POLS 261: Traditional Approaches to International Relations

POLS 261: International Politics - Week 3 Notes: Traditional Approaches to International Relations

Land Acknowledgement

Queen's University is located on traditional Anishinaabe and Haudenosaunee territory.
This acknowledges a history predating European colonies and recognizes the significance of the territory for Indigenous peoples (Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee, Métis, and other First Nations) whose practices and spiritualities are tied to the land.
For more information: Queen’s Encyclopedia (for land) and Office of Indigenous Initiatives (for land acknowledgements).

Classroom Guidelines

Commit to learning about, understanding, and supporting peers.
Assume and expect the best from others.
Recognize and value diverse experiences, abilities, and knowledge.
Acknowledge the impact of oppression; ensure respectful and inclusive words and tone.
Encourage development and sharing of ideas.
Pay close attention before responding; think through and reread online posts.
Be open to having ideas challenged, and challenge others with intent to facilitate growth.
Look for opportunities for agreement, building on peers' thoughts; disagree with ideas without personal attacks or demeaning others.

Announcements

Academic activities are suspended on September 30, meaning no classes that day.
Week 4 will be divided: 1 hour 30 minutes lecture and 30 minutes review for the midterm exam.
Students should study the glossary of terms at the back of the course textbook.
Office hours are flexible: in-person, virtual, or email.

Outline of Topics

Approaches vs. Theories
Traditional vs. Critical Approaches
Liberalism and International Relations (IR)
Realism and IR
Neo-Realism and IR
Neo-Liberalism and IR
The English School
Constructivism and IR
Key Takeaways

Approach vs. Theory

Approach

Refers to broad philosophical perspectives or methodological ways of understanding issues or studying disciplines.
Implies a degree of agreement regarding definitions, scope of activity, methods, and/or paradigm.
Sets a standard governing the inclusion and exclusion of questions within a field of study.

Theory

A set of propositions that help understand events or phenomena.
More specific, structured frameworks that offer explanations for understanding a phenomenon.
Provide 'lenses' through which to view political actions and explain these actions and other events.
Can help predict future actions based on past occurrences.
In international relations, theories generate assumptions to explain and predict states'/actors' behavior and interests.

Types of Theory

Explanatory Theories: Focus on explaining why an event happens, identifying causes and relationships to understand complex situations.
Predictive Theories: Focus on forecasting what will happen, identifying patterns to predict outcomes with accuracy, even if underlying causes are not fully understood.
Constitutive Theories: Argue that theories and ideas help create or construct the very reality they are meant to describe, rather than merely reflecting an external world.

Traditional Approaches to IR

Focus on established power structures and state interactions to describe and understand the international system.
A central concern is states, relations among states, and how they explain war and peace.
The two primary traditional approaches to International Relations are Liberalism and Realism.

Traditional vs. Critical Approaches to IR

Traditional Approaches

Focus on established power structures and state interactions to describe and understand the international system.
Despite originating from different political and theoretical traditions, they help us better understand, live with, reform, and steer global politics within the 'status quo'.

Critical Approaches

View the international system as inherently unjust.
Aim to expose hidden power dynamics, inequality, and marginalized voices.
Seek to inspire social transformation and create a more equitable world.
Attempt to overturn traditional ways of seeing international relations and offer a more radical critique and program for change.

Liberalism

Origins and Development

Grew out of principles based on idealism, asserting the possibility of a better world.
First Wave: Rooted in the Enlightenment period.
Second Wave: Known as the 'idealist moment', occurred after the First World War, particularly with Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and the Treaty of Versailles.
Wilson's search for 'world peace' led to the creation of the League of Nations, an international membership organization.
Peace was believed to be secured only through an international organization to regulate international anarchy, as a 'general association of nations must be formed to preserve the coming peace.'

Core Tenets

Prominent Analyst: G. John Ikenberry, who extensively studied the influence of liberal ideas on world order.
Heavily reliant on the ideals and values of individual freedoms/liberty.
Human Nature: Broadly optimistic view; humans are self-seeking and self-reliant but also governed by reason and capable of personal self-development. They are considered innately good, believing peace and harmony between nations are achievable and desirable.
Harmony and Balance: An important theme is the belief in harmony or balance, specifically a natural harmony of interests in the international system.
Foundational Principles: Based on liberal thinking of human rights, reason, freedom, and peace, while also maintaining the primacy of the state in the international system.

