Theories of Int'l Politics Exam 2 Review

hi ingrid ;

International Society: Order

***A basic level of global interaction where states coexist peacefully and avoid conflict, even without shared values or deep cooperation.

Represents a minimal level of international society, where states interact with one another in a more or less realist manner, but not a Hobbesian “war of all against all”

·       General agreement among states that peace is preferable to conflict

·       Unlike political systems can agree to this basic set of restraints

·       In this form of international society, states have differing cultures, political systems, and traditions and are generally unable to speak the same normative language as one another

·        Hinders the development of shared norms between actors, other than the basic idea that peace and stability is better than conflict.

EXAMPLES: The U.S. and USSR avoided direct war during the Cold War because both feared nuclear destruction. This shows states can maintain basic order even without trust or shared values.

• Countries maintain embassies and diplomacy even during conflicts. This reflects a minimum agreement to avoid chaos and keep communication open.

Society of states

***A system where states share norms and values, recognize each other, and follow agreed rules beyond just avoiding conflict.

Emerges through the interaction of states with more like political systems, such that they are able to agree on norms beyond the maintenance of order and stability

•       Mutual recognition of one another and the development of a set of shared values imposes normative restraints on state behavior

•       Inclusion/exclusion is part of the development of a society of states

•        

a.     At the outset, development of norms tends to occur at a regional level, where certain actors are excluded and denied membership in an emerging society of states

b.     Over time, the boundaries of international society are expanded, such that once excluded members are included in the society of states

The early Westphalian system and the development of sovereignty was Eurocentric, excluding actors like the Ottoman Empire, which, over time, was granted membership in the “civilized world

a.     Over time, a limited society expands to a universal one

b.     Society of states can be described as a pluralist international society

EXAMPLES: The United Nations allows states to cooperate under shared rules like sovereignty and diplomacy. This shows agreement on norms beyond just avoiding war.

• The European Union demonstrates deeper cooperation, where countries follow common laws and policies. This reflects shared values and institutional trust.

World society

***An advanced system where global norms prioritize not just states, but also individual rights and justice.

An extension of the society of states

•       Enforcement of rules and norms by states and institutions, but also guardianship of individual  human rights

•       The individual is the constituent member of world society, whose interests and values are represented through the state

•       Expands focus to values and interests not covered in society of states, such as basic human rights, the rights of indigenous peoples, claims of justice for formerly colonized peoples

•       World society can be described as a solidarist international society

EXAMPLES: The United Nations Human Rights Council promotes human rights globally. This shows a shift toward protecting individuals, not just states.

• NGOs like Amnesty International advocate for victims worldwide. This reflects a system where individual rights matter across borders.

Pluralism vs solidarism

• ***Pluralism: Focus on state sovereignty and non-interference

• ***Solidarism: Focus on human rights and international responsibility

The norms of international society are oriented toward protecting the liberty of states

• The concept of sovereignty and non-interference are key norms in such a society

• Rules and norms are centered around the idea of states mutually recognizing one another as equal members of international society

• Institutions will reflect this set of norms

The United Nations, for instance, is founded on the sovereign equality of states.  States are equal members in institutions like the General Assembly.  Powerful states are not viewed as more privileged based on power capabilities

Solidarism:

•       Since individuals are constituent members of solidarist international society, individual are entitled to basic human rights such that norms of sovereignty must be modified

•       Solidarist international society emphasizes the responsibility to protect as an emerging norm

a.     States are obligated to intervene to prevent human rights abuses

•       Key debate within the English School is between pluralists and solidarists over the direction of international society

•       Expansion of society of states to world society requires modification and erosion of ideas like sovereignty and non-interference

•       Development of international law governing human rights over the past several decades demonstrates both opportunities and challenges of such a expansion

EXAMPLES: Pluralism: China resists outside criticism, arguing sovereignty should be respected. This shows non-interference is the priority.

• Pluralism: Russia opposing external involvement in domestic politics reinforces state independence over global norms.

• Solidarism: NATO intervened in Kosovo (1999) to stop ethnic violence. This shows human rights can override sovereignty.

• Solidarism: Libya (2011) intervention aimed to protect civilians. This reflects the idea that states have responsibilities beyond borders.

