International relations - Library Management System · International relations is the study of human interaction at the international scale. This gives it a very wide range of themes

International relations

Richard Campanaro

FP0003

2014

International Foundation Programme

This guide was prepared for the University of London International Programmes by:

� R. Campanaro, The London School of Economics and Political Science

This is one of a series of subject guides published by the University. We regret that due to pressure of work the author is unable to enter into any correspondence relating to, or arising from, the guide. If you have any comments on this subject guide, favourable or unfavourable, please use the online form found on the virtual learning environment.

University of London International ProgrammesPublications OfficeStewart House32 Russell SquareLondon WC1B 5DNUnited Kingdom

www.londoninternational.ac.uk

Published by: University of London© University of London 2014

The University of London asserts copyright over all material in this subject guide except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, or by any means, without permission in writing from the publisher. We make every effort to respect copyright. If you think we have inadvertently used your copyright material, please let us know.

Cover image © Ocean/Corbis

http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk

i

Contents

INTE

RNAT

ION

AL

RELA

TIO

NS

© University of London 2014

Introduction to the course ................................................................................ 1

Unit 1: States, nations and countriesIntroduction to Unit 1 ............................................................................................................................8Section 1.1: An introduction to IR concepts – states, nations, countries and international society ..............................................................................................11Section 1.2: Regional international societies 1: Africa ........................................................17Section 1.3: Regional international societies 2: The Americas ......................................24Section 1.4: Regional international societies 3: East Asia and the Pacific ..............32Section 1.5: Regional international societies 4: South and Southwest Asia .........40Section 1.6: Regional international societies 5: Europe and the former Soviet Union ................................................................................................................................................47Test your knowledge and understanding .................................................................................55Concluding comments .........................................................................................................................56

Unit 2: Four models of international relationsIntroduction to Unit 2 ............................................................................................................................57Section 2.1: The English School: understanding international society ...................60Section 2.2: Liberalism: interdependence and regimes ...................................................66Section 2.3: Realism: anarchy and insecurity ...........................................................................71Section 2.4: Marxism: political economy and international relations ......................77Test your knowledge and understanding .................................................................................82Concluding comments .........................................................................................................................83

Unit 3: Analysing regional issues in international relationsIntroduction to Unit 3 ............................................................................................................................84Section 3.1: Humanitarian intervention in Africa ..................................................................87Section 3.2: Non-state transnational actors and international organisations in the Americas ..........................................................................................................................................93Section 3.3: International security in East Asia and the Pacific .....................................100Section 3.4: Terrorism and globalisation in South and Southwest Asia ..................105Section 3.5: Regime formation in Europe and the former Soviet Union ...............111Test your knowledge and understanding .................................................................................119Concluding comments .........................................................................................................................120

Contents ii

Unit 4: Global issues in international societyIntroduction to Unit 4 ............................................................................................................................121Section 4.1: The changing character of war .............................................................................124Section 4.2: Development: achieving human security .....................................................130Section 4.3: Global environmental change ..............................................................................137Section 4.4: Key international organisations............................................................................144Section 4.5: Analysing the international order .......................................................................151Test your knowlegde and understanding .................................................................................158Concluding comments .........................................................................................................................159

Appendix 1: Sample examination paper ....................................................... 160

1

Introduction to the course

Intr

oduc

tion

to th

e co

urse

Route map to the guide 2

What is international relations? 2

Syllabus 3

Aims of the course 5

Learning outcomes for the course 5

Overview of learning resources 6

Examination advice 7


Introduction to the course 2

Route map to the guide

This International Foundation Programme (IFP) course will introduce you to key concepts, theories and methodological approaches in international relations (IR), which you will apply to key issues covered in the units and sections to follow. It will help you to think critically about international events, using different theoretical tools to address and assess claims made by international actors. Using tools that you will become more familiar with throughout the course, it will ask you to bring together empirical information and theoretical models to analyse real-life contexts. In the process, you will become familiar with IR as a social scientific discipline, its history and its key contributors.

You will be introduced to key areas of IR over the course of four main units. These will cover background knowledge of states, nations and countries around the world; important theoretical approaches to help you to address issues arising from their interactions; problems and issues in different regions of global international society; and analysis at the global scale. Each unit consists of a number of interrelated sections that cover the basic landscape of the course. Throughout, you’ll be asked to pause and reflect on the ideas that you are learning about. Discussion is a great tool, so share your ideas on the virtual learning environment (VLE), where you’ll also find a wealth of information and further exercises for use in class and on your own. You’ll also be directed to readings either in the main textbook, or on the VLE. Read them! They will be food for thought and absolutely essential if you hope to digest the entire course.

What is international relations?

International relations is the study of human interaction at the international scale. This gives it a very wide range of themes. Fred Halliday identifies at least three: ‘relations between states, non-state or “transnational” relations across frontiers, and the operations of the [international] system as a whole’ (Halliday, F. Rethinking international relations. (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1995) [ISBN 9780774805087] p.1). This gives you a lot to choose from when deciding what to study. Classical IR often focuses on the first of Halliday’s areas, looking at war and peace and diplomatic practice. More recently, IR has widened its field of view to include economic, social and ecological issues and systems around the world. One of the challenges you will face in your study of IR is the overwhelming volume of information available about states, nations, countries, region and systems. It is impossible for you to know everything about everything. As Unit 1 will show you, the world is extremely complex. The Earth is inhabited by over seven billion individual human beings organised into more than 200 states and thousands of overlapping nations, many of which claim or occupy overlapping territories. These groups interact with one another in a variety of ways – some cooperative, others competitive and still others combative. They also interact across different sectors of human behaviour – political, economic and social. As a result, global international society is even more complex than the sum of its parts. If you hope to understand IR, it is not enough simply to study the individual states, nations and countries of the world. You also need a theoretical toolkit capable of identifying key relationships in international society, allowing you to address questions of human interaction at an international scale.

If the idea of IR theory frightens you, don’t worry. Theories are simply ways of prioritising questions and information. They should simplify rather than complicate the way you see the world, allowing you to focus on the topics that you find most interesting. As Barry Buzan and Richard Little put it, theories in IR play a role much like lenses in microscopes, telescopes, and infrared imagers used by scientists (Buzan, B. and R. Little. International systems in world history: remaking the study of international relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) [ISBN 9780198780656] p.73). Each lens allows the viewer to see different things about the world –


some very big, some very small, and some taking place in a different part of the light spectrum. At the same time, each lens excludes certain kinds of information. Microscopes cannot look at the structure of the universe, telescopes tell us little about the structure of our cells, and infrared images seem alien compared to those in the visible light spectrum. Theories perform the same essential function in IR: highlighting some aspects of reality for analysis while masking others.

As mentioned above, this subject guide is broken into four main units. The first introduces you to the states, nations and countries of the world, focusing on today’s regional and global international societies. Unit 2 then introduces you to four useful theoretical toolkits with which to address issues and questions arising from Unit 1. The English School, Liberalism, Realism and Marxism will give you four very different ways of looking at the world, allowing you to weigh the merits of different arguments and claims. Unit 3 returns to the regions, using these four theories to explore different international issues. The powerful interactions between regional international societies will finally be explored in Unit 4, which looks at four key questions in global international society before concluding with a reflection on the global system as a whole.

Syllabus

The main body of the course is structured into four units as follows:

Unit 1: States, nations and countriesThis unit will introduce students to IR by looking at regional and global issues facing the discipline. Over the course of six sections, the unit will expose you to basic IR concepts and essential information about events in different parts of the world. This will give you the empirical knowledge you will need to engage with issues facing regional and global international societies.

Unit 2: Four models of international relationsThis unit will introduce you to four ways of understanding IR at the global and regional scale: the English School, Liberalism, Realism and Marxism. Each of these theoretical approaches will be discussed in terms of the general principles by which it understands the world and by looking at more specific concepts and terms. Finally, each will be considered in terms of its ability to inform the regional and global issues discussed in Unit 1. The aim of this unit is to provide you with the theoretical tools used by IR to understand world events. In so doing, it will introduce you to four different ways of understanding international events at the global and/or regional scale, define key terminology and assess the ability of each approach to inform our understanding of specific issues in the area.

Unit 3: Analysing regional issues in international relationsThis unit will ask you to apply the theoretical tools introduced in Unit 2 to analyse issues in regional international societies. Each of the sections that follow identifies and discusses a pressing IR concern, using the four theories from Unit 2 to consider different perspectives on each issue. The aim of this unit is to discuss the context behind regional issues, to consider them from many theoretical perspectives, and to use the resulting information to analyse ongoing events.

Unit 4: Global issues in international relationsThis unit will ask you to apply the key concepts and theoretical tools introduced in Units 1 and 2 to deepen your understandings of international issues at a global scale. As in Unit 3, the sections that follow will use IR theories and concepts to explain the context of global international issues and to evaluate proposed solutions. These sections will look at the character of war in the 21st century, the impact of development on global IR, international society’s efforts to manage the causes and effects of global environmental change (GEC), and the role of major international


organisations in addressing major issues. Section 4.5 steps back from these narrow topics to consider the international order writ large, using the tools and knowledge that you have developed over the past 20 sections to analyse IR from eight different perspectives – any one of which can tell you something different about any given international situation.

Week Unit Section1 1: States, nations and countries Introduction to the course

1.1: An introduction to IR concepts – states, nations, countries and international society

2 1.2: Regional international society 1: Africa

3 1.3: Regional international societies 2: The Americas

4 1.4: Regional international societies 3: East Asia and the Pacific

5 1.5: Regional international societies 4: South and Southwest Asia

6 1.6: Regional international societies 5: Europe and the former Soviet Union

7 2: Four models of international relations

2.1: The English School: understanding international society

8 2.2: Liberalism: interdependence and regimes

9 2.3: Realism: anarchy and insecurity

10 2.4: Marxism: political economy and international relations

11 3: Analysing regional issues in international relations

3.1: Humanitarian intervention in Africa

12 3.2: Non-state transnational actors and international organisations in the Americas

13 3.3: International security in East Asia and the Pacific

14 3.4: Terrorism and globalisation in South and Southwest Asia

15 3.5: Regime building in Europe and the former Soviet Union

16 4: Global issues in international relations

4.1: The changing character of war

17 4.2: Development: achieving human security

18 4.3: Global environmental change

19 4.4: Key international organisations

20 4.5: Analysing the international order

Aims of the course

This course aims to:

� introduce students to IR as a social scientific discipline

� use IR’s theoretical models to help students analyse international events at regional and global scales

� provide tools to help students think critically and argue effectively.


Learning outcomes for the course

At the end of this course, and having completed the Essential reading and activities, you should be able to:

� identify and explain key concepts and theories in IR

� connect these concepts and theories to regional and global international issues

� discuss major world events in the news

� analyse these events from a number of theoretical perspectives.

Overview of learning resources

Essential readingThis guide has been written to work alongside the textbook for this course:

Baylis, J., S. Smith and P. Owens. The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) fifth edition [ISBN 9780199569090].

All Essential reading has been drawn from this text, which provides a broad overview of many issues in IR. As you work your way through this subject guide, you will be prompted to read specific sections from the textbook. I encourage you to read outside of these mandatory sections to gain a deeper understanding of the issues under discussion. Please note that the textbook contains an extensive glossary and a very good index in which you can search for topics of interest to you. Both will be of use to you as you proceed through the course.

Further readingIn addition to the news reports and articles that will be posted regularly to the VLE (see Other learning resources) a number of resources are available to help you to make sense of IR. Many students find it very useful to have access to a specialised dictionary of IR terms. Many publishers produce these guides, which define and discuss key concepts in relatively short entries. One of these will be available online via the VLE:

Griffiths, M., T. O’Callaghan and S.C. Roach. International relations: the key concepts. (Abingdon: Routledge, 2013) third edition [ISBN 9780415844949].

The following texts are general guides to many of the issues covered in this course. Though they are not required reading, they may be useful as you work your way through the units and sections that follow:

Bull, H. The anarchical society: a study of order in world politics. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2012) fourth edition [ISBN 9780231161299].

Halliday, F. Rethinking international relations. (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1995) [ISBN 9780774805087].

Jackson, R. and G. Sorensen. Introduction to international relations: theories and approaches. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) fifth edition [ISBN 9780199694747].

Traube, J., L. Arbour and I. Arieff. A global agenda: issues before the United Nations 2011–2012. (New York: United Nations Association of America, 2011) [ISBN 9780984569137].

Recommendations for Further reading associated with each section will be posted and regularly updated on the interactive reading list hosted on the VLE.


Accessing the Student Portal and virtual learning environment To manage all of your student administrative processes you will need to log in to the Student Portal via: http://my.londoninternational.ac.uk

You should have received your login details for the Student Portal with your official offer, which was emailed to the address that you gave on your application form. You have probably already logged in to the Student Portal in order to register. As soon as you register, you will automatically be granted access to the VLE, Online Library and fully functional University of London email account. If you have forgotten these login details, please click on the ‘Forgotten your password’ link on the login page.

In order to access your learning materials for each course, you can click on the VLE tab within the Student Portal or login to the VLE directly via: https://ifp.elearning.london.ac.uk/

Other learning resources

Current events are an important aspect of this course, requiring that you engage with global media sources to get a good overview of issues and crises around the world. Thanks to its worldwide presence, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is a good ‘one-stop shop’ for global news, which it breaks down by region.

Over the coming months, you should track international affairs via the BBC World Service’s five-minute news summary. Keeping track of the stories you hear and read in a current events journal will give you a working knowledge of important issues in parts of the world that you might not normally think about. As your knowledge grows, so will your capacity to analyse and assess recurring stories. Some stories may be assigned by your tutor in order to illustrate key points in the next week’s lesson. In all cases, you should take notes that, whenever possible, address the following questions:

� Who is involved?

� What are their goals?

� Why are they acting as they are?

� Where is it happening?

� What other news stories might it be connected to?

� What is the URL link of the news story and when did I access it?

You should also check the VLE regularly for material related to each section of this subject guide. For this and your other courses in the IFP, the VLE has been designed to complement and enhance your learning experience. It will house a number of enriching materials and learning exercises, including:

� news articles relating to the issues analysed in the course

� discussion forums where you can share your ideas with fellow students from institutions around the world

� an interactive glossary where you can access definitions and post comments

� an interactive reading list where you can access sources and post comments

� learning activities relating to the subject guide

� video links and podcast presentations relevant to the sections

� external links to databases and websites

� Sample examination papers and Examiners’ commentaries

� updated curriculum materials.

http://my.londoninternational.ac.uk

https://ifp.elearning.london.ac.uk/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p002vsmz/episodes/player


You can also use the Online Library of the University of London, which places a range of valuable print and digital materials at your fingertips. You will have to use your University of London Student Portal login details to access the library’s resources.

Finally, I would encourage you to keep abreast of international events by reading, listening to and watching the news. Sources include publications such as The Economist, news sites such as www.bbc.co.uk/news, and programming from a number of television news stations. Many of these can be accessed without subscriptions.

Examination advice

Important: the information and advice given here are based on the examination structure used at the time this guide was written. We strongly advise you to check both the current Regulations for relevant information about the examination and the VLE where you should be advised of any forthcoming changes. You should also carefully check the rubric/instructions on the paper you actually sit and follow those instructions.

The examination is essay-based and requires you to answer a number of short- and long-answer questions. Short answers can be presented in one paragraph while long answers should take the form of a complete essay. Short-answer questions are specific and usually relate to one section or unit of the course. Long-answer questions call for a more elaborate answer linking lessons from more than one section.

You should always address the question that is posed. Do not answer a different question as the Examiners will notice. Your answers also need to reflect critical understanding of the issues under discussion. The mere reproduction of memorised concepts will not be rewarded with a good grade, particularly in the long answer questions. It is also important to link theoretical concepts to real-life examples. Answers should never amount to a list of statements of bullet points.

There are very rarely any definitive answers in IR. Theories, concepts, history and policy are contested by students, professors and policy makers alike. As indicated in the examination preparation material on the VLE, Examiners look for well-crafted arguments that use conceptual tools to understand and analyse real-world events. Before sitting your examination, be sure that you have worked through every section in this subject guide. You must be familiar with the Essential readings for each chapter. These can be supplemented with material from the Further readings, various printed media and other literary sources available through the VLE. A Sample examination paper is also included at the end of this guide (Appendix 1).

Good luck!



8


Introduction to Unit 1

Uni

t 1: S

tate

s, na

tions

and

cou

ntrie

s

Overview of the unit 9

Aims 9

Learning outcomes 9

Essential reading 10

Further reading 10

References cited 10

Unit 1: States, nations and countries 9

Overview of the unit

This unit will introduce you to international societies around the world, laying foundations on which the remainder of the course will be built. The first section will introduce you to four concepts in IR: states, nations, countries and international society. These will be used throughout the five sections that follow to describe the regional international societies of:

� Africa

� the Americas

� East Asia and the Pacific

� South Asia and the Middle East

� Europe and the former Soviet Union.

As in other academic disciplines, many of IR’s most important terms and concepts are deeply contested, meaning that they are constantly being debated and discussed by students, academics and practitioners. As such, it is very important that you keep a record of vocabulary terms as they arise in the unit, particularly the different definitions assigned by thinkers in the discipline. Many key terms are highlighted in green throughout this subject guide. Let’s now turn our attention to four of these: states, nations, countries and international society.

Week Unit Section1 1: States, nations and countries Introduction to the course

1.1: An introduction to IR concepts – states, nations, countries and international society

2 1.2: Regional international society 1: Africa

3 1.3: Regional international societies 2: The Americas

4 1.4: Regional international societies 3: East Asia and the Pacific

5 1.5: Regional international societies 4: South and Southwest Asia

6 1.6: Regional international societies 5: Europe and the former Soviet Union

Aims

This unit aims to:

� introduce you to states, nations and countries around the world

� define key IR terms and concepts such as international society

� encourage the use of IR terms and concepts to help you to think critically about the causes and effects of ongoing international events.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this unit, and having completed the Essential reading and activities, you should be able to:

� define and discuss states, nations, countries and international societies

� identify the world’s states on a political map and discuss their power

� identify regions’ major physical features and socio-cultural divisions

� comment on basic elements of regions’ international societies.

Unit 1: States, nations and countries 10

Essential reading

This guide introduces Essential readings throughout the sections that follow. These should be completed as they arise, along with any associated activities on the VLE. All the Essential reading for this unit is drawn from the course textbook:


Further reading


References cited

Buzan, B. From international to world society? English School theory and the structure of globalization. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) [ISBN 9780521541213].

Halliday, F. Rethinking international relations. (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1995) [ISBN 9780774805087] p.1.

International Monetary Fund ‘Report for selected countries and subjects’, World Economic Outlook Database, October 2012. www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/02/weodata/index.aspx

Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Montevideo_Convention.html

Skocpol, T. States and social revolutions: a comparative analysis of France, Russia and China. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979) [ISBN 9780521294997].

United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Report 2011. http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/02/weodata/index.aspx

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Montevideo_Convention.html


http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

11U

nit 1

: Sta

tes,

natio

ns a

nd c

ount

ries

Section 1.1: An introduction to IR concepts – states, nations, countries and international society

Introduction 12

States 12

Nations 13

Countries 14

International society 15

Conclusion 16

Unit 1: States, nations and countries • Section 1.1: An introduction to IR concepts 12

Introduction

Studying IR is a lifelong pursuit. As you will recall from our discussion of IR on p.2 of this subject guide, Fred Halliday describes three broad categories of interest to our discipline – interstate relations, transnational relations and systemic relations (Halliday, 1995, p.1). These three issue areas cover everything from war and diplomacy, through trade and human rights, to the challenges posed by globalisation and global environmental change (GEC). Simply put, IR is a vast discipline with many interests. Rather than try to introduce you to every international issue on Earth – an impossible task in any case – this unit will provide you with some tools with which to analyse international issues as you encounter them. Four concepts are central to this analytical toolkit: states, nations, countries and international society. These will provide you with the basic vocabulary needed to understand a wide variety of international situations, from territorial disputes in the South China Sea to the spread of democratic institutions following the 2011 Arab Spring.

States

Before we consider ongoing international issues, we need to answer a fundamental question: who takes part in international affairs? Most social sciences, such as economics and political science, focus on trying to understand the activities and behaviour of individual human beings. IR is quite different. As a rule, our discipline is more interested in understanding the behaviour of collective actors – groups of individuals with enough centralised decision-making ability to:

� reproduce their groups over time

� be treated as individuals for the purposes of analysis (Buzan, 2004, p.119).

For example, when you read about ‘the USA’ and ‘Egypt’ mediating a ceasefire between ‘Israel’ and ‘the Palestinian Authority’, you are reading about the interaction of four collective actors. Though presidents and prime ministers are the public faces of these events, they are influential because of the collective actors they lead. Without their groups, presidents and prime ministers have no more influence on the international stage than you or I. The same is true of transnational corporations (TNCs) – such as Apple and Toyota – and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) – such as the International Committee of the Red Cross. Each is made up of many individual human beings who cooperate in the pursuit of shared goals. As Bill Gates’ personal involvement in the fight against malaria and HIV illustrates, individuals can have a very real impact on international affairs. However, as noted earlier, individuals exercise influence through the organisations they lead or fund, bringing us back to IR’s initial focus on collective actors.

The most influential collective actors in contemporary IR are states – political and administrative organisations that claim to govern territories and populations. Theda Skocpol defines states as sets ‘…of administrative, policing, and military organisations headed, and more or less well-coordinated by, an executive authority’ (Skocpol, 1979, p.29). Figure 1.1 illustrates this relationship, with each part playing an important role in exercising state sovereignty.


Executive(i & ii)

Police(i)

AdministrationBureaucrats/Diplomats

(i & ii)

Military(ii)

Figure 1.1: A diagram of Theda Skocpol’s definition of a ‘state’, indicating the role of each organ in protecting the state’s (i) domestic and (ii) international sovereignty.

Sovereignty describes a state’s ability to:

� control the peoples and territories it claims to rule

� defend itself against interference from other states.

