Jackson+et+al+Chapter+1

Chapter 1: Why Study IR?

1.1 International Relations in Everyday Life

• IR is the shorthand for the academic subject of international relations. Definition: the study of relationships and interactions between countries, including the activities and policies of national governments, international organizations (IOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and multinational corporations (MNCs).
• IR is interdisciplinary: it can be theoretical and practical (policy-oriented); approaches can be empirical, normative, or both.
• IR as a branch of political science, but also studied by historians (international or diplomatic history), economists (international economics), and as a field of public international law and international ethics in philosophy. Thus, IR is an interdisciplinary inquiry.
• Roots of interest in war and diplomacy trace back to ancient thinkers (Sun Tzu, Thucydides), but IR became a formal academic discipline in the early twentieth century.
• Main reason to study IR: the world population is organized into separate political communities or independent countries (nation-states) that profoundly affect how people think and live. Citizens typically identify with their state (e.g., national flag, anthem).
• State involvement in daily life is extensive: security, personal and national protection, economic prosperity, social welfare, taxation, education, licensing and regulation, public health, infrastructure, etc. This daily involvement is often taken for granted but is profoundly influential.
• IR focuses on the external relations of nation-states and requires core concepts: an independent nation/state is a bordered territory with a permanent population under a supreme government, constitutionally separate from foreign governments: a sovereign state.
• The collection of sovereign states forms an international state system that is global in extent. There are nearly $2 imes 10^2$ independent states today.
• Although states are legally sovereign, they are not isolated; they adjoin and influence one another and must coexist. They form an international state system and engage with international markets, affecting national policies and citizens’ welfare.
• Complete isolation is usually not an option; isolation can lead to suffering (examples: Myanmar, Libya, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria).
• The state system has advantages and disadvantages for states and their people. IR studies the nature and consequences of these international relations.
• The state system is a historically distinctive way of organizing political life around sovereign, adjacent, legally independent states. IR analyzes its evolution and consequences.
• Historical roots: state systems existed in different times/places (e.g., ancient China, ancient Greece, Renaissance Italy). The modern subject of IR arises from early modern Europe when sovereign states based on adjacent territories were first established. Concept of balancing power appears with Lorenzo de’ Medici (late 15th century) and later in Europe as a reaction to hegemonic powers (e.g., Charles V, Philip II).
• Modern IR as a study of the global state system from different scholarly perspectives. The core questions concern the evolution of the state system and the changing contemporary world of states.
• The modern state system emerged in Europe and expanded with the United States’ rise in the late 18th century, later expanding globally in the 19th and 20th centuries.
• Five basic social values that states are expected to uphold (Figure 1.1):
  • Freedom
  • Security
  • Welfare
  • Order
  • Justice
    (These values are fundamental to human well-being and are often secured by the state; in the modern era, the state is the leading institution to safeguard them.)
• Security and the security dilemma: states possess armed forces to deter threats and to coexist; however, arms and alliances can heighten insecurity as others respond in kind. NATO is a key example of a security alliance.
• The second basic value: freedom (personal and national independence). Nation-states exist to foster independence; peace supports freedom and progressive change; war can destroy institutions and impede peaceful reform (liberal theory perspective).
• Third/fourth values: order and justice. States aim to uphold international law (pacta sunt servanda: agreements must be kept), observe diplomatic norms, support international organizations, and protect human rights. This is central to International Society theories.
• Fifth value: welfare. States manage economic policy to maintain living standards, respond to international economic dynamics, manage trade, investment, currency, banking, and global economic integration. This perspective underpins International Political Economy (IPE).
• Economic interdependence is a defining feature of the contemporary state system: globalization expands participation, specialization, efficiency, and productivity but can also increase inequality or vulnerability to crises. Competing views exist: supporters emphasize growth and wealth; critics highlight potential domination by wealthier states; some advocate protectionism in crises.
• Most people take these values for granted until crisis (war, depression, pandemic) prompts awareness of their importance and fragility.
• Major historical moments that highlighted these values and shaped IR thought:
  • First World War demonstrated the destructiveness of modern war and the need to reduce great-power war risk (early IR thought led to legal institutions like the Covenant of the League of Nations).
  • Second World War showed dangers of great-power expansion and appeasement (Britain/France prior to WWII).
  • The Great Depression (1929–1933) showed how collapse in global markets jeopardizes national welfare; the 1970s oil shock (OPEC) demonstrated how interdependence can affect domestic living standards ($OPEC oil price shock$).
  • The global financial crisis of $2008-2009$ highlighted the role of state intervention in financial systems.
  • The COVID-19 pandemic of $2020$ demonstrated interdependence in global health and economic responses; climate change emerged as a major international issue, reshaping IR considerations.
• A long-standing assumption: life inside well-organized states is better than life outside states; this idea traces to Hobbes’ Leviathan and Huntington’s claim that order may be necessary for liberty (order before liberty).
• Israel’s establishment in $1948$ is cited as a case where a state achieved security; Palestinians pursue self-determination in parallel.
• The traditional IR theories generally view the state system positively; critical IR theories (post-positivist, radical) challenge this view by highlighting negative outcomes (colonialism, underdevelopment).
• The chapter contrasts traditional (positive) versus radical (critical) theories about the state and the system (see Tables 1.1 and 1.2).
• The imperative to consider both how the system supports positive outcomes and how it may produce harm is emphasized throughout.

