POL WEEK2 : Notes on Theories of International Relations (Intro)

Theory and Meaning

• Meaning of the word theory: to look at, to observe, to see, or to contemplate

• Theory explains how things work together and makes predictions about what will happen in the future

• After you have a theory you test it; if it holds up, it is a good theory; if it doesn’t, it should be discarded

• A major goal of political science is the generation and verification of theory

• Why? because theory predicts and explains political phenomena

• Political science: explanation and prediction

General Points about Theory

• Theory is a generalisation about a political phenomenon and an explanation of how or why something occurs

• Any general statement about cause and effect is theory-based

• Theory is a broad family of ideas, assumptions, concepts, and hypotheses about how the world works

• NB: Theories help us understand why something occurred in international relations, and the likelihood that it will happen again

Levels of Analysis in International Relations

• Complexity of international relations: decide where to look for explanations

• Identify and concentrate on actors and processes that are principally situated in one of three different categories, or levels of analysis: Individual, State and International

Individual Level‑of‑Analysis

• Impact of individual decision makers (Presidents and their main advisors) on international relations and foreign policy

• Psychological capacity of national leaders and their top officials; limitations on how humans process information in moments of stress and crisis can lead to errors in judgment

• Feminist theories of international relations: upbringing of males often leads them to be more prone to risk taking and violence, including the choosing of military solutions

State Level‑of‑Analysis

• Focus on political and economic characteristics of countries or states

• Governments of countries in which multinational businesses exert a lot of influence pursue strategies of open trade and investment because those policies support the financial interests of powerful companies

• South Africa: resource heavy economy with minerals-energy industrial complex (relationship between mining industry, energy production, and manufacturing sectors) exerting disproportional political influence

International Level‑of‑Analysis

• States and non‑state actors, taken collectively, coexisting and interacting

• Anarchy: no centralized authority, no government of the whole world to adjudicate disputes among states and protect weak ones from strong ones

Operationalising Levels‑of‑Analysis

• What Causes War?

• Individual level theories: war is caused by overly aggressive or ambitious leaders

• State level theories: wars are caused by powerful groups within states (like oil companies), regardless of the personal ambitions or characteristics of their leader

• International level theories: lacking any centralized governing authority, any state at any time could start a war because it feels threatened by other states, needs more resources or territory than it already has, or has some other particular reason to use force against some other state in the system

Theories

• The Realist Tradition

• The Liberal Tradition

• The Marxist Tradition

• The Constructivist Tradition

Realist Tradition: Assumptions

• Anarchy: power is the currency with which states do business in international relations; realize their interests to the extent of their power

• States are the main actors in international relations (i.e., because anarchy creates insecurity, people divide themselves into conflict groups)

• Rationality: states are rational actors that are able to recognize the international circumstances in which they find themselves

• Security is the central problem of international politics

• The search for security is a competitive endeavour; competition and conflict are inherent in world politics

Realist Propositions

• The balance of power is the basic dynamic in international politics (unipolarity, bipolarity or multipolarity)

• Power transitions characterise changes in international politics (i.e., through war, technological innovation or uneven economic growth)

Liberal Tradition

• World is an ongoing process of modernization; constantly inventing, innovating, improving, and creating (i.e., relationship between politics and economic interdependence) Based on the provided notes and your context, the Liberal Tradition is the theory that connects with the concept of interdependence. The Liberal Tradition posits that the world is an ongoing process of modernization, with a significant relationship between politics and economic interdependence. This perspective suggests that individuals and interest groups, rather than solely states, are basic actors, and they have incentives to trade, bargain, and seek cooperation for joint gain. In the context of the Russia-Ukraine situation, a liberal perspective might emphasize how economic interdependence (or a lack thereof, or its disruption) between states could influence political actions and peace, as well as the roles of non-state actors, international institutions, and the potential for modernization to foster cooperation.

• Individuals and interest groups, not states, are the basic actors in international relations (i.e., transnational societal groups, firms, transnational associations etc.)

• Individuals have incentives and impulses embedded in the deep structures of society to trade, bargain, negotiate, and seek cooperation for joint gain

• Modernization and advancement to take societies down a common path toward democracy and market society

Marxist Tradition

• Political interests and relationships are determined by positions within the transforming economic system (i.e., economics shapes politics)

• Important actors are socio-economic classes, or groupings of peoples based on their relationship to the economy

• Modern state is ultimately organized to serve the interests of the capitalist class i.e., the ruling class

• Class conflict defines the relations among workers and capitalists; international relations is this dynamic on a broader canvas

• Revolution is the great source of political change

Constructivists

• Interests of individuals, groups, and states are not given or set in stone

• Interests are shaped by the identities of actors (i.e., how they see themselves e.g., Africanist, European, Asian, Christian, Muslim, Westerner, etc.)

• Identities are moulded by a variety of ideational factors – culture, religion, science, and normative belief

• Elite individuals (i.e., ruling classes) in both society and the state are the most important actors

• Interactions of elites and the networks they operate within are important in creating and reinforcing ideas and belief

TUT 2

1

Liberal Tradition

The Liberal Tradition focuses on how countries become more connected through trade, shared values, and international organizations. It believes that as societies modernize, they are more likely to cooperate and build peaceful relationships because it's in their shared economic interest. Individuals and groups beyond just governments (like businesses or international bodies) are key players.