States therefore have to deal with at least two priorities: maintaining order within their territorial boundaries by means of bureaucrats and police, and maintaining their independence from other states by means of diplomats and militaries. This definition of sovereignty is broadly accepted in international law. According to Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, a state must fulfil four requirements in order to qualify as an actor in international law. They must:

� rule over a permanent population

� rule over a defined territory

� possess a government

� have the ability to engage in diplomatic relations with other states.

A failure to achieve these goals may undermine an actor’s claim to sovereignty and therefore its claim to statehood.

As you will see throughout this course, much of IR focuses on relations between states. This kind of IR can be labelled state-centric, meaning that it concentrates exclusively on states. The advantage of a state-centric approach is that it makes it easier to analyse international events. Instead of looking at the thousands of state, corporate and non-governmental relationships that drive an issue, you can focus on the relations of just 200 or so sovereign states. This simplicity comes at a price, however. This will be discussed in the Essential reading that follows ‘Nations’.

Nations

As your textbook argues, states are all too often confused with nations. Whereas a state is a system of government, a nation describes a group of individuals who see themselves linked by a shared identity. This identity can be based on a common language, culture, religion or history. Because a group’s sense of shared identity is often fostered by the government that rules it, nations and states are closely associated. As discussed by sociologists such as Benedict Anderson, many nations have been created by the states in which they live. Through government support for education, independence celebrations and patriotic anthems, states can ‘create’ national



feelings in their populations. In the resulting nation-states, citizenship is a precondition for nationality, and vice versa. For more than a century after the French Revolution (1789–99), it was impossible to be a member of the French nation without also being a citizen of the French Republic. In all probability, you consider yourself part of a nationality based on your citizenship, be it Brazilian, Singaporean, Malaysian or German.

Though states are powerful sources of national identity, they are not the only ones. Even the most homogenous nation-states include groups who do not see themselves as part of the dominant nationality. France’s population today includes a number of cultural and linguistic minorities who consider themselves distinct from the French nation, including the Basques and Bretons of France’s Atlantic coast. Many Malaysians associate themselves with a cultural minority by embracing their local cultural heritage, which might originate in one of Malaysia’s peninsular provinces, Malaysian Borneo, or elsewhere in the world. This phenomenon will be familiar to any citizen of a largely immigrant nation such as Canada, where people often refer to themselves as French-Canadian, Scottish-Canadian, Italian-Canadian, Chinese-Canadian, and so on. People’s ability to identify with two or more national groups at the same time makes ‘the nation’ a difficult concept to pin down in IR. Nevertheless, as you will see in subsequent discussion, nations and identities play a central role in guiding the course of many global and regional issues, often in Halliday’s second area of IR study: non-state or transnational relations.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘Problems with the state-centric approach’ section in Chapter 20 of your textbook (pp.328–30).

Note the four main problems identified by the author.

Countries

Countries refer to the physical environments in which states and nations exist. Whereas a state refers to a government and a nation refers to a group of people with a shared identity, a country refers to the lines and symbols on a map that represent borders, geographical features, ecologies and natural resources. The three concepts are closely related. A country can refer to the territory ruled by a state. It can also refer to the territory inhabited by a nation. A number of states around the world either claim territory that they do not effectively rule, or rule territories that fall outside their ‘official’ borders. The government of Somalia, for example, can effectively control only a tiny fraction of the country it claims to rule. Likewise, states like Morocco and Israel administer territories outside their internationally recognised borders. These examples illustrate the fact that states and countries, though related, are not synonymous.

ACtivity Look at the three maps of the world listed under the heading ‘States, nations and countries of the world’ on the vLE.

Each of these presents a different view of the world and is organised according to states, nations or countries.

Which kind of unit do you think is most commonly used to understand global affairs? What does this say about the relative influence of states, nations and countries in iR?

Compare and contrast your responses with other students in your class.


International society

Now that you have grasped the basic relationship between sates, nations and countries, it is time to consider how they fit together into a system. One of the most useful ways to understand IR at this broad scale has been developed by the English School – an informal group of academics and diplomats based at and around the London School of Economics and Political Science who describe the world as an international society. An international society is a community of international units – that is, collective actors – whose relationships are structured by shared practices and principles. These influence units’ behaviour by establishing ‘codes of conduct’ that they are supposed to follow in their relations with one another. Though often codified in formal treaties and declarations, practices and principles need not be formalised in texts. They can be, and often are, informal in the sense that they are not written down in treaties or international agreements. Even so, they are an important source of order in interstate and transnational relationships alike.

This brings us to the primary function of international society. We live in a world without a global government, in which no single collective actor is able to force all others to live by a specific set of rules. International society is therefore anarchic in that there is no final authority that governs international relationships. That said, international society is not chaotic. Instead, state and non-state actors alike tend to relate to one another on the basis of relatively stable sets of practices and principles. The principle of diplomatic immunity, which protects diplomats from prosecution in foreign courts, is one example. These practices and principles – called institutions by the English School – create patterns of behaviour that bring a degree of order to international anarchy, explaining Hedley Bull’s decision to call the world an ‘anarchical society’. But how can an anarchic system be orderly? Isn’t that a contradiction in terms? No, it isn’t. Anarchy – from the Greek roots a- (without) and -archos (ruler) – refers to a type of government in which there is no final judge or leader. Though chaos is one possible outcome of such a situation, it is not the only possibility.

The main insight of the English School is that order – defined as regular patterns of behaviour – can evolve in anarchy. Internationally, shared institutions (i.e. practices and principles) represent rules of membership and behaviour by which members of international society regulate their interactions without the need for a supreme ruler to mediate their disputes. For example, a state’s membership in African international society is premised on its acceptance of other states’ sovereignty. This requires them to recognise one another’s rights to independence from outside interference and to rule their populations and territories as they see fit. Governments that do not accept this principle of state sovereignty may find their relations with neighbouring states limited by sanctions – punishments – imposed by the other members of African international society. These can range from limits on trade and travel to extreme measures such as blockades and war. Morocco has experienced a range of sanctions in response to its continuing occupation of Western Sahara – a territory officially ruled by the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. These sanctions include its expulsion from the formal decision-making processes of the African Union, an intergovernmental organisation that brings together states from across the continent. Though so far insufficient to bring about a Moroccan withdrawal from Western Sahara, such societal punishments may cause offending actors to alter their behaviour on the international stage. By taking collective steps to punish units that violate its institutional codes of behaviour, an international society has the potential to regulate its members’ relations without the need for a final decision-maker.


Analysing an international society is therefore a matter of understanding the:

� actors who inhabit it

� shared institutions that define who is a member of the society in question and how they should behave.

Institutional practices and principles differ from one international society to another, and can also vary greatly depending on whether one is analysing international society in a single region or across the world as a whole. As you will see as you work your way through this guide, the principle of state sovereignty works very differently in Europe from how it does in East Asia. In Europe, states have voluntarily surrendered some of their independence to a supra-state organisation – the European Union – that can force its members to accept laws that they may otherwise reject. This is certainly not the case in East Asia, where states remain very protective of their sovereign independence and normally refuse to cede any of their independent decision-making capacity to an external organisation. Tracing and explaining these differences will be a main task of the five regional studies that follow.

Essential readingStop and read ‘introduction: the idea of international society’ in Chapter 2 of your textbook (pp.36–37).

Note the vocabulary terms in bold.

ACtivity Look at the list of international practices and principles included under the heading ‘institutions of international society’ on the vLE.

Using the definitions included in Griffiths, O’Callaghan and Roach (also available on the vLE), rank them in terms of their importance.

Write a short explanation of your decisions. then, in groups or as a class, discuss your rankings.

What does your list say about the way that you look at iR?

Conclusion

This section has introduced four important analytical tools for understanding IR: states, nations, countries and international society. These will form the basis for the sections that follow, each of which will look at the units in play in different parts of the globe and at the institutional practices and principles that define their international society. Each section will require you to consider states, nations and countries of the region concerned, leading to a discussion of the regions’ defining institutions.

GLOSSARy

collective actors

states

sovereignty

nations

nation-states

countries

international society

institutions

sanctions

17U

nit 1

: Sta

tes,

natio

ns a

nd c

ount

ries

Section 1.2: Regional international societies 1: Africa

Introduction 18

States 18

Nations 20

Countries 21

African international society 22

Conclusion 23

Unit 1: States, nations and countries • Section 1.2: Regional international societies 1 18

CURRENt EvENtS ACtivity As you work through this section, follow the main stories on the BBC’s Africa news desk.

in your journal, record the date, location and general issue in each story. Over time, you will develop a database of news items on which you can draw for analysis later in this course.

Introduction

Africa is a good place to start thinking about IR. It is the cradle of our species, which evolved in and around the continent’s Great Rift Valley before migrating across the planet between 125,000 and 15,000 years ago. Africa is the second largest continent by area after Asia, and is a major source of natural resources for the world’s manufacturers and consumers. Africa also faces some of the greatest human challenges of any region. In economic and social terms, the continent lags behind the rest of the world. According to the United Nations’ Human Development Report 2011, all but two of the world’s 30 least developed states are in sub-Saharan Africa. The continent also faces significant political challenges. Between 1998 and 2008, for example, more than five million people were killed in the Democratic Republic of Congo during a bloody war that involved troops from at least eight different African states. The impact of this war – and other conflicts – continues to destabilise large portions of the continent. Your goal in this section is to achieve a basic understanding of the states, nations and countries that inhabit the continent, and to identify some of the shared practices and principles that define African international society.

States

As defined by the United Nations, Africa includes 54 fully-recognised sovereign states, at least two de facto states (which we will define shortly), and nine non-self-governing territories ruled by Spain, France, Portugal and the United Kingdom (see Figure 1.2.1). This section will consider different ways to prioritise these political actors, allowing you to focus your studies around the most influential. Like other regions of the world, Africa’s states vary greatly. Gambia, for example, rules the smallest country on the mainland, with a territory of less than 12,000 km2. The Gambian nation numbers around 1.8 million. Algeria rules the largest area, with more than 2.3 million km2 and 37 million people under its authority. Nigeria, meanwhile, rules the largest population on the continent, with over 166 million citizens spread across 920,000 km2. The Republic of South Africa (RSA) manages the largest economy on the continent, producing around $400 billion every year. Finally, Egypt maintains Africa’s largest military force, with nearly 500,000 active personnel under arms and an equal number of reservists ready for duty at short notice. Given this wide range of states, determining which to prioritise in your studies often comes down to a question of power.

Power is an important concept in IR. Broadly speaking, it describes a unit’s ability to bend others to its will and to resist such attempts by other units. Thus, a state with a strong military may be able to compel states with smaller militaries to accept its actions. Meanwhile, a state ruling over a strong economy may be able to convince others to do its will through financial aid and the promise of investment. These are very different forms of power. Military power – often called hard power – has long been of interest to IR. Economic power – a form of soft power – is a newer area of IR study that embraces the idea that states often influence one another through non-military means. From an economic perspective, the promise of aid and investment can be as powerful a tool as the threat of invasion or isolation. In other words, soft power can be as influential in IR as the hard edge of military force. Other kinds of soft power may include cultural influence such as that enjoyed by Saudi Arabia in the Muslim world thanks to its custodianship of

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/africa/


Islam’s holiest cities: Mecca and Medina. Some states have very high levels of both hard and soft power. Others have only one or the other. Some have neither. The remainder of this unit will use both types of power to organise our study of states in Africa and beyond.

Figure 1.2.1: Political map of Africa. Washington, DC: Central intelligence Agency, 2009.

In terms of their hard power capabilities, a handful of African states stand above the rest. As you have already learned, Egypt possesses the largest military force (and the largest annual military budget) on the continent. Other important military actors include Morocco and Algeria in North Africa; Nigeria in West Africa; Angola and the RSA in Southern Africa; Uganda and Rwanda in Central Africa; and Ethiopia and Eritrea in the Horn of Africa. These states generally enjoy a ‘hard power’ advantage over their neighbours, giving them powerful voices in African international society. This allows them quite a bit of influence over the choice of institutions by which African


international society is organised, making them important states to remember when thinking about IR in the region.

In economic terms, Africa possesses a handful of states with significant soft power capabilities. Some, like the RSA and Egypt, have mixed economies that include a combination of manufacturing, resource extraction and service industries. Others – including Nigeria, Angola, Libya and Algeria – rely largely on revenues generated by natural resource production, particularly oil and natural gas. These resource states are closely tied into the world economy, which determines the prices they can charge for their goods. Many African states lack any appreciable economic power on the global stage. For example, in 2011 all but four African states (RSA, Egypt, Nigeria and Algeria) generated less domestic economic activity – measured as gross domestic product or GDP – than Apple, a non-state multinational corporation with annual revenues of approximately $150 billion.

ACtivity Locate and print the blank political map of Africa on the vLE.

Using the lists of military and economic capabilities posted in Unit 1’s section of the vLE, identify the five most powerful African states. Be sure to explain your choices in a few sentences.

Did you give priority to military or economic power? How might you measure a state’s cultural power in international society?

in a group or as a class, compare your findings and decision-making processes.

Nations

Every African state has an associated nationality. These identities are ‘created’ by their host states through education and state-supported symbols and celebrations. Thus, the independence of Ghana from British rule in 1957 quickly led to the emergence of a distinct Ghanaian identity and, therefore, a Ghanaian nation. Similar processes have taken place in every African state, creating at least 54 state-based nationalities across the continent. This is not the end of the story, however. As discussed in the last section, nations can represent groups with shared languages, cultures and religions – all of which tend to extend beyond the borders of any one state’s jurisdiction. For example, ‘Afro-Asiatic’ languages like Arabic hold sway across a broad area of northern Africa. South of the Sahara, the continent is dominated by languages from the ‘Niger-Congo’ group, with Bantu-speakers inhabiting much of Central and Southern Africa. Africa is also a centre of two major world religions – Islam and Christianity. When considered in terms of ethnicity, Africa’s national character is even more complex than these linguistic and religious divisions indicate. The continent is home to over 100 sizeable ethnic groups ranging from the over 100 million Arabs of north Africa to the 100,000 Akus of Gambia. Africa is a continent of truly remarkable linguistic, religious and ethnic diversity.

Instead of looking at the characteristics of Africa’s individual languages, religions and ethnicities, this course will focus on key divisions that subdivide the continent. One of these will be particularly important to our understanding of the region: religion. Religion plays a key role in shaping an individual’s identity and therefore their nationality – both of which can be at odds with the state’s preferred national identity.


Figure 1.2.2: Major religious divisions of Africa. Miles, t.L. and Moshin, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_distribution_Africa_crop.png

Figure 1.2.2 illustrates Africa’s main religions. Note the dividing line stretching from Sierra Leone to Ethiopia. This transition, situated just south of the Sahara desert, marks the meeting point between the Islamic culture of North Africa and the Christian and Animist cultures to the south. Those on the same side of this line share a common religious heritage, connecting them in transnational networks of interaction that ignore states’ territorial boundaries. At the same time, Africa’s religious boundary constitutes a continuing source of tension, dividing the populations of states like Nigeria and Ethiopia and creating the potential for national divisions within their populations.

Countries

If states describe governments and nations describe groups of people with shared identities, countries are all about geography. At the most basic level, you need to know where events take place in order to understand why they happen. This means having at least a basic knowledge of a region’s major geographical features, natural resources and ecological regions.

The most obvious geographical feature in Africa is the Sahara, the largest and hottest desert in the world that stretches over 9,400,00 km2 from the Red Sea to the Atlantic Ocean, bisecting Africa at its widest point. A second desert, the Kalahari, covers a smaller but still significant part of Southern Africa, including most of Namibia and Botswana. Africa is surrounded by two oceans – the Atlantic in the West and the Indian in the East – and by the Mediterranean Sea. The continent is home to many great rivers, including the Nile, the Niger, the Congo and the Limpopo. It also has several important lakes, particularly Lake Chad and Lake Victoria. Though relatively flat when compared to other continents, Africa is home to the Atlas Mountains in the northwest and the highlands of Ethiopia and central Africa associated with the Great Rift Valley – a geological fracture that is slowly splitting Africa in two, creating a string of lakes and highlands from Djibouti to Mozambique. This includes Mount Kilimanjaro, the highest point in Africa. Finally, you should note the small, triangular Sinai Peninsula that connects Africa to Eurasia. Apart from its importance in Middle Eastern IR, which will be discussed in Section 1.5, it is also home to the Suez Canal – a key shipping link between the Mediterranean Sea and Indian Ocean.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_distribution_Africa_crop.png


ACtivityEither using your map from the previous activity or on a fresh outline map printed from the vLE, identify the following natural features:

� the Sahara desert

� the Kalahari desert

� the Atlantic Ocean

� the indian Ocean

� the Mediterranean Sea

� the Nile

� the Niger

� the Congo

� the Limpopo

� Lake Chad

� Lake victoria

� the Atlas Mountains

� the Great Rift valley

� Mount Kilimanjaro

� the Suez Canal

African international society

Sovereignty is a key principle governing the interaction of African states. As defined in the previous section, sovereignty is a principle that recognises a state’s rights to independence from external control and its right to manage its populations and territories as it chooses. It describes a state’s right to international autonomy and domestic hegemony, and supports practices such as non-intervention, in which states stay out of one another’s domestic affairs, and decolonisation, in which control over territories and populations passes from foreign imperial powers to local governments. Given Africa’s history of colonial control by European units in the 19th and 20th centuries, the continent’s states remain very protective of their political independence. This helps to explain the African Union’s decision to impose sanctions on Morocco for its occupation of Western Sahara, which member states interpret as a clear violation of Western Sahara’s sovereign rights. It also helps to explain why the African Union will not take extreme steps to end the occupation, such as war. After all, Morocco’s own sovereign rights give it some measure of legal protection from interference by other units. This tension between protection of, and respect for, sovereignty helps to explain societies’ apparently weak responses to many violations of this important institution.

The failure of sanctions to force Morocco out of Western Sahara also illustrates the relationship between a unit’s power and the ability of international society to affect its actions. As one of Africa’s most influential states in terms of its hard power and soft power capabilities, Morocco has been able to weather the economic and political sanctions imposed by its African neighbours without fear of invasion or impoverishment. A less powerful state would be much more exposed to such international pressure, making sanctions a more effective tool. Likewise, a more integrated international society – bound together by a dense network of political, economic and military relationships – might be better able to pressure its member states to abide by its organising institutions. The effectiveness of sanctions therefore indicates both the power of the state being punished and the unity of the international society doing the sanctioning.

Essential readingStop and read ‘Regionalism in Africa’ in the ‘Regional cooperation in a global context’ section of Chapter 26 of your textbook (pp.435–36).

Note the deepening institutional ties that bind the region’s states together.


ACtivitythe USA was widely criticised for its 2003 invasion of iraq, an action that violated the sovereign rights of a state without fulfilling the legal requirements for invasion set out in Chapter vii of the United Nations Charter. yet, despite opposition from the majority of the world’s states, the USA and its allies were relatively untouched by sanctions.

Does this mean that sovereignty has failed as an institution of global international society or that global international society is insufficiently united? Or is it an indication of the power of the states involved?

Conclusion

African international society is defined by the units that inhabit it and by the institutions that regulate its membership and behaviour. It is a regional international society dominated by the continent’s states, which emerged from imperial political control in the second half of the 20th century during the period of decolonisation. It is also a continent where states’ domestic and international affairs are affected by nationality and geography, including the distribution of religions and natural resources. As we will see in future sections, the institutions that regulate interactions in African international society are similar to practices and principles found around the world. Three will be particularly important when we return to the region later in this course: sovereignty, non-intervention and decolonisation.

GLOSSARy

power

hard power

soft power

Horn of Africa

sovereignty

non-intervention

decolonisation

24U

nit 1

: Sta

tes,

natio

ns a

nd c

ount

ries

Section 1.3: Regional international societies 2: The Americas

States 25

Nations 28

Countries 29

International society in the Americas 30

Conclusion 31


CURRENt EvENtS ACtivity As you work through this section, follow the main stories on the BBC’s US and Canada and Latin America news desks. in your journal, record the date, location, and general issue in each story. Over time, you will develop a database of news items on which you can draw for analysis later in this course.

Like Africa, the Americas constitute a distinct international region with its own mix of units and institutions. Using the conceptual toolkit developed earlier, this section will consider the states, nations, and countries that inhabit the region’s international society. We will find that American international society has been fundamentally shaped by the dominant position of one of its member states: the United States of America (USA). It has also been shaped by national divisions that divide the Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries of Latin America from their English and French-speaking northern neighbours. Geography also plays its part, affecting the distribution of natural resources around the region. These factors have combined to create a highly uneven international society in which power is heavily concentrated in the hands of very few states. This has allowed one – the USA – to regularly interfere in other states’ domestic affairs despite the importance given to state sovereignty in the international society of the Americas.

States

The Americas incorporate a huge area that includes the mainland of North and South America, the island chains of the Caribbean Sea, and a handful of islands in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans – bringing together most of the territories of the Western hemisphere. The region includes 35 fully sovereign states and 23 non-self-governing territories ruled by France, the UK, the Netherlands, the USA and Denmark. The status of non-self-governing territories, most of which are located in and around the Caribbean Sea, varies greatly. French Guiana, for example, is considered an overseas department of France – essentially a domestic province that sends parliamentary representatives to Paris and enjoys membership in the European Union (EU). Kalaallit Nunaat/Greenland is an overseas possession of Denmark, with wide powers of self-government in all matters save foreign affairs and defence, which are largely handled from Copenhagen. As elsewhere in the world, none of the non-self-governing territories of the Americas enjoy the full sovereign rights granted to independent states.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/us_and_canada/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/latin_america/


Figure 1.3.1: A political map of the Americas. Washington, DC: Central intelligence Agency, 2009.