Box and figure references support these points (e.g., Box 1.1 on Rome; Box 1.2 Henry IV’s walk to Canossa; Box 1.4/1.5 on the Thirty Years’ War and Peace of Westphalia). These illustrate the long historical evolution from medieval to modern sovereignty and the conceptual shift toward a sovereign state system.

• Summary of Key Points (from the chapter):

  • The world today is a global state system comprising near $2 imes 10^2$ states with varying levels of power, wealth, and capacity.
  • Core values states uphold include security, freedom, order, justice, and welfare; the system can promote or undermine these values depending on circumstances.
  • The state system emerged in Europe and expanded globally; globalization and decolonization expanded membership and diversity of states, but also created new challenges (fragile/quasi-states, unequal development).
  • The state system is dynamic; technology, economy, and culture drive continuous change; the sovereign state remains central but contested as globalization tests its boundaries.

• Questions for Reflection (from the chapter):

  • What is a state? Why do we have them? What is the state system?
  • When did independent states emerge and why did Europe lead the development?
  • How did the eleventh-century split between religious and secular power influence state formation?
  • What is the difference between medieval and modern political authority?
  • What are the competing interpretations of the Peace of Westphalia?
  • Why did the modern state system emerge in Europe and not elsewhere?
  • Do states meet the core values of security, freedom, order, justice, and welfare?
  • Should we strive to preserve the sovereign state system, and why or why not?
  • How do strong/weak states differ, and what explains diversity in the state system?
  • Is modern terrorism an attack on the state system?

• Key points (condensed):

  • The world’s population lives within a global state system composed of sovereign states; this system underpins IR as a discipline. ext{global state system}
    ightarrow ext{citizens are linked to states}
  • Core values: $ext{security, freedom, order, justice, welfare}$; states strive to uphold them, though the state system can threaten them (security dilemma, power politics).
  • Traditional IR tends to be optimistic about states; radical/critical IR challenges this optimism by highlighting colonialism, underdevelopment, and inequality.
  • The state system originated in Europe, with the modern system spreading globally; decolonization and globalization expanded the system’s reach and diversity.
  • The system is dynamic and shaped by technology, economy, and culture; contemporary challenges (globalization, terrorism, climate change) test the resilience and adaptability of the state system.

• Guiding readings (for further exploration): Alden et al.; Bull & Watson; Buzan & Lawson; Wallerstein; etc. (see Guide to Further Reading in the chapter).

