PSC 124 - International Relations FINAL

Levels of Analysis

The framework for sorting different theories and outcomes within international relations.

Consists of 3 levels of analysis:

1 - Individual

2 - State

3 - System

These levels of analysis help us think about how we explain international politics

1st Level of Analysis

This level of analysis looks at things from the perspective of the individual. Much of what is looked at from this level is an individuals’ cognitive wiring, understanding the psychology behind their actions.

Example: The War in Ukraine - A first level of analysis explanation for this conflict would look at Putin’s personal beliefs and psychological baggage.

2nd Level of Analysis

This level of analysis focuses on the state. Much of what is looked at is the state’s economy, political system, what society is like within, and any major events happening within the state.

Example: The War in Ukraine - A second level of analysis explanation for this conflict would look at a variety of things, such as Russia’s economic decline, Russian autocracy and control of the media, and the sense of Russian exceptionalism.

3rd Level of Analysis

This level of analysis focuses on the system as a whole, looking at what is happening internationally and among states.

Example: The War in Ukraine - A third level of analysis explanation for this conflict would focus on the relative decline of Russian power in comparison to NATO, the EU, and the US. This level of analysis would also focus on Ukraine’s westward drift, with them wanting to join the EU, along with looking at the world as a whole in anarchic.

WWI examples of levels of analysis

1st level: Kaiser Wilhelm II, urging Germany towards more violence due to his personal impulsive attitude and militaristic view on the world.

2nd level: Serbian nationalism and the assassination of Ferdinand, which led to Austria-Hungary declaring war on them

3rd level: The balance of power in the world, which was causing alliances to become too rigid.

The issue with the idea of “Theoretical Scale”

In the piece “On the Exactitude of Science,” Jorge Luis Borges explores the idea that theories are very similar to maps, in the sense that if they are too abstract, you will not be able to learn much from it because it will miss too many important details. On the other hand, if maps (and theories) are too precise, with a 1-to-1 ratio of replication, it will too closely mirror reality and no longer be a theory. In relation to the levels of analysis, when explaining things in International Relations, it is better to pick just one level of analysis to explain what is occurring because trying to explain something from every level of analysis can make it less of a theory.

Paradigm

A philosophical or theoretical framework, often with a set of core assumptions. In international relations these frameworks are used as a way of looking at global politics.

Examples: Realism, Liberalism, Constructivism

Realism

A common paradigm in International Relations. As explained by Stephen Walt in International Relations: One World Many Theories, realism is “international affairs as a struggle for power among self-interested states and is generally pessimistic about the prospects for eliminating conflict”

A pedigree which traces back to Thucydides, who had a very pessimistic view on realism. A famous realist quote by him is “the strong do what they will, and the weak do what they must.”

Thomas Hobbes is also commonly associated with realism, viewing that the only solution to war of all against all is a leviathan, which in this case would be a central government.

6 Core Tenets of Realism

1. Pessimism - Realists tend to have a very pessimistic view on conflict

2. Anarchy - There is a lack of a central government in the world

3. States are primary actors - Institutions like the UN do not have much influence

4. Rationality - Actors are rational and calculating

5. Power - The struggle for power is ever-present and central to interactions between states — ultima ratio

6. Immutability - Realists tend to see the rhymes in history as they believe that things do not change.

Ultima Ratio

In relation to the paradigm of realism and the 5th core tenet “Power,” the ultima ratio is the idea that war is often used as a last resort by states in order to secure their survival and power in the anarchic world.

Thomas Hobbes

A notable realist who views security as the fundamental problem. Believes that the only solution to a war of all against all is a leviathan, which in this case would be a central government.

Machiavelli

Realist and author of “The Prince,” who believed that states should prioritize survival and power. Essentially saying that if a prince could not be both, it is better to be feared than to be loved.

Thucydides

A realist who believes that states act how they do based on fear, self-interest, and a desire for power. Believes that the “strong do what they will, and the weak do what they must.”

Classical Realism

As stated by Stephen Walt in International Relations: One World Many Theories, classical realism is a first level of analysis theory which believes “that states, like human beings have an innate desire to dominate others, which leads them to fight wars.”

E.H. Carr

A classical realist who believed that international beliefs are based on big powers. The more powerful you are, the more legit a rule you create is, and because you’re powerful, people are more likely to follow the rule.

Hans Morgenthau

A classical realist who believed that “to improve the world, one must work with those forces [man’s desire for power and potential for evil], not against them.”