In our investigation of African international society, you were asked to note states’ different hard and soft power capabilities. As you noticed at the time, states’ power capabilities vary depending on their ability to deploy force and persuasion to reach their international goals and, if necessary, resist pressure from other international units. In a society inhabited by a number of states of similar power – as is the case in Africa – no one government will be able to dominate all of the remaining units. This situation, in which no state is powerful enough to dominate every other state, is described as a balance of power. This does not mean that power is evenly distributed throughout the system. An international society with one very powerful state and nine less powerful neighbours could still enjoy a balance of power so long as the nine smaller powers


were able to band together to resist domination by their more influential neighbour. Africa finds itself in just such a position – in which none of the most powerful African states (Egypt, RSA, Nigeria, Algeria and Morocco) are able to establish control over the remainder of the continent’s international affairs. Though they may be able to resist international pressure, they cannot dominate their region in the manner of a hegemon – a state with enough power to dictate the practices and principles by which other units engage with international society.

For much of the past 200 years, international society in the Americas has been dominated by a hegemon – the USA. Possessing the most powerful military in the world – including the only nuclear arsenal in the Western hemisphere – the USA holds an enormous hard power advantage over the remaining states of the Americas. In a short-term military contest, the USA would most likely defeat the combined forces of the other 34 sovereign states of the region. Economically, the USA holds a similarly decisive soft power advantage. With an annual gross domestic product (GDP) of nearly $15 trillion in 2011, it is the largest economy in the world, producing nearly 20 per cent of global wealth. This, alongside its dominance in global media and culture, has given the USA enormous influence over the practices and principles that define international society in the Americas. Its hard and soft power capabilities have also insulted the USA against pressure from its neighbours, making it the hegemonic state power of the Western hemisphere.

Though no state can compete with the USA for dominance within the international society of the Americas, the rise of several smaller but still significant states since the end of the Second World War in 1945 has weakened Washington’s claim to regional hegemony. Canada is an influential state with significant soft power capabilities, particularly as a major exporter of natural resources and energy. Despite its large size, however, Canada lacks military assets and has little desire to deploy hard power on the world stage. It also continues to depend on American markets to sell most of its goods, making it an unlikely opponent of US hegemony. Mexico is another important second-tier power in the Americas, with an abundance of resources, a large population and a growing economy. Its relationship with the USA has provided markets for its goods and has contributed to Mexico’s growing power. However, transnational issues, such as the illegal drug trade into the USA and the movement of illegal weapons from it, have periodically destabilised Mexico’s domestic politics and economy. This has forced Mexico – like Colombia and Peru – to focus its military capabilities on fighting well-armed and well-funded criminal organisations within its own jurisdiction. This instability continues to limit Mexico’s rise through the ranks of regional powers. In South America, Brazil and Argentina have long competed for regional influence. It is a competition that Brazil is currently winning thanks to an extended period of steady economic growth and political stability – neither of which has characterised Argentina over the past 30 years. Brazil also possesses a sizeable military when compared to its immediate neighbours and can claim to be an ‘emerging power’ in the region and on the global stage. Recently, Venezuela – a major oil producer – has flexed its soft power by funding a number of movements and governments around the region, including the Castro government in Cuba, that seek to limit the influence of the USA. It has also sought alliances with states outside the region – including Russia and Iran – as a way of increasing its hard power. Given continuing problems in the Venezuelan economy, the future of this anti-hegemonic state remains uncertain. However, Venezuela remains an influential opponent to US hegemony in the Americas.

Most states in the region lag far behind the USA and these second-tier powers. The Caribbean, for example, is home to a number of tiny island states. Though technically sovereign, these islands have experienced relatively high levels of intervention in their affairs – normally at the hands of the USA. With little hard or soft power at their command, these tiny states are extremely vulnerable to international pressure and rely on the institutions of American international society to defend their legal independence. Other mainland states, like Colombia, have the potential to emerge as regional powers but are disadvantaged by domestic instability.


ACtivity Locate and print the blank political map of the Americas on the vLE.

Using the lists of military and economic capabilities posted in Unit 1’s section of the vLE, identify the 10 most powerful American states. Be sure to explain your choices in a few sentences.

Did you give priority to military or economic power? What other kinds of power might have affected your decisions?


Nations

Our discussion of African international society focused on religion as one of the many forms of identity that cut across states and bring together the populations of different states. In the Americas, language plays a similar role (see Figure 1.3.2).

Figure 1.3.2: A linguistic map of the Americas. Hidra92, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Languages_of_the_Americas.PNG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Languages_of_the_Americas.PNG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Languages_of_the_Americas.PNG


Linguistically, the main division within the Americas is between the English and French speaking regions of North America and the Spanish and Portuguese speaking regions of Central and South America. The term Latin America is often used to refer to the latter, and includes populations from the southern USA to the base of South America.

This division is evidence of history’s continuing influence in the region, which fell under the control of various European imperial powers following Christopher Columbus’s discovery of a direct oceanic sailing route to the Americas in 1492. By the end of the 18th century, the mainland was divided between three main European powers: Spain, Portugal and the UK. The Caribbean Sea saw a wider range of European powers hold colonial territory, including France (which had been ejected from North America by the British in 1763) and the Netherlands. In the far north, Denmark established its rights to Greenland while Canada inherited Britain’s Arctic holdings and the USA bought Alaska from the Russian empire. In these sparsely populated areas, indigenous cultures and languages such as those of the Inuit have managed to survive centuries of contact with Europeans. Today, indigenous people constitute local majority populations in many parts of the Americas, leading to a renaissance among indigenous nations from the Arctic to the Andes.

Countries

Any understanding of IR in the Americas requires at least a basic understanding of physical geography. The Americas constitute the second largest landmass on the planet after the Eurasian-African supercontinent. It is home to many important ecosystems, including the Great Plains of North America and the Amazon rainforest of South America. The Americas are surrounded by three oceans: the Atlantic in the east, the Pacific in the west and the Arctic in the north. Near the equator is the Caribbean Sea, which is home to two important island chains, or archipelagos: the Greater Antilles and the Lesser Antilles. The former includes four large islands: Cuba, Hispaniola, Jamaica and Puerto Rico. The latter includes the many small islands of the area, which stretch in a southward arc from Puerto Rico to the Venezuelan coast. Together, all of the islands of the Caribbean are referred to as the ‘West Indies’.

The Americas are home to many important rivers. From north to south, these include the Mackenzie, the St Lawrence, the Mississippi, and the Amazon. Important lakes include the Great Lakes of North America (Superior, Huron, Michigan, Erie and Ontario), and Lake Titicaca on the border of Peru and Bolivia. Geology has made the Americas mountainous, particularly along their Western shores. In North America, the highest peaks are in the Coast and Rocky Mountains, which stretch down the west coast from Alaska to Mexico. In South America, the Andes are home to the highest peak in the Western hemisphere: Mount Aconcagua on the border of Argentina and Chile. Finally, you should note the narrow strip of land that connects North and South America: the Isthmus of Panama. This is home to the Panama Canal – an important link between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and therefore a centre of the global shipping trade.


ACtivity Either using your map from the previous activity or on a fresh outline map from the vLE, identify the following natural features:

� the Great Plains

� the Amazon Rainforest


� the Pacific Ocean

� the Arctic Ocean

� the Caribbean Sea

� the West indies

� the Mackenzie River

� the Saint Lawrence River

� the Mississippi River

� the Amazon River

� the Great Lakes

� Lake titicaca

� the Rocky Mountains

� the Andes

� Mount Aconcagua

International society in the Americas

As in Africa, international society in the Americas is dominated by states. These units alone have the right to hold and govern populations and territories, providing them with taxes and resources. They also possess hard power capabilities that non-state actors like transnational corporations (TNCs) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) lack. States use their hard and soft power capabilities to influence the shape of the practices and principles that define American international society, with more powerful states exerting greater influence than their weaker neighbours. In such state-dominated international societies, sovereignty holds a special place. As a primary institution, sovereignty identifies both who is a member of international society – in this case, sovereign states – and how they should act towards one another.

Given the USA’s hegemonic position in the Americas, it should not be surprising that the evolution of sovereignty in the region largely reflects the foreign policy principles of the government in Washington DC. Over the past two centuries, these principles have swung between periods of interventionism, in which the USA has interfered in the affairs of its American neighbours, and periods of non-intervention, when the USA has supported states’ rights to non-intervention. For most of the 19th century, the USA intervened little in the affairs of neighbouring states beyond opposing European imperialism in the Americas. This position was based on the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which promised US aid to any American state threatened by European governments. This policy evolved over the course of the century, with Washington intervening more and more to protect US business and strategic interests in the region. By the time of President Theodore Roosevelt (1901–09), the country’s position on sovereignty had changed significantly. According to the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, passed in 1904, the USA had the right to act as a continental policeman, justifying US occupation and administration in Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti and the Dominican Republic. The principle of sovereignty in the Americas has swung between these poles ever since. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1929–45), cousin to Theodore, preferred a non-interventionist approach that he enshrined in the Good Neighbor Policy in 1934. The beginning of the Cold War after 1945 and the threat of support from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) for anti-US groups in the region led to a renewal of American intervention to contain the perceived Soviet threat. The end of the Cold War in 1991 led to another revision of the principles and practices associated with sovereignty, culminating in a renewal of the Good Neighbor Policy under President Bill Clinton (1993–2001). Much of the policy coordination in the region today is accomplished by the Organization of American States (OAS).


The evolution of sovereignty over the past two centuries is a good example of how the institutions that define an international society change over time. Rather than being thought of as static sets of practices and principles, international societies are dynamic. They evolve to reflect the changing practices and principles of society’s members. Thus, institutions such as imperialism have receded in American international society as its members have embraced non-intervention. Should member states begin to embrace some form of interventionism then the practices and principles associated with imperialism may return to prominence. Remember that not all units will have an equal say in this development. The more powerful a unit is, the more influence it will hold over the institutions that define the international society of which it is a member. Although the rise of several second-tier powers in the region has weakened the USA’s hegemony in this respect, there is no doubt that Washington continues to be the main agenda-setter in the Western hemisphere.

Essential readingStop and read ‘Regionalism in the Americas’ in the ‘Regional cooperation in a global context’ section of Chapter 26 of your textbook (pp.432–35).

Note the changing role of the USA in regional affairs. .

ACtivity in a paragraph of no more than 500 words, consider the following question: ‘How might the rise of new, powerful states in the Americas change the way that international society works in the region?’

Be sure to include a strong thesis statement in your paragraph that answers the question directly, along with a few points to justify your argument.

Conclusion

International society in the Americas has been dominated by the USA for the past two centuries. In its role as hegemon, the USA has been able to influence the principles and practices that define the region’s institutional makeup – a pattern captured by the changing practices associated with sovereignty. The rise of other states may alter this pattern, providing alternative sources of institutional evolution as they become better equipped to challenge Washington’s dominance over the units, practices, and principles that define IR in the Americas.

GLOSSARy

balance of power

hegemon

gross domestic product (GDP)

Latin America

archipelagos

interventionism

the Monroe Doctrine

the Roosevelt Corollary

Organization of American States (OAS)

32U

nit 1

: Sta

tes,

natio

ns a

nd c

ount

ries

Section 1.4: Regional international societies 3: East Asia and the Pacific

Introduction 33

States 33

Nations 35

Countries 36

East Asian and Pacific international society 37

Conclusion 39


CURRENt EvENtS ACtivity As you work through this section, follow the region’s main news stories on the BBC’s Asia news desk. Please note that this desk also covers issues in South Asia, so be sure to focus on stories from the regions of Asia covered in this section. in your journal, record the date, location and general issue in each story. Over time, you will develop a database of news items on which you can draw for analysis later in this course.

Introduction

East Asia and the Pacific constitute a region of rapidly growing importance in IR. Understanding the units and institutions that define its international society is therefore a pressing concern for anyone wishing to analyse international affairs in the 21st century. This section will consider East Asia and the Pacific from the point of view of the units and institutions that define its international society, leading to a discussion of how the number of powerful states in an international society can affect its organising principles. It will find that, unlike the Americas, several states are in competition for leadership positions in East Asian and the Pacific international society.

States

The area that this section labels ‘East Asia and the Pacific’ stretches almost halfway around the globe from the northern borders of Mongolia to the southern ocean around Antarctica, and from the western borders of China and Myanmar to Hawaii and Easter Island (Figure 1.4.1). This vast geographical space includes 31 fully sovereign states and more than a dozen non-self-governing territories ruled by the USA, France, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Chile. It is also home to the island of Taiwan, whose uncertain international status makes it a good example of a de facto state – a government that controls both a defined territory and population, but has not achieved widespread recognition of its independence among the other states of the world. Taiwan – claimed as a province by the Chinese government in Beijing – fulfils three of the four characteristics identified by the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, lacking only the ability to engage in regular diplomatic relations with states. Literally translated as ‘states in fact’, de facto states occupy an uncertain position in international society. Some, like Taiwan, are important players on the world stage with significant economic and military capacities. Other de facto states – such as Somaliland in northern Somalia and South Ossetia in the Republic of Georgia – lack a greater number of state characteristics, leaving them almost entirely cut out of regional and global diplomacy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/asia/




Figure 1.4.1: The geographical limits of the East Asia and Pacific region. Washington, DC: Central intelligence Agency, 2009, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/refmaps.html

Among the region’s 31 sovereign states – called de jure states (states in law) to differentiate them from the de facto states discussed above – there is a wide gulf between those with significant hard and soft power capabilities and those with little of either. The most influential states in the region today are the USA – one of whose territories, Hawaii, is located in the central Pacific, and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) – which possesses the largest military, population and economy in the region and is widely viewed as an emerging power that will soon rival the USA on the global stage. The USA and China are two of three nuclear-armed powers in East Asia – along with North Korea. As indicated above, China considers the island of Taiwan to be an integral part of its territory. Japan is another powerful unit in hard and soft power terms. It has a technologically advanced economy, a powerful military (called the Japanese Self-Defense Force), and a vibrant culture with global influence. Japan is also a close ally of the USA, which has a number of bases on Japan’s many islands. Australia, Malaysia and Indonesia are major resource producers in the global commodities market, making them second-tier powers in the region. The tiny city state of Singapore is an interesting case insofar as its advanced trading economy and strategic position make it a major player in terms of soft power but a minor one in military terms. Other states, such as New Zealand and the Philippines, hold lesser, but still important, positions in this regional international society. Finally, no discussion of states in East Asia and the Pacific would be complete without mentioning North and South Korea, officially the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the Republic of Korea (ROK). Divided between Soviet and US occupation forces after the Second World War, the communist North and capitalist South engaged in a bloody war between 1950 and 1953 that drew in armies from China, the USA and a number of other United Nations member states. They have never signed a formal peace treaty, and continue to actively patrol their shared border – the most heavily fortified and armed on the planet. North Korea is an ally of China, while South Korea remains a key part of the American system of alliances in the region.


Other states in the region hold lesser positions. The states of Southeast Asia, though far from unimportant, rarely project hard or soft power beyond their borders. Perceived threats following the rise of China since the 1980s have spurred them to increasingly cooperate in economic and social matters through the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), and may even lead to political and military cooperation in the future to maintain a balance of power in the face of potential Chinese hegemony. This is particularly true in the South China Sea, where China continues to claim sovereignty over a scattering of tiny islands and reefs that lie directly off the shores of Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines. The tiny island states of the Pacific hold a position similar to that of the West Indies in the Americas. With little power at their disposal, they are highly susceptible to pressure from more powerful neighbours and from the international societies to which they belong. Many Pacific islands remain non-self-governing possessions of former colonial powers.

ACtivity Locate and print the blank political map of East Asia and the Pacific on the vLE.

Using the lists of military and economic capabilities posted in Unit 1’s section of the vLE, identify the 10 most powerful states in the region. Be sure to explain your choices in a few sentences.


in a group or as a class, compare your findings and decision-making processes..

Nations

Whereas international societies in Africa and the Americas have been characterised by their religious and linguistic divisions, this section will consider the role of nationality more broadly. This is partly because of the cultural complexity of East Asia and the Pacific. In religious terms, the region has significant Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, Confucian, Taoist, Shinto and Hindu populations. Of the five regions introduced in this unit, East Asia and the Pacific is the most religiously diverse (see Figure 1.4.2).

Figure 1.4.2: The majority religions of the world. Liltek21, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prevailing_world_religions_map.png Note that this map only indicates majority populations within state borders. the true distribution of religions is even more complex.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prevailing_world_religions_map.png

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prevailing_world_religions_map.png


In terms of their culture and history, the populations of East Asia and the Pacific can be divided into four broad categories. Most of modern China, the Koreas, Mongolia and Taiwan share a common cultural history shaped by the dominant influence of Chinese civilisation. Though significant differences persist, the populations of these four states have interacted with one another for several millennia. Southeast Asia and Japan have each been heavily influenced by Chinese culture. In Japan, a distinct culture evolved around the Shinto religion and Japanese language. In Southeast Asia, rival influences from India combined with Chinese and local traditions to create Buddhist cultures that today extend as far south as Malaysia. Malaysia and Indonesia, meanwhile, are part of the global Islamic community – the Ummah – thanks to Muslim dominance in the Indian Ocean prior to European intervention from the 16th century. Australia and New Zealand are immigrant societies dominated by Europeans of British origin, though each is also home to an increasingly influential indigenous population. Finally, the Pacific Islands are home to three sea-faring cultures: Melanesian, Micronesian, and Polynesian. In short, the region that includes East Asia and the Pacific is one of the most diverse in the world and resists attempts at simple characterisation.

Countries

East Asia and the Pacific are as geographically varied as they are culturally diverse. It is home to many important ecosystems, including the Gobi Desert in China and Mongolia, the Tibetan Plateau, the coral atolls and volcanic islands of the Pacific, the Great Barrier Reef off Australia’s east coast, and a broad swathe of tropical rainforest that stretches from Myanmar in the west to Polynesia in the east. A number of important seas and shipping lanes dot the western shore of the Pacific Ocean. From north to south, these include the Sea of Japan, the East China Sea, the South China Sea, the Straits of Malacca, the Sunda Strait and the Timor Sea (Figure 1.4.1). Note how confined the seas around China’s east coast actually are, restricted by strategic choke points around Japan, Taiwan and the South China Sea. As we will discuss shortly, territorial claims to these seas – and to the resources beneath their surface – are strong sources of friction among the local states.

East Asia and the Pacific is a region of significant geological activity thanks to its position on the so-called ‘Ring of Fire’ that marks the outer edges of the Pacific Ocean’s tectonic plate. As this plate sinks beneath the landmasses that border it, friction and heat build up beneath the Earth’s crust, leading to frequent earthquakes and volcanic eruptions from Japan to Indonesia and New Zealand. Rivers have also played an important role in the history of East Asia. Two – the Yangtze and the Yellow – were vital to the development of Chinese civilisation in the third millennium BC. The Mekong River is another important waterway, linking China, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam. Finally, the island chains of Oceania can be categorised according to the three seafaring cultures that populated them: Micronesia, Melanesia and Polynesia (Figure 1.4.3).


Figure 1.4.3: A map of the main Oceanic island groups. Kahuroa, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Pacific_Culture_Areas.jpg


� the Gobi Desert

� the tibetan Plateau

� the Great Barrier Reef

� the Pacific Ocean

� the Sea of Japan

� the East China Sea

� the South China Sea

� the Straits of Malacca

� the Sunda Strait

� the timor Sea

� the Ring of Fire

� the yellow River

� the yangtze River

� the Mekong River

� Melanesia

� Micronesia

� Polynesia

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Pacific_Culture_Areas.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Pacific_Culture_Areas.jpg


East Asian and Pacific international society

In the past two sections, you have been introduced to some of the institutions that order relations in what is otherwise an anarchic international society. One of these – sovereignty – has been particularly important as a principle in interstate relations. Defined as a state’s possession of international autonomy and domestic hegemony, sovereignty helps us to identify both who can be considered a state in international law and how states should act towards one another. As noted in connection to African international society, the effectiveness of an institution is affected by a combination of:

� a state’s power to resist international pressure

� society’s ability to bring power to bear on states that violate its rules of behaviour.

In both cases, power can be defined in hard or soft terms. As noted in connection to American international society, institutions also change over time. This evolution is influenced by all international units, although those with significant hard and soft power will exercise greater influence than their weaker neighbours.

This brings us to East Asia and the Pacific, a region with

� at least three major state powers: China, Japan and the USA

� a number of second-tier powers: Indonesia, Australia, South Korea and Malaysia

� many much smaller and less influential states.

As you might expect, the most powerful states in this region tend to have the greatest influence on its international society. Since 1945, the US Navy has given Washington a hegemonic position in the Pacific Ocean. The relative peace since 1945 may support the idea that an international society is most stable when a single unit can dictate the terms by which other states and non-state units interact. This idea, called hegemonic stability theory, became popular after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. These events left the USA as the only superpower in the world. Superpowers are a rarity in IR. They are able to project their power – hard and soft – into every region of the globe, allowing them to dominate regions far from their domestic populations and territories. The USA’s key role in Pacific defence is indicative of its status, making it the keystone in a system of defensive alliances that includes Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and – informally – Taiwan.

China and Japan – the two most powerful states based in East Asia – are not superpowers because they cannot project their influence into every region of the globe. They are, however, very influential in East Asia. China also has growing influence in Africa and parts of Southwest Asia, while Japan’s soft power affects culture and economics in Europe and the Americas. They are therefore regional powers, capable of dominating IR in a given area but not possessing a superpower’s global reach. China’s rapidly growing economy and military support the idea that it is also moving into superpower status – although it’s difficult to tell. However, China also has many territorial conflicts with neighbouring states and lacks powerful allies on the international stage. Without allies willing to support its interpretation of institutions like sovereignty, China will have a difficult time exercising global influence. Some of this is due to Beijing’s unwillingness to cooperate with other states over territorial disputes in the East and South China seas, creating an atmosphere of competition and making the region’s international society less about mutual aid than about ‘self-help’. The growing importance of principles and practices associated with nationalism to East Asian international society reinforces this tendency, creating an international society in which members are increasingly encouraged to seek their own advantage at their neighbours’ expense rather than by cooperating in pursuit of shared goals. As these regional powers become more influential, nationalism is likely to become more important as an institution of East Asian and Pacific international society. Their rise may also undermine


whatever remains of the hegemonic stability imposed by Washington since the end of the Second World War.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘Regionalism in Asia’ section of ‘Regional cooperation in a global context’ (Chapter 26 of your textbook, pp.436–37).