In the context of the Russia-Ukraine situation, a Liberal perspective would look at:

• Economic Interdependence: Before the conflict, Russia and Ukraine (and Europe) had significant economic ties, especially concerning energy. Liberals would argue that these ties should make war less likely because it would be too costly for everyone involved. The conflict then represents a breakdown of this interdependence.

• International Institutions: Liberals emphasize the role of organizations like the United Nations (UN), NATO, and the European Union (EU) in trying to manage the conflict, provide aid, or impose sanctions. These organizations are seen as crucial for fostering cooperation and enforcing norms.

• Democracy and Modernization: Ukraine's desire to align more closely with Western democracies and market economies fits within the liberal idea of societies moving towards a common path of modernization, which contrasts with Russia's actions.

Realist Tradition

The notes also describe the Realist Tradition, which offers a different, and also very relevant, way to understand the conflict. Realism assumes that states are the main actors and are primarily concerned with their own power and security in a world without a global authority (anarchy). Conflict is seen as a natural outcome of states competing for security.

From a Realist perspective, the Russia-Ukraine situation would be viewed as:

• Security Concerns: Russia might see the expansion of NATO (a military alliance) as a direct threat to its security, leading it to take aggressive action to secure its borders and influence. States prioritize their own survival.

• Power Competition: The conflict is a struggle for power and influence in the region, where each state (Russia, Ukraine, and other external powers) is trying to enhance its own relative power or prevent others from gaining too much.

• Lack of Central Authority: Because there's no

Realist Tradition

The Realist Tradition offers the strongest link to Russia's stated justifications for its actions in Ukraine. Realism views international politics as a struggle for power and security in a world where there is no central authority to enforce rules (anarchy). States are the main actors, and they prioritize their own survival and interests.

From a Realist perspective, Russia's justifications can be understood as follows:

• Stopping NATO's Expansion: Realism asserts that security is the central problem of international politics, and the search for security is a competitive endeavor. Russia views NATO expansion toward its borders as a direct threat to its security and sphere of influence. In a Realist world, states constantly assess the balance of power and act to prevent rivals from gaining an advantage that could endanger their own security. Russia's actions are thus seen as a move to counter a perceived threat and enhance its security in a competitive international system.

• Protecting Russian-speaking populations in Eastern Ukraine: While this justification has humanitarian overtones, from a Realist viewpoint, it can also be interpreted as a strategic move to secure influence or control over territories perceived as vital to its security interests, or to expand its power and exert control over populations linked to it. States, in their pursuit of security, often seek to expand their buffers or control over neighboring regions, especially when they feel threatened by external alliances or power shifts.

In essence, Realism highlights that states are driven by their self-interest and a constant concern for their own security and power, often leading to competition and conflict, especially in the absence of a global governing body.

Constra

2

The Liberal Tradition best links onto the situation with the Paris Climate Agreement and its progress. This theory emphasizes international cooperation, economic interdependence, and the role of international institutions and non-state actors in addressing global challenges.

From a Liberal perspective, the Paris Climate Agreement can be understood through the following points:

• Cooperation for Joint Gain: The core idea of the Liberal Tradition is that individuals and states have incentives to "trade, bargain, negotiate, and seek cooperation for joint gain." Climate change is a global problem that no single country can solve alone. The agreement represents a collective effort where countries cooperate to achieve a shared benefit (mitigating climate change) that is in everyone's long-term interest, even if it requires short-term costs.

• Role of International Institutions: The Paris Agreement itself is a major international institution, functioning under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Liberals emphasize how such organizations provide frameworks, rules, and platforms for states to interact, negotiate, and monitor progress. The agreement's mechanisms, like nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and reporting requirements, exemplify this institutional cooperation.

• Modernization and Interdependence: The Liberal Tradition posits that the world is an "ongoing process of modernization," which often involves technological innovation and economic interconnectedness. Addressing climate change requires shared technological advancements (e.g., in renewable energy), and countries are increasingly economically interdependent in their efforts to transition to greener economies.

• Non-State Actors: Beyond states, liberals also highlight the importance of "transnational societal groups, firms, transnational associations." In the context of the Paris Agreement, cities, businesses, NGOs, and civil society play a crucial role in pushing for ambition, implementing policies, and holding governments accountable, aligning with the liberal idea that international relations involve more than just state-to-state interactions

The Liberal Tradition fits the Paris Climate Agreement because it's all about countries working together to solve a big global problem like climate change. Instead of focusing on power struggles (like Realism), Liberalism emphasizes:

• Working Together for Shared Benefits: The agreement shows that countries believe they can achieve more by cooperating (like cutting emissions together) than by acting alone. Everyone benefits from a stable climate, even if it requires compromise and effort.

• Global Rules and Organizations: The Paris Agreement itself and the United Nations (UN) that hosts it are examples of international institutions. Liberals believe these organizations are crucial for setting rules, making plans, and helping countries stick to their commitments.