Liberal Internationalism

A theory or practice of politics founded on cooperation between states, nations, or societies.
Calls for cooperation or solidarity among pre-existing nations, rather than the abolition of national identities.
Factors Driving Peace and Cooperation: Economic interdependence (brought about by free trade), the spread of democracy, and the construction of international organizations.
Reflected in support for free trade, economic interdependence, and a commitment to build or strengthen international organizations.

How Liberalism Explains IR

Believes in the notion of harmony or balance among competing interests in the international system.
International institutions, organizations, and norms (expected behaviors) are built on the same foundations as domestic liberal institutions and norms: the desire to restrain the violent power of states.
While an underlying tendency towards rivalry and competition exists in the international arena, this is contained by a faith in a harmony of interests and a preference for resolving conflict through discussion, debate, and negotiation.

Democratic Peace Theory (DPT)

Hinged on Republican liberalism.
Asserts that democratic states are highly unlikely to go to war with one another.
Strongly influenced by the rapid spread of democratization globally after the Cold War.
Three Pillars of DPT:
1. Peaceful conflict resolution between democratic states.
2. Common values among democratic states (a common moral foundation).
3. Economic cooperation among democracies.
Reasons for DPT: First, democratic states are characterized by internal restraints on power. Second, democracies tend to perceive each other as legitimate and unthreatening, fostering a higher capacity for cooperation compared to non-democracies.

Realism

Emergence and Key Proponents

Emerged after the failure of the League of Nations and the slide towards World War II in the 1930s.
It was a reaction to the perceived failures of idealistic thinking and diametrically opposed to the Wilsonian liberal idealist approach.
Gained prominence after World War II.
Hans J. Morgenthau: A major proponent of classical realism in the 20^{th}$$ century.
Roots: Realist thinking is rooted in a specific vision of 'human nature' found in 'classical' or ancient and medieval political thought.

View of Human Nature and Politics

Human Nature: People are essentially selfish and competitive; egoism is the defining characteristic. Self-interest is a fundamental aspect of the human condition.
Politics: Rooted in a permanent and unchanging human nature, which is basically self-centered, self-regarding, and self-interested.
Politics is viewed as an 'autonomous sphere of action' and, therefore, cannot be reduced to morals.
War and Peace: Classical realists argue that enduring peace between states is impossible. War must be a permanent feature of world politics because it is fundamentally different from national or local politics within states, where political communities are constrained by a sovereign power and a common moral ethos or law.

Three Core Assumptions of Realism

Statism/State-centric: States are the only actors that truly matter in international relations.
Power/National Interest: A state or state leader's primary responsibility is to create, maintain, or increase national power or fulfill national interest, using any available means to secure this.
Anarchy: There is no central authority above the state; the international system is anarchic.

How Realism Explains IR

Views states as coherent, cohesive 'units' and the most important actors on the world stage.
For realists, world politics is fundamentally about power and self-interest.
International politics is an arena of conflicting state interests with no form of world government.
As self-interested actors, the ultimate concern of each state is its survival.
The international system operates in a context of international anarchy, meaning there is no authority higher than the sovereign state.

Neo-Realism/Structural Realism

Foundations and Key Proponents

Leading Neorealist Thinker: Kenneth Waltz.
Aims to provide a scientific explanation of the international political system, using some elements of classical realism as a starting point.
Departure from Classical Realism: Unlike classical realism, neorealism does not account for human nature. Instead, it focuses exclusively on the structure of the international system.
State Behavior: Attributes the behavior of states (security competition, interstate wars) to the anarchical structure of international relations, stemming from the lack of an overarching authority above states.
The basic feature of international relations for neorealists is the decentralized structure of anarchy between states.

Balance of Power Theory

Neorealists, like classical realists, believe that conflict can be contained by the balance of power.
Distinction: While classical realists view the balance of power as a product of prudent statecraft, neorealists see it as a consequence of the structural dynamics of the international system, specifically the distribution of power (or capacities) between and among states.
System Stability: For instance, they argue that bipolar systems (e.g., Cold War) are superior to multipolar systems because they provide greater international stability and thus greater peace and security. This explains the 'peace' during the Cold War era.