Conclusion

East Asia and the Pacific constitute a region of great national, geographic and political variety. It is the meeting place of many of the world’s religions and home to states ranging in size from China (over 9.7 million km2 and 1.3 billion people) to Vanuatu (21 km2 and 9,300 people). China’s rising power represents the region’s most important sources of change, with the potential to affect the institutions that govern both interstate and transnational relationships. What this will mean for IR in the region remains uncertain, but it certainly deserves our attention over the coming units.

GLOSSARy

de facto state

de jure state

Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN)

Ummah

hegemonic stability theory

superpower

regional power

nationalism

40U

nit 1

: Sta

tes,

natio

ns a

nd c

ount

ries

Section 1.5: Regional international societies 4: South and Southwest Asia

States 41

Nations 42

Countries 43

International society in South and Southwest Asia 44

Conclusion 45


CURRENt EvENtS ACtivity As you work through this section, follow the region’s main stories on the BBC’s Asia and Middle East news desks. Please note that the Asia desk also covers issues in East Asia and the Pacific, so be sure to focus on stories from the regions of Asia covered in this section. in your journal, record the date, location and general issue at stake in each story. Over time, you will develop a database of news items on which you can draw for analysis later in this course.

South and Southwest Asia – incorporating the Indian subcontinent and the Asian Middle East – is an excellent example of a competitive, even cutthroat, international society. From Israel to India and Pakistan, cooperation between states is rare and conflict is rife. Likewise, a number of national groups in the region are demanding the right to self-determination, risking the territorial integrity of the states they currently inhabit. This disconnection between the region’s states, nations and countries makes its international society particularly interesting and newsworthy.

States

The area covered by this section incorporates two cradles of human civilisation – Mesopotamia and the Indus River Valley. It stretches from Turkey in the north-west to Sri Lanka and India in the south-east, connecting to Egypt and Africa at the Sinai Peninsula and Europe at the Bosporus and Dardanelles.

South and Southwest Asia are home to 20 sovereign states. This includes the Palestinian Authority, heretofore a de facto state that received diplomatic recognition of its de jure status from the global society of states in December 2012 following a vote at the United Nations. The region is home to several regional powers with significant hard and soft power capabilities. As of January 2013, three are known or thought to possess nuclear weapons (India, Pakistan and Israel) and one is thought to be developing a nuclear bomb (Iran). The states of this region continue to undergo significant transformations in terms of their ability to project power internationally and the structure of their domestic governments. Though troubled by domestic instability – particularly friction between its Hindu majority and Muslim minority – India is the world’s most populous democracy and a rising economic and political power. Since achieving independence from the United Kingdom in 1947, it has been locked in conflict with its neighbour to the West: Pakistan. Their ongoing dispute of the province of Jammu-Kashmir has produced frequent clashes along their border, leading to wars in 1947, 1965 and 1999. Though a nuclear power, Pakistan’s international influence is limited by domestic divisions and its focus on matching Indian military developments on its eastern border. One area where it wields significant influence is Afghanistan – a site of international conflict since 2001. Iran is a state blessed with a wealth of natural resources, a diverse population, and a rich history. Although it became isolated from the international society of states following the Islamic Revolution of 1979, it has since tried to exert hard and soft power by supporting sympathetic state and non-state international units, such as the Syrian government of Basher Al-Assad, the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, and several groups of the Shi’a sect of Islam in Iraq and the Persian Gulf. Israel is an interesting case insofar as it holds a vast hard power advantage over its neighbours, but wields negligible soft power in the region. Saudi Arabia and the small states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), meanwhile, have used their oil wealth to assert their soft power in the region but lack any appreciable hard power. This is provided largely by explicit and implicit alliances with the USA, which has been deeply involved in the region’s security since the Cold War. The region is also home to the Arab League, an international organisation comprising 22 member


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/middle_east/


states stretching from Iraq to Morocco. The League represents the main regional international organisation speaking for and with members on a wide range of economic, cultural and political issues. Turkey may be the most influential unit in Southwest Asia, possessing a more balanced mix of soft and hard power with which to influence international institutions. Apart from its own military – probably the strongest in the region – it is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), making it an important partner of both the USA and Europe. It is also one of the few states in the region to be largely untouched by the Arab Spring, a political movement that has swept through the region since 2011, reinforcing its claim to be a beacon of stability in this troubled part of the world.

Figure 1.5.1: A map illustrating the borders of South and Southwest Asia. Washington, DC: Central intelligence Agency, 2009. Cropped and shaded by author.

ACtivity Locate and print the blank political map of South and Southwest Asia on the vLE.

Using the lists of military and economic capabilities posted in this section’s section of the vLE, identify the ten most powerful states in the region. Be sure to explain your choices in a few sentences. Did you give priority to military or economic power? What other kinds of power might have affected your decisions?



Nations

South and Southwest Asia is the cradle of five major world religions: Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam. Three of these remain majority religions in the region. Hinduism is the majority religion in India and Nepal, though India is also home to an important Muslim minority. Tiny Bhutan is the only Buddhist-majority state in the region. In Israel, Judaism is the dominant religion, though a significant Muslim minority also exists. In the remainder of the region, Islam is in the majority. Its followers are divided between two main groups: the Shi’a, who form majorities in Iran, Iraq and Bahrain; and the Sunni, who make up majorities in most of the remainder of the region. Saudi Arabia is home to the two holiest cities in Islam: Mecca and Medina. Meanwhile, Iraq is the spiritual centre of Shi’a Islam. Israel and Palestine are home to many of the holiest sites in Judaism, Christianity and Islam – often referred to as the Religions of the Book due to their shared socio-cultural roots. India remains the centre of the Hindu world (Figure 1.4.2).

As you will see in the discussions that follow, this rich religious heritage has had both positive and negative effects on IR in the region. Though often used as a justification for acts of aggression, religion has also been used to unite people across state lines. This is particularly true of the Muslim community – the Ummah – though even this congregation is split by the Shi’a–Sunni divide noted above.

Countries

South and Southwest Asia constitute a region of extremes. On the one hand, its river valleys were the cradles of agricultural civilisation. Four are of particular importance. In Southwest Asia, the Euphrates and the Tigris watered the irrigated fields of ancient Mesopotamia – literally translated as ‘the land between the rivers’. In South Asia, the Indus and the Ganges have played similar roles fostering agricultural and urban civilisation. All four rivers remain important to human settlement in the region, as evidenced by the high population densities found along their banks. Several deserts also cover the region. These include the Arabian Desert that spans the many states of the Arabian Peninsula, the Syrian Desert that lies between Lebanon and the Euphrates River, and the Thar Desert on the southern and central India–Pakistan border. In general, Southwest Asia is semi-arid or arid, with narrow lanes of arable land where irrigation or local climate permit. South Asia has more rainfall, particularly due to the seasonal monsoon – a weather pattern that brings large amounts of rain to the Indian subcontinent between June and December. A number of seas surround the region. The Indian Ocean lies to the south, divided into the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal by India. The Persian Gulf (sometimes called the Arabian Gulf ) is a key oil-producing region. Its narrow opening at the Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s strategic chokepoints. The Red Sea separates the region from Africa, with the Suez Canal leading to the Mediterranean Sea. Asiatic Turkey is separated from Europe by the Bosporus and Dardanelles, two straits leading to the Black Sea. The Dead Sea on the border of Palestine and Jordan – the lowest point on land in the world at 423 metres below sea level – and the Caspian Sea separating Iran from the former Soviet Union should also be noted.

South and Southwest Asia is a region of considerable geological activity, with a spine of mountains running from Turkey to the eastern borders of India. All are part of the Alpide Belt – an area of folded earth that runs from the Alps of Europe to the highlands of Indonesia and was created by the collision of the Indian, Arabian and African tectonic plates with Eurasia. The Himalayas are the highest mountains on Earth, created by the Indian subcontinent colliding with present-day Tibet. Mount Everest (8,848 metres), located on the border of Nepal and China, is the highest point on the planet. In Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Himalayas merge with the mountains of the Hindu Kush, which have played a major role in the many wars fought in this


part of the world. This line of mountains and highlands continues westward through Iran, eastern and northern Iraq, and Turkey.


� the Euphrates River

� the tigris River

� the indus River

� the Ganges River

� the Arabian Desert

� the Syrian Desert

� the thar Desert

� the indian Ocean

� the Arabian Sea

� the Bay of Bengal

� the Persian Gulf

� the Red Sea


� the Black Sea

� the Dead Sea

� the Caspian Sea

� the Alpide Belt

� the Himalayas

� Mount Everest

� the Hindu Kush

International society in South and Southwest Asia

South and Southwest Asia is an interesting region for those studying IR. Its inter-state relations are often competitive rather than cooperative, particularly with reference to ongoing tensions along the western borders of India and the borders of Israel. It is interesting to note that these borders also mark the region’s main religious divisions between Hinduism, Islam and Judaism. It would be simplistic – and historically incorrect – to say that religion has caused these conflicts. After all, different religious groups in this part of the world have lived together peacefully for long periods, and continue to do so within many states in the region. Significant blame for regional tensions must be put at the door of the states involved in these conflicts, which often use religion as a means of uniting their populations against other governments. Much the same is true of the Sunni–Shi’a divide within Islam, which was used by governments in Iran and Iraq to mobilise national support for state actions against one another during the Iran–Iraq War (1980–88). As the military and political alliance between mostly Muslim Turkey and Christian Europe shows, religious division does not necessarily lead to political conflict.

Although you should be careful not to blame religion for the region’s international crises, it is fair to say that non-state, transnational relations continue to play a role in the region. Recalling Fred Halliday’s definition of IR in the Introduction, transnational relations across state frontiers are an important part of our discipline. They include economic, political and social interactions between non-state units such as TNCs, political parties and NGOs, and cultural groups. The Arab Spring, which will be discussed at length in Unit 3, represents a transnational phenomenon. Beginning in Tunisia, it spread through the populations of North Africa and the Middle East, forcing state executives to reform or step down across the greater Middle East – which includes the states of North Africa and Southwest Asia. Though state and non-state actors will feel its long-term consequences, there is no doubting the Arab Spring’s transnational causes and effects.

So what of the institutions that shape unit behaviour in the region’s international society? Previous sections have focused on sovereignty as an organising principle in inter-state relations. It plays a similar role in South and Southwest Asia, justifying states’ rights to govern their jurisdictions as they choose without external interference. Two factors, however, limit sovereignty’s hold on state behaviour.

First, not all of the states in this region recognise one another as sovereign members of the society of states. This is most evident in Israel and Palestine, with both parties to the conflict often violating each other’s borders. The November 2012 conflict between Israel and the


Hamas government of the Gaza Strip is a good example, with neither side willing to recognise the other’s sovereign rights. To Israel, Hamas is a terrorist organisation and therefore cannot constitute a legitimate government. To Hamas, Israel is an imperialist creation that has illegally occupied land belonging to Palestinians. As a result, both felt justified in their attacks on the other and neither side was able to negotiate directly forcing Egypt to act as an intermediary in ceasefire talks.

Second, not all the states of the region are able to effectively govern their territories and populations, calling their sovereign rights into question. The Syrian civil war, still raging as of March 2013, has destroyed the central government’s ability to defend its borders and control its population. It has become a failed state – unable to exercise its international responsibilities. What rights, therefore, does it have in relation to neighbouring states? Is Turkey still required to remain on its side of the border if it feels threatened by events in Syria? India has made this argument to justify its security operations on Pakistani soil. Likewise, what rights does the Iraqi government in Baghdad hold in regards to territories controlled by the largely autonomous Kurdish regional government in the country’s north? What about the Afghan government in Kabul, whose hold over large swathes of the Afghan interior remains very weak? At what point does a state forfeit its sovereign rights, allowing other members of international society to intervene in its domestic affairs? This has long been a pressing question in IR, and will be a focus of your studies in Units 3 and 4.

ACtivity Look at the news stories coming out of this region over the last week. How many of them concern conflict between states in the region? How many of them concern conflict within states in the region? On your map from the previous activity, mark areas of heightened interstate or intrastate conflict.

Conclusion

South and Southwest Asia are frequently in the news, often due to international and domestic instability. IR provides several paths to understanding the causes and effects of this instability. By looking at interactions between its states, nations and countries, it becomes possible to identify inter-state and transnational trends affecting the region’s international society. These trends can then be analysed to make sense of international behaviour in this part of the world.

GLOSSARy

Jammu-Kashmir

Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)

Arab League

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

Religions of the Book

transnational

Arab Spring

failed state

47U

nit 1

: Sta

tes,

natio

ns a

nd c

ount

ries

Section 1.6: Regional international societies 5: Europe and the former Soviet Union

States 48

Nations 50

Countries 50

International society in Europe and the former USSR 51

Conclusion 54


CURRENt EvENtS ACtivity As you work through this section, follow the main stories on the BBC’s Europe news desk. Stories dealing with events in the Central Asian republics can be found on the BBC’s Asian news desk. in your journal, record the date, location and general issue at stake in each story. Over time, you will develop a database of news items on which you can draw for analysis later in this course.

For much of the past 500 years, the region described by Europe and the former Soviet Union was among the most violent in the world. It was also the heartland of imperialism – an institution that encouraged member states to acquire political control over distant territories and populations. Imperialism only declined as an institution of European international society in the second half of the 20th century, after the continent’s major powers had been weakened – politically and economically – by two world wars and their aftermath. Modern European international society has evolved a new set of practices and principles to order relations between its members. These have transformed the region from one of endemic conflict to one of remarkable cooperation – even convergence. Understanding the nature of this transformation and the direction of future developments is the main goal of this section.

States

Europe and the former Soviet Union include four main subregions: the European peninsula, Russia, the Caucasus and Central Asia. Its borders stretch from Iceland in the Atlantic to the Pacific coast and from the borders of Afghanistan and Iran to the Arctic Ocean (Figure 1.6.1). The region includes 54 sovereign states and a range of non-self-governing territories and de facto states with limited or no international recognition. Fifteen of the 54 were once part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), which until 1991 included the three Baltic states – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania; Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova; three states in the Caucasus Mountains – Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan; and the five republics of Central Asia – Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. The remaining states are located on and around the European peninsula, which extends westward from Russia into the Atlantic. This includes a portion of Turkey, which straddles Europe and Asia across the Bosporus and Dardanelles.

Figure 1.5.1. A map illustrating the borders of Europe and the former Soviet Union. Washington, DC: Central intelligence Agency, 2009. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/ref_maps/political/pdf/world.pdf Cropped and shaded by author.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/europe/



https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/ref_maps/political/pdf/world.pdf

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/ref_maps/political/pdf/world.pdf


The region is home to three nuclear-armed states: the Russian Federation, France and the United Kingdom. Though not as large as many other militaries around the world, European forces tend to be technically advanced and cooperate in the cause of continental defence. This is particularly true of members of NATO, which brings together European and North American states in the cause of collective security – a principle by which an attack on any member of the organisation requires all other members to come to their aid. Military cooperation becomes less common as we look at the states of the former USSR, which have had less success defusing conflicts. Recent wars in the Caucasus are a good example. Europe and the former USSR are also home to five of the 10 largest economies in the world, as measured by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). When taken as a whole, the economy of the European Union (EU) – a unique international organisation that includes 27 member states stretching from Finland to Portugal – is the largest in the world, with a GDP of over $17.5 trillion in 2011. Russia competes with Saudi Arabia to be the largest oil producer in the world, with Norway, Kazakhstan, the UK and Azerbaijan also producing more than one million barrels per day.

The region also wields significant cultural influence. Thanks to its imperial past, Europe and the former USSR is the birthplace of several transnational languages including English, Spanish, French and Russian. It is also home to several Christian denominations including the Roman Catholic Church – which has its base in the Vatican City, the smallest sovereign state in the world – Greek Orthodoxy, Russian Orthodoxy and a range of Protestant denominations. At the same time, much of Europe is highly secular, promoting the separation of religious and public life.

One reason for the large number of states in this region is the presence of many microstates – states of very small size and severely limited power capabilities. Six European states rule territories of less than 1,000 km2, and nine have populations under one million. Another reason is the presence of 15 successor states to the USSR, the collapse of which radically redrew the map of the world. With the fall of this one-time superpower, Europe was no longer split by the East–West division that dominated the region during the Cold War. One-time Soviet allies in Eastern Europe began to adopt the international practices and principles of Western Europe, joining many of the regional organisations designed to coordinate economic, political and defence policies across the region. At the same time, the collapse of Yugoslavia into one de facto and six de jure states led to an eruption of ethnic violence in the Balkan peninsula. This has led to the involvement of European states in the political and economic administration of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, bringing their sovereign status into question.

ACtivityLocate the blank political map of Europe and the former Soviet Union on the vLE.

Using the lists of military and economic capabilities posted in Unit 1’s section of the vLE, identify the 10 most powerful states in the region. Be sure to explain your choices in a few sentences.




Nations

Given its large size, it should come as no surprise that Europe and the former Soviet Union make up a linguistically, religiously and ethnically diverse region. As the birthplace of the nation-state, it is also unsurprising that Europe’s identities remain closely tied to the state. The original nation-state was the first French Republic, which emerged out of the French Revolution (1789–99) and actively worked to suppress minority cultures and languages in favour of a single ‘French’ identity based on language and citizenship. Governments around the world have copied this example ever since, encouraging a ‘civic’ sense of nationalism. State education systems play a leading role in the maintenance of these identities, often discouraging local dialects and cultures. Though rooted in the French Revolution, the principle by which citizens’ identity is tied to the state they occupy stretches back much farther in European history. In the Peace of Augsburg that ended the first major war of the Protestant Reformation in 1555, the principle of ‘cuius regio, eius religio’ (Latin: ‘whose region, his religion’) established the right of a prince to establish a single religion in his jurisdiction. The principle was reaffirmed in the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years’ War in 1648 and recognised the sovereignty of territorial governments throughout the continent. According to both peace agreements, governments have the right to determine their populations’ identities. It is interesting to note that conflicts over nationality led directly to the establishment of state sovereignty in Europe’s evolving international society, illustrating the close connection between identity and the state.

This state-supported programme of national homogenisation was always less successful in the ethnically diverse Russian Empire and the Soviet Union that succeeded it in 1917. Thus, the USSR’s former possessions in Central Asia remain mostly Muslim rather than Russian Orthodox, as do several provinces of the Russian Federation. Moreover, Soviet successor states have worked hard to develop their own distinct nationalities to differentiate them from the Russian Federation, particularly in the Baltic states and the Caucasus Mountains. Although Russian is the language of business and diplomacy throughout the former USSR, it lives alongside a variety of Indo-European, Turkic, Persian and Mongolian languages that continue to thrive in and around the region.

After many centuries as a source of immigrants, Europe and the former USSR are today a destination. As such, the region’s once-homogenous national identities need to cope with new citizens from different linguistic, religious and cultural backgrounds. This has become a hot topic in the region, with states either embracing multiculturalism – the belief that a nation can contain many identities – or reacting against it by trying to reinforce ‘traditional’ definitions of the nation. It is important to note that even these ‘traditional’ definitions are historically evolved rather than primordial, a fact that many conservative nationalists forget.

Countries

Europe and the former Soviet Union span two continents. Europe incorporates all the lands north of the Mediterranean, Black and Caspian Seas, with an eastern border marked by the Ural Mountains. Beyond the Urals stretch Asiatic Russia – commonly referred to as Siberia – and the states of Central Asia. The entire region is surrounded by a series of seas and oceans. Starting at the Black Sea, these include the Mediterranean Sea, the Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Norwegian Sea, the Arctic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean and the Sea of Okhotsk. Two inland seas, the quickly disappearing Aral and the enormous Caspian, are also important to regional IR. Between these sea lanes are a number of strategic choke points, including the Bosporus and Dardanelles that separate the Black Sea from the Mediterranean, the Straits of Gibraltar that separate the Mediterranean from the Atlantic, and the Bering Strait that separates the Arctic and Pacific Oceans between Siberia and North America. The region’s many rivers have helped internal


transport. Among the most important for regional IR are the Rhine and Danube– which connect many of the states of Europe – and the Amur River that marks the border between eastern Siberia and China.

On land, the region is home to several important mountain ranges. The European Alps mark one end of the Alpide belt that stretches from France to Indonesia. The Carpathian Mountains of Eastern Europe arc through the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Ukraine, Romania and Serbia. The Urals stretch from the Arctic Ocean toward the Caspian Sea, marking the separation of Europe and Asia. In Central Asia, the Tien Shan Mountains mark the border between China in the East and Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan in the west, merging with the Hindu Kush to the south and the mountains of Mongolia and Siberia to the east.

ACtivityEither using your map from the previous activity or on a fresh outline map from the vLE, identify the following natural features:

� the Rhine River

� the Danube River

� the volga River

� the Amur River

� the Black Sea

� the Dardanelles

� the Bosporus


� the Straits of Gibraltar


� the North Sea

� the Baltic Sea

� the Arctic Ocean

� the Bering Strait

� the Alps

� the Carpathian Mountains

� the Ural Mountains

� the tien Shan Mountains

International society in Europe and the former USSR

Unlike East, South and Southwest Asia, most of the institutions that describe international behaviour in Europe and the former USSR have been formalised in intergovernmental organisations (IGOs). IGOs are organisations of sovereign states, in which rules for membership and behaviour are enshrined in a founding treaty or charter. Constructed in the wake of the Second World War (1939–45) and the Cold War (1948–91), these organisations bring states together in formal partnerships to foster cooperation between their members. The best-known IGOs in Europe and the former USSR are the European Union (EU), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

Originally designed to create a single economic market on the continent, the EU has grown into the most ambitious of the three IGOs, capable of compelling its 27 member states to accept regionally decided laws and statutes (Figure 1.6.2).


Figure 1.6.2: A map highlighting European Union member states. Hayden120, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:European_Union.svg

Essential readingStop and read ‘the process of European integration’ section of Chapter 26 of your textbook (pp.438–41).

Note the benefits and drawbacks of EU membership.

