Why We Disagree About International Relations – Key Vocabulary

Introduction: Why We Disagree About International Relations

• International Relations (IR) debates stem from differing assumptions, values, and methodological preferences.
• Disagreements emerge over which facts matter most, how to interpret them, and what goals ought to guide policy.
• Key analytical tools used throughout the course (and in these slides):
  • Perspectives (Realist, Liberal, Identity, Critical Theory).
  • Levels of Analysis (Systemic, Domestic, Individual).
  • Causal Arrows (direction of influence among variables).

Case Study—The Crisis in Syria

Overview & Key Facts (1 – 3 of 7)

• Syrian civil war ongoing since 2011; by 2019 almost all territory held by ISIS had been recaptured, yet ISIS-inspired attacks still threaten global security.
• Geography: Syria and Iraq occupy a strategically central position in the Middle East.
• Society: Highly diverse in ethnicity (Arabs, Kurds, Assyrians, Turkmen) and religion (Sunni, Alawite, Shia, Christian, Druze, Yazidi).
• Neither country is a liberal democracy, complicating external promotion of democratic norms.
• Foreign governments intervene diplomatically, militarily, and financially (e.g., U.S., Russia, Iran, Turkey, Gulf States).
• ISIS financing routes include black-market oil sales, taxation/extortion, foreign donations, and looting.
• Israel remains a perennial focal point in wider Middle East conflicts, influencing Syrian calculations and external actors’ interests.

Sorting Out the Facts (4 – 6 of 7)

• Level of Analysis:
  • Systemic (external): Regional power rivalries, great-power competition, colonial legacies.
  • Domestic (internal): Sectarian tensions, authoritarian governance, economic stagnation.
  • Individual: Leadership choices by Bashar al-Assad, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, foreign leaders.
• Perspective Lenses:
  • Realist: Distribution of relative power (e.g., Russia’s base at Tartus, U.S. counter-terror aims).
  • Identity: Salafi-jihadist ideology, pan-Kurdish nationalism, sectarian identities.
  • Liberal: Interdependence and institutional interactions (UN resolutions, cease-fire talks, humanitarian corridors).
• Causal Arrow Clarification: Specify which factor exerts causal influence (e.g., Does foreign intervention cause sectarian radicalization, or vice-versa?).

Multiple Competing Explanations (7 of 7)

• Former colonial powers (France, U.K.) are said to have drawn artificial borders → structural fragility.
• Domestic elites seek external support to dominate rival groups (Assad’s reliance on Iran/Russia).
• Scarce economic resources and environmental stress (e.g., drought pre-2011) foster conflict.
• Pro-democracy advocates argue lack of democratic institutions fuels grievances → rebellion.
• Most scholars find that all the above factors interact rather than acting in isolation.

Analytical Framework: Perspectives, Levels of Analysis, and Causal Arrows

• Realist Perspective: States compete for power & security; anarchy pressures self-help behavior.
• Identity Perspective: Ideas, norms, and identities define interests (e.g., sectarian worldviews).
• Liberal Perspective: Patterns of interaction—trade, international organizations (IOs), diplomacy—shape outcomes.
• Critical Theory: Questions the assumptions of all other perspectives; emphasizes historical context, power hierarchies, and voices of marginalized actors.
• Choosing a level of analysis and direction of causal arrows helps convert raw facts into coherent explanations.

Role of History

• History acts as the laboratory of IR: repeated patterns, path dependencies, lessons for policy.
• Offers concrete cases to test abstract theories; emotional and personal stories make analysis vivid.
• Encourages comparison of crises separated in time to spot recurring mechanisms (e.g., proxy wars).

Methodological Approaches in IR

Scientific Method & Bias (Methods 1 of 4)

• Theories + Empirical Methods = scientific inquiry.
• Rationalist tradition favors hypothesis-testing, deduction, measurement; seeks objectivity yet must guard against confirmation bias.

Rationalist vs. Constructivist (Methods 2 of 4)

• Rationalist: Sequential logic (cause → effect) and counter-factual control of variables.
• Constructivist: Sees events as holistic webs of meaning; emphasizes constitutive relationships (ideas create the very actors that act).
• Both ask why events occur but differ on how causes operate (external push vs. internal constitution).

Correlation, Causation & Process Tracing (Methods 3 of 4)

• Correlation: X and Y move together.
• Causation: X produces Y.
• Exogenous Variables: Outside the theoretical framework (e.g., natural disasters).
• Endogenous Variables: Inside the model (e.g., regime type).
• Process Tracing: Fine-grained within-case analysis to uncover the causal chain; bridges correlation and causation.

Counterfactual Reasoning (Methods 4 of 4)

• "What if" logic tests necessity/sufficiency (e.g., Would Syria still implode if Assad had resigned in 2011?).
• Shared by rationalists (for hypothesis testing) and constructivists (for exploring social possibility).

Is One Perspective or Method Best?

• Realist: Best under severe threat; highlights hard-power requirements.
• Liberal: Illuminates avenues for cooperation even amid conflict.
• Identity: Explains durable alliances/enmities that power or institutions alone cannot.
• Critical Theory: Contextualizes each, exposing blind spots (e.g., colonialism).
• No single lens suffices; pluralism encourages triangulation and cumulative understanding.

Role of Judgment

• Policymakers and scholars confront irreducible uncertainties; must render overall judgments blending knowledge with intuition.
• Judgment = intellectual synthesis + "gut feeling"; indispensable because perfect information never exists.

Ethics & Morality in International Relations

General Importance (1 of 5)

• Character and decision-making guided by moral frameworks; honesty underpins credibility in negotiations.
• Ethical reflection extends beyond scholarship into tech debates (AI, bio-engineering) and climate policy.

Relativist Values (2 of 5)

• Truth considered context-dependent. Principle: "Live and let live," anchored in state sovereignty.
• Extreme relativism risks excusing atrocities (genocide, ethnic cleansing) as "internal affairs."

Universal Values (3 of 5)

• Posits moral principles valid for all humans (e.g., basic human rights, bans on torture).
• Underwrites doctrines of humanitarian intervention and Responsibility to Protect (R2P).

Pragmatic Values (4 of 5)

• Middle ground: Morality is real but must be applied proportionally and contextually.
• Weighs costs, feasibility, and unintended consequences while not abandoning universal goals.

Moral Choice—Hypothetical Scenario (5 of 5)

• Relativist: With no common morality, external actors have no standing to intervene.
• Universalist: Duty to uphold universal morals even at high cost.
• Pragmatist: Seeks feasible action that sets a positive precedent without overextension (e.g., limited no-fly zone, targeted aid).
• Takeaway: Moral stances shape, but do not predetermine, policy options; debate revolves around trade-offs between principle and prudence.