Universal jurisdiction

***The idea that any country can prosecute serious crimes (like genocide) no matter where they occurred.

In the late 1990’s, several European national courts asserted a right to universal jurisdiction, arguing that domestic courts could try foreign nationals for certain crimes, regardless of where the crime occurred

•       Focused on crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes

•       First tested in 1998 by a Spanish judge named Baltasar Garzon, who indicted Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet for the murder of several Spanish citizens during the coup in 1973

•       Later adopted by Belgian courts, but was dropped after individuals began seeking to put political leaders on trial

o   Recently invoked by Sweden to charge an Iranian national who was allegedly involved in a massacre of political prisoners in Iran in 1988 with crimes against humanity

EXAMPLES: Spain tried to prosecute Augusto Pinochet for crimes committed in Chile. This shows some crimes are so serious any state can prosecute them.

• Germany prosecuting ISIS members for crimes abroad reflects the idea that justice is not limited by borders.

The International Criminal Court

***A permanent court that prosecutes individuals for major crimes like genocide and war crimes, but only under specific conditions.

The first permanent tribunal tasked with trying individuals for certain categories of crimes

•       The ICC differs significantly from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or World Court

o   The ICJ is an arbitration body, where only states have standing to bring cases and where both states much consent to ICJ arbitration

o   A relatively weak institution that has historically dealt with sovereignty issues

o   More recent focus on human rights, but the rules of the institution have hindered its effectiveness

•       Asserts compulsory jurisdiction over individuals above the age of 18

•       Can prosecute:

o   Genocide

o   Crimes against humanity

o   War crimes

•       The ICC does not have universal jurisdiction.  It can only prosecute crimes:

o   Occurring in states that are signatories to the ICC treaty

o   Committed by nationals of member states

o   Occurring after July 1, 2002

•       The first 2 can be overridden if a state that is not a member of the ICC accepts the court’s jurisdiction or if a case is referred to the court by the UN Security Council

EXAMPLES: The International Criminal Court charged Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir with genocide. This shows individuals, not just states, can be held accountable.

• The ICC investigating war crimes in Ukraine shows efforts to enforce international law globally, even if enforcement is limited.

Active underdevelopment

***The idea that powerful countries actively keep poorer countries underdeveloped through exploitation.

Marxist idea arguing that underdevelopment is not a natural state but a deliberate, ongoing process. Developed nations (the core) create, exploit, and maintain periphery countries from growing by extracting their surplus resources.

Critiques the base-superstructure distinction as reductionist

•  Argues that culture is a key point of struggle for the proletariat

•  Bourgeoisie rules with force plus consent

o   Exercises cultural hegemony within civil society in addition to control in political society (the state)

•       Gramsci advocates the “war of position” where working class culture is pitted against bourgeois culture before the “war of maneuver” (the armed struggle)

EXAMPLES: European colonial powers extracted resources from Africa, leaving weak economies behind. This shows underdevelopment can be caused by exploitation, not just internal issues.

• Multinational corporations using cheap labor in developing countries can keep wages low. This reflects continued economic dependence.

Gramscian hegemony

***Power is maintained not just by force, but by shaping beliefs and culture so people consent to domination.

Critiques the base-superstructure distinction as reductionist

•  Argues that culture is a key point of struggle for the proletariat

•  Bourgeoisie rules with force plus consent

o   Exercises cultural hegemony within civil society in addition to control in political society (the state)

•       Gramsci advocates the “war of position” where working class culture is pitted against bourgeois culture before the “war of maneuver” (the armed struggle)

EXAMPLES: Capitalism is widely accepted as the “normal” system globally. This shows power works through ideas and consent, not just force.

• Western media shaping global culture reflects how dominant groups influence what people see as natural or desirable.

Core/semi-periphery/periphery

***A global hierarchy where core countries dominate, semi-periphery are in-between, and periphery are exploited.

Core- Are developed countries

Semi-Periphery- are countries in between the developed and not developed (caPital intensive)

Periphery- dependent countries, buffer states

EXAMPLES: The U.S. (core) outsourcing manufacturing to Bangladesh (periphery) shows unequal economic relationships.

• India (semi-periphery) both outsources and is outsourced to, showing it sits between dominance and dependence.

Deontology

***Ethics based on rules—actions must be morally right regardless of outcomes.

Asserts that means and ends must be linked

o   A moral end cannot be pursued by immoral means

o   Kant and the categorical imperative

EXAMPLES: A state refuses to torture prisoners even for intelligence. This shows rules matter more than outcomes.

• Following international law even when it limits military success reflects moral duty over advantage.

