Kaarten: IRT: Chapter 1 General Introduction & building block | Quizlet

We analyze INT politics by breaking them down in analytical building blocks

- Levels of analysis

- Actors (what int are made of)

- Interests (What actors want)

- Power (what actors can

(- Elaboration: power aspects of asymmetric & hybrid warfare)

why international relations theory?

- We make claims about the ontology (not epistemology) of INT politics. (Ontologie gaat over de aard van de werkelijkheid: wat bestaat er? Epistemologie gaat over de aard van kennis: hoe komen we aan kennis en hoe kunnen we bewijzen dat iets waar is?)

Theory's can contribute in a

(1) analytical, (2) explanatory and (3) normative way

- Each theory focuses on specific elements: they are like different lenses and each has there biases —> Relevance of theories can therefore vary across time and space.

- Theory's offer insight to understand; but to understand ≠ to approve/ justify! (ex. To understand Putin's reason for war ≠ justifying it)

levels of analysis =

We use different spheres in social reality (From the individual to the entire world history) to understand causes for INT phenomena.

we can distinguish different LEVELS OF ANALYSIS: every IR theory will adopt a position concerning which levels of hold the most explanatory value - they are ontological phenomena (with relative importance) and epistemological tools (to split a complex issue into dimensions, studies can combine levels of analysis)

Example levels of analysis: analyzing Trumps foreign policy

- Many refer to his personality (individual level) as a 'transactional and populistic businessman'

But: We could invoke other levels of analysis as well:

- The election of Trump is a consequence of a broader right-wing and protectionist current in the US. Another Republican candidate could also have won.

- This current would've also influenced that candidates foreign policy in a same way.

But: any US president is keen to maintain the country's power position

- Whatever the ideologies of congress and the administration, the US will respond to threats and opportunity's that arise from the international structure

=>So, beyond individuality, the relations between societal currents and political parties also matter. = level of the domestic politics

Kenneth Waltz

three images

1. human nature and individuals (source of criticism of having it in same category)

2. the state

3. the international system (belangrijkste)

level: Human Nature (in general)

= War and other INT actions have often been reduced to the nature of humankind.

- ex: (state)persons are bad by nature (cf classical realism - pessimistic), as long as people existed, there has been war

- ex: (state)persons are peaceful by birth: if some people make mistakes (slavery, ww1/2, Holocaust, ...), future generations can learn from the mistakes and caused trauma's because of 'reason (rede) (cf Liberalism - more optimistic)

But: explanatory value is limited. + does difference between men and women matter for explaining IR? —> no robust statistical correlation (see infra)

level: The individual

They can make a difference in IR when the institutional setting gives them room to make a substantial difference

- ex. Hitler, Gorbachev, Stalin, ...

- See also literature: Ian Kershaw.

But: most of individuals are constrained by the domestic institutional setting and international confines.

level: The State

= Some say all states want to survive and are power greedy

There is a wide diversity of states:

- Democratic S blame authoritarian S for ww1 & 2. (democratic peace theory, the monadic claim)

- Communist S blame capitalist S to be inherently aggressive/ expansionist and vice versa.

Diversity in cognitive components:

• Identity

• Role

• Strategic culture

• Collective emotions

These aspects are relatively stable

Foreign policy of states:

• Informed by history, sociology & strategic culture

• Mediated by domestic institutions

BUT party politics & power alterations / exogenous events, filtered through domestic actors and institutions in states can ensure modest or fundamental shifts in foreign policy

level the international system (5 sub)

STRUCTURAL REALISM/ NEOREALISM

= third image is Waltz' favorite. He thinks the INT system is anarchical (no supraN government) in which states have to rely on self-help for their survival.

—> conduct a defense policy, preserve sovereignty, don't let break-away religions go easily, securing terr. integrity, ... (no matter who is in charge, they tends to take care of these priorities).

GEOGRAPHY

= Others find that the GEO situation of countries influences their foreign policy.

- Ex. Russia's obsession with ice free seas & invasions from the west (Napoleon, Hitler, NAVO expansion?).

WORLD SYSTEM ANALYSIS (I. Wallerstein)

= analyses the rise and fall of hegemonic powers in the context of the capitalist world-system.

SECOND IMAGE REVERSED (Gourevitch)

= how developments in the INT system shape the nature of states (with a focus on how they adapt their society/ economy in to external pressures). - Ex. Meji restauration Japan

TWO-LEVEL GAMES (Putnam)

= P identified Level I (multilateral forums where states negotiate) and Level II (domestic area were actors decide the national position they are going to defend at level I).

-> on Level II they make a win set (= possible deals that would receive approval at home): int agreement only possible if overlap between win sets

-> Putnam is interested in the interaction between the levels:

- Countries with less domestic power have smaller win-sets, and are therefore a thougher negotiator at Level I (and vice versa).