How Neo-Realism Explains IR

Neorealists argue that international anarchy necessarily leads to tension, conflict, and the unavoidable possibility of war due to three main reasons:
1. Self-Help: States are separate, autonomous, and formally equal political units. They must ultimately rely on their own resources to achieve their interests. International anarchy thus results in a system of 'self-help' because states cannot count on others for security.
2. Uncertainty and Suspicion: Relationships between states are always characterized by uncertainty and suspicion, best explained through the security dilemma.
3. Relative Gains: Conflict is also encouraged because states are primarily concerned with maintaining or improving their position relative to other states, focusing on making relative gains.
Bipolarity and Multipolarity: Neorealists generally associate bipolar systems with stability and a reduced likelihood of war, often viewing Cold War bipolarity as a 'long peace'. They warn about the implications of rising multipolarity in the post-Cold War era.
Relevance: The Cold War, defined by superpower rivalry and a nuclear arms race, made the politics of power and security appear highly relevant and insightful from a neorealist perspective.

Critique of Realist Approach

Pessimistic View: Holds a pessimistic view of human nature and is skeptical of significant progress in international politics comparable to that in domestic political life.
One-Dimensionality: Seen as a one-dimensional theory, too narrowly focused on issues of power, security, and survival.
Limited Scope: Fails to capture the extent to which international politics involves a dialogue of different IR voices and perspectives.
Obsolescence: The realist focus on power politics and military strategy is argued to be obsolete because security is now increasingly a local problem within disorganized and sometimes failed states, rather than primarily a problem of national security and national defense (a phenomenon known as Transnationalism).

Neo-Liberalism

Evolution and Core Beliefs

Neoliberals share older liberal ideas about the possibility of progress and change but explicitly repudiate idealism, having learned from the failure of the League of Nations.
Neoliberal institutionalism largely stripped liberalism of its idealist trappings.
Restraining Power: The primary means of restraining power are institutions and norms, operating at both domestic and international levels.
Complex Interdependence: They argue that relationships between states are characterized by complex interdependence.
Role of Institutions: When there is a high degree of interdependence, states will often establish international institutions to address common problems.

How Neo-Liberalism Explains IR

International organizations foster cooperation by helping states overcome the incentive to escape from international agreements – this is the essence of neoliberal institutionalism.
They explain growing cooperation and integration in functional terms, linking it to self-interest. Institutions arise as mediators to facilitate cooperation among states on matters of common interest.
While focusing on formal institutions, neoliberals also draw attention to more informal institutions, embracing what is called 'new' institutionalism.
New Institutionalism: Broadly defined as sets of norms, rules, and 'standard operating procedures' that are internalized by those who work within them.

Critique of Liberal Approach

Limited Impact: Liberal values and institutions have made fewer inroads into global governance than anticipated.
Contradiction: The essence of liberalism is 'self-restraint, moderation, compromise and peace', whereas 'the essence of international politics is exactly the opposite: troubled peace, at best, or the state of war'.
Power Blindness: Liberals are criticized for overlooking the distribution of power and interests in the international system, failing to understand that values and purposes are inextricably linked to power.
Cooperation Challenges: Recurring crises and disagreements within multilateral institutions designed to provide governance have demonstrated that cooperation is harder to achieve and sustain than liberals assumed.
Uneven Outcomes: The post-Cold War era has shown an uneven record of liberal foreign policies in delivering a more secure and just world order, with continued unrest triggered by global economic inequalities.

Comparison of Realist and Liberal Approaches

Shared Assumptions: It is important to note that liberalism is not entirely distinct from realism. Both share certain traditional assumptions about how international politics works.
Both liberals and realists accept that world affairs are shaped by competition among states, implying that the international system is decentralized.
Key Difference: Liberals assume that competition within this decentralized system is conducted within a larger framework of harmony.
This inclination leads liberals to believe in internationalism and to contend that realists substantially underestimate the potential for cooperation and integration within the decentralized state system.

The English School

A Middle Ground Approach

Often viewed as a middle ground between liberal and realist theories.
Central idea: A society of states exists at the international level.
Key Figure: Hedley Bull, a core figure of the English School.
Bull agreed with traditional theories that the international system was anarchic.
However, he insisted that anarchy does not imply the absence of norms (expected behaviors), thus claiming a societal aspect to international politics.
In this sense, states form an 'Anarchical Society' where a type of order does exist, based on shared norms and behaviors.

Key Concepts and Distinctions

Provides the basis for the study of international and world history in terms of the social structures of international orders.
English School theory is built around establishing distinctions between three key concepts:
1. International System
2. International Society
3. World Society
Institution vs. Organization: In the English School, the term 'institution' differs from 'organization'. Institutions refer to long-term practices among states (such as diplomacy, international law, and war) that may be established to facilitate state interaction.