Structural Realism (Neorealism)

Contrary to classical realism, neorealism “ignores human nature and focuses on the effects of the international system” (Walt). This theory is based on the third level of analysis and looks at how the anarchic system is the cause for this “self-help” system.

Kenneth Waltz

Most associated with Neorealism, believing that anarchic pressures cause states to behave in the same ways repeatedly — thus making patterns in history. Dives into the idea that cooperation is difficult because it makes states vulnerable.

Prisoner’s Dilemma

A concept in game theory which is often used to explain why seemingly rational actors tend to fail to cooperate. This concept deals with cooperation and defection, focusing on how actors might defect, despite it leading to a worse overall outcome, due to the fact that their personal gain makes the defection look more favorable. When looking at the prisoner’s dilemma through the third level of analysis, one may see how a structural change, such as iterative play, can lead to more cooperation.

Liberalism

Liberalism is a paradigm within international relations which has a much less pessimistic view on war than realism, believing that cooperation is more likely and war is less likely to the three types of liberalism (Neoliberal Institutionalism, Economic Liberalism, and Democratic Peace Theory). Liberalism also tends to focus on the freedom of the individual.

Hobbesian

A view derived from Thomas Hobbes, which many realists tend to take. Looking at the idea of a war of all against all.

Lockean

A view derived from John Locke, which many liberals tend to take. Looking at the idea that war is the exception and cooperation can be obtained even in the lack of a central government.

Neoliberal Institutionalism

A theory of Liberalism which sits at the third level of analysis — the system. This theory focuses on the idea that international institutions, such as the UN, WTO, and IMF, tend to facilitate cooperation among states. Institutions do this by being focal points to coordinate behavior, making cooperation cheaper, and being used to change international ideas on cooperation. This theory is often enforced by the idea of the Shadow of the Future

Shadow of the Future

This is the idea that states will act in accordance to the system due to the fact that their actions right now will impact their counterpart’s actions later on in the future. This is often seen as a solution to the prisoner’s dilemma, as iterative play leads to more cooperation as actors know their actions can lead to an equally negative reaction in the future .

Economic Liberalism

This theory of liberalism sits at the third level of analysis. This theory refers to the idea that economic globalization makes war too expensive. In the words of Stephen Walt, “warfare would threaten each side’s prosperity.” This is because of the fact that war would ruin the trade relationships which states have with one another, so overall, their economies would all decline if these trade connections were ruined.

Laissez-Faire

This is a type of economics which supports the idea of no central government governing the economy, promoting the “invisible hand”. The “invisible hand” is the idea that actors will act accordingly in order to help the economy self-regulate. In relation to Economic Liberalism, this type of economics supports the idea that states may cooperate and stray away from war if it means it will overall help the economy.

The Great Illusion

This book was written in 1909 by Norman Angell and is often thought to have been published at a very bad time. In this book, Angell exudes the beliefs of economic liberalists, by expressing that war between the major powers at the time would be economically irrational. Many believe this book was published at a very bad time due to the fact that WWI broke out about 5 years after.

Critiques of Economic Liberalism

Critiques of this theory largely stem from the idea of interdependence, sharing that the interdependence only works if all states are equally vulnerable and equally interdependent.

Another critique questions if people are simply mistaking correlation for causation, being that maybe peace is not coming from trade, but trade is coming from a pre-existing peace.

Democratic Peace Theory

This theory of liberalism sits at the second level of analysis. This theory focuses on a state’s regime type as an explanation for a state’s willingness to cooperate. Statistically, democracies tend to cooperate more and are less likely to go to war due to their norms and institutions. Michael Doyle explains that liberal states tend to have norms of peaceful conflict resolution, and institutions of citizens who oppose war.

Audience Costs

Audience costs can be used as an explanation as to why the Democratic Peace Theory is a good explanation for why states, specifically democracies, tend to stray away from war. Democracies are built on a system of elections, where the citizens have power over who is in control. If a leader acts in a way that the citizens do not approve of or do not follow through with their word, such as going to war, the citizens have the power to vote that elected official out. Elected officials tend to want to be re-elected, so they behave in a way that will make the citizens happy, getting them re-elected.

Absolute Gains

Often associated with liberalism, looking at the concept that in cooperation, multiple states may gain something. To liberals, this is a good solution and the reason why cooperation is good because although someone else may gain more than you, when looking through the lens of absolute gains, you are still gaining something.