Your textbook has two handy tables outlining the process by which the EU has evolved and the powers that it can wield (p.439). Many in IR argue about the extent to which the EU should be considered an independent unit in regional and global relations. Some say that it is no more than a collection of sovereign states, with no independent identity. Others point to the gradual evolution of EU-wide regimes – formal organisations intended to coordinate members’ policies and generate common European positions on economic, political and social matters. These regimes include the European Central Bank, the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the European Court of Human Rights. Even European states that have not joined the EU, such as Norway and Switzerland, coordinate their policies with those coming out of the Union’s headquarters in Brussels and Strasbourg. The stresses put on the EU following the 2008 global financial crisis and the European debt crisis that followed have caused some to doubt the EU’s viability as a political and economic project. However, when you compare Europe’s generally cooperative reaction to these crises with confrontational steps taken in similar circumstances during the 1930s, there is little doubt that the continent has come a long way. It is interesting to note that EU membership requires states to surrender some aspects of their sovereignty to a

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:European_Union.svg


supranational organisation, illustrating that sovereignty in Europe continues to evolve as states reevaluate the advantage to be gained through cooperation and integration.

NATO is a collective security alliance founded by the USA and its western European allies in 1949 to defend against Soviet expansion and the possible resurgence of Germany following the Second World War. According to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, all member states are called on to come to the aid of any other member who is attacked by an outside party. Though originally intended to unite US and European governments against Soviet threats, Article 5’s most famous use followed the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks on the USA, when it was used to bring together support for US actions against the Taliban government in Afghanistan. The promise of collective defence caused many former Soviet allies in Eastern Europe to seek NATO membership after 1991, leading to the organisation’s gradual expansion eastward to include 28 member states (Figure 1.6.3). This expansion has been perceived as a threat by Russian leaders, leading to several diplomatic standoffs between NATO and the government in Moscow. Collective security is particularly attractive to less powerful states, which use such arrangements to pool military resources and boost the hard power they can bring to bear on international situations. It can also be risky, however, as states might find themselves drawn into conflicts in which they would not normally become involved.

Figure 1.6.3: A map highlighting NATO member states. Donarreiskoffer, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Map_of_NAtO_countries.png

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is the broadest and loosest of the three IGOs under discussion, with 57 member states from Europe, Asia and North America (see Figure 1.6.4 below). Whereas the EU requires its member states to integrate their policies and NATO calls on its members to come to one another’s aid in times of necessity, the OSCE is a forum for communication and discussion. As such, it is much more of a ‘talking shop’, like the UN, than either the EU or NATO. The non-binding character of OECD decisions allows member states to take part in discussion and debates without the risk of losing their sovereign independence – a major concern of many members in the former Soviet Union, particularly Russia. Despite its status as an international forum, the OECD has had an impact on its three areas of special concern: security cooperation, economic cooperation and human rights cooperation. For example, it often sends monitors to observe voting processes and encourage free and fair elections in member states. Some criticise these monitors as ‘toothless’, noting that they can only comment on the voting processes they observe without bringing about any real changes. Others note that OECD monitors possess a form of ‘soft power’ insofar as they can identify areas of concern to the international community, sometimes shaming the governments concerned into reforming their systems. Moreover, they point out that attempts to force member states to do anything would simply lead to their withdrawal from the organisation, leaving the rest of the region without any form of influence over state behaviour.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Map_of_NATO_countries.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Map_of_NATO_countries.png


Figure 1.6.4: A map showing OSCE member states. Datastat, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/OSCEcountries.PNG

Essential readingStop and read the ‘Eurasia and the post-Soviet states’ section of ‘Regional cooperation in a global context’ of Chapter 26 of your textbook (pp.437–38).

Note the challenges ahead for EU and NAtO expansion.

Conclusion

Europe and the former USSR make up a region of central importance to global IR. Populated by major regional powers, its states have significant hard and soft power capabilities. For centuries, they used this power to conquer and rule distant peoples and territories while jealously guarding their sovereign independence. After two world wars and the Cold War, Europe has emerged as a very different region. At its heart is the EU – an organisation unique in the world for its ability to compel member states to surrender aspects of their sovereignty in the name of cooperation and integration. NATO remains primarily responsible for the region’s security architecture, particularly insofar as it binds the USA to the cause of continental defence. Finally, the OSCE is the broadest and loosest IGO in the region, bringing states together and encouraging domestic reforms but never limiting the sovereign independence of its members. Together, these three organisations make up a set of expanding social circles in which institutions become less formal and less binding the further away they are from the region’s core regimes.

GLOSSARy

imperialism

Central Asia

collective security

microstate

successor state

Peace of Westphalia

intergovernmental organisation

European Union (EU)

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)regimes

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/OSCEcountries.PNG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/OSCEcountries.PNG

55U

nit 1

: Sta

tes,

natio

ns a

nd c

ount

ries

Test your knowledge and understanding

Section 1.1

1. In the following sentence, do the bold terms refer to states, nations, or countries? Explain your answers.

a. China and Vietnam continue to disagree about their borders in the South China Sea.

b. In 2003, the USA and its allies invaded Iraq.

c. In 2011, Egypt overthrew the government of President Hosni Mubarak.

2. How do institutions create order in an anarchic international society?

Section 1.2

1. What are the most powerful states in Africa? Explain your answers by reference to hard and soft power.

2. What can sanctions tell us about the power of states and international societies?

Section 1.3

1. On a blank map of the Americas, identify the following: the USA, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, Argentina, the Amazon River, the Mississippi River, the West Indies, the Great Plains.

2. What role has the USA played in shaping the institutions of US international society?

Section 1.4

1. On a blank map of East Asia and the Pacific, identify the following: China, Japan, Polynesia, Australia, Singapore, the South China Sea, the East China Sea, the Straits of Malacca, the Yangtze River, the Ring of Fire.

2. How might China’s increasing power on the world stage affect the institutions that define regional and global international society?

Section 1.5

1. Which states in South and Southwest Asia hold the most influence over the region’s international society?

2. Why has sovereignty proved to be less-than-successful as an organising principle in the international society of South and Southwest Asia?

Section 1.6

1. On a map of Europe and the former Soviet Union, identify the following: Siberia, Central Asia, Germany, the United Kingdom, Russia, the Rhine River, the Danube River, the Amur River, the Caucasus Mountains, the Straits of Gibraltar, the North Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Bering Strait.

2. ‘Europe and the former Soviet Union do not share a single international society.’ Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

56U

nit 1

: Sta

tes,

natio

ns a

nd c

ount

ries

Concluding comments

This unit has aimed to introduce you to states, nations and countries around the world, to define key concepts, such as international society, and to encourage you to think critically about the causes and effects of international events. As you have seen, different regions of the world operate within different forms of international society. In South and Southeast Asia, international society tends to be competitive to the point of open conflict between state and non-state units. Europe, a region long defined by intense interstate conflict, is now home to a more cooperative type of international society that encourages its members to solve disagreements by peaceful negotiation and compromise. Over the next three units, these lessons will be put to use as you examine the theories that help to define IR as a discipline and some of the most pressing issues on the international agenda.

A reminder of your learning outcomes

Having completed this unit, and the Essential reading and activities, you should be able to:

� define and discuss states, nations, countries and international societies

� identify the world’s states on a political map and discuss their power

� identify regions’ major physical features and socio-cultural divisions

� comment on basic elements of regions’ international societies.

57U

nit 2

: Fou

r mod

els

of in

tern

atio

nal r

elat

ions




Aims 58

Learning outcomes 58


Further reading 59

References cited 59

Unit 2: Four models of international relations 58


This unit will explore four theoretical approaches that you will use to address international issues. Liberalism, Realism, Marxism and the English School were all influenced by the times and places in which they developed. Liberalism – born in the days following the First World War (1914–18) – began by trying to understand the conditions necessary for the establishment of a sustainable international peace. Realism – born in the USA after the Second World War (1939–45) and in the early days of the long Cold War – is more interested in explaining the persistence of war and conflict across human history. Marxism – which bases its understanding of IR on the economic theories of Karl Marx (1818–83) – focuses instead on the relationship between humanity’s economic and political systems, explaining political interactions in terms of the economic conditions in which they are embedded. Finally, the English School – which was developed at the London School of Economics and Political Science during the Cold War – focuses its attention on the historical evolution of international society, tracing the development and implications of its current, anarchic constitution. As a result of their different interests, each theoretical approach embraces a unique set of assumptions about IR. These produce four different models of how ‘the international’ works, with each designed to highlight certain kinds of actors and interactions. Understanding the concepts and assumptions that support these models will be your main task in the four sections that follow.

Week Unit Section7 2: Four models of international

relations2.1: The English School: understanding international

society

8 2.2: Liberalism: interdependence and regimes

9 2.3: Realism: anarchy and insecurity

10 2.4: Marxism: political economy and international relations

Aims

This unit aims to:

� introduce you to four of the main theoretical approaches to understanding international events

� explain the ways in which these theories explain world events

� use each theory to analyse a specific question in IR.

Learning outcomes


� explain the main arguments of the English School, Liberalism, Realism and Marxism

� define important terms and concepts associated with each theory

� use each set of arguments to explain an international event.

Unit 2: Four models of international relations 59

Essential reading



Further reading


References cited

Buzan, B. From international to world society? English School theory and the structure of globalization. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) [ISBN 9780521541213].

Bull, H. The anarchical society: a study of order in world politics. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2012) fourth edition [ISBN 9780231161299].

Engels, Friedrich and Marx. The communist manifesto. www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=3273359

United Nations. Charter of the United Nations. 1 UNTS XVI, 1945. www.un.org/en/documents/charter

Waltz, K. Theory of international politics. (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979) [ISBN 9780075548522].

http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=3273359

http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=3273359

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter

60U

nit 2

: Fou

r mod

els

of in

tern

atio

nal r

elat

ions

Section 2.1: The English School: understanding international society

Organising principle 61

Concepts and assumptions 61

Applications 63

Conclusion 65

Unit 2: Four models of international relations • Section 2.1: The English School 61

Organising principle

In Unit 1, you were introduced to the idea of an international society – a collection of international actors whose behaviour is shaped by their shared practices and values. At the time, you were probably not aware that you were engaged in a theoretical discussion of IR. That is good. Theory can be a very intimidating word, calling up images of mind-boggling scientific equations and philosophical arguments. Don’t panic. Theories are just tools that we can use to make sense of the world around us. In IR, they allow us to answer questions about human systems that would otherwise be far too complex for us to understand. Just as a map helps you to navigate from Point A to Point B by providing you with a simplified model of the geography through which you are passing, IR theories create simplified models of human interaction at an international scale. One might focus on the patterns of international trade and finance that constitute the international economic system. Neither maps nor the models created by theories are completely accurate renderings of the world they are describing. The purpose of both is to highlight and mask specific aspects of reality, allowing you to identify causes, effects, problems and solutions in what would otherwise be an overwhelming rush of data.

The English School simplifies the world of IR by describing it in terms of one or more international societies – collections of international actors that are bound together by their members’ shared practices and values. One such society might be associated with the practice of diplomatic immunity, which states around the world generally accept as a cornerstone of their international relationships. Diplomatic immunity is an example of an international institution – a shared practice whose acceptance marks the boundaries of a given international society. How can an institution mark the boundaries of a society? Let’s return to the example of diplomatic immunity. States that reject this institution cannot become full members of the global society of states because the society’s other members simply will not accept them. Without the assurances provided by diplomatic immunity, a state may not be willing to risk its personnel in a foreign capital. In order to be included in a given international society, an actor must therefore accept (at least nominally) the practices and values – that is, the institutions – that define its boundaries. This is not to say that an actor will always comply with a society’s dominant institutions. International actors can and do violate their societies’ practices and values. When they do, however, they can expect to receive some form of sanction from the society’s other members. These sanctions can range from informal warnings against future violations, through trade and travel embargoes that isolate the offending actor, to large-scale military interventions to force the offending actor back into line with international society’s dominant institutions.

Concepts and assumptions

One of the English School’s key thinkers is Hedley Bull; whose 1977 book The anarchical society distils many of the main ideas. Bull argues that international society is fundamentally anarchic insofar as it does not have a supreme ruler or arbiter who can judge disputes and decide on rules of membership. He notes that although international society is anarchic (literally ‘without a leader’), it is not chaotic. In fact, argues Bull, international society is remarkably well-ordered despite the fact that nobody, in the end, is in charge. Explaining how international anarchy produces international order is therefore one of his main interests – an interest that members of the English School continue to pursue by tracing the evolution of international institutions over time. Bull and others note that institutions – the defining characteristics of an international society – can be enshrined in formal organisations like the United Nations or informally adopted over time by society’s actors. They change and evolve with society. Imperialism, an institution of European international society until the mid-20th century, emerged as a shared practice among European states long before it was formally incorporated into international law. In the


process, imperialism became fundamental to European international society. This is an important point for the English School. Over time, customary practices can become perceived as ‘normal’ and ‘proper’. Just as the fine silt deposited by rivers can slowly transform into rock through a continuous process of sedimentation, so too can informal practices and values become institutionalised within international society by continual repetition. As Bull explains:

By an institution, we do not necessarily imply an organization or administrative machinery, but rather a set of habits and practices shaped towards the realization of common goals. (1977, p.75)

These informal practices may or may not lead to the development of more formal arrangements, in which institutions become codified in international law through treaties and agreements.

Once a defining feature of European international society, the practices and values associated with the institution of imperialism have fallen out of favour since the Second World War. The recognition of former colonies by their one-time imperial rulers has turned the institutional tide from one that reinforced European overseas empires in the 19th century to one that largely dismantled them in the 20th. This brings us to another key assumption of the English School: international societies change over time. Institutions emerge and change. There is no reason to believe that the practices and values currently accepted by any global or regional international society will remain static. Formal treaties and informal codes of practice alike are open to revision – the former by means of new international treaties and the latter by means of cultural shifts within international society. Both signify the acceptance of new practices and values by international actors. This embrace of historical change makes the English School particularly good at analysing historical change in international societies, whose defining institutions evolve as practices and values change over time.

The last point that we need to consider in reference to the English School is what role institutions play in international society. How do institutions bring order to international anarchy? Barry Buzan argues that they do so by answering two main questions:

1. Who is a member of the international society that you are studying?

2. What practices and values are considered legitimate by members of international society?

Institutions determine a society’s rules of membership (question one) and its rules of behaviour (question two). These can either evolve over time, as do the informal institutions discussed earlier with reference to Hedley Bull, or they can be consciously designed to deal with specific problems, as are institutions associated with treaties and international agreements. International society does not require a supreme arbiter or government to provide it with its constitutional structure. Order can develop organically from the repeated interaction of international actors, allowing their society to be both anarchic and orderly – lacking a ruler, but not lacking rules.

Essential readingStop and read ‘the emergence of the modern international society’ section of Chapter 2 of your textbook (pp.41–45).

Note the main institutions of European international society. you will find that many of these principles and practices form the basis for the institutional framework of global international society today.


Applications

The English School’s approach to IR provides an effective means of comparing and contrasting international societies around the world. Like all theories, this one simplifies your image of ‘the international’ in order to reach general conclusions about the nature of IR without forcing you to study every actor and interaction on the planet. You will recall from Unit 1 that the international stage is inhabited by a dizzying array of interacting states, nations and countries. The English School simplifies this picture of IR by prioritising the study of certain actors and certain types of interaction. This reduces the number of actors and interactions by folding the planet’s 200+ states and its thousands of nations and non-state actors into a much smaller number of global and regional international societies. Early in its history, the English School focused almost solely on states as actors in international society. It has since widened the range of actors that it includes in its analysis, bringing in transnational corporations (TNCs) and some transnational non-governmental organisations. The influence of non-state actors is more apparent in the economic and social sectors than in politics. In the political sector, the state continues to dominate.

One of the great benefits of the English School’s approach to IR is the theory’s ability to trace similarities and differences between the planet’s global and regional international societies. In his 2004 book, Barry Buzan argues that the planet is inhabited by a number of overlapping international societies. At the global level, international actors are linked by a relatively ‘thin’ form of international society characterised by a few shared practices and values. The most widely recognised of these include state sovereignty (a rule of membership) and diplomacy (a rule of behaviour). These are widely accepted by states around the world and form the basis of the global society of states. At the regional level, more exclusive international societies often develop ‘thicker’ sets of formal and informal institutions than their global counterparts, based on neighbouring actors’ more frequent interactions and longer shared histories. These longer histories allow informal practices more time to become widely followed in regional societies, providing them with a thicker set of unifying practices and values than is available at the global scale. Buzan explains the resulting model by comparing it to a hypothetical frying pan filled with several eggs. As he explains:

although nearly all states in the [global] system belong to a thin, pluralist international society (the layer of the egg-white), there are sub-global and/or regional clusters that are much more thickly developed… (the yolks). (2004, p.208)

Relatively ‘thick’ regional societies float on top of a thinner, global society. With this metaphor in mind, it is worth thinking about the institutions that link international society at the global scale and those that link the regions discussed in Unit 1.

ACtivity Look at the list on the vLE of institutions developed by different members of the English School (see Buzan 2004, p.174, Glossary).

Based on your readings in Unit 1, which of these institutions characterise international society in:

� East Asia

� Europe?

Explain your choices in a few sentences.


Beyond providing a simplified way of thinking about IR at global and regional scales, the English School’s approach also provides you with the opportunity to compare institutional structures across history. As indicated earlier, imperialism was once a defining institution of European – and arguably global – international society. It helped determine both who could be a full member of international society (imperial actors) and how they should act (e.g. asymmetric economic relationships, rule by foreign elites). This is no longer the case. Imperialism has formally been replaced by other rules of membership and behaviour in Europe and around the world. Other institutions – such as sovereignty – have proven to be more resilient than imperialism, providing a basis for the ‘thin’ global society described in the fried egg model. Why have some institutions withered while others have prospered? Do obsolete institutions continue to affect membership and behaviour even after their apparent decline? Although imperialism is formally prohibited in global international society, aspects of it – such as foreign domination of local economies – continue to affect IR around the world. Can we draw any useful conclusion about contemporary IR from this historical continuity? Do obsolete institutions truly ‘disappear’ or do they simply get rebranded?

Another interesting application for English School theory looks at the different institutions that characterise cooperative, competitive and combative global and regional societies. An international society does not need to be peaceful or orderly. Many, such as that of Europe, have historically been characterised by high levels of competition and conflict between its members. This has resulted in frequent wars between society’s constituent states. To many in the English School, war does not indicate a failure of international society. Rather, it can be a product of a society’s institutional makeup. Institutions like militarism and nationalism, which have deep roots in international history, push international actors into violent conflict. In societies defined by such practices, war is an essential institution. It can provide a means – however imperfect – of conflict resolution. In the past six decades, Europe’s international society has transformed into something much more cooperative. War has been replaced as an organising principle by other institutions – many of which are centred on formal agreements associated with the European Union (EU) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). By investigating Europe’s institutional evolution, it may be possible to identify developments that explain the region’s transformation from one of intense interstate competition to one of widespread interstate cooperation. These lessons might then be applied to other regions seeking a similar transformation.

ACtivity Look again at your answers to the last activity. in a few sentences, address the following questions:

� Which of the institutions associated with Europe have been most responsible for shifting its regional international society onto a more cooperative footing since 1945?

� Which international institutions help to explain East Asia’s more competitive form of international society?


Conclusion

English School theory revolves around the idea of international society – a collection of international actors linked by shared sets of formal and informal institutions. It uses this theoretical concept to simplify the study of IR by organising actors and their interactions into a limited number of global and regional societies, each possessing ‘thick’ or ‘thin’ sets of shared practices and values. Different institutional structures can result in different kinds of international societies – from the highly cooperative society that currently exists in Europe to the much more competitive society that characterises IR in East Asia. By tracing the different institutional structures that define these societies, it is possible to compare and contrast them across space and time in order to assess the impact of different institutions on the evolution of international societies around the world.

ACtivity Given the regional and global international societies described in Unit 1, describe the institutions of international society in:

� Africa

� the Americas

� South and Southwest Asia.

Explain your choices and determine whether the resulting societies are essentially cooperative, competitive or combative.

GLOSSARy

international society

English School

international institution

anarchy

rules of membership

rules of behaviour

66U

nit 2

: Fou

r mod

els

of in

tern

atio

nal r

elat

ions

Section 2.2: Liberalism: interdependence and regimes



Applications 68

Conclusion 70

Unit 2: Four models of international relations • Section 2.2: Liberalism 67


Having looked at different kinds of cooperative, competitive and combative international societies, it is time to turn our attention to one of IR’s dominant intellectual traditions: Liberalism. With its philosophical roots in the 18th-century’s European Enlightenment, Liberalism focuses on ways in which actors’ interconnectedness can result in increasing cooperation and thereby ensure international peace and security in an otherwise anarchic international system. As such, Liberal theory is often prescriptive: recommending specific policy actions in pursuit of its international goals. The English School, meanwhile, tends to be descriptive – analysing the structure and composition of different international societies without determining which form of society is ‘best’. Whereas the English School accepts that war can be a legitimate form of conflict resolution in certain international societies, Liberalism tends to view military conflict as evidence of ‘failure’ – an evil that must be avoided whenever possible. It is important to note that there are many varieties of Liberal theory in IR and the other social sciences. Though connected by their intellectual histories, these varieties should not be confused with one another. Economic Liberalism – which encourages the reduction of government regulation and reliance on market forces to determine economic outcomes – is not the same as Liberal Institutionalism – arguably the most influential brand of Liberal thought in IR. You will need to be careful not to conflate these different concepts, something that is all too common in the media today.


International actors, argue Liberals, do not exist in isolation from one another. States, TNCs, NGOs and other actors are interdependent insofar as each relies on others to provide essential goods and services ranging from security to food to investment. Liberalism is concerned with limiting the potential for conflict in an anarchic world. Like members of the English School (ES), they look for order in what is otherwise an anarchic international system. Liberals argue that this order is provided by regimes – sets of principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures designed to address specific problems of international cooperation. These help to govern the interaction of state and non-state units, easing problems of collective action by codifying their rights and responsibilities in a series of treaties, agreements and charters. Unlike the institutions of the English School, Liberal regimes are consciously designed to address specific issue areas. The informal institutions of the ES, Liberals argue, cannot provide a sustainable basis for international cooperation. In order to be effective levers against anarchic competition, institutions’ informal practices and values must be codified into international law. Liberalism therefore sees international organisations – the organisational embodiments of regimes – as the best tools to ensure peaceful relations between actors and to resolve disputes between them.