How the English School Explains IR

International System: Formed 'when two or more states have sufficient contact between them and have sufficient impact on one another’s decisions to cause them to behave as parts of a whole.' It is mainly about power politics among states whose actions are conditioned by the structure of international anarchy.
International Society: Focuses on the creation and maintenance of shared norms, rules, and institutions.
World Society: Considered more fundamental than international society because 'the ultimate units of the great society of all humankind are not states but individual human beings.' It transcends the state system and takes individuals, non-state actors, and ultimately the global population as the focus of global societal identities and arrangements.

Constructivism

Arrival and Core Idea

Constructivism's arrival in IR is often associated with the end of the Cold War, an event that traditional theories like realism and liberalism largely failed to account for.
The status of constructivism as a critical approach is debated.
First Wave: Emphasized how international society could develop shared identities, norms, and outlooks to create a stable order that even permitted some possibility of progress.
Sometimes referred to as 'social constructivism.'
Key Proponent: Alexander Wendt acknowledges that the international system is characterized by an anarchic structure – a central claim of contemporary realist and liberal theories – but famously adds that 'anarchy is what states make of it.' This highlights the role of interpretation and shared ideas.

Central Themes

Social Construction of Reality: The fundamental constructivist approach posits that social reality is not assumed to be simply given but instead constructed.
Ideas and Human Consciousness: It is an approach to international politics that focuses on the centrality of ideas and human consciousness.
Holistic and Idealist Structures: Stresses a holistic and idealist view of structures.
Identity and Interests: Considers how structures construct actors’ identities and interests, how their interaction is organized and constrained by structures, and how this interaction serves to either reproduce or transform those structures.
Identity: A key component. When individuals (agents) interact, often on behalf of a state, they do so in a social environment, hence 'social' constructivism.
Norms and Rules: Constructivists are deeply concerned with norms and rules.
- Regulative rules: Regulate already existing activities.
- Constitutive rules: Create the very possibility for these activities.
They emphasize the socially constructed nature of actors and their identities and interests.
They focus on how knowledge, symbols, rules, concepts, and categories shape how individuals construct and interpret their worlds.

How Constructivism Explains IR

National Interest: What a state (or, more accurately, its political leaders, diplomats, or citizens) identifies and pursues as its national interest very much depends on its self-image or identity.
Ideational Power: Constructivists believe that the forces of power extend beyond the material; they also can be ideational. The effects of power include not only the ability to change behavior but also how knowledge, the fixing of meanings, and the construction of identities allocate differential rewards and capacities.
World Order Legitimacy: World orders are created and sustained not only by great power preferences but by changing understandings of what constitutes a legitimate international order.
Global Change and Transformation: The recognition that the world is socially constructed means that constructivists can rigorously investigate global change and transformation.

The Logic of Appropriateness (LOA)

Constructivism explains that states generally make decisions based on a logic of appropriateness.
Rule-Following: The LOA highlights how actors are rule-following, worrying about whether their actions are legitimate.
Motivation: Actors are motivated by a desire to do the 'right thing'; they take a particular course of action not primarily because of external material sanctions and/or rewards, but because they believe it is correct.
Three Main Ideas of LOA:
1. Situation
2. Role/Identity
3. Rules
Questions Actors Ask: According to the LOA, actors ask a series of questions before taking a particular course of action:
- What is my situation?
- Who am I?
- How appropriate are the different courses of actions for me?
- How is an actor in my role and with my identity supposed to act?
The LOA is useful for understanding why actors in the international system make certain decisions.
This approach emphasizes that reality is not passively 'out there' waiting to be discovered; instead, historically produced and culturally bound knowledge enables individuals to construct and give meaning to reality.

Key Takeaways

Understand the definitions of approach and theory, and the distinctions between them.
Note the central themes/assumptions of each approach (Liberalism, Realism, Neo-Realism, Neo-Liberalism, English School, Constructivism), their main proponents, and their analyses of International Relations.
Key concepts to understand include: statism, power, national interest, logic of appropriateness, democratic peace theory, anarchy, self-help, idealism, liberal internationalism, balance of power, self-interest.
Realism and Liberalism are identified as the two traditional approaches to International Relations.
The Realist approach generally holds a 'realistic' image of humans as ruthless power maximizers, while Liberals emphasize a moral and idealist dimension to human nature.
Both realist and liberal approaches accept that anarchy remains a basic feature of world politics.
The Constructivist approach is concerned with the social construction of reality, the role of norms, rules, and agency in international politics.