Study Notes on International Relations
DAY ONE: WHAT IS INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
The study of international relations (IR) is part of political science.
IR is categorized as a subfield of political science.
Other subfields include:
US Government
Comparative Government
Political Theory
IR is further divided into subfields:
IR Theory
International Security or Security Studies
International Political Economy (IPE)
International Organizations (IO)
Human Rights
Development
All of these subfields involve theoretical studies of politics.
STUDY OF THEORY
Focus on the theories of international politics.
Definition of social science theory: general logical explanations of social phenomena.
Note: Social phenomena relate specifically to human behavior.
Definition of IR Theory: explanations with general applicability across cases, logic, and good empirical evidence.
Goals of IR theory:
Promote logic and debate, which are beneficial.
Address and predict problems in order to improve global situations.
Achieve generalizability; facilitate the generalization of explanations.
Essential functions of theory:
Provide causal explanations.
Utilize empirical evidence.
Formulate general arguments based on core logic and evidence.
COMPONENTS OF IR THEORIES
Theories can be diagrammed into components referred to as variables.
Causal relationship diagram:
$X \rightarrow Y$
Here, X causes Y, potentially with intervening variables in between.
"Story": a narrative describing the causal chain or process between causal (independent) and outcome (dependent) variables.
Definitions of variables:
$X$: Independent Variable
The variable that "does the causing" or explains the outcome.
$Y$: Dependent Variable
The variable that is being caused or the outcome(s) resulting from $X$.
Example:
Dictatorships cause wars:
Dictatorships as $X$ (Independent Variable) and wars as $Y$ (Dependent Variable).
Objective: Generalize these causal explanations rather than focusing on individual cases.
PARSIMONY AND IR THEORY
IR Theory, akin to most social science theories, strives for parsimony.
Definition of parsimony: achieving the least amount of variance in explaining outcomes.
Essentially, fewer independent variables explaining more outcomes lead to stronger theoretical explanations.
Aim to reduce explanations to only those variables that genuinely cause the outcome; other variables are considered causal mechanisms.
Connection to Occam’s Razor: a principle suggesting that the simplest explanation is preferred.
Concerns about theoretical degeneration:
Adding unnecessary variables weakens explanations and is seen as non-productive.
Falsifiability is crucial:
Theories must be falsifiable, recognizing them as inherently social rather than absolute laws.
REVIEW OF PARSIMONY AND FALSIFICATION
Parsimony analysis:
Measure of effectiveness—seeking the most impact with the fewest variables.
The more variables introduced, the more challenging it becomes to falsify the theory; an ideal theory should ideally involve one variable.
Falsifiability:
All theories in social contexts are susceptible to falsification due to the unpredictable nature of human behavior; thus, absolute laws do not exist.
Theoretical degeneration:
Adding further independent variables diminishes the explanatory power of the theory, weakening parsimony and clarity.
BASIC CONCEPTS OF IR
Actors in IR:
States are the primary actors.
Importance of state sovereignty:
Defined as political and territorial autonomy; a state is identified by its sovereignty.
Sovereignty has shaped the definition of statehood.
Historical context:
1648 Peace of Westphalia marks the official establishment of the sovereign state system.
Krasner's definition of sovereignty:
Described as "organized hypocrisy" reflecting the interplay of recognition and power.
Concept of anarchy:
Defined as absence of known authority over sovereign states; implies a significant degree of disorder but is not equivalent to chaos.
SYSTEMS, STRUCTURES, AND ACTORS
Examination of systems within IR:
Examples: International system, North America, democracies, free trade states, etc.
Each system is comprised of states, institutions, and individuals.
States operate within multiple systems simultaneously.
Understanding structures:
Structures within various international systems have significant influence on how actors make decisions.
Systems coalesce in different structures, such as ranks and orders.
The role of individuals:
While individuals execute decisions for states, there is ongoing debate about their degree of influence and their agency versus structural constraints.
Realist perspectives place substantial emphasis on structural factors in influencing state behavior.
LEVELS OF ANALYSIS
A framework for theorizing is based on three levels:
Influential figure: Kenneth Waltz and his seminal work "Man, the State, and War" outlines the three images.
Levels correspond to:
1st Image: Individual Level
Focus on individuals or small groups and their biological or psychological attributes.
Not as rigorous in theoretical application.
2nd Image: State Level
State-centric perspective; causal factors attributed to what occurs within states.
Attributes include domestic politics, regime changes, national crises, and nationalism within the state.
Both domestic and individual levels are viewed as unit-level rather than structural.
SYSTEMIC OR STRUCTURAL LEVEL OF ANALYSIS
The third level of analysis:
Focus on systemic or structural causes—larger frameworks such as power dynamics and interdependence.
Systems theory principles suggest that structural variables are analytically prioritized over unit-level variables.
Importance of understanding the structure of any given system as an independent variable.
Notably, Henry Nau proposes the potential for a fourth level: the regional level, but the majority of the field recognizes three primary levels of analysis.
ACTORS, HISTORY, AND GEOGRAPHY
Identification of actors in international relations:
Fundamental actors are states.
Non-state actors include:
Multinational corporations
Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs)
International Organizations (IOs)
Recognize the blurring borders between state and non-state actors.
Historical progression in IR:
Important to be aware of significant events referenced in the course text.
Geographic awareness:
Familiarity with all states presented in maps, visual aids, and assignments.
LEPGOLD AND THE POLICY/THEORY DEBATE
Joseph Lepgold’s insights on engaging with scholarly articles:
Theory-policy debate highlights four key arguments:
1) IR comprises various groups, transcending theoretical divisions.
2) Institutions facilitate integration among these groups.
3) Shared objectives of diverse groups and institutions lead to improved policymaking based on sound assumptions regarding actors, motivations, etc., aiding statesmen in supporting the state, which feeds back into theory.
4) Not all theories offer the same level of utility or assistance.
Critical consideration:
Question of whether theorists are informed by policy, referencing notable figures such as Bush, Nixon, Kissinger, Rice, and Powell who have explicit connections to theoretical frameworks and policymaking.