1.2 Brief Historical Sketch of the Modern State System

• The state system is a historical invention; social organization rather than a necessity of human life; its advantages and disadvantages change over time.
• Pre-modern political organization included bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and empires (e.g., Roman, Ottoman); sovereign states did not exist universally.
• There is a possibility the world may move beyond sovereign states in the future, perhaps toward a different form of global political organization, but the European state system dominated modern history for centuries.
• There were no clearly recognizable sovereign states before the $16^{th}$ century; the modern era of state formation begins in Western Europe as the institutional framework expanded. The development of the modern state is associated with the rise of centralized sovereignty and decreasing influence of feudal authorities.
• The transformation includes the Papal Revolution (1075–1122) which challenged church authority over secular rulers; it helped pave the way for the modern doctrine of the equality of states in international law and the rise of sovereign states.
• In the early modern era, European monarchs asserted sovereignty, reducing reliance on feudal barons and the papacy; peasants moved toward direct allegiance to the king, contributing to popular sovereignty over time.
• A key political change: power concentrated in the king and state, with borders defined and defended; warfare became a central instrument of interstate relations and the enforcement of international law.
• The Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648) and its settlement cemented the modern state system by establishing the independence of states, borders, and international law; it also introduced the balance of power as a principle to prevent any hegemon from dominating Europe.
• Westphalia (1648) is commonly cited as a foundational moment for the modern system of sovereign states, legitimizing a commonwealth of sovereign states with internal sovereignty and external independence. However, revisionist scholarship questions the myth of a clean Westphalian birth; critical scholars argue the reality was more nuanced.
• Characteristics of the early modern state system (from the mid-17th century onward):
  • Adjoining states with mutual recognition of legitimacy and independence.
  • External relations governed by international law and diplomacy; non-European polities were often excluded or subordinated.
  • A balance of power among states to prevent hegemonic domination.
• The Westphalian narrative is debated: some scholars call it a myth, while others see it as a useful historical account of the secularization and sovereignty of modern states.
• Box highlights: (1) The advent of the modern state; (2) The Thirty Years’ War; (3) The Peace of Westphalia; (4) The continuing question of how much Westphalia truly explains today’s IR.
• Relationship to realism and other theories: the Westphalian frame has been used to justify realist perspectives that emphasize state sovereignty, military power, and an anarchic international system. Revisionist/constructivist critiques argue that the Westphalian story oversimplifies historical change.
• Medieval Europe lacked the fully exclusive territorial sovereignty that characterizes modern states; power was dispersed among religious and secular authorities; the idea of the nation-state as a unitary sovereign actor did not yet exist.
• The transition to modern statehood included evolving ideas about sovereignty, borders, legitimacy, and the monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a territory.

1.3 Globalization and the State System

• The Western expansion created vast overseas empires and a world economy that extended political and economic control beyond Europe; Western states dominated others politically and economically during the early modern and modern periods.
• The process of globalization occurred in stages:
  • Stage 1: transplantation of Western states to the Americas (colonization and settlement).
  • Stage 2: incorporation of non-Western states that could not be colonized (industrial-era expansion of Western influence; examples include the Ottoman Empire and Japan).
  • Stage 3: anti-colonial struggles and independence movements built the post-World War II expansion of the state system (decolonization) and the growth of UN membership.
• The long nineteenth century (1789–1914) is often cited as a key period in which international systems and state practices were transformed and globalized; contemporary IR emphasizes enduring consequences of that period.
• The post-WWII period saw a dramatic expansion of state membership in the UN (roughly from about 50 states in $1945$ to over $160$ by $1970$, then nearly 200 by the end of the century).
• The global state system is now globally inclusive, but with significant internal differences: strong states with robust empirical statehood vs. fragile/quasi-states with juridical sovereignty but weak domestic capacity.
• Box 1.6–1.8 illustrate key quotes and developments: McKinley on American imperialism (1899), Ho Chi Minh’s 1945 Declaration of Independence, and the timeline of global expansion of the state system (1200s nascent Latin Christendom to 20th-century global system).
• Industrialization, literacy, and economic growth contributed to the expansion of state capacity and the ability to sustain larger bureaucracies and military apparatus; these factors, in turn, affected international relations (war, alliances, diplomacy) and helped shape the modern IR landscape.
• A persistent issue: distributional inequality within the global system. While decolonization expanded membership, it also created a North–South divide: rich, developed countries at the center versus poorer, underdeveloped countries at the periphery. This divergence persists and shapes debates in IR (postcolonial theory, IPE).
• The expansion of the state system shared the world’s resources but also enabled new conflicts and security challenges (e.g., regional tensions, terrorism, and interstate competition). The system is not static; it evolves with economic integration, technological change, and political movements, including the emergence of non-state actors (terrorist groups, NGOs, MNCs).
• The state system’s global reach has also