Notes on International Relations: Globalization, Theories, Methods, and History

Globalization and International Relations: Core Questions

• The COVID-19 pandemic (spread in 2020–2021) and its death toll and economic effects dominated the news cycle; regions like Manaus, Brazil, were hit hard, while others escaped the worst.
• Main question: How can the study of international relations (IR) help us understand how states and the international community reacted to the pandemic?
• The 24-hour news cycle and social media flood us with global events (pandemic, economic hardship, conflict, natural disasters, climate change, mass political movements) and amplify messages.
• Two major debates frame IR inquiry in this context:
  • Globalization: Does globalization benefit states and individuals or produce unforeseen negative consequences (e.g., lower wages, reduced family income)?
  • Violence vs. peace: Is the world becoming more violent or more peaceful?
• Steven Pinker (2011) argued we may be living in the most peaceful era in our species’ history in The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, while Martin Dempsey (2012) claimed the world is becoming "more dangerous than it has ever been."¹
• These claims may reflect different theoretical positions, datasets, or time frames; IR asks how to think theoretically about apparently disconnected events.
• Responding to globalization requires understanding its dimensions: politics, economics, and culture.
  • Politically: states face disease, migration, environmental degradation that governments cannot manage alone.
  • Economically: financial markets are interconnected; production is internationally organized, making domestic policy regulation harder and increasing susceptibility to international forces.
  • Culturally: globalization prompts homogenization (shared music/TV) and differentiation (preserving local languages and autonomy).
• The central question: has globalization been a force for good or has it produced negative side effects?
• IR, as a subfield of political science, studies interactions among actors in international politics (states, international organizations, NGOs, subnational entities, and individuals).
• IR is interdisciplinary: it draws on political science, history, economics, and sociology.
• Foundational questions in IR include: human nature and the state; the relationship between the individual and society; and the attributes of the international system.
• This book explores these foundational issues and how they help analyze contemporary events.

Key Concepts in International Relations Theory

• Globalization: the process of increasing integration of the world in terms of economics, politics, communications, social relations, and culture; increasingly undermines traditional state sovereignty. $ext{globalization}$
• International relations: the study of the interactions among various actors (states, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, subnational entities like bureaucracies, local governments, and individuals) that participate in international politics. $ext{international relations}$
• Normative: relating to ethical rules; standards suggesting what a policy should be. $ext{normative}$
• Three prominent IR perspectives (as covered in this book): Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism.
  • Realism: states exist in an anarchic international system; policies are driven by power and national interest; the structure is determined by the distribution of power.
  • Liberalism: rooted in traditions that view human nature as basically good; individuals form groups and states; cooperation and international norms/procedures guide behavior.
  • Constructivism: the key structures are social and ideas-based; interests are malleable and shaped by identities, norms, and discourse.
• No single approach captures all complexity; competition among theories helps reveal strengths and weaknesses and spurs refinements. Stephen Walt emphasizes the value of a diverse array of competing ideas over a single orthodox framework.2
• The study of IR uses multiple theories to describe, explain, and predict international phenomena and to view events from different perspectives.

Foundations: History and Philosophy in IR

History

• History grounds IR analysis; it helps make sense of contemporary issues by providing context and patterns.
• Examples of how history informs IR:
  • Arab–Israeli conflict and Kashmir: rooted in long-standing territorial disputes and colonial/imperial legacies; understanding history clarifies why solutions are contested.
  • US–Vietnam–Iraq analogies: analogies can be misleading; similarities (state-building, domestic politics) exist, but differences (national identity, historical development) matter.5
  • COVID-19 vs. 1918 Spanish Flu: politics outweighed science in both crises; differences include scientific knowledge (1918 uncertain causes; 2020 genome identified rapidly) and cooperation among scientists in the latter period. Historical experience matters; lessons are not always directly transferable.
• The 2002–2003 SARS epidemic taught that restricting movement, targeted quarantines, and PPE stockpiles can limit transmission, informing responses in 2020. Historical knowledge improves preparedness and response. (COVID-19 pandemic as a test case for applying prior lessons.)