Liberalism’s faith in regimes and international organisations as the best means of ensuring international peace and stability is based on the theory’s belief in an international harmony of interests. This concept argues that the interests of all international actors – if rationally calculated – are essentially similar. It is in all actors’ interests to pursue absolute gains in terms of their political influence and economic well being. These are achieved when units cooperate for their mutual benefit through collective action, pooling their resources in pursuit of shared goals. Liberals argue that international organisations, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), represent actors’ surest means of achieving absolute gains, making all state and non-state actors more secure and wealthy. This is very different from the relative gains that other theoretical schools – particularly Realism – pursue, in which international units try to strengthen themselves at one another’s expense.


Liberal Institutionalism is a relatively new variation on the Liberal philosophical tradition, only emerging as a coherent approach to IR during the late 20th century. As part of a much older and wider philosophical project, Liberal Institutionalism accepts many of Classical Liberalism’s guiding principles. For example, it assumes that peace is best achieved through the liberation of humanity from authoritarian rule through democratic processes. On the basis of considerable historical evidence, Liberals have argued that liberal democratic states tend to be less warlike than their authoritarian and theocratic neighbours. This is especially true when it comes to relations with other democracies, which have historically been characterised by much less belligerence than relations with non-democratic counterparts. This has led to the development of Democratic Peace Theory (DPT), which claims that liberal democracies do not go to war with one another. Although they will fight against non-democratic states, DPT asserts that a fully democratic world would necessarily be a peaceful one. The most likely flashpoints for international conflict therefore exist where democratic and non-democratic states collide, leading to a preference throughout Liberal IR for the establishment of democratic domestic governments – a goal that has occasionally been pursued through less-than-peaceful means. Though democratic institutions have occasionally been successfully forced on states ‘at the end of a bayonet’, as they were in post-1945 Germany and Japan, the severe difficulties experienced following the more recent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have cast considerable doubt on the efficacy of ‘fighting for peace’ through the forceful spread of democratic systems.

Liberalism is a theory that seeks to establish the conditions for international peace through the creation of regimes to deal with specific problems of cooperation in an otherwise anarchic international system. It identifies a board range of international actors – from states to TNCs and NGOs – as participants in global IR, with each relying on others to provide it with essential goods and services. This interdependence, the theory argues, is the best insurance against conflict – particularly when reinforced by a codified set of rules and organisations capable of addressing shared problems and achieving absolute gains for each of the actors involved. These regimes bring order to what Liberals see as an otherwise anarchic international system by establishing the rule of law internationally and thus overcoming the problems of coordination and cooperation at the international scale.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘Core ideas in liberal thinking on international relations’ section of Chapter 6 of your textbook (pp.104–08).

Note how the following concepts facilitate Liberal cooperation between states at the international level: international organisations, collective security and interdependence.

Applications

Liberalism is a theoretical approach with a clear goal: the establishment of the conditions necessary for a sustainable peace in an otherwise anarchic international system. The questions it seeks to answer revolve around this objective. Its assumptions and guiding concepts address the requirements of coordinated action at the international scale. It should therefore come as no surprise that Liberalism is best suited to analyses dealing directly with the role of regimes and international organisations in coordinating efforts to solve pressing global issues around the world.

At the global scale, the best known and arguably the most influential international regimes are focused around the organisations of the United Nations system. Though often regarded as a single entity, the UN is really a collection of international organisations working towards


specific goals. Its five principle organs – the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council and the International Court of Justice – are each responsible for the maintenance of a different international regime. The General Assembly sets the agenda for the UN system and acts as a forum in which all member states – and several non-state actors – can voice their opinions and mobilise support for specific political, economic and social goals. The Security Council is more narrowly concerned with the maintenance of ‘international peace and security’ through collective action. The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) is concerned with coordinating international action on a broad range of issues including economic development, culture, education and health. The Trusteeship Council is responsible for decolonisation – a goal it formally achieved in 1994 when Palau, the final trusteeship territory under the council’s scope, declared its independence. Finally, the International Court of Justice acts as the main arbiter of legal disputes between states, interpreting and applying international law to cases brought before it by members of the UN.

Liberalism provides a number of useful theoretical tools to help you to understand this complex system. First, the Liberal approach to IR can help you to understand the limits of the UN system. The UN is not a global government. As liberal thinkers in IR point out, the UN operates internationally rather than domestically – being made up of formally sovereign states rather than individuals. States do not have the same relationship to the UN as citizens do towards their governments. Whereas a state is normally able to order its citizens to follow the laws of the land regardless of their individual wishes, the UN has no such power over its membership. As Article 2.7 of the UN Charter clearly states:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter.

This effectively limits the organisation’s ability to force even relatively weak states to abide by its decisions except in cases of threats to international peace and security. As such, the UN is not a global government insofar as its members can and do often ignore its decisions. Rather, it is an organisation dedicated to global governance – the coordination of international action in pursuit of shared goals in an anarchic international system. The UN’s role in world affairs is not to legislate solutions to international problems, but rather to ensure that those member states wishing to cooperate in pursuit of solutions can do so effectively. This can make it look ineffective when one or more member states choose not to cooperate with its efforts. From the point of view of Liberals, however, this limitation is a natural product of the anarchic international system in which the UN is embedded. Without a supreme ruler or judge to settle disputes and force states into line with its decisions, the UN system must accept member states’ autonomy and the limits this places on its influence. To do otherwise would be to require the establishment of a global government – a goal explicitly rejected in the organisation’s Charter.

ACtivity in 500 words or less, use the vocabulary of Liberalism to answer the following question: ‘Some commentators claim that the UN will be unable to achieve its goal of international peace and stability until it transforms itself from an institution of global governance into a global government. Would a global government really make the world a more peaceful and stable place?’

Compare your answer with other students in your class.


Apart from its ability to analyse key international regimes and organisations, Liberalism provides the basis for many of the solutions proposed to international problems. Whether they face ecological crises, economic downturns, or violations of copyright law, states tend to create international organisations as a means of reaching international solutions. These organisations are able to codify international practices, creating formal regimes to regulate the sources of each problem. While imperfect insofar as they continue to operate in an anarchic international system, these regimes at least coordinate the actions of the world’s state and non-state actors, increasing the likelihood of effective crisis management.

ACtivity thinking back to Unit 1, how would you describe the level of interdependence between states in each of the following regions of the world:

� the Americas

� East Asia

� Southwest Asia

� Europe?

Provide an example from your current events journal to support your claim.

Conclusion

Liberalism revolves around the concepts of interdependence and regime-creation. The former describes the fact that state and non-state actors around the world rely on one another for the provision of essential goods and services. This interdependence means that any potential solutions to international problems will normally require a cooperative solution from a large number of international actors. In an anarchic international system, argue the Liberals, cooperation requires a codified set of international agreements laying out actors’ rights and responsibilities and setting up an administrative apparatus to ensure effective coordination. The goal of these regimes and their associated international organisations should be effective global governance rather than global government – an outcome that ensures the continued autonomy of international actors while maximising their chances of successfully tackling thorny global issues.

GLOSSARy

interdependent

regimes

international organisations

harmony of interests

absolute gains

global government

global governance

71U

nit 2

: Fou

r mod

els

of in

tern

atio

nal r

elat

ions

Section 2.3: Realism: anarchy and insecurity



Applications 75

Conclusion 76

Unit 2: Four models of international relations • Section 2.3: Realism 72


The English School and Liberalism focus on the international institutions, regimes, and organisations that bring some level of order to otherwise anarchic international societies and systems. Realism, born in the wake of the Second World War and the beginning of the Cold War, focuses on a very different set of topics. For Realists, the most important fact in IR is the existence of an anarchic international system inhabited by sovereign states whose interactions are profoundly influenced by the absence of a supreme ruler or judge to organise human relationships at the international scale. Realists’ model of the anarchic international system helps them to explain the persistence of war – defined as large-scale organised violence between two or more international actors in pursuit of political ends (Bull 1977, p.184) – in international history.


In this section, you will be introduced to two major schools of Realist thought – Classical Realism and Structural Realism. These share a number of assumptions about the world we live in. First, they identify states as the dominant actors in IR. Due to their lack of military capacity, non-state actors do not play an important role in Realist analysis. This statism – a belief in the primacy of state actors in the international system – is very different from the multi-actor model proposed by Liberalism and helps to define the Realist approach to understanding IR. Second, Realists of all stripes put considerable emphasis on the anarchic nature of the international system. This is not uncommon. After all, both the English School and Liberalism accept that there is no supreme ruler or judge to settle international disputes. However, whereas these theories identify (English School) institutions and (Liberal) regimes as potential sources of order and peace, Realism maintains that only power – defined as the ability to bend other actors to your will and to resist other actors’ attempts to do likewise – can ensure peace and stability at the international scale. Though Classical and Structural explanations of this assumption vary, both schools of Realism agree that states must pursue self-help strategies by ensuring that they can defend themselves and their interests against other states’ aggression. They reject the Liberal concept of a ‘harmony of interests’ shared by international actors, and question the sustainability of alliances over the long term. As a result, Realists of all stripes agree that the ultimate goal of all states must be their own survival – a goal that can only be pursued through the exercise of state power. All other goals, they argue, must be subordinated to this ultimate aim.

Classical Realism was the first Realist school to emerge following the end of the Second World War. Starting from the writings of Hans Morgenthau, it argues that states – as human collective actors – pursue power and security at one another’s expense. Morgenthau and his successors follow in the footsteps of Thomas Hobbes, a philosopher at the time of the English Civil War in the 17th century, who argued that human beings are aggressive and acquisitive beasts unless controlled by a hegemon – some form of dominant ruler or government. To Hobbes – and the Classical Realists who followed him almost 400 years after his death – human nature holds the key to understanding war and conflict. Man, he argues, is like a wolf to other men (homo homini lupus). In the absence of a government to control our aggressive instincts, human life is therefore ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’. Classical Realists use Hobbesian human nature to describe relations between states in a formally anarchic international system, leading them to conclude that war is a natural product of flawed human nature operating in an ungoverned and therefore insecure international environment. Each state must therefore rely on its own power to defend itself against potential aggressors – indeed, against every other state in the international system. Given these assumptions, Classical Realists have no trouble explaining the persistence of war, which they ascribe to moral flaws at the level of the individual human being.


Structural Realism, which emerged in the 1970s, reaches many of the same conclusions as its classical predecessor. It does so by looking at systemic rather than individual causes; focusing less on human nature and more on the structure of the international system in which states operate. Kenneth Waltz, whose 1979 book Theory of international politics provides the foundations for Realism’s subsequent structural explanations of war and IR, puts great emphasis on the distinction between his approach and that of Morgenthau and the Classical Realists. Whereas Classical Realism places responsibility for war at the feet of individual human nature, Waltz points to the character of the international system as the main determinant of war’s historical persistence. Individual human nature is not as important as the anarchic structure of the international environment in which states operate. In an anarchic world, states are victims of the security dilemma, in which one state’s efforts to ensure its survival will jeopardise the security of states around it. Waltz argues that the only rational course of action for a state in an anarchic international system is to maintain enough military and political capacity to defend itself against aggression. In doing so, it might seek alliances with others who – on the basis of a common threat – may or may not come to its aid in a crisis. Unfortunately, these steps toward self-defence will appear threatening to the states against which these preparations are targeted. The rational response of a state so threatened is to invest in its own material capabilities and, perhaps, to form its own alliances. As a result, states’ attempts to safeguard their survival will make the international arena less secure for everyone. Structural Realists maintain that the security dilemma explains war’s persistence. In the absence of a world government, states are condemned to exist in an environment of mutual suspicion. Moreover, one state’s declaration that it is seeking armed strength for purely defensive reasons is certain to be met with suspicion by its neighbours.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘One realism, or many?’ section of Chapter 5 of your textbook (pp.89–93).

Note the main differences between classical and structural Realism.

It is worth pausing to compare and contrast the three theoretical approaches to IR covered so far in this unit. They agree on several points. First, each accepts that IR takes place in an anarchic international environment. Second, all three theories use this characteristic to differentiate IR from domestic interactions, which are regulated by the presence of sovereign authorities capable of enacting and enforcing rules on their citizens and subjects. Finally, each theory sees the international scale as inhabited by collective actors – groups of individuals with enough unified decision-making capability to (a) reproduce themselves over time and (b) be treated as actors for the purposes of analysis. States, non-governmental organisations and multinational corporations all fit this definition, though not all are considered important by each the three theories under consideration. Realism, with its exclusive focus on states, has the most restricted definition of what can be considered international actors. Liberalism has a broader understanding, with states, NGOs and TNCs all playing roles in its international regimes and organisations. The English School – which considers international societies rather than international systems – falls somewhere between these two extremes. Some international societies resemble Realism’s competitive and combative model of IR, particularly when practices such as war and militarism, are defining institutions. Other societies will be more ordered, with greater emphasis on institutions, such as international law and diplomacy. These will bear a closer resemblance to the cooperative model of IR adopted by Liberalism.


Essential readingStop and read ‘the essential realism’ section of Chapter 5 of your textbook (pp.93–96).

Note the three main elements of all Realist thinking and key criticisms of these positions.

ACtivity Complete the tables below.

in table A, note down any assumptions or concepts that are shared by the theoretical pairs listed in the left-hand column. in table B, do the same for important conceptual differences.

Table A

Theories Overlapping assumptions and concepts

the English School and Liberalism

Liberalism and Realism

Realism and the English School

Table B

Theories Conflicting assumptions and concepts

the English School and Liberalism

Liberalism and Realism

Realism and the English School


Applications

Realism – in both its classical and structural forms – is mainly concerned with explaining the persistence of war and conflict at the international scale. As a result, the range of questions that it is well placed to answer is relatively small. These focus on the role of human nature (Classical Realism) or international structure (Structural Realism) in enabling different interstate conflicts around the world. Though more limited than the English School or Liberalism in terms of the analytical themes it addresses, Realism has long been used by policy-makers to shape foreign policy decisions. This was particularly true of the USA during the Cold War. Thanks to its relatively simple model of international interaction, Realism provides policy-makers with a readily accessible set of recommendations in an uncertain and anarchic international arena. These recommendations focus on the maintenance of a balance of power – a condition in which no single actor or group of actors can overwhelm the remainder of the international system. During the Cold War, this led to the Western policy of containment, in which the US and its allies deployed power in such a way as to limit the spread of Soviet influence beyond the USSR’s existing sphere of influence. According to Realist theory, the purpose of US foreign policy was and is meant to ensure the survival of the state rather than the spread of practices and values around the world (the latter being a goal more associated with Liberal than Realist goals).

With this in mind, it is interesting to consider US foreign policy in the early 21st century. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq following the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 have often been laid at the feet of Realist advisers in the President George W. Bush administration. Is this accusation merited? One of Realism’s central assumptions is that states’ internal constitutions will have less impact on their international relations than either the characters of their leaders (Classical Realism) or the structure of the international system in which they are embedded (Structural Realism). For what reasons, then, should a state invade and occupy another? Would a Realist accept the spread of democracy as a valid reason for such aggressive international action? If not, which IR theory would?

ACtivity in 500 words or less, explain how you think a Structural Realist and a Liberal would have reacted to the September 11 2001 attacks on the USA. What steps could they have taken to ensure the security of the state, the nation and the country?

One of realism’s great strengths is its simplicity. It creates an elegant model of IR, uncluttered by the complexity that characterises English School analysis. It focuses largely on a single type of international actor – the state. States, it assumes, possess sovereignty insofar as they exercise international autonomy and domestic hegemony, allowing them to resist pressure from external actors and to control the people and territories within their jurisdictions. In an anarchic international system without a formal hierarchy, Realism also tends to assume the formal equality of all state actors. Though states may possess different capabilities, they are essentially similar to one another in both form and function. Thus, both the USA and Brunei need to engage in IR to ensure their continued survival. They do so by maintaining a balance of power to ensure that no other actor will be able to dominate them and thereby undermine their sovereignty. While the means by which they keep this balance may differ – the USA doing so internally by means of military and diplomatic investment and Brunei doing so externally by means of alliance building – all states pursue power in order to ensure their own survival in a hostile, self-help environment. Thanks to its simplicity, Realism is often understood through the metaphor of the pool table (or the billiard table if you prefer), with the balls representing the states of the world and the table representing the international system.


ACtivity Explain the strengths and weaknesses of the pool/billiard table metaphor as a way of understanding Realist theory. Which concepts and assumptions are captured by the metaphor? Which are masked?

Conclusion

Realism is one of IR’s dominant theoretical traditions and focuses mainly on explanations of conflict and war in the international system. Focusing on political and military relations between states, it assumes these actors to be sovereign insofar as they possess international autonomy and domestic hegemony. These similar units compete for survival in an anarchic international system, pushed into self-help activity either by their Hobbesian human natures (Classical Realism) or by the anarchic structure of the system itself (Structural Realism). Though narrowly focused on conflict and war, Realism has had a major impact on the practice of IR through its influence on Cold War American foreign policy and remains a cornerstone of the discipline’s understanding of the world.

GLOSSARy

statism

power

self-help

human nature

security dilemma

balance of power

sovereignty

77U

nit 2

: Fou

r mod

els

of in

tern

atio

nal r

elat

ions

Section 2.4: Marxism: political economy and international relations

Organising principles 78


Applications 80

Conclusion 81

Unit 2: Four models of international relations • Section 2.4: Marxism 78

Organising principles

The Marxist model of IR addresses a very different set of questions from those of interest to Liberalism and Realism. Rather than focusing on human interaction in the political sector – which deals with questions of governance and government, Marxism gives priority to interactions in the economic sector. Because it looks at questions relating to the international implications of economic relationships, Marxism is closely associated with international political economy (IPE) – a branch of IR that investigates links between the international political and economic systems. As opposed to Liberalism’s and Realism’s prioritisation of political relationships in an anarchic world system, Marxism’s main object of study is the capitalist world system – the global system of production and distribution based on market relations. Over time, this system has produced two socioeconomic classes – the bourgeoisie and the proletariat – which compete for influence in the world economy. The result has been a series of highly unequal relationships of power between the economically powerful bourgeois core of the international system and its economically underdeveloped proletarian periphery.

The 20th century saw the rise and fall of Marxism as a political project. From the Soviet Union to China, economies based on Marxist principles have turned to market-based economic systems to remain competitive on the international stage. That being said, Marxism’s failure as a political project should not blind you to its power as an intellectual model. Marxism’s guiding concepts and assumptions generate a coherent and informative picture of IR around the world, particularly when they are directed at questions dealing with global inequality and power relations.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘introduction the continuing relevance of Marxism’ section of Chapter 8 of your textbook (pp.132–33).

Note the central role played by capitalism in Marxist analysis of international events.


Marxism has its intellectual roots in the 19th century. In 1848, the economist Karl Marx and the industrialist and philosopher Friedrich Engels published The communist manifesto, a short pamphlet outlining their critique of Europe’s economic and political systems. This was a time of revolutionary change in Europe. Industrialisation was overturning centuries-old relationships such as those that bound landowners to their tenant farmers, forcing huge numbers of people into the cities and into work in large, automated factories. The owners of these factories became hugely wealthy at their workers’ expense, replacing aristocratic landowners as the most powerful social and economic group in society. This evolving system cemented the supremacy of the bourgeoisie – which owns and controls the means of production by which goods and services are made and distributed – over the proletariat – which creates wealth by selling its labour to the bourgeoisie, but lacks any control over the means of production of which it is a part. Marxist analysis looks at the impact of this class system on political actors and interactions around the world. For Marxists, socioeconomic classes rather than states are the main units of analysis.

Like Liberalism, Marxism approaches IR with a specific goal in mind. Whereas Liberalism works towards a peaceful world by means of international regimes and organisations, Marxism pursues the emancipation of those currently disadvantaged by the global economic order by uncovering the causes of their subordination. One of the best-known examples of Marxist analysis is Immanuel Wallerstein’s world-systems theory. This sees the world as divided between three


main types of state. Core countries (ruled over by core states) focus on high-value economic activities such as banking and investment, allowing them to reap the rewards of economic growth around the world. Peripheral countries (likewise ruled over by peripheral states) focus on low-value activities such as subsistence agriculture, leaving them with little access to the sources or benefits of economic growth. Semi-peripheral countries stand in the transitional zone between these extremes. Some, such as South Korea and Singapore, have successfully transitioned into the core of the world capitalist system. Others, such as Russia and Venezuela, may be falling back into peripheral status. Thanks to core countries’ access to international capital and resources, the world capitalist system tends to reinforce their dominant international position, leaving peripheral and semi-peripheral states to make do with the few remaining sources of capital and resources. Because Marxists see economics as determining political and social outcomes, this uneven economic structure is reflected in the international distribution of political and social power.

Essential readingStop and read ‘the essential elements of Marxist theories of world politics’ section of Chapter 8 of your textbook (pp.133–35).

Note particularly the definition of class and its role in Marxist analysis.

ACtivity Look at the map of global GDP in the vLE resources for this section.

to what extent does the global distribution of political power match the distribution of economic power depicted in this map? Using the blank political map of the world provided on the vLE, label the countries of the world as parts of the core, semi-periphery or periphery.

The Marxist approach to international analysis shares several assumptions with the theories you have already covered in this unit. Like Realism, Marxism emphasises the importance of power – defined as the ability to bend others to your will (positive power) or resist others’ attempts to bend you (negative power). The pursuit of power – by states in Realism and classes in Marxism – is interpreted as a primary driver of human behaviour at the international scale. Unlike Realism, however, Marxism does not take the sovereign state as its object of analysis. Instead, Marxism gives priority to socioeconomic classes. States, Marxists contend, are simply masks used by the bourgeoisie to protect their interests and economic power. Even democratic governments are not truly ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people’. Rather, they are ‘of the bourgeoisie, by the bourgeoisie, and for the bourgeoisie’. Internationally, states act to ensure this class’s access to resources and markets around the world. Domestically, states act to suppress the proletariat either through coercion or cooption – sticks or carrots.