—> This is why the US has a strong position. In multiL agreements, Congres is quite stubborn and critica

Other level: THE WORLD SOCIETY

Post WWII Liberal schools drew attention to importance of transnational interaction and economic interdependence:- In this context J. Burton proposed the cobweb-model - Keohane & Nye elaborated with 'complex interdependence'. = a state-centric model isnt enough because trade, migration, ... transcend national borders. - J. Scholte uses the concept polycentrism = power is spread over governments, but also non-state actors such as IO's, banks and supraN institutions (EU, EMF, ...). - Also the term new medievalism emerged = states have to share authority with other non state-actors (<-> medieval ages with cities)

THE TOTALITY AND HISTORY OF THE (SOCIAL) REALITY

= Global history considers the social reality (including its past and future) as one ontological reality.

—> The structural interconnections hold explanatory value on their own.

- ex: the decolonization in the 1950s helped to make history more equal and inclusive.

- In 1990 J. Bentley founded the journal of world history, making analysis, not from the viewpoint of national states, but from the global community <-> In 2003 the journal of global history was founded, with a broader focus on globalization. -> However: there is disagreement over whether there is a meaningful difference between these two

- Richard Denmark brings Wallerstein's World system analysis (see waltz third image) more in line with the global history approach.

- The postcolonial tradition has a holistic perspective and think that imperialism and colonialism have shaped the world order until this day.

DIPLOMATIC AND INSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES

These can also be a level of analysis of its own = We can for ex ask ourselves if the quality of diplomacy matter for decision making. - Ex. Global climate negotiations are organized in a VN/ COP format, would a different setting lead to different outcomes?

THE DISCURSIVE STRUCTURE

= the political debate is characterized by competing discourses (sets of ideas). -> Together these form a discursive structure in which some can become more powerful/ dominant (or even hegemonic) than others (= a hierarchy of ideas)

Discourses can empower/ disempower actors (an actor whose interests is in line with a dominant discourse is more powerful. (ex: Western countries say the Russia-Ukraine war is about defending democracy, which justifies helping Ukraine). —> That's why its a level of analysis.

(often overlooked but important not to go against public opinion)

Actors (What INT politics are made of)

= entities that (1) are clearly defined and (2) can take decisions (with autonomy)

different actors

1. the state

2. transational government networks

3. IGO's

4. Individuals/FP elites

5. Global public policy networks

6. NGO's

7. Epistemic communities

8. Classes

link between the level of analysis and the actors

the acceptance of a certain level of analysis as the ontological most relevant, often implies assumptions on the relevance of certain actors. - ex. Neoliberalism considers states as the only relevant actors. - see all examples p 12 Building blocks

the state

Is a unitary actor, consisting of the national bodies which determine foreign policy.

Transnational government networks

= networks of N governments, organized within multilateral institutions (ex. Environmental ministries).

—> Together they form a consensus on societal problems (eg climate change).

—> The growing importance of these networks (1) illustrates the modernization of the world society and (2) contributes to the erosion of the Westphalian state model (where int contact occur through diplomats).

—> But: this evolution is also associated with a democratic deficit as they are quite technical and not transparent. (ex. The 2008 fin crisis illustrates what can go wrong when these networks form a flawed consensus).

IGO's

= INT organizations, set up by governments.

- Formal with treaty (ex. UN, WTO, IMF), or informal without one (G20, BRICS).

—> we accept them as actors because they have their own dynamic that transcend the interaction between states

—> Even the secretariats of IGO's can be seen as actors. (ex. Secretary-General of the UN has a degree of moral authority).

Individuals/ FP elites

= individual decision-makers can also have the autonomy to make a difference in INT politics.

Global public policy networks

= informal networks of government actors, multinational companies and NGO's that collaborate on a cause of global governance (ex vaccines, renewable energy).

- Works with a memorandum of understanding, not a treaty.

- Are flexible and add expertise to governmental actors.

- But can be used to evade responsibility and their composition holds a bias in terms of agenda & priorities, influenced by the main funders.

NGO's

= NGO's often posses a moral power/ expertise that allow them to make a difference in INT politics.

Epistemic communities

= transnational networks of experts in a given field such as international panel on climate change.

- But: same issues with democratic transparency occur.

Classes

= In Marxist literature, classes are key actors.

—> Goes beyond just capital and labor.

- Protectionists (defend the N market) vs internationalists (more competitive)

- Productive vs financial capital, ...

Sorts of interests (what actors want)

1. material interests

2. immaterial interests

3. red lines

Actors often combine these 1 and 2. ex. When a state is confronted with the question of humanitarian intervention. = Ethical values can motivate an intervention, but material values like the risk for the troops can matter.

material interests

= states pursue security against physical threats and economic welfare. = organizations seek bureaucratic maximization (attract resources so they can stay relevant).

immaterial interests

= ethical values, psychological satisfaction with regard to social status, honor or prestige.