Consequentialism

***Ethics based on outcomes—the morality of an action depends on its results.

Examines the effect of an action

•       Moral deliberation must be guided by an examination of effects

•       Utilitarianism and weighing the good vs harm caused by actions

EXAMPLES:

• Drone strikes are justified as preventing future attacks. This shows decisions are based on outcomes and effectiveness.

• Surveillance programs are defended because they save lives. This reflects weighing benefits vs harms.

Just cause

***A valid moral reason to go to war, usually self-defense or protecting others from harm.

Traditionally, just cause is asserted in cases of self-defense or coming to the aid of a victim of aggression

o   Codified in the UN Charter, where the Security Council is the body responsible for authorizing when states can aid other states

•  Debate over just cause as new issues have emerged

o   Pre-emptive attacks: does a state need to wait to be attacked in order to respond?  How imminent must the threat be in order to assert just cause?

•       Humanitarian intervention and responsibility to protect

EXAMPLES:

• After the September 11 attacks, the U.S. claimed self-defense in Afghanistan. This fits the idea of responding to aggression.

• Intervening to stop genocide reflects the belief that protecting others can justify war.

Proportionality

***Using only the amount of force necessary to achieve goals without excessive damage.

Both a jus ad bellum and jus in bello requirement

•  Begins with the assumption that the ultimate purpose of war is to secure peace and recognizes that the amount of force used can undermine this goal.

•  Limits the kinds of demands that belligerent parties make on one another.

•       Calls upon states to use sufficient force to win, but not use such force that peace cannot be possible

EXAMPLES:

• A country responds to a small attack with limited force instead of full war. This shows force should match the threat.

• Using sanctions instead of military invasion reflects minimizing harm while still responding.

Non-combatant immunity

***Civilians should not be intentionally targeted in war, and harm to them should be minimized.

Civilians are never to be targeted in war

•  Given the realities of modern warfare, this is one of the more problematic constraints and contemporary just war theorists recognize that civilians will die in war.  Purpose of this limit is to ensure that actors act to minimize civilian casualties

•  Where is the line drawn between combatants and noncombatants?  Soldiers are clearly combatants.  Could workers in a munitions factory also be considered combatants?

•  The problem of dual-use technology.  Are these legitimate targets?

•  Civilian casualties and the doctrine of double-effect

EXAMPLES:

• Avoiding bombing civilian areas shows the rule that civilians should not be targeted.

• Criticism when hospitals are hit in war highlights the expectation to protect innocent people.

“Anarchy is what the state makes of it”

***Global politics isn’t inherently chaotic—state behavior shapes whether the system is conflictual or cooperative.

International anarchy does not automatically force states into competitive power instead state interactions, identities, and shared ideas determine whether the global system is characterized by conflict or cooperation.

EXAMPLES:

• The U.S. and Canada remain peaceful despite no global authority. This shows cooperation is possible under anarchy.

• EU countries choosing cooperation over conflict reflects that state behavior shapes the system.

Rationalist constructivism

***States act rationally, but their decisions are shaped by social norms, identity, and interactions.

  Accepts the rational actor model but views rationality in terms of social context and social interaction

•       How actors develop concepts of what is rational will be influenced by interaction with other actors and through reference to both material and non-material factors

•       The actor’s identity will factor into the determination of what options to consider and what constitutes a rational decision (in terms of maximizing benefit, minimizing cost)

EXAMPLES:

• NATO countries cooperate because shared identity makes it seem rational. This shows rationality is shaped by norms.

• Trade agreements depend on trust and relationships, not just profit. This reflects social context influencing decisions.

Consistent constructivism

***Reality in international politics is shaped by language, ideas, and shared meanings, not just material power.

Focus on the role of language as a social, subjective act that grants meaning to reality

Reason/cause

a.     Cause and the security dilemma – the structural realist analysis

b.     Reason focuses on language and social context, particularly the “how possible?” question

                                                i.     What particular contexts were in place that allowed an actor to act in a certain way and what contexts are in place that lead other actors to accept a given reason as valid at that time and place

                                              ii.     Why, for instance, was the justification for the invasion of Iraq based on its supposed possession of WMDs accepted at the time when North Korea posed a far greater threat?  The context of the War on Terror shaped the conditions under which the reason given by the Bush administration was viewed as a legitimate “cause” for the invasion of Iraq

Giving a reason is a speech act that invites other actors to respond based on specific social contexts.  Response is not solely based on material capabilities.  Deterrence would consist of both material and non-material capabilities, for example

EXAMPLES:

• The Iraq War was justified through WMD claims that were widely accepted at the time. This shows ideas and context shape what is seen as valid.

