimacy as an acceptable ordering principle.

Criticisms and Limitations of constructivism

The Power Problem --> first-generation constructivism undertheorized power; more recent work has addressed this

The Scope Problem --> constructivism tells us the social world is constructed but is less clear about which actors matter, why, and how

The Method Problem --> difficult to establish causation rather than correlation between norms/ideas and outcomes

realist critique of constructivism

Constructivist overestimates how much ideas constrain behaviour when material stakes are high.

liberal critique on constructivism

Constructivism is morally neutral and has no principled basis for distinguishing better norms from worse ones and may inadvertently legitimise the erosion of the rule-based order it describe

normative IR theory and ethical duties

Normative IR theory asks moral and evaluative questions about international politics. Unlike realism or liberalism, it prescribes how things should be based on moral principles.

positive duties vs negative duties

positive duties

Duties to actively do good

actively do good, actions moral actors take to intervene in a situation, to improve the lives of someone (such as welfare, education or overseas aid)

--> International: humanitarian aid, global health, addressing climate change

--> Domestic: welfare state, free education, vaccinations

--> Personal:volunteering, giving to charity

negative duties

duties to refrain from harm, not going to war, committing human rights violations, non intervention, easier for states to refrain from harm than to do positive duties

--> International: respecting sovereignty, non-intervention, not violating human rights

--> Domestic: not harming others, following the law

--> Traditionally dominant in IR — tied to sovereignty and non-interference

Cosmopolitanism

we are all part of one moral community

eg, declaration of human rights applies to everyone, unalienable outside of arbitrary factors.

--> Universalism (moral principle apply to everyone)

--> Impartiality (no group or nation is privileged over another)

--> Human Rights (Universal rights apply to everyone

regardless of citizenship.)

Cosmopolitan Reasoning

1, morality is universal, there are valid moral principles

2, reason of the capacity to suffer are morally significant qualities held by all humans.

3, Moral principles that apply to some must apply to all. No exceptions.

Therefore, morality applies to all human beings and humanity is one single moral community

Singer & Rawls on Global Obligation

"If we accept any principle of impartiality, universalizability, equality, or whatever, we cannot discriminate against someone merely because [they are] far away from us."

--> peter signer

Rawls' veil of ignorance

--> Imagine choosing the principles for a just society without knowing your position in it — your wealth, race, gender,

abilities. Behind this 'veil of ignorance', rational people would choose principles that protect even the least

advantaged.

Therefore distance does not dilute obligation to each other

communitarian - moral relativism

Moral relativism, morality comes from somewhere, it doesn't just exist, emerges from particular places

Communitarianism aspects

pluralism

--> Different communities have different moralities. No one culture's values are superior. Cosmopolitanism is accused of

imposing Western norms. It comes from a place or a local context

Particular Obligations

--> We owe more to those closest to us — family, neighbours, co-citizens. 'Charity begins at home.' Moral duty comes from relationships, not universal rules.

Autonomy

--> Each community has the right to define its own moral code, laws, and social practices free from external

interference.

The border question: Cosmopolitan

One moral community → no right of exclusion

Impartiality forbids discrimination based on nationality or

birthplace

Free movement as distributive justice — letting people seek

better opportunities

Restrictions only permissible if a person poses genuine threat of harm

Singer: wealthy nations are morally obliged to act

The border question: Communitarian

Community integrity must be preserved

Freedom of movement is not a basic right

Walzer: states are like clubs — they choose who enters and

who doesn't

Rawls & Miller: protecting political culture and constitutional

principles justifies exclusion

'Charity begins at home' — obligations to insiders first

modern capitalism and international relations

Structural inequalities are embedded into the global system

how billionaires directly influence policy --> shows how global capitalism affects international politics

apple is reliant on Chinese market, apple is a strong backer of strengthening us-china relationship

Marx Foundations: Ownership, Property, and Class

--> Classes and social forces (not states) are the central actors/ central unit of analysis in marxist thought and IR

--> Modes of production determine who has structural

power and who benefits from the social system

What is class?

