Day 2 IR Notes
Day 2: Introduction to International Relations (IR) – Comprehensive Notes
Opening context and format
Instructor turns off music, establishes classroom tone: focus on analytical discussion rather than activist statements.
Day 2 kicks off the world’s international relations unit.
Students were reminded of an optional current events assignment: pick a real-time issue, describe briefly, explain why it matters, and add analysis or a guiding question. It’s for analytical discussion, not activism.
A two-minute exercise example was given: Syria’s post-regime transition, concerns about minority treatment under a new Islamist government, and a debate about sanctions lifting by the Trump administration.
Emphasis on reading one day, then writing/reacting later in the week, and again at the end of the semester to compare idealism vs realism vs pessimism.
Administrative notes: Brightspace discussion posts have no due dates; students should post initial thoughts and read discussion questions to prepare for in-class discussion.
The Syria example (illustrative current events exercise)
Context: Syria previously ruled by a repressive regime; regime overthrown; current government led by a non-Islamist militia’s former rebel leadership.
The leader’s stance: claims to be pluralist and representative, protecting religious minorities (Christians, Jews).
Policy move: Trump administration lifts sanctions on Syria; some view this positively as giving the new government a chance to work,
while concerns rise about minority rights and the treatments of Alawites and Druze.Central question: At what point should the international community clamp down, risking radicalization? The trade-off and strategic ambiguity illustrate the complexity in IR decision-making.
Core distinctions introduced
Domestic politics vs International politics: domestic has a state monopoly on legitimate use of force; international lacks a centralized world government.
Ideal typical differences: domestic states share legitimacy, culture, and peaceful disagreement mechanisms; international politics feature anarchy, power dynamics, and inter-state interdependencies.
Anarchy: the lack of a centralized, enforceable government in the international system; not chaos, but no global sovereign authority.
Power: in IR, power is the currency that compels behavior; material power (tanks, guns, aircraft) is often the most visible form of power because it can threaten or apply coercion.
Key theoretical concepts and distinctions
Domestic vs International politics: domestic politics have a monopoly on legitimate force; international politics relies on norms, diplomacy, and power dynamics across states.
Anarchy as a defining feature of the international system: absence of a world government leads to self-help and power-based calculations.
Power and its forms: material power dominates in many IR theories because it is the most direct means of coercion or inducement; economic power can also be consequential in shaping behavior.
Interdependence: many actions abroad affect others (e.g., fishing limits affecting Canada); decisions are not isolated, increasing the need for diplomacy and coordination.
Hierarchy vs interdependence: some scholars emphasize hierarchical ordering (e.g., US leadership, Western-centric blocs) while others stress interdependence and mutual influence.
Global society notion: increasing empathy and concern for distant events (e.g., Sudan, Mediterranean migrants) signals a growing sense of global responsibility.
Foundational framework: what makes IR different from other fields
Core question: what is the distinctive science of IR (a subfield of political science)? The emphasis shifts to states as the unit of analysis and their interactions, rather than domestic governance alone.
The role of norms: international norms guide state behavior, though enforcement is limited and uneven compared to domestic legal systems.
The reality that law and justice operate differently internationally: there is international law, but it lacks a centralized coercive apparatus like a domestic judicial system.
Milner and liberalism in IR (core reading reference)
Milner is identified as a major IR liberalism scholar; the Milner article is used to anchor the class’s exploration of liberalism vs realism.
Liberal emphasis: while there is anarchy, institutions, norms, and interdependence can promote cooperation and non-zero-sum outcomes.
Two-key questions in liberalism: Why do states with common interests cooperate? How do institutions constrain and enable state behavior?
Students will revisit Milner’s arguments as the course progresses, especially in later weeks when liberalism is contrasted with realism.
International orders and the scope of study
IR looks at how international orders are structured: their functional scope, institutionalization, and hierarchy.
Functional scope: to what extent does an order matter for state behavior? Does it manage domestic behavior or only security issues?
Institutionalization: how formal are the rules and bodies that govern international behavior (e.g., post-WWII growth of IOs)?
Geographic scope: global vs regional orders (e.g., EU as a theoretically equal bloc, global institutions vs regional arrangements).
Westphalian order (historical anchor): post Thirty Years’ War settlement emphasizing state sovereignty and territorial integrity; foundational move toward state-centric diplomacy.
Sovereignty: exclusive control over territory; a defining norm that shapes how states interact and justify non-interference.
Sovereignty and its evolution: challenges to the Westphalian model
The “storms of sovereignty”: normative calls to consider universal rights (UDHR) and humanitarian concerns as pressures to re-think absolute sovereignty.
Human rights and humanitarian interventions: UN-led interventions reflect a shift where sovereignty can be overridden by concerns about mass rights violations.
The UN and the notion of a global authority: while strong in theory, international authority is weak in practice without universal agreement and the veto power at the Security Council.
State sovereignty remains legally central, but norms and international institutions increasingly constrain or challenge it.
Interventions and real-world examples
Haiti (1990s): UN Security Council actions to address famine and a collapsed government; intervention authorized under UN auspices.
Libya (2011): UN-backed intervention during civil conflict due to humanitarian concerns; example of how humanitarian rationale operates alongside state sovereignty concerns.
The high bar for intervention: all actions require broad international support; security councils can veto measures, complicating timely responses.
NGOs and technology: growing significance in monitoring, reporting, and affecting public opinion; but technology also enables misinformation spread and new governance challenges.
Methodology, history, and debates within IR
IR has shifted from narrative, leader-centric history to a social-science approach with hypotheses and quantitative analysis.
Major theoretical strands: materialist (what can be counted; resources like money, weapons) and rationalist (states pursue self-interest).
