Cooperation and conflict

World imperial system

One government rules most of the world with which it has contact

Feudal system

• When the roman empire fell – authority became dispersed and political units fragmented

• Form of world politics in which human relations and political obligations are not fixed primarily by territorial boundaries

• From the latin word feodum

• Political obligations are determined largely by what happens to ones superior

• An individual usually had multiple obligations toward a local lord, more distant noble or bishop and the pop

Anarchic system of states

A system of states that are relatively cohesive but woth no higher government above them

Example is city states of ancient greece or marchiavellis 15th century italy

Westphalian system: territorial system of sovereign states

Politics in the absence of a commmon sovereign – international politics is in a state of anarchy

Westphalian system:

territorial system of sovereign states

Politics in the absence of a commmon sovereign – international politics is in a state of anarchy

Theories and Theoretical Approach in International Relations

• Relaism, liberilsm, constructivism, marxism are important paradigms in international relations

• Paradigms present a view of the world

• A paradigm is a systematic statement of the basic assumption, concepts, and propositions emplyed by a school of analysis

• Paradigms are based on several axioms (unquestioned assumptions)

  • Who are the main actors? – the whose decisions and actions have repercussions for international politics

  • What drives their behaviour

  • What are the key problems that need to be explained

• Paradigms provide the foundation and generate bodies of theories

• Theories are built through comparisons like differnet conflicts or instances of cooperation over time – we observe patterns

• Theories are products of history

• Who makes these observations? When are they made? Where are they made?

• Compare thomas hobbes vs john locke

• Eurocentric history

Too eurocentric?

• The field of international relationshas been built on the assumption that western history and western political theory are world histor and world political theory

• International relations might be close associated to the actual practice of IR in the West

• However tho what extent does it also correspond to developments in the other parts of the world

• Are concepts like nation state, power, instituions, norms still relevant?

• What would the discipline of IR LOOK LIKE IF THE FIELD HAD BEEN DEVELOPED ELSEWHERE

• In real world international relations we have shifted power from the west to other parts of the world

• Shift from western/anglospheric IR to global IR is slower

Realism

Classical realism (focus on human nature) an neo-realism (structural realism)

Key aximos:

• The international system is in state of anarchy (a self help system)

• States are the only significant actors in international politics

• States seek to maximize power and security – pursue their own interests

• States compete with each other over power and to maintain their security

• Fear and desire to dominate drive states behaviour

Strong focus on war force and survival

Structural levele when trying to explain actors behaviour in the international

Realism - balance of power

• How can states secure their survival – making sure no single state can gain so much power that it can dominate all others

• If one state gains too much power – smaller/weaker states might unite/form alliance (balancing)

• Different strategy : bandwagoning that is aligning with the dominant power again to secure their survival

Realism - security dilemma

• A direct consequence of anarchy in the international system

• If one state increases its security (like expanding its military) – the ratinal response of other state is to do the same

• The first might expand its security even more – other states make more effort to defenda and protect themselves

• The independent effort of each state to improve its security makes both more insecure

• So why do these states not cooperate?

• Realism : strong focus on distrust

Liberalism

Key aximos

• The international system is in a state of anarchy, but the effects of anarchy are mitigated by international institutions (non-hobessian anarchy)

• States are the main actors, but non-state actors are important too

• States and non-state actors seek welfare, justice, and security they focus on progress

• Actors do not only compete with each other but can also cooperate

• Fear and a desire to live well drive actors behaviour

Complex interdependence - Three strands of liberalism

1. Economic : trade

2. Social :transnational society

3. Political : institutions(neo-liberalism) and democracy

• Factors other than power and security can also define the national interest

Democratic peace theory

Liberal democracies do not fight other liberal democracies

Constructivism

Emerged as a critique of realism and liberalism – neither of these theories could predict th eend of the cold war

• Reality is socially constructed – politics of meaning

• States and non-state actors are important

• States are driven by interests, but not just material interest

• Identities, ideas, culture – shape interests which are subjective constructed

• Strong focus on (international norms and social constraints: what i sappropriate behaviour?

Anarchy is what stae makes of it

State actors interests are not fixed but shaped identity, ideas, culture amongst others

Sweden feminist foreign policy

Feminist foreign policy is an agenda for change to strengthen the rights, represantation and resources of all women and girls

Hard power and soft power

• Realist focus only on hard power resources

• Constructivists do not deny yhe importance of hard power resources but

  • These hard power resources should be interpreted in light of the historical/social context in which they are situtated

  • Soft power is also important, that is and actors capacity to shape other actors preferences, beliefs and perceptions (power as establishing preferences)

Marxism

Politics is a function if economics

• Rejects state-centric notion of international relations, economic classes are the main actors

• The international system is defined by economic inequality

• The capital-owning class‘s interests lies with maximizing profit; the working class seeks fair wages and working conditions

• Interactions among different actors are characterized by exploitation

Dependenct theory, world system theory

Ethics in international relations

Skeptics

• Might makes right – there is little room for morality in a realist world, which mostly revolves around security and survival

State moralist

• International politics rests on a society of states with certain rules, altough these rules are not always perfectly obeyed

• State sovereignty as moral rule

• Example : john mearsheimer account of russian invasion of ukraine (blames the EU and NATO for Russian invasion of ukraine)

Cosmopolitans

• The world as a global society of individuals

• National boundaries have no moral standing

Level of analysis

• Individual level

  • Considers the role of fx. individual leaders

  • But do individual personalities/psychological considerations matter?

• State level

  • Considers domestic politics, various features of domestic society, or the machinery of government

• System level

  • Considers how the overall system constrains state action

• In reality it is difficult to neatly distinguish between these different levels of analysis

  • Like when we consdier capitalism should we look at the state-level or the system-level

• Different levels of analysis might interact

• Liberal and constructivist theories tend to cross different levels of analysis