Like Liberalism, Marxism accepts a range of non-state actors as participants in IR. It also accepts Liberalism’s claim that international actors are entwined in a global system of interdependence, though Marxism identifies the international bourgeoisies as the primary beneficiaries of economic, political and social interaction. Unlike Liberals, however, Marxists have no faith in the ability of regimes and international organisations to improve the condition of the international system. After all, the states normally responsible for the development of regimes and organisations alike do not actually exist in Marxist theory. Because states are merely masks for the bourgeois classes who control them, any organisations they form will necessarily benefit those who control the means of production. The proletariat will never receive an equal share of


the benefits accruing from regime-formation, reinforcing the dominance of the bourgeoisie in the world capitalist system.

ACtivity Despite their many differences, Marxism shares a considerable amount of common ground with the English School.

in a paragraph of no more than 500 words, describe the world capitalist system as a kind of international society. in doing so, be sure to address two key questions:

1. Who is an actor in this international capitalist society?

2. What international institutions shape their actions and values?

Applications

Marxism is a powerful critical theory capable of uncovering economic relationships that are often masked by theoretical approaches such as Liberalism and Realism. For example, its assumption of a global division of labour between proletarian workers and bourgeois owners provides a lens by which you can analyse divisions within the states that inhabit the anarchic international system. If every state contains both a proletariat and a bourgeoisie, then it should be possible to develop transnational alliances between these socioeconomic groups. Thus, members of the proletariat in industrialised Canada should be able to work with members of the proletariat in the underdeveloped economy of Malawi in pursuit of shared goals. Likewise, the Canadian bourgeoisie can ally itself with its Malawian counterpart to resist proletarian encroachment on their privileges. In such a contest, Marxist analysis predicts that bourgeois goals will win out over their proletarian counterparts for the simple reason that the former control the levers of power both in the economy and in the political structures of the state. Thus, both the Canadian and Malawian states will line up on the side of their bourgeoisies to oppose the proletarian attempts to redress the highly unequal distribution of economic and political power around the world. States’ often hostile reactions to popular uprisings, such as the Arab Spring and the Occupy Movement, may support this line of argument.

It is worth asking under what conditions one bourgeois-controlled state may abandon another. For example, the USA eventually supported popular forces opposing the Egyptian regime headed by Hosni Mubarak in 2011. How would Marxist analysis explain this change? Two answers follow from the preceding discussion. First, the bourgeois forces controlling the US government may have thought that their support for the Mubarak regime was undermining their position either at home (by alienating the US proletariat) or abroad (by undermining the state’s ability to guarantee access to resources and markets). Second, the popular forces of change in Egypt might have been ‘captured’ by the Egyptian bourgeoisie, which saw its superior position in the Egyptian economy being threatened by the Mubarak regime’s inability to guarantee social stability and economic growth.

The fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Communist political project in the last decade of the 20th century foreshadowed the global triumph of capitalist economic theories. Ironically, this has renewed Marxism’s value as a theory of IR. Today, many of the regimes and institutions described by Liberalism reflect the priorities of the global bourgeoisie. Many of the practices and values that characterise interactions in international society likewise reflect capitalist dogma (doctrine or beliefs). Finally, there is a clear correlation between centres of economic power and centres of political power, indicating a deep, if unexpected, link between Marxist and Realist models of IR.


Essential readingStop and read the ‘Marx internationalized: from imperialism to world-systems theory’ section of Chapter 8 of your textbook.

Note particularly Lenin’s explanation of the First World War as a product of capitalism, and Wallerstein’s explanation of the world as divided between core, semi-periphery and periphery.

Conclusion

The Marxist critique of IR introduces a new element into the discipline’s analysis: economic determinism. As one approach to the study of IPE, Marxism investigates ways in which the distribution of economic power around the world affects the organisation of the international political system. In so doing, it forces you to think about IR from a very different point of view. Whereas Liberalism and Realism tend to see political interaction as more important than activity in other sectors, Marxism turns their world upside down – explaining political and social outcomes on the basis of their connection to the economic structures and systems from which they derive. As you will see in upcoming discussions of globalisation and the global financial crisis, Marxism still has a lot to teach us about the world in which we live.

GLOSSARy

international political economy (IPE)

capitalist world system

bourgeoisie

proletariat

core countries

semi-peripheral countries

peripheral countries

positive power

negative power

82U

nit 2

: Fou

r mod

els

of in

tern

atio

nal r

elat

ions


Section 2.1

1. Which institutions define membership and behaviour in global international society today?

2. Why might the English School characterise the Cold War as ‘a battle between competing sets of American and Soviet international institutions’?

Section 2.2

1. How does Liberalism propose to solve the problems of coordination posed by the anarchic structure of the international system?

2. Explain the limitations of the UN system.

Section 2.3

1. How do Classical and Structural Realism explain the persistence of interstate conflict?

2. According to Realism, will the anarchic international system ever establish a sustainable peace?

Section 2.4

1. How do Marxists use the world capitalist systems to explain IR?

2. Does Marxism’s division of the world into core, semi-peripheral and peripheral states more closely resemble the theoretical assumptions of Realism, Liberalism or the English School?

83U

nit 2

: Fou

r mod

els

of in

tern

atio

nal r

elat

ions

Concluding comments

This unit has aimed to introduce you to four of the main theoretical approaches that we use to analyse the causes, effects and potential solutions to international crises and events. As we have discussed, each theory answers a different kind of question about the world we live in. The English School explains how units’ behaviour is constrained by the institutions of international society. Liberalism focuses on a narrower set of issues – how regimes and international organizations encourage cooperation between units. Realism focuses on a different topic – how to explain the persistence of conflict in human history. Different kinds of Realism explain this in different ways. Some, like the Classical Realists, find the causes of conflict in human nature. Others, like the Structural Realists, find it in the anarchic nature of the international system itself. Marxism, the last of our four fundamental IR theories, looks at how the distribution of wealth in the international economic system affects political relationships at the global scale. Together, these four theories provide many of the tools that you will need to make sense of topics ranging from humanitarian intervention to war and global terrorism over the next two units. Remember that no one theory can explain everything. Only by using a number of different approaches to look at different aspects of a question can you account for the enormous range of causes and effects that impact events around the world every day.



� explain the main arguments of the English School, Liberalism, Realism and Marxism

� define important terms and concepts associated with each theory

� use each set of arguments to explain an international event.

84U

nit 3

: Ana

lysi

ng re

gion

al is

sues

in in

tern

atio

nal r

elat

ions



Aims 85



Further reading 86

References cited 86


Unit 3: Analysing regional issues in international relations 85


So far in this course, you have studied IR from two perspectives. In Unit 1, you looked at IR in several regions of the world, using the English School’s concept of an international society to prioritise and organise information. Unit 2 looked at four IR theories, discussing how different thinkers see the world of states, nations, countries and institutions described in Unit 1. The English School, Liberalism, Realism and Marxism make different assumptions about the world in which we live. None of these can explain everything in IR. Each answers its own set of questions, interpreting the world in a different way.

This unit will use the four theories discussed in Unit 2 to look at five key issues in IR: humanitarian intervention, non-state transnational actors, international security, terrorism and international regimes. Section 3.1 looks at the question of humanitarian intervention in Africa. Section 3.2 considers how non-state actors impact IR in the Americas. Section 3.3 will move to East Asia and the Pacific, where you will think about the challenges of maintaining international security. Section 3.4 considers terrorism as a form of conflict in South and Southwest Asia, bringing together our previous discussions of non-state actors, security and humanitarian crises. Section 3.5 will conclude this unit by looking at the role of international regimes in Europe and the former Soviet Union. Now let’s get started.

Week Unit Section11 3: Analysing regional issues in

international relations3.1: Humanitarian intervention in Africa

12 3.2: Non-state transnational actors and international organisations in the Americas

13 3.3: International security in East Asia and the Pacific

14 3.4: Terrorism and globalisation in South and Southwest Asia

15 3.5: Regime building in Europe and the former Soviet Union

Aims

This unit aims to:

� introduce you to five key issues in modern IR

� put these issues into context using current events

� use the four theories introduced in Unit 2 to analyse their causes, effects and potential solutions.

Learning outcomes


� explain the context behind the five issue areas discussed in the sections:

� humanitarian intervention in Africa

� non-state actors and international organisations in the Americas

� international security in East Asia and the Pacific

� terrorism and globalisation in South and Southwest Asia

� regime building in Europe and the former Soviet Union.

Unit 3: Analysing regional issues in international relations 86

� look at each issue through different lenses provided by the English School, Liberal, Realist and Marxist theory

� use these theoretical perspectives to analyse ongoing events in the news.

Essential reading



Further reading


References cited

Waltz, K. Man, the state and war: a theoretical analysis (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965) [ISBN 9780231085649].

87U

nit 3

: Ana

lysi

ng re

gion

al is

sues

in in

tern

atio

nal r

elat

ions

Section 3.1: Humanitarian intervention in Africa

Introduction 88

Definitions and context 88

Theory and humanitarian intervention 89

Rwanda and the DRC: the limits of humanitarian intervention in Africa 91

Unit 3: Analysing regional issues in international relations • Section 3.1: Humanitarian intervention in Africa

88

Introduction

The end of the Cold War in 1991 was a global event that had repercussions around the world. In Africa, where many states had received financial and military backing from one or both superpowers during the bipolar Cold War, governments found themselves cut off from these external sources of power. This weakened their ability to protect their citizens’ security. Combined with the legacy of Africa’s postcolonial political geography – which created borders that do not reflect the continent’s identities or geographic divisions – this weakening of state power led to a series of international crises. Sometimes, in an attempt to control their populations, states violate their citizens’ security. The simmering situation in Darfur, Sudan, is one such case. The complex situation that led to the 1994 Rwandan genocide is another. In other cases, weakened states cannot protect their citizens from crime, poverty or hunger. Famine and epidemics of treatable diseases are two tragic consequences. In extreme cases, the organs of the state (recall the definition in Section 1.1) may stop operating completely. These failed states lose control over much, or all, of their territory, opening the door to civil war and humanitarian disasters. Another example, the Second Congo War (1995–2005) in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), will be discussed later in this section.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘introduction’ of Chapter 31 of your textbook (p. 512). Also read ‘What is human security’ on p.480.

Definitions and context

Supporters of humanitarian intervention argue that international society has the duty to protect individuals from large-scale violations of their security that:

� are committed by a state

� are the result of state weakness

� result from the anarchy that follows a state’s collapse.

Since the 1990s, this principle has come to guide the actions of many state and non-state actors around the world. As such it has become an evolving institution of international society, though not one that is universally accepted. Its opponents prefer to argue for the principle of non-intervention. This forbids international actors from interfering in the domestic affairs of any state. These competing institutions reflect different understandings of sovereignty, a key institution of international societies around the world that we discussed in Units 1 and 2 (see Montevideo Convention in Section 1.1). The debate over humanitarian intervention is therefore part of an ongoing discussion in international society between supporters of two different institutions: non-intervention and humanitarian intervention. The outcome of this debate is far from clear, with different states taking different positions on the issue. Indeed, states have argued over the limits of non-intervention since the principle of state sovereignty emerged out of Europe’s wars of religion in the 1500s and 1600s.

International organisations are useful places to look for clues to these debates. As Liberal theorists point out, organisations are designed to address specific problems in IR through the creation of international regimes. These are sets of rules that help state and non-state actors coordinate their activities in pursuit of shared goals. Unlike English School institutions, which evolve organically over long periods of history, Liberal regimes are consciously designed by their members to deal with immediate problems and often take the shape of formal organisations. These have defined rules set out in founding documents such as the UN Charter.


89

As discussed in the Essential reading (see below), much of the legal debate surrounding humanitarian intervention is centred on the formal rules of membership in the UN. Contrary to what many in the media suggest, the UN is not a global government. Its purposes and principles, outlined in Articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter, emphasise the sovereign independence of its member states.

Essential readingStop and read p.313 of your textbook, in particular Box 19.1 which lists several key passages from the Charter.

Articles 1.2 and 2.7 are particularly important insofar as they limit the UN’s power to intervene in states’ domestic affairs. These are often used by restrictionists to argue against humanitarian intervention on the grounds that any such action violates the principle of state sovereignty, the basis of most international law. Supporters of humanitarian intervention – sometimes called counter-restrictionists – point to other parts of the UN Charter to support their cause. In situations where states lose control over territories and populations, counter-restrictionists claim that weak units fail the tests of sovereignty laid out in the Montevideo Convention. As a result, international society is not bound by the normal principle of non-intervention, but instead must act to protect the security of individuals. Sovereignty, say counter-restrictionists, is something that states must earn by protecting the security and rights of their citizens. This opens the door to humanitarian intervention when and if a state:

� attacks its own people

� allows its people to be attacked by someone else

� loses control of its territories and populations.

Restrictionists reply by arguing that sovereignty is an essential characteristic of all states and cannot be revoked by international society on the basis of a government’s domestic policies.

Essential readingStop and read ‘the case for humanitarian intervention’ and ‘the case against humanitarian intervention’ sections of Chapter 31 of your textbook (pp.512–15).

Note the arguments for both sides. these will be used in the next activity.

Theory and humanitarian intervention

Before we look at different cases of humanitarian intervention in Africa, we should take the time to consider how restrictionist and counter-restrictionist arguments reflect the four approaches to IR described in Unit 2. As in many such debates, the English School does not defend a single position. Instead, it uses the theory of international society to judge the claims of IR thinkers, including the cases put forward with respect to humanitarian intervention. By tracing the evolution of institutions, such as sovereignty, the English School can frame the debate by assessing restrictionist and counter-restrictionist views on intervention.

Realism takes the clearest position on humanitarian intervention. With very few exceptions, thinkers who accept Realists’ statism oppose humanitarian intervention. These clearly favour strong definitions of sovereignty and non-intervention, arguing that only threats to regional or global peace and security can justify international society’s interference in a government’s domestic affairs. They argue that individuals’ human rights are a matter best left to states, not to the international community. Many Liberals point out that states take on international and


90

domestic responsibilities when they join organisations like the UN, a process that includes signing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Should a state fail to uphold its responsibilities, Liberals argue that it falls to international society’s other actors to pick up the pieces. This is not to say that sovereignty is unimportant to Liberals. Rather, Liberals emphasise that sovereignty describes a state’s responsibilities as well as its rights. A failure to fulfil the former will undermine a state’s claims to the latter.

Marxism’s understanding of the state as a mask for the interests of the bourgeoisie leads to positions similar to those taken by Realists. Like Realists, Marxists generally deny that states will act out of humanitarian interests. Rather, states act in the interests of a single socio-economic class. For Marxists, states intervene in one another’s affairs when it is in the interests of their governing socioeconomic classes to do so. Thus, intervention will always serve the purposes of a state’s bourgeois leaders, even when they claim to be acting out of humanitarian concern. In 2003, this accusation was made against the USA and its allies during the invasion of Iraq. Although the stated purpose of the invasion was to seize weapons of mass destruction and end human rights abuses against Shi’a Muslims and ethnic Kurds, many Marxist commentators saw control of Iraq’s vast oil wealth as a more likely motive. The use of this argument by writers around the world illustrates Marxism’s continuing importance to IR.

ACtivity Using the table below, identify which theorists (Realist, Liberal and/or Marxist) would support the argument made in ‘the case against humanitarian intervention’ discussed above. Explain your choices in one or two sentences and share your work with your classmates

Argument Theory(ies) Explanation

‘there is no basis for humanitarian intervention in international law.’‘States do not intervene for primarily humanitarian purposes.’

‘States are not allowed to risk the lives of their soldiers to save strangers.’

‘States will abuse humanitarian intervention for other purposes.’

‘States respond inconsistently to humanitarian crises.’

‘Disagreement about moral principles should limit humanitarian intervention.’

‘intervention does not work.’


91

Rwanda and the DRC: the limits of humanitarian intervention in Africa

Though humanitarian intervention is an issue of importance in many regions of the globe, it has played a particularly central role in African international society since 1991. This is partly due to the relative weakness of African states, which leaves them relatively exposed to domestic instability and international pressure. As noted in Section 1.2, US–Soviet rivalry during the Cold War created a bipolar international society. This led weaker states to ally themselves with one or the other, receiving financial and military aid in return for their support. With the end of the Cold War this aid came to an end, reducing client states’ access to international sources of hard and soft power. These sources of power were important to many African states, which inherited postcolonial borders and systems of government that left their population ethnically divided and economically underdeveloped. National identity in African states is therefore divided among a number of linguistic, religious and cultural groups rather than being centred around citizenship. This fragmentation of identity has very real international consequences. Governments’ repeated failures to boost their citizens’ standard of living has made the situation even worse, encouraging ethnic groups to blame each other for their socioeconomic difficulties and thereby destabilising the states in which they live.

During the Rwandan genocide of 1994 and the ensuing civil war in the DRC, humanitarian crises forced the issue of humanitarian intervention onto the agenda of African international society. Before completing the activity below, you should look at the conditions that led to each conflict. In 1994, Rwanda witnessed one of the bloodiest 100-day episodes since the Second World War, with an estimated 800,000 members of the minority Tutsi ethnic group being killed by militias and government forces aligned with the majority Hutu nation. The Tutsis and Hutus, which were first pitted against each other during the region’s many decades of European imperial control, straddle the borders of Rwanda, Burundi and the eastern half of the DRC. In 1990, as the Cold War wound down and financial and military support from the superpowers dried up, a rebel force of Tutsis invaded Rwanda from neighbouring Uganda. For three years, Tutsis and Hutus fought a civil war for control of the Rwandan state, leading to an uneasy peace accord in 1993. When the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi were killed in a plane crash a year later, the Hutu-dominated government of Rwanda began a systematic campaign to exterminate or expel its Tutsi minority. The UN Security Council – its hands tied by disagreements between its five Permanent Members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the USA) – proved incapable of determined action. The undermanned and underfunded UN peacekeeping mission on the ground was unable to stem the slaughter. Only the defeat of the Hutu government by the Tutsi-supported rebels ended the killing in July 1994, leading to reprisals by Tutsis against Hutus that forced millions of Hutu refugees across Rwanda’s border into neighbouring states. The effects of this forced migration would eventually destabilise the country’s much larger neighbour – the DRC.

Essential readingGo to the Online Resources Centre for your textbook. Access the Rwandan genocide case study to read the Realist, Liberal and Marxist explanations for international society’s failure to intervene effectively to stop it.

The extended civil war that continues to rage in the eastern half of the DRC has severely tested the willingness of African international society to intervene in the affairs of a member state for humanitarian reasons. Driven from their country following victory by Tutsi forces in Rwanda’s civil war, the growing number of Hutu refugees in the eastern DRC – many of whom took an active part in the Rwandan genocide – raised tensions between the DRC’s Tutsi and Hutu

http://global.oup.com/uk/orc/politics/intro/baylis5e/

http://global.oup.com/uk/orc/politics/intro/baylis5e/01student/cases/rwanda/


92

citizens. An attempt by the government in Kinshasa to expel Tutsis from its territory in 1995 led the governments of Uganda and Rwanda to support their ethnic brothers against the DRC’s political leadership. This led to the First Congo War in 1996, when Laurent Kabila – supported by Rwanda and Uganda – overthrew and replaced the DRC’s long-time dictator, Mobutu Sese Seko. Accused of being a pawn of Rwanda, Kabila’s new government then tried to expel foreign soldiers and militias from the eastern DRC. This threatened Rwandan interests, leading Kabila’s one-time supporters to turn on him by supporting new Tutsi militias near the border. Advances by these rebels led to the Second Congo War (1998–2003), in which the intervention of military forces from Angola, Namibia, Zimbabwe and Chad – motivated by their fear of a power vacuum developing in the DRC – stopped Rwanda’s allies from toppling Kabila’s young government. Despite a peace treaty in 2003, the war in eastern Congo continues. Supported by the DRC’s much smaller neighbours – Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi – Tutsi rebels continue to hold large sections of the country against government troops. The UN peacekeeping mission in the area – sent to help implement the 2003 peace treaty – is largely unable to intervene. By 2008, the DRC’s 14-year-long civil war had killed over five million people – mainly civilians. Analysing the reasons behind these events is your next task.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘insecurity in the post-Cold War world: the Democratic Republic of the Congo’ case study on p.241 of your textbook.

Enrichment material: Additional commentary on the situation in the DRC can be found on the BBC website, which includes a Question and Answer page dedicated to the conflict.

ACtivity Using resources supplied by your instructor, make arguments for and against international intervention in either the Rwandan genocide or the civil war in the eastern DRC. Be sure to touch on each of the following points:

� legal arguments for and against humanitarian intervention

� moral arguments for and against humanitarian intervention

� arguments concerning the effectiveness of humanitarian intervention.

GLOSSARy

bipolar

security

failed states

humanitarian intervention

non-intervention

sovereignty

international regimes

statism

genocide

power vacuum

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11108589

93U

nit 3

: Ana

lysi

ng re

gion

al is

sues

in in

tern

atio

nal r

elat

ions

Section 3.2: Non-state transnational actors and international organisations in the Americas

Introduction 94


Non-state units in international society 96

Non-state actors in the Americas 97

Unit 3: Analysing regional issues in international relations • Section 3.2: Non-state transnational actors and international organisations in the Americas

94

Introduction

Section 1.3 introduced you to international society in the Americas by considering its states, nations and countries. As noted at the time, the region is dominated by a single unit – the United States of America. Thanks to its enormous advantage in terms of hard and soft power, the USA wields a lot of influence over the practices and principles that define international society in the Americas. This also insulates the USA from international pressure. In Section 1.1, power was described as a unit’s ability to bend units to its will and to resist such attempts by others. This definition clearly favours states over non-state actors. After all, companies and volunteer organisations cannot compete with states’ hard power capabilities. However, as we will see in this section, IR is about much more than relations between states. Transnational non-state actors and international organisations can also play key roles in defining international institutions, often through the use of soft power. Understanding these contributions is the key learning objective of this section, which will draw on historical and contemporary cases from the Americas.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘introduction’ of Chapter 20 of your textbook (p.328).