--> Class defined by property rights, not culture, education, and income

Features of Marxist IR

Historical materialism = history shaped by who controls productive assets

--> today who controls capital, precious minerals, technology

Foreign policy decision-making driven by class

relations/conflicts within the global political

economy—focus on domestic regimes/transnational forces, these companies have an impact on diplomacy, treaties

Structural pressures drive foreign policy decision-making:

--> 'Vertical' class divisions - division between

capital and labour

--> 'Horizontal' class divisions - divide amongst

individual capitalists and labourers

Class in Modern Capitalist International Relations

--> EG mass mobilisation of amazon workers, protesting against firing workers moving factories to the global south

--> the bailing out of banks during the global financial crisis

class in modern capitalist international relations

Focus is on how classes use their material

power (control of markets, military strength,

etc.) to get meet their interests? EG, Gina Reinhard lobbying against resource taxes and climate scepticism, EG elon musk own large amount of public discourse spaces.

Structural position in the economy translates into ideological and political power.

Systemic pressures important here-need of capital to continually expand drives policy, the idea that capital needs to continually grow at the expense of long term stability.

Classical Marxist theories of War

Trade does not create peace (Liberals) but creates hierarchy and war (Marxists).

Classical Marxists (eg. Kautsky, Lenin,Luxemburg, Trotsky) write about IR through a focus on imperialism and war

--> scramble for africa; wanted access to minerals, provide tax, place to send surplus labour

Wars are driven by:

--> Competition between capitalists for markets, driven by fall profits/overproduction (Lenin)

--> Need to reproduce general conditions for capital accumulation, not about specific class interests (Kautsky)

Postcolonial marxism

Marxism in the global south focus on colonial exploitations and altered trajectory of post colonial states

pushes marxism to consider issues of race alongside class

dependency theory and development --> how the global north generates profits from the global south through dependency of development structures.

different revolutionary theory

che --> guerrilla fighters to change, homeve nuevo, to transform human nature, social duty and monetary gain

Mao --> adapted marxism to Chinese conditions, adapted it to peasant

Roy --> challenges Lenis view that it should support nationalist movements,

gramscian international relations

Robert Cox - pioneers approach

--> structuralism to understand hegemonic power traditions, he makes distinction between problem solving theory that accepts social political order

Focus on relationship between domination and hegemony-coercion and consent

--> Hegemony = leadership

--> Important re: concepts of power in IR

--> Relationship between norms and structural

power

examples Gramscian IR

why the US lead order persists when US military dominance declines

How neoliberal ideas became "common sense" after the 1980s

And what about the fragility of the Post-Cold War International Order?

--> international institutions acts as a nebulous of sites of consensual norm diffusion, even rival states participate and partially reinforce the order, and are also governed through consent

Gramscian and the post cold war order

overextended ideological crisis, lose their pervasive force, however this order persists because there is no alternative through the alternative power bloc with the backing of core capitalist interests

Other Critical IR Theory-Frankfurt School, Linklater, Wyn Jones and others

Develops a sociology of IR with normative intent

--> Ethical relationships between political communities

--> Criticism of positivist methods in social science research

--> Sovereign state is an historical product

Two projects become important

--> How can we identify seeds of future change in our present international system? (Sociological theory)

--> How can we promote more peaceful, just, emancipatory change? (Normative theory)

criticism and limits of marxism

salience of class for foreign policy decision-making

--> tendency at times to reductionism, and empirically disputed (eg. Soviet Union acts like other states)

State as Capital? State vs. Capital?

--> The national state is often treated as the same as national capital-assumption of unitary actor (eg. Callinicos 2007, 2009) as in Realism

Why do states compete militarily?

--> What generates security competition if capitalism doesn't require territorial gains to become wealthy?

What is the relationship between 'multiplicity'/the International and capitalism?

--> issues of nationalism and military security concerns that arent explained by marxism, military conquests can be used to achieve unity, Russia in japan military complex and interests

--> the social world is made up of interacting societies rather than an international conglomerate

Where are the women?

IR has long been dominated by theories developed by Western men, focused on states and military power — feminist IR asks what this focus conceals?