—> When others respect these, it can empower states (& vice versa —> revenge).

red lines

= a scenario that an actor wont accept and will try to counter in any way.

—> these illustrate the varying intensity to pursue & defend its interests. —> these are human-made: so seldom absolute, can shift and are subject to interpretation.

How are interets formed (depending theory)

1. Neorealism: considers states as units whose interests are derived from the competitive structure of the anarchical INT system.

2. Classical realist find that it is in states inherent nature to build-up (<-> give up power) by prioritizing the preservation of status, territorial integrity, security, institutional power within multilateral organizations, ...

3. Liberals look at the different interests of domestic actors. State policies then reflect the power balance between those respective interests.

4. Constructivism : interests are socially constructed (Some governments might think that a progressive climate policy makes them less competitive, while others think global warming will damage their economy in the long (even mid-) term.

+

The forming of interests is also a multi layered process: one interest can be derived from the other.

Ex. US:

1 - US wants security (for that..)

2 - They need a strong economy (so)

3 - US want to secure oil supply

4 - Us wants control over Persian gulf

Power (what actors can)

= to accomplish interests, actors need power

Power is an essentially contested concept; we make a distinction between...

1) Power-as-resources approach = to have power means to possess power resources (military and economic capabilities)

2) Relational power approach = focuses on actual power exertion in a relationship between actors (the form of power exertion depends on the power resources an actor has).

By understanding different forms of power exertion, we can make more sense of the sources:

"In general terms, power is the production, in and through social relations, of effects that shape the capacities of actors to determine their circumstances and fate" Barnett & Duvell

taxonomy of power (Barnett & Duvell)

1. compulsory power

2. institutional power

3. structural power

4. productive/discursive power

a) soft power (variant productive power

<-> hard power

compulsory power

= power exertion is interactive and direct. A compels B to do something that B otherwise wouldn't have done.

(eg UN-mandated US operation to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait) (also incl. Deterrence: eg preventing Russia from using nuclear weapons)

institutional power

= power exertion is interactive, but diffuse cuz it's mediated through an institution. Statues/ rules in institutions can give some actors more power than others.

(eg Veto power of the permanent members in the UN safety Counsil)

structural power

= power exertion is direct, but constitutive: the structural relationship determine the nature of the actors. (eg structural power relationship between colonizers & colonized)

productive/ discursive power

= power exertion is indirect (language mediates between actors) and constitutional (it gives actors more or less power).

—> you connect an actor, through language, with existing powerful discourses to empower/ disempower them.

(eg labeling a state as 'rogue state', 'member of the axis of evil', 'dictator', 'populist' <-> 'democracy', 'freedom fighters', —> when you get a positive label, you can get more done from other actors, such as military support & protection).

—> actors can even empower themselves by linguistically connecting their interests to established empowering discourses. (eg Ukraine connects themselves to discourses such as fighting for sovereignty, Western/ EU values/ identity)

soft power (variant productive)

= occurs when one actor gets other actors to want what it wants

—> always implies one actor influencing the other's hearts and minds, reshaping the other's beliefs and even interest definitions.

—> Actors who posses soft power have control over the discursive structure and can shape world views of others to their own advantage.

hard power

= Compels the other to (not) do certain things, without any change of hearts & minds.

sources of power

1. Material resources (military capabilities, GDP/ population, geography, market power, ...).

2. Immaterial sources (institutional set-up (eg less checks and balances), quality of diplomacy or intelligence services , willingness to use resources (ethical constraints, public opinion)), privileged positions in international institutions, an actors position in the discursive structure, ...

elaboration: power aspects of asymetric

In recent years, more attention has been giving to asymmetry in conflicts (= refers to armed conflicts where parties have unequal material capabilities).

Those parties can use old practices such as Guerrilla warfare and kamikaze, or newer cheap drones.

elaboration: hybrid warfare

= a combination of conventional and non-conventional means in conflict (like cyber-warfare, militarized boats, irregular forces like unofficial soldiers in civilian outfits, the weaponization of refugees, ...).

HW can be used to mitigating the gap in material capabilities in asymmetrical conflicts.

Variant: sharp power

= tactics to interfere with societies through propaganda, fake news, elections, working with local proxies, ...

Russia, China and Iran have often been blamed for using sharp power; but western governments has also used these during the Cold War by interfering in other countries' domestic affairs. Even now the west continues to defend interests and spheres of influence in the post-cold war world. (even so it is currently less on the research agenda).

=/= soft power:

—> it also amount to discursive power exertion aimed at influencing hearts and minds, but sharp power is associated with illegitimate instruments (<-> transparant and legal instruments of soft power).