• The “War on Terror” framing made certain policies acceptable. This reflects how language influences reality.

Washington Consensus

***A set of free-market economic policies pushed on developing countries to promote growth and integration into global markets.

A package of free market reforms imposed through international financial institutions like the IMF

•  In theory, these reforms are intended to ensure that states who receive loans do not face the same balance of payments crises in the future

•  States who take loans must prove that they are deserving by restructuring their economies

•  The Washington Consensus was presented as a one-size-fits-all approach.  The logic here was that any developing state could successfully grow if it adopted this package of reforms

•       For Marxist IR theorists, represents an example of cultural hegemony in the Gramscian sense

•  Represents a free-market approach to development and international trade

•  Reforms include:

o   Cutting wasteful spending and exercising fiscal responsibility

o   Maintaining strong currencies

o   Deregulation and selling off state owned industries

o   Liberalizing trade policy and financial markets

•       Participating in world trade and liberalizing market

EXAMPLES:

• The International Monetary Fund required Argentina to adopt austerity and free-market reforms. This shows a standardized economic model imposed on states.

• Privatization and deregulation policies in developing countries reflect a push toward global capitalism.

Responsibility to protect

***The idea that states must protect their citizens, and if they fail, the international community should intervene

Modification of the principle of sovereignty

•       Modification of the principle of sovereignty

o   Sovereignty is no longer about the state protecting itself from outside interference

o   Sovereignty as a positive responsibility that entails the obligation on the part of the state to look out for the well-being of its citizens

o   Cooperative principle, where states are obligated to assist one another in protecting the individual

•       Strongly advocated by solidarist, world society theorists of the English School

•       Has been used to justify intervention

o   Modification of the just cause principle of just war theory

EXAMPLES:

• NATO intervention in Libya (2011) aimed to prevent civilian massacres. This shows global responsibility to protect people.

• Calls for intervention in Syria reflect the belief that sovereignty can be overridden for human rights.

The English School

***emphasis on social interactions and the production of norms and rules

   i.     The middle way solution encompasses elements of both realism and liberalism (more than realism less than idealism)

                                             ii.     Hugo Grotius an early proponent of international law

                                           iii.     Global approach that emphasizes both state and non-state actors, multiple levels of analysis (state, …)

                                            iv.     Historical understanding is key to studying IR

                                             v.     Violence can regularly occur, but IR Law and morality restrain it

1.     International Society: a group of state form a society with common interests and common values and set of rules

2.     The Anarchical society

                                            vi.     International Society Order: where states interact with each other on a more or less realist manner, but not a Hobbesian “war against all”

1.     Peace is preferable to conflict

2.     Political systems can agree to this basic set of restraints

3.     Development of norms occur at a regional level

4.     Over time the boundaries of int’l society are expanded (once excluded members are included)

a.     Westphalia treaty was Eurocentric excluded Ottoman Empire later accepted

5.     Can be described as a pluralist international society

                                          vii.     Pluralist International Society:

1.     Are oriented toward protecting the liberty of society

2.     Concept of sovereignty and non-interference (refuse to intervene without necessity) are key norms in such a society

3.     Institutions will reflect this set of norms (UN, etc.)

                                        viii.     World Society

1.     An extension of the society of states

2.     Enforcement of rules and norms by state and institutions but also of individual human rights

3.     Expand focus to values and interests not covered in society of states, such as basic human rights

4.     World society ca be described as a solidarist international society

                                            ix.     Solidarist World Society

1.     Individuals are constituent members of solidarist international society, entitled to basic human rights such that norms of sovereignty must be modified and erosion of ideas like sovereignty and non-interference

2.     Within English school the debate is mostly between pluralists and solidarists

                                             x.     International Law

1.     No effective executive power at the system level

2.     Lacks a reliable way to enforce compulsory jurisdiction

3.     Universal Jurisdiction:

a.     Arguing that domestic courts could try foreign nationals for certain crimes, regardless of where the crime occurred

b.     Test in 1998 by a Spanish Judge who indicated Chilean dictator Pinochet for the murder of several Spanish citizens

                                                                                                     i.     Later adopted by Belgian courts, but was dropped after individuals began seeking to put political leaders on trial

c.     Recently invoked by Sweden to charge an Iranian national involved in a massacre of political prisoners in Iran in 1988

d.     International Criminal Court does not have universal jurisdiction

EXAMPLES:

Example 1: United Nations
Countries follow shared rules like sovereignty and diplomacy. This shows an international society where states agree on norms to maintain order.