Relative Gains

Often associated with realism, looking at the fact that states want to make the most overall gain, in relation to the states around them. This is an example as to why cooperation is not favorable among realists because they are focused on their relative gain, and tend to not want their counterparts to have a larger gain than them. Looks at the idea of putting ones’ self-interest above the overall interest.

Norms

Standards of appropriate behaviors for actors with a given identity. This definition is often associated with Alexander Wendt.

Examples: Territorial Integrity, Anti-Slavery, and democracies promote certain values, so it is a norm to act within those values.

Constructivism

Constructivism is a paradigm within International relations, which is based on the idea that interaction among states influence ideas.

5 Core Tenets of Constructivism

1. Ideas are crucial - The “character” that global politics takes on at a certain point in time is based on the international ideas and values

2. Agents are less important than structure

3. Interests, identities, and beliefs are based on interaction

4. Prioritizes logic of appropriateness over logic of consequences

5. Emphasizes change over continuity

Logic of Consequences

Promotes the idea that people and states act in a way that maximizes their benefits in a cost effective way. In its core relies on the idea of states acting in their own self-interest.

Logic of Appropriateness

Promotes the idea that people and states act in a way that is in accordance to the given norms they are under.

What is meant by “Anarchy is what states make of it”?

Alexander Wendt is refuting the realist claim that anarchy leads to a “self-help” system. By this statement, he is saying that states have the ability to decide whether they cooperate or compete with another due to the states’ norms and identities under anarchy.

Example: Wendt explains how states under NATO states are under the same anarchic conditions as realists see the world, yet they are able to cooperate and not compete with one another.

Russian Exceptionalism

Russian exceptionalism is the idea that Russian culture and history could point to various positive things such as, defeating powers such as Napoleon and Hitler, along with having great literature and high literacy. These successes tended to have a deep psychological impact on the Russian people, so much so that it was very easy for Putin to leverage this to his advantage. By highlighting all of the historical Russian exceptionalism, Putin was able to tap into that part of his citizens and essentially say that after they get the Ukrainian land, they will go back to this exceptionalism.

Causes of War in Ukraine

1st Level: Putin’s psychological baggage, powerful political tenure (having brought Russia back to being a powerful state), and nationalist aspirations.

2nd Level: The economic downturn of Russia, Russian autocracy and control of the media, and nationalist grievances.

3rd Level: NATO expansion, Ukraine’s westward desire (having thought about joining the EU), and the anarchic system of the world.

Has Ukraine Nationalism grown or shrunk since the start of the war?

The war has helped expand and develop Ukraine’s sense of nationalism. For many years prior, the leaders of Ukraine have often teetered between being pro-Russia or pro-west, however, with the war, it has given many a sense of being “pro-Ukraine”

Security Dilemma

The security dilemma is a term often associated with Robert Jervis, which refers to the idea that the increase in one state’s security actually decreases all states’ security. When State A tries to increase their security, State B may see that as a threat and then increase their security, State A may see State B increase their security and take that as a reason to continue to increase their security, and so on. The security dilemma essentially refers to the cycle of states building up their security and another state seeing that as a threat, to the point of states breaking out into war for protection.

Strategic Interaction

The ability of one state or actor to realize that their goals depends on the behaviors of others. People associated with this concept are Thomas Schelling, who views all conflict situations as bargaining situations as states use the means at their disposal to discover more about their counterpart, and Carl von Clausewitz, who believes “war is politics by other means,” meaning that war is a form of strategic interaction that is just carried out through violence.

Fearon’s Theory of War

James Fearon’s theory of war is that war occurs not because of states being irrational, but because bargaining fails under specific conditions.

Private Information

One reason why Fearon believes bargaining fails, being that each side has hidden information, and incentives to hide their truth. War tends to start because people don’t know what the other is hiding.

Credible Commitments

Another reason why Fearon believes that bargaining fails, being that there is nothing stopping either side from reneging on a compromise. There is always a fear that the other party will take more than what has been compromised.

Issue Indivisibility

This is one explanation James Fearon has for why war occurs, even in cases where fighting is costly. Sometimes, the thing parties are fighting over is simply indivisible, to the point where neither side will be happy with a compromise.

Examples: sacred land/territory, sovereignty, and regime survival.

Permissive Causes

This is a slower and deeper cause for war, usually based on a long-term, structural or historical thing.

