Building Blocks in International Politics

Levels of Analysis

• Levels of analysis are spheres in social reality where causes for international political phenomena are located, ranging from the individual to the international system.
• They are ontological phenomena and can be used epistemologically to split complex realities for analytical purposes.
• Examples:
  • Analyzing China's actions in the South China Sea:
    • Character of President Xi.
    • Interests/beliefs of the Chinese Communist Party and state bureaucracies.
    • Global power relations within the international structure.
• Different schools of thought in IR prioritize different levels of analysis.
• Kenneth Waltz's "Man, the State and War" (1959) identified three images:
  • Human nature/individuals.
  • The state.
  • The international system.
  • Waltz sought to determine the level at which the causes of interstate war could be found.
• David Singer coined the term 'levels of analysis' in IR in a 1960 review of Waltz's book.

Human Nature

• War and international behaviors are often attributed to human nature.
• Pessimistic views:
  • Humans are inherently evil, egoistic, and power-thirsty.
  • This leads to fatalism.
• Optimistic views:
  • Humans are benign and peaceful.
  • They are capable of solidarity and cooperation.
  • Future generations can learn from mistakes.
  • Humans use reason to build a better world.
• Biology offers limited insight.
  • Chimpanzees and bonobos show conflicting and collaborative behaviors.
  • Humans display a wide range of behaviors.
• Feminist IR literature:
  • Examines whether the gender of leaders affects foreign policy.
  • Currently, no statistical correlation has been found.
  • Explores the nature vs. nurture debate regarding gender differences in political behavior.
• Claims about human nature are too general to explain specific events.
• More nuanced explanations at other levels of analysis are needed to explain variance in international relations.

The Individual

• Individual characters can influence international politics.
• Gorbachev's personality and will helped end the Cold War.
• Individual factors:
  • Decision-making style (calculating vs. emotional).
  • Confidence levels.
  • Paranoia.
  • Capacity for forgiveness or revenge.
• Individuals can make a difference, especially when institutional settings allow them to do so.
• Hitler exploited the Enabling Act of 1933 to gain power.
• The influence of individuals is constrained by domestic and international contexts.

The State

• States vary in their characters.
• Democratic Peace Theory: democratic states rarely fight each other.
  • Combines individual state and dyadic levels of analysis.
  • Some suggest democracies are inherently more peaceful.
• States differ in:
  • History.
  • Sociology.
  • Culture.
• Strategic culture remains relatively stable but can shift with societal changes.
• Domestic institutions mediate foreign policy making:
  • Government powers to make foreign policy decisions.
  • Role of free press and civil society.
  • Influence of the courts.

The International System

Structural Realism

• Kenneth Waltz's preferred level of analysis, leading to structural realism or neorealism.
• The international system is anarchical.
  • Lacks a supranational government.
  • Characterized by a structure of great powers and smaller states.
• Anarchy forces states to rely on self-help for survival.
• States need sensible defense and alliance policies.
• The system level shapes great powers as 'like-units'.
  • They all want to survive and preserve sovereignty.
  • Territorial integrity and economic prosperity are common priorities.
• Governments prioritize responding to threats and opportunities from the international structure, regardless of ideology.
• Distinction between macro and micro levels:
  • Macro: distribution of power and capabilities.
  • Micro: day-to-day interactions between states.

Geopolitics

• Geopolitics examines the impact of a country's geophysical situation on foreign policy.
• Examples:
  • Russia's historical obsession with buffer zones and access to ice-free ports.
  • The US security outlook due to its location between two oceans.

World-Systems Analysis

• Immanuel Wallerstein's Marxist theory analyzes countries' fates in the capitalist world-system.
• Focus on core and peripheral production and the rise/fall of hegemonic powers.

The Second Image Reversed

• Peter Gourevitch's theory combines the system and state levels.
• Focuses on how the international system shapes the nature of states.
• Domestic reforms occur under international pressure to ensure survival.
• Example: the Meiji Restoration in Japan (1867-68).
  • Progressive samurai modernized Japan to fend off imperialist pressures.