Founding critiques: Woodrow Wilson’s era tied liberal ideals to Western-centric values; ethnocentrism in IR research (most scholars are from the West) can bias theories and maps (e.g., misrepresentations of Africa).
Calls for decoloniality: increasing emphasis on non-Western scholars and perspectives; rethinking how the field has been created and taught to include the Global South.
Middle-ground approach: some scholars advocate integrating decolonial insights without discarding core theories; ongoing debate about how to reform IR education and research.
Decoloniality, representation, and the map of power in IR
Decolonial critique argues that IR has roots in imperial and Western-centric worldviews; broader inclusion of diverse scholars and topics is needed.
Examples of bias include underrepresentation of Africa and the Global South in traditional IR narratives and the way maps and stats are framed.
The classroom discussion invites students to reflect on these biases and consider how alternative perspectives could reshape IR theory and practice.
Student engagement and in-class dynamics (highlights)
Students were invited to share thoughts on whether anarchy makes sense, and to consider alternatives like more robust global governance or different sovereignty norms.
Questions touched on: the utility and legitimacy of the Geneva Convention and other international law regimes; the relationship between economic and military power; the role of global norms and the humanitarian rationale for intervention.
The instructor emphasized the need to articulate names when speaking and framed responses to focus on reasoning and evidence.
Some students highlighted the interconnectedness of domestic and international politics, and the potential for economic power to translate into military leverage.
Practical course logistics and expectations
Reading load: Milner article plus a schedule of other readings (referred to in-class as a list of readings; one reading mentions a label like “Ratham” or similar).
Discussion posts on Brightspace: no fixed due dates; initial post should describe a current event and offer analysis, with subsequent posts to discuss and critique peers’ posts.
Reading dates on the syllabus correspond to in-class discussion dates, not strictly due dates; students should read ahead and prepare for discussion.
The instructor will sometimes skip slides for time management; if a slide is skipped, it will not appear on the exam.
There is an explicit emphasis on engaging with questions in-class to promote analytical thinking about big IR questions (anarchy, sovereignty, interdependence, power).
The structure of the course and key upcoming topics (foreshadowing)
The course will cover theories such as realism and liberalism in more depth in the coming weeks.
Expect deeper discussions on: international interventions, the role of IOs (e.g., UN), the normative debates about sovereignty vs human rights, and the decolonial critique of IR.
The instructor notes a future focus on: the history of IR methodology, critiques of ethnocentrism, and the rise of non-Western IR scholarship.
Summary of central themes to study for exam readiness
Understand what anarchy means in IR and why it matters for state behavior.
Distinguish domestic vs international political structures, including the monopoly on force and legitimacy at the domestic level versus self-help and power politics internationally.
Explain the Westphalian concept of sovereignty and its evolution in light of humanitarian norms and UN interventions.
Differentiate realist and liberal (IR liberalism) perspectives on power, cooperation, and the role of institutions/international norms.
Recognize the significance of interdependence, hierarchy, and potential global governance mechanisms as alternatives or complements to anarchy.
Assess the critiques of Western-centric IR theories, including ethnocentrism, racism, and the decolonial critique, and understand why these critiques matter for theory, method, and teaching.
Be able to discuss real-world examples (e.g., Syria, Haiti, Libya) to illustrate the complexities of intervention, sanctions, and state behavior.
Understand how readings fit into larger debates about legitimacy, rights, and state responsibility at the international level.
Key terms to memorize (with brief definitions)
Anarchy: absence of a centralized, enforceable world government in the international system.
Sovereignty: exclusive legal authority of a state over its territory; non-interference by external actors under Westphalian norms.
Westphalia: the 1648 treaty that helped establish the modern state system with territorial integrity and sovereignty.
IR Liberalism: a theoretical approach emphasizing cooperation, institutions, and interdependence as paths to peace and prosperity in an anarchic system.
Realism: a theoretical approach stressing power, national interest, and often military capability as primary drivers of state behavior.
Material power: tangible capabilities (military hardware, economic strength) that can compel or influence other states.
Interdependence: mutual reliance among states in which actions in one state affect others across issues (trade, security, environment).
International institutions: organizations and norms that help govern state behavior (e.g., United Nations, treaties, customary international law).
Decoloniality: scholarly movement urging rethinking IR from non-Western perspectives and addressing imperial legacies in theory and pedagogy.
Important takeaways for exam preparation
You should be able to articulate why international relations is studied as a distinct field with its own set of assumptions, tools, and debates.
You should be able to explain the tension between sovereignty and humanitarian norms, and give example-driven arguments about when intervention might be justified or contested.
You should be comfortable contrasting realist and liberal explanations of why states cooperate or clash, including the role of power and institutions.
You should be able to discuss the evolution of IR as a social science, including critiques of ethnocentrism and calls for decolonial approaches, and articulate how these critiques might influence research and teaching.
Suggested study prompts (based on today’s discussion)
Why might sanctions on a country like Syria be lifted or maintained when minority protections are in question? What are the competing considerations?
In what ways does the absence of a world government complicate enforcement of international law, and how do institutions like the UN attempt to address this?
How do interdependence and globalization challenge the notion of a strictly hierarchical international order?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of using a strictly materialist vs. rationalist lens when analyzing IR events?
How might a decolonial critique alter our understanding of IR theory and international politics?
Notes on exam readiness
Be prepared to discuss the Milner article and its main claims about liberalism in IR.
Be prepared to compare domestic and international systems along lines of legitimacy, use of force, and norms.
Be prepared to analyze a current events example using at least two theoretical lenses (e.g., realism and liberalism) and to discuss potential implications for policy.
If you want, I can turn this into a condensed study sheet with a shorter bullet-point version for quick review or expand any section with more examples or quotes from the Milner reading. Also, tell me which sections you’d like to focus on for a quick exam-ready summary (e.g., theory comparisons, sovereignty, or interventions).