Example: Relative Deprivation, where on group feels as though their political or socioeconomic status is declining in relation to another group (who is partly responsible for the decline). More specifically, southern whites post-US civil war.

Proximate Causes

More immediate and catalytic factors causing war to rapidly ignite. Focuses more on the catalytic event which can explain why war is breaking out in this exact moment as opposed to happening at another time.

Example: The Israel and Palestine conflict, a proximate cause of this is the Hamas attack which occurred on October 7th.

Ancient Hatreds

A permissive cause of war which refers to the idea that ethnic groups have old, bitter rivalry with memories of conflict. With the “right” conditions, these pent-up hatreds can erupt into war.

Example: France and Germany, the Serbs and Croats

Emergent Anarchy

This is a proximate cause for war, explained by Barry Posen, through the lens of the security dilemma. Proposes the idea that multi-ethnic states, who are under weak, almost anarchic authority, experience security dilemmas with one another, leading to civil war.

Elite Manipulation

This is a proximate cause of war and refers to the idea that elites (leaders) use ethnicity and nationalism as a distraction and as a way to shore up power. Proximate cause due to the fact that these conflicts tend to arise when there is a specific leader.

Example: Hitler, Argentina junta before the Falklands war

Indivisible Territory

The idea that one piece of land could not be easily divided for compromise for multiple states due to it having a sacred meaning to both states, where dividing it simply would not suffice.

Example: Jerusalem being a significant and sacred land to multiple religions.

Relative Deprivation

A permissive cause of war, where one group feels as though they are experiencing a political or socioeconomic decline in relation to another group (who is partly at fault for the decline).

Example: Southern whites post-US civil war

Deterrence

A function of force involving strategic interaction. To deploy force to stop an adversary from doing something out of fear of punishment. Tends to be difficult to see if there is a change because there is no way of knowing if the use of force influenced their behavior, or if they were always going to behave that way. “If you do this, we will respond like this.” Relies on the other party believing you will actually do it.

Example: Nuclear Deterrence

Compellence

A function of force involving strategic interaction by using the threat of violence to coerce an actor to change their course of action. Much easier to see if there is a change in behavior because there will be a different action.

Example: Terrorism, nonviolent civil resistance

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)

A means of deterrence that relies on the fact that both states have second strike capability, or the ability to respond with the same amount of destruction

1st Strike Capability

The ability of a state, usually in reference to nuclear weapons, to be able to attack and destroy another state’s weapons without them being able to respond. Tends to be more dangerous because they can attack knowing there would be no consequence.

2nd Strike Capability

The ability for a state, in reference to nuclear weapons, to be able to strike back if another state strikes first. Tends to lead to a much more safe and stable world because states know that there would be mutually assured destruction if they one strikes.

Defense

A function of force involving strategic interaction, which refers to a state being able to fend off or mitigate the damages of an attack.

Nonviolent Civil Resistance

An act of compellence through nonviolent tactics to force/compel political change.

Example: MLK and Gandhi’s actions

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact, of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or precursors.

Example: Nuclear weapons

Non-Proliferation Treaty

1968 treaty where nuclear states agreed to non-proliferation, meaning those who have nuclear weapons don’t share how they’re made, and those who don’t have them, don’t ask. Along with, nuclear states committing to disarmament and states agreeing to share non-weapon technologies (leading to the creation of the IAEA)

Permissive Action Links

Safety measures to prevent any single person from striking nuclear weapons, typically two people having codes and keys to launch the weapons, which are several feet apart.

States with Nuclear Weapons

US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel & Iran suspected to have

Hegemonic Stability Theory

When economic global stability depends on the power of one state who is a hegemon. The idea that one person/state needs to have power for international control/stability.

Hegemon

A state that has a preponderance of goods and military power

Thucydidean Trap

The idea that if there’s a hegemon, there will eventually always be another state who tries to take over that power, which will likely lead to war because of the rising power trying to take over.

Example: What many believe will happen between the US and China in the future, with the US being the current Hegemon.

Hegemonic War

A war that tends to come out of the Thucydidean Trap, typically when a rising power challenges the hegemon for control over the international system

Capabilities

Part of the means for assessing threat, often referring to the measure of a state’s power.

Example: GDP, education level, resources, military

Intentions

A state’s desires and aspirations regarding world order and the interests of other states. What a state hopes to get out of the threat.

Example: Territorial revision or the view of their nation in relation to the world