Two-Level Games

• Robert Putnam's theory combines state and international system levels.
• Level I: multilateral forums for state negotiation.
• Level II: domestic arena where actors compete over the national position.
• Win-set: possible Level I agreements that gain majority approval at Level II.
• International agreements require overlapping win-sets.
• Governments with more domestic power may have weaker international negotiating positions.
• The US administration often faces a stubborn Congress, giving it extra power in multilateral negotiations.

The World Society

• Liberal scholars question the state-centric outlook of realism.
• Focus on transnational interactions and organizations of non-state actors.
• Includes the transnational shaping and diffusion of identity and values.
• John Burton's 'cobweb model' contrasts with the realist billiard ball model.
• Keohane and Nye's 'complex interdependence' analyzes the complex post-war world society.
• Trade, investment, migration, environmental problems, etc., transcend national borders.
• Rapid technological developments propel this evolution.
• Globalization is defined as 'enhanced complex interdependence'.
• Jan Aart Scholte's 'polycentrism' recognizes the spread of power to non-state actors.
• The term 'new medievalism' indicates the erosion of the Westphalian state system.
  • States share authority with cities, regions, organizations, and transnational entities.
• Overlapping authorities and communities are reminiscent of the Middle Ages.

Diplomatic and Institutional Processes

• The quality of diplomacy and institutional processes matters.
• The composition of forums affects outcomes.
• The format of negotiations (informal/flexible vs. formal/cumbersome) can impact whether common ground is exploited.

The Discursive Structure

• Political debate is characterized by competing discourses.
• A hierarchy exists between more and less powerful discourses.
• Powerful actors propagate influential discourses.
• Hegemonic discourses marginalize competing ideas.
• Discourses empower and disempower actors.
• Actors aligned with influential discourses are more powerful.

The Totality and History of the (Social) Reality

• Global History, World System History, and World-Systems Analysis consider social reality at a world scale.
• Structural interconnections across time and space hold explanatory value.
• $Global history$ involves comparative and connective approaches.
• Ancient historians related empires to outsiders.
• 19th/20th-century historiography paralleled Eurocentrism.
• Post-1950 evolutions:
  • Decolonization.
  • 'History from below'.
• Focuses on making history more inclusive and highlighting the agency of non-Western peoples and subordinate groups.
• Connection and globalization are key concepts.
• Ethno-nationalism and religious fundamentalism are seen as reactions to global historical processes.
• Understanding the Muslim Brotherhood requires knowing its roots in Islamic opposition to British rule in Egypt.
• Right-wing populism flourished due to socio-economic uncertainty from financial-economic globalization.
• Anti-globalization movements exhibit transnational dimensions.
• Global history enriches regional, national, and local studies.

Actors

• Actors are entities that are clearly defined and possess agency.

The State

• The state consists of national bodies that determine foreign policy.
• It is often seen as a 'unitary actor'.
• Many strands of IR, such as structural realism, neoliberal institutionalism, and constructivism, treat states as unitary actors.

Transnational Government Networks

• These networks consist of functional branches of national governments organized within multilateral institutions.
• Technocratic forums meet regularly to discuss issues such as health, environment, intelligence, and police matters.
• The phenomenon is also called 'transgovernmentalism'.
• Consensus is often formed within these networks on solutions to societal problems.
• They can be regarded as actors when they make joint decisions.
• The proliferation and growing importance of these networks erodes the ideal-typical Westphalian state model since contact between countries are only made through diplomats and embassies and the ministry of foreign affairs
• The growing influence of government networks is associated with a democratic deficit.
• The networks involve technical knowledge and are not always transparent.
• Parliamentary oversight is weak.
• The 2008 Global Financial Crisis showed the risks of flawed consensus within these networks.

International Governmental Organizations (IGOs)

• IGOs are set up and politically steered by governments.
• Some are formal, based on a multilateral treaty (e.g., UN, WTO, IMF).
• Others are informal, lacking a treaty (e.g., G20, G7, BRICS).
• IGOs can take their own decisions and make a difference in world politics.
• Secretariats of IGOs, such as the UN Secretary-General, possess moral authority and expertise.

Individuals and Foreign Policy Elites

• Individual decision-makers can influence international politics.