Philosophy

• Philosophy helps answer normative questions and provides the underpinnings of theory about the state and international society.
• Key figures and ideas:
  • Plato: philosopher-kings; governance by those with wisdom and martial virtue; introduced ideas foundational to class analysis and dialectical reasoning (influencing later Marxist thought).
  • Aristotle: comparative method; sought a domestic political system that balances internal factors; foundational for analyzing similarities/differences among states.
  • Hobbes: state of nature—anarchy, insecurity; the solution is a unitary, centralized leviathan to ensure order.
  • Rousseau: state of nature as egocentric; the general will in small communities directs the state toward the common good; skepticism about centralized power.
  • Kant: envisioned a federation of republics bound by the rule of law; cosmopolitanism/universalism as a path to peace; more practical than Rousseau’s small communities or Hobbes’s leviathan.
• The tradition of these philosophers highlights: the relationship between individuals and society, internal state dimensions, the analogy of state and nature, and the idea of an international community.
• Philosophy addresses normative questions: What should be the role of the state? What norms should govern international society? How should order be achieved? When is war just? Should human rights be universalized? However, philosophy alone does not provide policy guidance on implementation.

Contributions of Philosophers to International Relations Theory (Overview)

• Plato (c. 427–347 BCE): philosopher-kings; governance by those with superior knowledge of the good.
• Aristotle (384–322 BCE): first to use comparative method; order in the city-state.
• Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679): state of nature; need for a Leviathan—centralized absolute power.
• Jean‑Jacques Rousseau (1712–78): state of nature; general will; small communities; common good.
• Immanuel Kant (1724–1804): federation of republics; perpetual peace; rule of law; cosmopolitanism.

The Scientific Method: Behavioralism in IR

• In the 1950s, some IR scholars pursued a scientific approach, assuming human behavior is patterned and predictable, and sought to test hypotheses with empirical methods.

• Behavioralism aims to describe, explain, and sometimes predict patterned behavior using the scientific method.

• The Correlates of War (COW) project (began 1963, University of Michigan) sought to answer why wars occur:

  • They collected data on international wars from $1865$ to $1965$ in which 1{,}000 or more deaths occurred in a 12‑month period. After identifying 93 wars, they recorded data on magnitude, severity, intensity, and frequency.
  • They then generated testable hypotheses: e.g., is there a relationship between the number of alliances and the number of wars? Do more great powers correlate with more wars? Do system‑level factors like international organizations affect war onset? While correlation does not prove causation, it highlights patterns worth explaining.

• Another behavioral project: human rights treaties and compliance. Wade M. Cole hypothesized that noncompliance depends on bureaucratic efficiency, not willful refusal; his work used large datasets to test how empowerment and physical‑integrity rights evolve with state capacity.

• Limitations of behavioralism:

  • The data can be context‑bound (late 1800s vs. more recent wars) and not always commensurate across contexts.
  • Measurement and definition challenges exist (e.g., state empowerment, state capacity).
  • Data gaps and varying time periods complicate comparisons; alternative explanations must be explored.

• The rise of mixed methods and alternative approaches highlights methodological diversity in IR research. Some scholars use qualitative case studies (historical/philosophical traditions) to observe changes in human rights norms, while others rely on large‑scale quantitative data; results can diverge.

Mixed Methods and Alternative Approaches in IR

• Constructivist/discourse analysis: trace how ideas shape identities, norms, practices; use texts, interviews, and archival materials; aim for thick description and multi‑data analyses to understand social meaning beyond material factors. Example: Peter Katzenstein’s The Culture of National Security.

• Post‑structural/critical approaches: deconstruct key concepts (e.g., state, nation, rationality, realism) to reveal hidden meanings and alternative possibilities; Cynthia Weber argues sovereignty is not well defined or consistently grounded; meanings shift with time and context, challenging conventional sovereignty.

• Feminist IR: foregrounds voices of women and gendered experiences (e.g., Cynthia Enloe’s Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics), highlighting how base women, diplomatic wives, laborers, and domestic workers shape security and politics.

• Global South perspectives: stress that globalization, sovereignty, war, and development are experienced differently across geocultural contexts; argue for inclusive voices to make IR truly international.

• Normative vs. empirical balance: integration of ethical considerations with data-driven analysis; multiple tools are needed to understand globalization’s effects on different people and places.