Modern Feminist International Relations

--> feminist foreign policy, peacekeeping, war and gendered violence abroad in foreign policy in the EU, however within the past two years policies have been overturned, explained by the far right in Europe

Epstein case --> shows how networks of white males involved in trade and diplomacy were involved in exploitation of women and children, and also the legal way this has been addressed shows the gap between interests in Womens issues.

Feminist International Relations Theory

--> Broad church, including liberal, constructivist, radical, Marxist, poststructuralist, new materialist, postcolonial approaches

Three basic primary points of focus:

--> How do theories of international relations reflect

gendered understandings of the world?

--> How are international politics gendered? (e.g.) 'hard' power masculinized; 'soft' power feminized and devalued

--> How can we create a more peaceful, more just,

more equal world politics (e.g. Normative theory)

Sex and gender in IR

Feminist IR theories focus on gender (social construction) rather than sex (biological)

THINK SOCIOLOGY ON GENDER

--> How is masculinity constructed?

-->How is femininity constructed?

--> How is differential value ascribed to

these social categories?

--> With what impacts?

Language, Bodies and Power

discourse of gender generates specific configurations of knowledge and power

Language exercises a form of 'productive power' (Barnett and Duvall 2005) - it produces 'ways of being' in the world

--> it produces subjects and outcomes

Corporeality matters - 'Masculine' IR theories largely ignore bodies as sites of making international relations

--> sexual violence is a weapons of war

Sex and Gender in Global Politics

Peterson & Runyan (2013) - Gender as a 'meta-lens that produces particular ways of seeing, thinking, and acting in the world' ( 39).

gender dualism whereby all things assigned 'feminine are systematically devalued'

--> Only 'hard' power considered real power. Masculinised war, conflict, aggression vs. feminised diplomacy, cooperation.

Hegemonic gender order : global patriarchy

hegemonic masculinity --> maintained through power relationships

through socialisation in the subordinated gender, including media and other socialisation, when consensual forms are challenged, domination can be enforced through violence and coercion

--> Global patriarchy structures states, militaries, markets

Gendered States in International Relations

States are inherently gendered --> states cannot have transformative feminist foreign policy due to being inherently masculinised

Sees the institutionalisation and legitimation of patriarchal customs and systemic masculinist/class domination

--> exploitation of women is backed by the coercive power of the state, and the reproduction of gender hierarchy is ensured through the state's legitimating ideologies

Gendered state identities drives war decision-making because state identity, militarism, nationalism, and war-making are all linked and gendered

Liberal Feminist IR

liberalists focus on establishing equal opportunities to participate in international politics

--> assumes states and institutions are 'neutral actors' that can be imbued with new, gender egalitarian norms through incremental reform

--> combatting bias against women are a central aim , participation on equal footing

Marxist Feminist IR

Patriarchy and class reinforce each other through global capitalism

It's the logic of patriarchy that produces capitalism and is reproduced through it

--> women as the first form of property

-->

--> unpaid labour in the home produces the conditions for paid labour and capitalism

--> Maria Mies (1998) on gendered division of labour

radical / post colonial

Views gender as a structural analytic category that intersects with race, class, sexuality, and empire (intersectionality)

Critiques Western-centric 'civilizing missions' and the 'saving brown women from brown men' justification for Western intervention (Spivak 1988; Abu-Lughod 2013)

gendered practice in international politics

how do woman working in spaces like conflict --> are made to embody aggression

Ukraine russian war --> a war on women, how Putin has since 2014 made calls to embrace nationalism and patriotism over feminism and prioritise having children linked to imperial expansion, with empires relying on high populations

Critics of Feminist IR

Critics of feminist IR have criticised the approach is a

variety of ways:

--> It isn't 'scientific' (Keohane 1989): feminist

epistemologies (how they gather knowledge) diverge

from positivist social science

--> Standpoints of Feminist theory have tended to be

white and Eurocentric

--> Missing large structural changes? The rise and fall

of great powers, changing forms of world order, etc.

Still learning (37)

You've begun learning these terms. Keep up the good work!