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)

• NGOs possess moral power, expertise, and mobilization capacity.

Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships or Global Public Policy Networks

• These are informal networks of governmental actors, multinational companies, and NGOs.
• They collaborate on global governance causes.
• Their numbers have grown significantly since the 1990s.
• They are held together by agreements such as a 'memorandum of understanding'.
• They offer flexibility, resources, and expertise.
• Governments might use these partnerships to evade responsibility and reduce investment in multilateral organizations.
• Their composition is self-chosen, leading to bias.
• They are associated with a lack of oversight and duplications compared to UN-centered global governance.

Epistemic Communities

• These are transnational networks of experts in a given field.
• They sometimes overlap with transnational government networks.
• Similar issues regarding democratic accountability occur.

Classes

• In Marxist literature, classes are considered key actors.

• Studies in Marxist international political economy distinguish between protectionist and internationalist segments within capital.

• Links exist between actors and levels of analysis. Neorealism and systemic Marxism deny much autonomy to them. Classical realism and other theories put focus on various different levels to better access the agency

Interests

Material and Immaterial Interests

• Interests are what actors want.
• Material interests:
  • Security against physical threats.
  • Economic welfare.
• Immaterial interests:
  • Ethical values.
  • Psychological satisfaction (social status, honor, prestige).
  • Emotional benefits (revenge or rectifying humiliations).
• Actors often combine material and immaterial interests.
• Ethical values and material considerations play a role in humanitarian intervention decisions.
• The intensity of pursuing interests varies.

Red Lines

• A red line is a scenario that an actor will not accept.
• Red lines are human-made mental constructions that can shift.
• Example: military action from Israel should Iran obtain nuclear capabilities
• Declared red lines may not always be firm.
• President Obama did not respond militarily to the August 2013 chemical attack in Ghouta, despite calling it a red line.

Theorizing the Formation of Interests

• Neorealism derives states' security interests from the anarchical international system.
• Classical realists view the building and retaining of power as inherent to states.
• Liberal approaches focus on varying interests among domestic actors.
• The constructivist tradition views interests as social constructs.
• The prioritization of interests depends on the actor's subjective assessment.
• Societies can choose well-being and quality of life over economic growth.
• The definition and perception of interests are multi-layered.
• Securing survival rests on pursuing auxiliary interests.
• US foreign policy elites believed survival through security rests on a strong economy, secured energy supply, and control over the Middle East.

Power

• Power is about what actors can do to accomplish their interests.
• It is a contested concept in international relations.
• Distinction between power-as-resources and relational power approaches:
  • Power-as-resources equates power with resources (military and economic capabilities).
  • The relational approach considers power in the context of actual power exertion.
• The relational approach is preferred, considering both forms and sources of power.

Forms of Power

• Barnett and Duvall define power as the production of effects that shape actors' capacities.
• Power is inherently relational.
• Dimensions:
  • Relational specificity (direct or diffuse).
  • Interaction vs. shaping the character of actors.

Compulsory Power

• Direct and interactive power exertion.
• Example: Saddam Hussain’s army leaving Kuwait under pressure from a US-led military operation.

Institutional Power

• Interactive but diffuse power mediated through an institution.
• Example: The US possessing veto right in the IMF and World Bank.
• The use of compulsory and institutional power is not always manifest.

Structural Power

• Direct and constitutive: actors shape each other through power asymmetry.
• Example: relationships between countries with core and peripheral production in Wallerstein’s World-Systems Analysis.

Productive Power (or Discursive Power)

• Indirect, as language mediates between actors.
• Constitutive, as language renders actors more or less powerful.
• Operates within the discursive structure.
• Constructivism best captures the constitutive power of ideas.
• Actor A may exert discursive power through language to influence the power position of actor B.
• Example: labeling actors as 'rogue states' or 'freedom fighters'.
• Actors can empower themselves by linguistically connecting their interests to established empowering discourses.
• During the Syrian war, the Assad regime and Russia connected its survival to notions such as 'stability', 'sovereignty', 'secularism', and 'anti-imperialism'.
• Language produces identity constructs.