• Key terms from the glossary (for quick reference):

  • behavioralism: approach positing that individuals and states act in regularized ways; behaviors can be described, explained, and predicted. $ext{behavioralism}$
  • globalization: process of increasing integration across economics, politics, communications, social relations, and culture; increasingly undermines traditional state sovereignty. $ext{globalization}$
  • international relations: study of interactions among states, IOs, NGOs, subnational actors, and individuals. $ext{international relations}$
  • normative: relating to ethical rules; standards suggesting what policy should be. $ext{normative}$

The Emergence of the Westphalian System and Sovereignty

The Westphalian Origins (1648)

• The Treaties of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years’ War and marked the emergence of secular authority and the concept of territorial sovereignty in Europe.
• Sovereignty became a defining feature of the modern international system: states are legally equal, territorially defined, and capable of determining their own internal policies without external interference.
• Bodin’s sovereignty: sovereignty is absolute and perpetual power vested in the state (a commonwealth); the sovereign is not subject to others in matters of law and policy, but is still bounded by divine law, natural law, constitutional laws, covenants, and treaties. This concept provided the intellectual glue for state sovereignty.
• The Westphalian outcome included three key implications for practice:
  1) Sovereignty and territoriality: states determine their own religion and interior policies; noninterference is established as a norm. $ext{territorial integrity}$
  2) Rising national militaries: centralized control and taxation to fund armed forces; stronger centralized states emerge.
  3) A core group of dominant states: Austria, Russia, Prussia, England, France, and the United Provinces; West‑European liberal capitalist revival and colonial expansion fueled by slave labor and exploitation abroad (e.g., the Americas, Africa).
• Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776) suggested markets should operate freely with minimal state intervention; the invisible hand of the market helps coordinate social and economic life, shaping later state policy.4

Europe in the Nineteenth Century: Revolutions, Peace, and Imperialism

Aftermath of Revolutions and Core Principles

• Post‑American and French revolutions, two core principles emerged: limits on absolutist rule (Locke) and nationalism. Political legitimacy rested on consent of the governed and identification with a nation.5
• Nationalism linked to a shared past, language, customs, and territory; the state became the focus of national identity and political participation.
• However, these ideas were contested: Locke did not critique slavery in early formulations, nationalism often favored elites, and enslaved peoples’ rights were ignored early on. The revolutions also contributed to ongoing struggles for equality (e.g., slavery resistance in Santo Domingo/Haiti).
• The Napoleonic era and ensuing peace settlement (Congress of Vienna, 1815) sought to maintain balance of power and prevent hegemonic dominance.

The Napoleonic Wars and the Peace at the Core of the European System

• Napoleon’s reorganized and mobilized the French military; nationalism and new military logistics enabled larger, more mobile armies.
• Local resistance in Spain and Russia (guerilla tactics; support from Britain) impeded French domination; the 1812 invasion of Russia ended disastrously for Napoleon.
• After Napoleon’s defeat in 1815, the Concert of Europe (Austria, Britain, France, Prussia, Russia) guided European diplomacy and maintained relative peace until 1854 (Crimean War).
• The Concert acted as a club of major powers, legitimizing independence for new states and the colonial partition of Africa.

Industrialization, Commerce, and the Balance of Power

• Britain emerged as a leading industrial and financial power; railways and factories transformed production and enabled global trade.
• Major political reforms and state formations reshaped Europe: Italy (1870), Germany (1871), Netherlands/Belgium (1830s), Ottoman decay; European changes influenced global power relations.
• The balance of power aimed to prevent any single hegemon from dominating Europe; this balance relied on a mix of alliances, naval power, and diplomatic maneuvering.
• Britain often acted as an offshore balancer; Russia built alliances (e.g., Holy Alliance) to secure its interests; Britain and Russia played complementary roles to sustain a balance of power.

The Breakdown of the Balance of Power and Imperialism

• By the late 19th century, alliances became more rigid: Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria‑Hungary, Italy, 1882) and Dual Alliance (France, Russia, 1893); Britain joined with Japan in 1902; Entente Cordiale with France in 1904.
• The Russo‑Japanese War (1904–1905) exposed the weaknesses of a late‑industrializing Russia and demonstrated the rise of Japanese power, undermining Western superiority and European racial hierarchies.
• Imperialism and colonial competition intensified European rivalries and laid groundwork for future conflicts; by 1914 Europeans controlled much of Africa and Asia, and US‑led imperial influence expanded following the 1898 Spanish‑American War.
• The era fostered a shared European identity (white, Christian, civilized) that aided coordination but also produced resentment among colonized peoples and non‑European powers.