Example 2: Humanitarian intervention in Libya (2011)
Countries intervened to protect civilians. This reflects the shift toward world society, where human rights matter—not just state sovereignty.

Normative IR Theory

***The “just war” tradition, Normative IR theory evaluates international actions based on what is right or wrong, not just what is realistic or effective, what should BE DONE not what is happening.

i.     Norms Matter

                                             ii.     Who Counts?

1.     Ethical cosmopolitanism: promotes universality of values and opposes the idea of demarcating “outsiders” arguing we should stand apart from local loyalties and engaging impartial moral reasoning

2.     Ethical communitarianism: moral reasoning occurs within the context of membership in a moral community, which shapes our moral reasoning

                                           iii.     Just War Tradition

1.     War is at best a necessary evil

2.     Continuation of politics by other means

                                            iv.     Just Cause

1.     Is asserted in cases of self-defense

                                             v.     Right Intention and Last Resort

1.     The decision to go to war must be based on an authentic intention to pursue a just cause

a.     Actors should not be going to war to pursue ulterior motives

b.     All other means of resolving the conflict been exhausted

                                            vi.     Proportionality

1.     Begins with the assumption that the ultimate purpose of war is to secure peace and recognizes that the amount of force used can undermine this goal

a.     Use sufficient force to win

                                          vii.     Non- combatant immunity

1.     Civilians are never to be targeted in war

2.     Civilian causualties and the doctrine of double-effect

3.     Leadership and the problem of occasions of sin

EXAMPLES:

• Debating whether the Iraq War was morally justified focuses on right vs wrong, not just strategy.

• Debating humanitarian intervention asks whether states have ethical obligations beyond borders.

Marxism

***capitalism as systemic structure and the constraints it imposes

i.     Dependency Theory

1.     Argues that the core states engage in the active underdevelopment of the periphery

2.     Peripheral states serve an important role in the international division of labor. As such, core states will actively interfere in the periphery in order to prevent them from developing

                                             ii.     Imperialism

1.     The emphasizes the direct control of colonies by the imperial power, which reflected the capitalist system of the 19^th century

                                                                                                     i.     Industrialization of the west, accomplished through the direct exploitation of the non-western world

                                           iii.     Neo-Imperialism:

1.     Transnational capitalist class is still the primary player, MNC and international financial institutions work together with states to preserve dependent relationships in the system

2.     MNCs work with elites in the developing world in a race “to the bottom” that hurts workers in both the developing world and in the developed

                                            iv.     Cultural hegemony

1.     Critiques the base-superstructure distinction as reductionist

2.     Argues that culture is a key point of struggle for the proletariat

3.     Bourgeoise rules with force plus consent

a.     Exercises cultural hegemony within civil society in addition to control in political society (the state)

b.     Ex: Washington Consensus

Free- market approach

EXAMPLES:

Example 1: Colonialism in Africa
European powers extracted resources and wealth, leaving countries underdeveloped. This shows how powerful states exploit weaker ones for economic gain.

Example 2: Sweatshops in developing countries
Multinational companies use cheap labor in places like Bangladesh. This reflects how global capitalism keeps poorer countries dependent.

Constructivism

***social construction, identity, and IR

i.     Emphasizes the social dimension of IR

                                             ii.     Anarchy is what the state makes of it

1.     Basically yes the self-help system exists, however, the states regulations are a huge factor in what happens nd their interactions on what happens

                                           iii.     Big Assumptions

1.     Normative and ideational frameworks shape actoes as much as material ones

a.     Material acquire meaning based on social contexts

b.     Non-material frameworks condition over actor identities and, in turn, their interests and their actions

c.     Contrary to positivist view of the obhective, material interests of rational actors

d.     Imagination in terms of what actors view as within the realm of possible action influenced by the context of evolving ideational frameworks

e.     Communication in justifying actions

f.      Constraint the need to justify actionss serves a constraint on actor behavior

2.     Rational Constructivism v. consistent constructivisms

a.     Second is based to respond to social contexts

3.     Big Example: War on Terror

        i.     Language and its impact on policy and identity

EXAMPLES:

Example 1: U.S. and Canada peaceful relationship
They don’t fear each other because of shared identity and trust. This shows that relationships are shaped by ideas, not just power.

Example 2: “War on Terror” after 9/11
The way terrorism was framed shaped global policies and justified wars. This shows how language and ideas influence what actions are seen as acceptable.