Soft Power

• Soft power is defined by Joseph S. Nye - “Co-optive [or soft] power is the ability of a country to structure a situation so that other countries develop preferences or define their interests in ways consistent with its own. This power tends to arise from such resources as cultural and ideological attraction as well as rules and institutions of international regimes”
• Soft power is about winning the hearts and minds of others.
• It is related to the Gramscian notion of hegemony.
• Actors with soft power shape the world view of others to their advantage.
• Hard power involves pressure of a threat or a reward without genuine change of mind.
• The distinction between hard and soft power has nothing to do with the use of military versus non-military, economic means.

Sources of Power

• Forms of power are based on sources of power.
• Structural realists define state power as an aggregate of factors such as military capabilities, economic output, population, territory, and natural resources.
• Intangible factors, such as quality of diplomacy, can also be added.
• Some view these factors as 'fungible', or interchangeable.
• It is hard to come up with a meaningful single indicator for national power resources.

Material Sources of Power

• Military capabilities.
• Geographical assets.
• Population.
• Economic output (Gross National Product).
• Natural resources.
• An industrial and technological base.
• Market.
• Credit.
• These sources are not available for power use in the same way.
• A large consumer market or supply of credit can serve as a direct tool for exerting power.
• Market power can be leveraged to extract concessions.
• Example: The United States' introduction of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) in 2010.
  • $FATCA$ required foreign financial institutions to provide tax-relevant information on accounts held by US citizens to avoid financial operations within the vast and highly liquid US financial market

Immaterial Sources of Power

• Countries with equal material power sources are not necessarily as powerful.
• Countries vary in institutional set-up, influencing foreign policy decision-making.
• The quality of diplomacy or intelligence services can make a difference.
• A state with ample war powers can be more powerful.
• The willingness of the domestic population to accept losses can vary.
• States that have the greater courage to take risks, engage in brinkmanship, or incur losses, may have a power advantage.
• The motivation to engage in combat can significantly differ among parties according to their respective stakes in the conflict.
• States less constrained by ethical considerations also have an advantage.
• Privileged positions in international institutions amount to institutional power.
• Potential sources of discursive power and soft power can be the attractiveness of a political or economic model, ideological or religious projects, or specific leaders.
• Soft power can be enhanced through active public diplomacy, cultural activities, audiovisual products, etc.
• The ability to connect one's interests to powerful existing discourses is a power resource.
• The predominant focus of the Israeli government on the violence of Hamas resonates with global outrage about terrorism while diverting attention from Israel's de facto annexation of Palestinian territories and continuing war crime of demographic change under occupation.
• That more than 140 countries and the UN General Assembly recognized Palestine as a sovereign state, in contrast, is a fact of international law, which constitutes a discursive power asset for the Palestinian people.

Elaboration: The Power Dimension of Asymmetrical and Hybrid Warfare

• Asymmetrical warfare refers to armed conflicts where parties have unequal material capabilities.
• Courage, willingness to incur losses, and guerrilla warfare can reduce the gap.
• New technologies such as cheaper drones can have similar effects.
• The concept of 'hybrid warfare' refers to the combination of conventional and non-conventional means in conflict.
• Non-conventional means include cyber warfare, irregular forces, militarized fishing vessels, anti-satellite weapons, sabotage of critical infrastructure, or the weaponization of migrants/refugees.
• Hybrid warfare can occur between powers that are more or less equal in terms of material resources but can also play a role in mitigating the gap in material capabilities in asymmetrical conflicts.
• Tactics and technologies can blur who-is-who in the conflict and even deny involvement.
• 'Sharp power' refers to tactics to meddle into adversaries’ societies and states through propaganda, fake news and fake media, interference in elections, eavesdropping on political leaders, the fielding of state agents in the form of NGOs or cultural institutions, funding political parties, working with local proxies within the state and society, or activating diasporas.
• Sharp power is usually associated with illicit and illegitimate instruments, whereas soft power also includes transparent and legal instruments.
• States such as China, Russia, and Iran have been blamed for sharp power tactics.
• (Pro)Western governments have a long Cold War history of interfering in other countries’ domestic affairs.
• Sharp power use of Western governments is currently much less on the research and media agenda.