Imperialism, Colonialism, and Global Power Shifts

• Imperialism: the annexation or domination of distant territories by European powers, often through force or treaties; colonialism: settling people from the home country in colonies abroad.

• The global reach of European empires expanded dramatically; by the end of the 19th century, approximately 85% of Africa was under European control. $85\%$

• Motivations for imperial expansion included economic (markets, raw materials), political (national prestige, strategic positions), and cultural/religious (civilizing mission) justifications; some also aimed to spread Western governance models.

• Africa: Berlin Conference (1885) divided Africa among European powers; Ethiopia persisted as a stronghold against colonization; Italy faced a costly defeat in Ethiopia (1896).

• Asia: China’s experience under imperial pressure (Opium War, 1842) demonstrated the weakness of non‑European powers in Asia; European powers and Japan established spheres of influence, with China heavily exploited economically.

• The expansion of European power occurred despite internal resistance and local discontent, leading to lasting legacies of inequality and resentment that affected post‑colonial politics and development.

• South Africa: Second Anglo‑Boer War (1899–1902) was extremely costly (~£230 million) and unpopular in Europe; it highlighted tensions in imperial power and foreshadowed later conflicts.

• The imperial system’s costs and moral implications contributed to rising anti‑colonial movements and reshaped international norms about sovereignty and self‑determination.

Pathways to World War I: From Imperial Heuristics to Global Conflict

• The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw rising nationalism, industrialization, and rival imperial ambitions, creating a volatile balance of power.
• The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 triggered a chain reaction due to existing alliances and commitments; mobilization and war plans (e.g., Schlieffen Plan) were activated, pulling many states into a continental and then global war.
• World War I (1914–1918) featured trench warfare, chemical warfare, and a brutal total war economy; casualties included more than $8.5\times 10^6$ soldiers and $1.5\times 10^6$ civilians.
• The war culminated in the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire and the redrawing of Middle Eastern boundaries; the Balfour Declaration (1917) pledged support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, shaping future regional politics.
• Postwar peace settlements reshaped the European state system but did not prevent future conflict; the experience underscored the fragility of peace built on balance of power without addressing underlying causes of conflict.

Quantitative and Qualitative Data in IR: A Brief Synthesis

• IR benefits from multiple methods: historical context, philosophical reasoning, behavioral data, and alternative approaches.
• Behavioralism emphasizes patterns and testable hypotheses using empirical data; history and philosophy provide normative contexts and case insights; alternatives deconstruct essential concepts and amplify marginalized perspectives.
• Mixed methods acknowledge that different questions require different tools and that results can vary by method, time period, and data availability.

Quick Reference: Key Terms and Concepts (Glossary)

• behavioralism: an approach to the study of social science and international relations that posits that individuals and units like states act in regularized ways; leads to a belief that behaviors can be described, explained, and predicted. $ext{behavioralism}$
• globalization: the process of increasing integration of the world in terms of economics, politics, communications, social relations, and culture; increasingly undermines traditional state sovereignty. $ext{globalization}$
• international relations: the study of the interactions among various actors (states, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and subnational entities like bureaucracies, local governments, and individuals) that participate in international politics. $ext{international relations}$
• normative: relating to ethical rules; in foreign policy and international affairs, standards suggesting what a policy should be. $ext{normative}$

In Sum: IR and the Way Ahead

• No single method or approach can answer all IR questions today; globalization’s effects require diverse research strategies and multiple approaches.
• Historical analyses help contextualize globalization; philosophical work anchors normative questions about what globalization should be or could be; behavioral data provide empirical patterns and tests; constructivist and critical approaches reveal how discourse, power, and identity shape IR.
• A pluralistic toolkit is essential to understand the world: use history, philosophy, behavioralism, and alternative approaches to study globalization, state sovereignty, war and peace, and human rights in a connected world.
• Acknowledging diverse voices, including those from the Global South and marginalized groups, is essential for a truly international IR.