• Connected World: Climate change requires shared technology and solutions. Liberalism sees the world as increasingly connected by trade and shared values, which encourages countries to work together on common challenges like this.

• More Than Just Governments: It's not just governments involved in the Paris Agreement; businesses, cities, and environmental groups also play a big role in pushing for action and implementing changes. Liberalism recognizes that these non-state actors are important players

and marxism

different theories

Theories

International relations are understood through various theoretical traditions, each offering a distinct lens to explain political phenomena:

The Realist Tradition

• Assumptions:

  • Anarchy: International politics lacks a central authority, making power the primary currency for states.

  • States as Main Actors: Due to insecurity created by anarchy, people organize into conflict groups, with states being the dominant players.

  • Rationality: States are rational actors that understand international circumstances and act in their self-interest.

  • Security: This is the central problem of international politics.

  • Competition: The search for security is competitive, fostering inherent competition and conflict in world politics.

• Propositions:

  • The balance of power is the fundamental dynamic (leading to unipolarity, bipolarity, or multipolarity).

  • Power transitions (e.g., through war, technological innovation, uneven economic growth) characterize changes in international politics.

The Liberal Tradition

• Views the world as an ongoing process of modernization, constantly inventing, innovating, improving, and creating.

• Emphasizes the relationship between politics and economic interdependence.

• Individuals and interest groups, rather than solely states, are the basic actors in international relations (e.g., transnational societal groups, firms, transnational associations).

• Individuals possess incentives and impulses embedded in society to trade, bargain, negotiate, and seek cooperation for joint gain.

• Believes modernization and advancement guide societies towards a common path of democracy and market society.

The Marxist Tradition

• Posits that political interests and relationships are determined by positions within the transforming economic system (i.e., economics shapes politics).

• Socio-economic classes (groupings based on their relationship to the economy) are the important actors.

• The modern state is ultimately organized to serve the interests of the capitalist class, making it the ruling class.

• Class conflict defines relations among workers and capitalists, with international relations reflecting this dynamic on a broader scale.

• Revolution is considered the great source of political change.

The Constructivist Tradition

• Argues that the interests of individuals, groups, and states are not inherent or fixed.

• Interests are shaped by the identities of actors (e.g., how they perceive themselves as Africanist, European, Asian, Christian, Muslim, Westerner, etc.).

• Identities are molded by a variety of ideational factors (culture, religion, science, and normative beliefs).

• Elite individuals (ruling classes) in both society and the state are the most important actors.

• Interactions of elites and the networks they operate within are crucial in creating and reinforcing ideas and beliefs.

How is order maintained among states:

Order among states is understood differently across various international relations theories, each offering a distinct perspective:

• Realist Tradition: In a world characterized by anarchy (no central authority), order is primarily maintained through the balance of power. States, as the main actors, are constantly in a competitive search for security. They try to realize their interests to the extent of their power, and conflict is seen as inherent. Order is a temporary equilibrium achieved when power is distributed in a unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar system, preventing any single state from dominating entirely. Changes in this balance, known as power transitions, can lead to conflict.

• Liberal Tradition: This perspective suggests that order emerges from cooperation, economic interdependence, and the role of international institutions. As societies modernize and become more interconnected through trade, bargaining, and negotiation, individuals and interest groups (not just states) have incentives to seek joint gains. International organizations provide frameworks for cooperation and help establish norms that can lead to more peaceful and orderly relations. The belief is that modernization fosters a common path toward democracy and market society, which can also contribute to order.

• Marxist Tradition: Order, from a Marxist viewpoint, is maintained through the dominance of the capitalist class and the economic system. Political interests are determined by one's position within the economic structure, and the modern state serves the interests of the ruling capitalist class. International relations reflect these class dynamics on a broader scale. While it focuses more on conflict inherent in class struggle, any 'order' observed would be a reflection of the prevailing economic power structures.

• Constructivist Tradition: Constructivists argue that order is maintained not by material factors alone, but by shared ideas, identities, and norms. The interests of states are not fixed but are shaped by how actors perceive themselves (their identities) and by ideational factors such as culture, religion, and beliefs. Elite individuals and the networks they operate within play a crucial role in creating and reinforcing these shared understandings. Therefore, order is a social construct, evolving as identities and norms among states change through interaction.

In simple terms, the balance of power helps maintain order among states by making sure no single country (or group of countries) becomes so strong that it can dominate all the others. Imagine a playground without a teacher: if one bully is much stronger than everyone else, they can do whatever they want. But if all the kids are roughly the same strength, or if smaller groups team up to match a bigger one, then everyone has to be more careful. No one wants to start a fight they can't win.

So, states try to achieve a balance of power by:

• Building their own strength: Having enough military and economic power to deter potential attackers.

• Forming alliances: Teaming up with other states to match the power of a stronger rival.

This creates a situation where if one state tries to become too aggressive or conquer others, the combined power of the other states will be strong enough to resist or retaliate. This risk of a strong counter-response makes states cautious and less likely to start conflicts, thereby helping to maintain an uneasy kind of peace and order.