When you have finished, complete the following activity.

ACtivity in the table below, consider the kinds of power that are wielded by the different non-state actors discussed in the reading. is this power military, diplomatic, economic, or social? is it hard or soft?

� legal arguments for and against humanitarian intervention

� moral arguments for and against humanitarian intervention

� arguments concerning the effectiveness of humanitarian intervention.

Type of non-state actor Power: military, diplomatic, economic or social?

Power: hard or soft?

Transnational corporations

Single-country NGOs

Intergovernmental organisations

International NGOs


95


Understanding the terms and concepts that writers and diplomats use is vital to international analysis. One of IR’s contested terms – the state – has been highlighted throughout this course. In Section 1.1, Theda Skocpol defined the state as a collection of military, policing, bureaucratic and executive organisations that rule over territories and populations. This definition makes it easy to tell the difference between states, nations and countries. However, there are other ways to think about states. For example, a state can be thought of as a legal (or de jure) ‘person’, with rights in international law and responsibilities towards its citizens and neighbours. As legal persons, states can enter into contracts, opening the door to Liberal arguments in favour of humanitarian intervention when a state fails to uphold its obligations. The state is sometimes used to describe the entire population ruled over by a government, including parts of civil society that are not directly related to the government. This includes private corporations and social organisations. Though less elegant than Theda Skocpol’s definition because it folds together governments, citizens and territory, this broad understanding of the state has its advantages. After all, many governments are either elected directly by their populations or come to power with the support of powerful civil society organisations like political parties and religious groups. Because these non-state units play a central role in creating and maintaining the states that rule them, they are able to influence the direction of their governments’ foreign policies. This is one route by which non-state actors influence the evolution of international society.

Bringing non-state actors into IR dramatically changes the kinds of international societies you can study. The simple image of American international society presented in section 1.3 focused almost exclusively on the states that inhabit its state system. However, this is only a partial understanding of the region’s complete international system, which also includes TNCs, single-country and international NGOs, and a range of intergovernmental organisations. IR’s tendency to focus on states makes it easy to forget about the influence of these non-state, transnational units. As you will see from the next Essential reading, however, we should neither overestimate the strength and unity of individual states nor underestimate the ability of non-state units to influence international affairs.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘Problems with the state-centric approach’ section of Chapter 20 of your textbook (pp.328–30).



96

ACtivity in the table below, use your own words to describe four problems with an exclusively state-centric approach to iR analysis.

Problem with state-centrism Description

1. Definitions of the state

2. Variations in states’ power

3. State systems versus international systems

4. State versus non-state actors

Non-state units in international society

Essential readingStop and read the ‘transnational companies as political actors’, ‘Non-legitimate groups and liberation movements as political actors’ and ‘Non-governmental organizations as political actors’ sections of Chapter 20 of your textbook (pp.330–36).

The Essential reading notes some of the ways in which non-state units influence IR at the global and regional levels. In the next activity, you are asked to note non-state units’ international goals, challenges to states’ power and impact on the practices and principles of international society. For example, ‘Transnational companies as international actors’ describes TNCs as private companies operating in two or more state jurisdictions whose goal is to maximise their profits in the national, regional and global marketplace. TNCs challenge states’ authority by obstructing their attempts at regulation, using a range of strategies to delay, stop or roll back legislation. Their impact on the institutions of international society is mixed. TNCs’ ability to escape regulation by any one government has led to increasing amounts of international regulation through intergovernmental organisations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Following the 2008 financial crisis, these international regulatory regimes have begun to develop regional and global standards in order to harmonise regulatory practices in states around the world. At the same time, however, TNCs encourage individual governments to compete for private investment by weakening or removing regulations. TNCs have therefore had a dual impact on international society, weakening the regulatory capabilities of individual states while inadvertently encouraging new, global systems of economic regulation through international and regional organisations.


97

ACtivity Following on from the Essential reading, fill out the appropriate row in the table below by describing units’ goals in international society, challenges to state authority and impact on the institutions of international society.

Non-state unit Goals Challenges to state authority

Impact on international society

TNCs

Liberation and terrorist groups

NGOs

Non-state actors in the Americas

So far in this section, you have been presented with a number of arguments in favour of including non-state transnational actors in your analysis of IR in the Americas and around the world. Before concluding, it might be a good idea to look at some examples of their influence. Transnational corporations (TNCs), such as the United Fruit Company and Standard Fruit Company of the USA (now Chiquita Brands International and Dole Food Company), have played central roles in the evolution of American international society. These private companies were able to dominate the political and economic systems of Central America for much of the 20th century through their control of fruit production and distribution. States like Honduras and Guatemala have relied on fruit and agricultural exports to drive their economies since the end of the 19th century. By holding monopolies on fruit production and distribution, United Fruit and Standard Fruit have been able to use their power to influence the domestic and foreign policies of relatively weak and impoverished governments. As noted in earlier sections, states that lack significant power capabilities will find themselves exposed to pressure coming from international society. With neither the hard nor the soft power required to stand up to theses TNCs, states in Latin America became increasingly aligned with private corporate interests in the USA – where the vast majority of TNCs in the Americas are based. This led to steps to defend TNCs’ profits, such as the erosion of workers’ rights. If necessary, TNCs based in the United States could also pressure Washington to sanction or overthrow uncooperative governments, such as that of Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán in Guatemala in 1954. The resulting states, which are run in the interests of corporate monopolies rather than individual citizens, are often called banana republics. These states’ economies do not focus exclusively on bananas, however. Any resource industry – from mining to farming – can create a banana republic if and when a state’s government becomes dependent on a single industry run by TNCs that hold monopolies over the production and distribution of the state’s primary trade goods. So in general, states are vulnerable to non-


98

state TNCs when they possess such limited economic power that they become dependent on powerful foreign companies for revenue. States’ limited power also leaves them vulnerable to rebellion and revolution – often motivated by their failure to defend citizens’ security. A well-known example of this dynamic took place in Cuba between 1953 and 1959, when Fidel Castro’s national liberation movement overthrew the US- and TNC-backed government of Fulgencio Batista. Corporations continue to wield significant economic influence in the region. Although an increasing number of these are based in emerging states such as Brazil and Mexico, the vast majority continue to operate from the USA.

Just as states with relatively little economic power are vulnerable to pressure from powerful economic actors, such as TNCs, states with limited hard and soft power capabilities can also find themselves exposed to pressure from non-governmental organisations (NGOs). These range from very large global organisations – such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) – to very small and local pressure groups. NGOs, which are not run by or for governments, pursue a range of goals in international society. Amnesty International, for example, is a transnational human rights NGO that monitors governments’ treatment of citizens and criticises any violations through letter-writing campaigns and political lobbying. The ICRC, on the other hand, does not involve itself in states’ domestic governance. Instead, it uses its neutral position to provide humanitarian assistance to individuals around the world, often operating on both sides of a military conflict in order to protect the lives of civilians and to look after the needs of prisoners and the wounded. Though large and influential, these international NGOs are dwarfed by the tens of thousands of single-country NGOs that operate around the world. When combined, international and single-country NGOs can have a dramatic effect on the evolution of international institutions. While international NGOs can mobilise influence around the world and focus these resources on priority situations, single-country NGOs provide an essential link to citizens who can pressure their own governments through the ballot box, public demonstrations and a variety of other tools. Thus, a state’s vulnerability to NGO advocacy tied to its international and domestic power – its ability to control its own population and territory (domestic hegemony) and its ability to resist pressure from international society (international autonomy). The latter helps to explain why the USA is less likely to be influenced by pressure from international NGOs than a weak island state in the Caribbean Sea might be. At the same time, the USA’s democratic domestic system makes its government susceptible to domestic pressure from single-country NGOs operating within its borders.

International organisations, such as the Organization of American States, differ from NGOs in both form and function. Whereas states play little to no role in NGOs, they are often the primary members of an international organisation. International organisations in which only states take part are intergovernmental organisations (IGOs). Some international organisations are narrowly defined, as is the World Trade Organization (WTO). Others, like the UN, cover a wide range of international issues. Many recognise NGOs as participants and contributors, often providing resources that member states themselves are unable or unwilling to contribute. International organisations in which states and NGOs cooperate are called hybrid international organisations. These are becoming the rule rather than the exception in US international society, where states, TNCs, NGOs and international organisations combine to constitute a complex international society. Moreover, many have permanent secretariats that actively pursue the agenda set out in the organisation’s charter. These secretariats can shape an international organisations agenda and thereby influence the policies required of its member states.


99

ACtivity Navigate to the Charter of the Organization of American States. Read the Principles of the Organization in Chapter ii and the Fundamental Rights and Duties of States in Chapter iv. these outline the rights and responsibilities of states joining the OAS.

Why might one argue that, given the articles in Chapters ii and iv, the OAS was not originally designed as a hybrid international organisation? in which issue areas do you think there might there be room for NGO and tNC participation?

GLOSSARy

state system

international system

transnational

Transnational Corporations

monopolies

banana republics

non-governmental organisations

lobbying

International Organisations

hybrid international organisations

http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_A-41_Charter_of_the_Organization_of_American_States.htm

100U

nit 3

: Ana

lysi

ng re

gion

al is

sues

in in

tern

atio

nal r

elat

ions

Section 3.3: International security in East Asia and the Pacific

Introduction 101


State versus international security in East Asia and the Pacific 103

Conclusion 104

Unit 3: Analysing regional issues in international relations • Section 3.3: International security in East Asia and the Pacific

101

Introduction

In this section, we return to one of IR’s central questions: what is security and how is it best achieved? We will consider the meaning of security, the likelihood of cooperation between states and the future of international security in East Asia and the Pacific. Until the 1970s, international security was defined as ‘the absence of war between states’. As a result, security came to be associated with stability of international society rather than with the well-being of individuals. This can be contrasted with human security, one aspect of which we discussed at length in Section 3.1 and whose definition includes a much wider range of economic, cultural and ecological concerns. In this section, we will use the more limited definition of security as the absence of conflict between states as the basis for our discussion.

How you think about security depends largely on how you understand war in IR. Kenneth Waltz, makes a useful distinction between three ‘images’ of war. These are summarised in his 1954 book, Man, the state, and war, where he describes theories of conflict in one of three ways. These find the roots of war in:

� individuals’ human nature

� the character of states

� the structure of the international system.

Much of IR focuses on the third image, asking how the structure of international society affects the likelihood of conflict. The English School does so by examining the institutions of international society, of which war is one. Liberals look to international regimes to make conflict less likely. Realists, particularly neo-Realists like Waltz, see war as an inevitable outcome of our anarchic international system. Marxists focus on how the economic systems by which goods and services are produced and distributed around the world contribute to competition between different bourgeoisies, leading to conflict over resources and markets. In general, Liberal thinkers tend to be more optimistic than their Realist and Marxist counterparts when thinking about the potential for international security. Understanding these different definitions of security, assessing their influence, and using them to analyse the prospects for international security in East Asia and the Pacific will be the key learning outcomes of this section.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘What is meant by the concept of security?’ and ‘the traditional approach to national security’ sections of Chapter 14 of your textbook (pp.233–35).

Note how the inclusion of non-state actors takes the focus of security away from purely military relations and towards a more mixed political, economic, social and ecological definition. in particular, consider how the rise of armed non-state actors – including terrorist groups – has affected our definitions of security.


As noted in your Essential reading, security is a contested concept. Traditional definitions focus on maintaining states’ sovereign independence in an anarchic international system. These understandings are rooted in the Realist discourse that dominated IR during the Cold War. The most important strand of this theoretical school is neo-Realism. This approach to IR – described at length in Section 2.3 and in the Essential reading above – sees states as self-interested actors who pursue power in order to ensure their own survival in a world lacking a central authority. In such a world, maintaining a balance of power is one way to ensure a state’s survival. Remember


102

that a balance of power does not mean that influence is equally distributed among a society’s states. Instead, it refers to a condition in which no single state is powerful enough to dominate all of the others. In an international society characterised by a balance of power, no unit can achieve hegemony over its neighbours. African international society, populated by a range of medium and small powers, is defined by such a balance. In the Americas, the dominant position of the USA has undermined the regional balance of power for more than a century, leading to unipolarity. In East Asia and the Pacific, rapid changes are altering the region’s post-Second World War international society, with China in particular emerging as a major regional power. The threat this change poses to the regional balance of power is being met by the USA and its allies – Japan, South Korea and the Philippines – who fear that a powerful China may wish to revise existing institutions in order to carve out a more influential position in the region. Their goal is therefore to maintain the international status quo – a Latin term used in IR to mean ‘the way things are now’ – in the face of what they perceive to be Chinese revisionism.

Alternative definitions of security (p.233 of your textbook) broaden its scope to include non-military topics such as economic security, ecological security and cultural security. Clearly, these are not security concerns in the traditional sense. Rather, they are the products of IR’s broadening interest in non-state units and interactions. This has led to a debate about how compatible traditional and alternative definitions of security are. After all, a state defending its sovereignty may attack a portion of its own population if it views that group as a threat to its domestic control. The Rwandan genocide is one example of such an act. Thus, a state might defend its security by attacking the security of the individuals it rules. There is clearly a potential conflict between the security of the state and the security of the individuals who inhabit it. Much the same is true of conflicts between state security and international security. In defending its sovereign existence, a state may destabilise the international society of which it is a part. North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons has the stated intention of deterring attacks by the USA and its allies. However, nuclear proliferation has the potential to throw East Asian international society into disorder, creating a less secure environment for all players and thereby encouraging other states to pursue nuclear ambitions. This process – called an arms race – is already going on in South and Southwestern Asia. This began with India’s and Pakistan’s creation of mutually deterring nuclear arsenals, and is now moving westward towards Iran, whose apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons threatens to drag the region into a new interstate war. Clearly, security is a complex concept whose pursuit may or may not lead to international peace and stability.

Essential readingStop and read sections ‘the difficulties of cooperation between states’ and ‘the opportunity for cooperation between states’ sections of Chapter 14 of your textbook (pp.235–37). When you have finished, complete the activity below.

ACtivity After finishing the Essential reading above, consider the following questions:

1. What makes cooperation between states more or less likely in international society?

2. What do your choices say about your own theoretical preferences? Are you more of a Liberal, a Realist or a Marxist?


103

State versus international security in East Asia and the Pacific

International society in East Asia and the Pacific is undergoing rapid, large-scale transformations. From the rise of China to North Korea’s nuclear ambitions to the many territorial boundary disputes surrounding the islands of the South China Sea, East China Sea and the Sea of Japan, these changes risk the security system that has kept the region relatively stable since the end of the Cold War. Interestingly, this security system is not centred on one of East Asia’s regional powers or on one of the Pacific’s small island states. Instead, the USA – clearly a non-Asian unit – continues to be the keystone in the region’s security architecture. It has accomplished this feat through alliances with Japan, South Korea and the Philippines – alliances that help the world’s last remaining superpower to project its influence across the Pacific Ocean. Developments within the East Asia/Pacific region threaten to shake the foundations of this security system. These are discussed in the following Essential reading.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘East Asia: primed for rivalry?’ section of Chapter 4 of your textbook (pp.73–75).


ACtivity Having finished the Essential reading above, consider your own views on security in this region. in one paragraph, answer the following question:

1. ‘Do you agree with Friedberg’s analysis or are you more optimistic about the promise of economic growth, regional integration, and continued stability? Why?’

Be sure to include a clear thesis statement and some evidence to justify your argument.

Whatever your views on the future of international security in East Asia and the Pacific, it is important to note that different trends appear to be developing in different parts of the region. The Pacific Islands – small and relatively weak – face no significant military threats but certainly face potential environmental disaster as sea level rises lead to increasingly severe flooding. For states whose territories rarely rise more than 100 metres above sea level, climate change poses an existential threat. In the face of this, island states are cooperating to pursue carbon emission reductions both regionally and globally. In Southeast Asia, which includes the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and East Timor, states have constructed more formal regimes to coordinate their economic, political and cultural activities. Though less integrated than its European counterpart – the EU – ASEAN’s success since 1967 shows that Asia need not be an international society in which states compete for survival in a zero-sum game, with one state’s advantage being gained at the expense of another’s. Cooperation rather than conflict is possible should states choose to pursue absolute gains together. Compared to the Pacific and Southeast Asia, East Asia remains the least integrated area within the larger East Asia-Pacific region. The states that inhabit it – Mongolia, China, North and South Korea Japan and (unofficially) Taiwan – have much more tense relationships than do their Pacific and Southeast Asian neighbours. In pursuing their own individual security, East Asian states have made their neighbourhood increasingly insecure and competitive, illustrating the potential conflict between states’ own pursuit of security though unilateral action and the stability of the international society they inhabit.

The existence of these three different security systems in East Asia and the Pacific illustrates Alexander Wendt’s well-known quote that ‘anarchy is what states make of it’. As a Constructivist,


104

Wendt believes that anarchic international systems need not be competitive or combative. Should states decide to cooperate, such systems can be cooperative – as in Southeast Asia – or even lead to convergence – as with the member states of the European Union. This argument has many supporters within the English School.

ACtivity Navigate to the BBC’s Question and Answer page on territorial disputes between China and its neighbours in the South China Sea. in a three-minute public statement, describe the potential impact of these disputes on the security of individuals, states and international society in East Asia and the Pacific. How would you go about addressing the issues raised by territorial competition for the Spratly and Parcel islands? Would your approach change if you were a representative of:

� China

� vietnam

� the USA?

Conclusion

Security is clearly a contested concept in IR. This often leads to confusion when writers use different definitions of the term to support their analyses of international affairs. Some define security as existing at the level of the individual. Such writers tend to support humanitarian intervention, which prioritises individuals’ security over states’ rights to non-interference. Some identify security closely with the state. For them, states provide human beings with the best means to manage their affairs by establishing central authorities that can resolve disputes and enforce legal principles. To these writers, states’ survival must take priority for those wishing to protect individuals’ ability to govern their own affairs. Finally, many diplomats and writers look to international society as the main object of security. By creating regimes to maintain and improve the status quo, they hope to construct a set of institutions that can protect states and individuals from the threat of internal rebellion and international war.

In each of these understandings of security, humans’ ability to cooperate is limited by mistrust and uncertainty. In today’s anarchic international societies, states can be highly suspicious of one another’s motives and actions. The more suspicious a state is of its neighbours, the more it will try to ensure its own survival through the accumulation of hard and soft power. This may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy in which states’ own worries about one another’s trustworthiness lead them to create a competitive international society incapable of cooperative action, thereby encouraging more self-help and less interaction between society’s members. Thus, while ASEAN has attempted to construct an increasingly integrated regional system, the states of East Asia have chosen to pursue their security goals through unilateral action. The result is two very different security regimes, one on a path towards a Liberal system of collective security in the European model and the other resembling a classic neo-Realist system of self-help and state competition.

GLOSSARy

international security

human security

neo-Realism

balance of power

hegemony

status quo

Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN)

zero-sum game

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13748349

105U

nit 3

: Ana

lysi

ng re

gion

al is

sues

in in

tern

atio

nal r

elat

ions

Section 3.4: Terrorism and globalisation in South and Southwest Asia

Introduction 106

Definitions 106

Terrorism and three IR theories 107

Terrorism in South and Southwest Asia 108

Conclusion 110

Unit 3: Analysing regional issues in international relations • Section 3.4: Terrorism and globalisation in South and Southwest Asia

106

Introduction

Terrorism, broadly defined as the use of force by sub-state groups to effect political change by attacking civilians or symbolic targets, is not a new phenomenon. It was first used in the late 1700s to describe the use of terror by the French government against its own people during the Jacobin phase of the French Revolution. In the late 1800s, it began to take on more modern meanings when anarchist groups in Europe and North America carried out a series of attacks and assassinations against targets ranging from Russian Tsar Alexander II to US President McKinley. In the 20th century, nationalist groups (who identified themselves as liberation movements rather than terrorists) used similar tactics to fight what they saw as oppression by imperial masters. The results varied from case to case. One attack – the assassination of Austro–Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914 by Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip – led directly to the First World War. From Ireland to Palestine to India, terrorism remains a strategy by which relatively weak non-state units promote political change. The main questions in this section are:

� how should international societies respond to terrorism

� what impact has terrorism had on the principles and practices of international society in South and Southwest Asia?

Essential readingStop and read the ‘introduction’ of Chapter 22 of your textbook (p.366).

Note the impact of technology on terrorism and the general definition provided in the reading.

Definitions

It may seem odd to connect terrorism and globalisation. However, as this section will discuss, the two concepts are related. Globalisation is a transnational process by which individuals, units and systems interact over ever-greater distances and with ever-greater frequency. This leads to increasing interconnectedness and homogeneity in international society, as states’ previously separate political and economic systems become integrated with those of near and distant neighbours. The ease with which we now send information, goods and people across the globe has had important ramifications for non-state actors who employ force against civilian and symbolic targets to bring about political change. The internet has provided a new forum for grievances, new sources of funding and new cyber-targets, such as government and corporate websites. Transportation links make it possible for states and non-state actors to send goods across the globe to support terrorist operations. Finally, many weak non-state actors see globalisation as a process by which Western (i.e. US and European) values are forced on non-Western populations and cultures, encouraging attacks on symbols and supporters of this perceived Westernisation.

Terrorism itself is a challenging term to understand. The meaning provided by your textbook – which identifies it with ‘the use of illegitimate violence by sub-state groups to inspire fear, by attacking civilians and/or symbolic targets… to affect political change’ (p.576) – is problematic. When is political change ‘illegitimate’? Is any use of force by a non-state actor the same as terrorism? What differentiates a terrorist act from a criminal act? These are ongoing debates in global international society with strong opinions on all sides. After all, many postcolonial states achieved independence from their imperial masters in the 20th century after liberation struggles that incorporated acts of terrorism. These states are understandably reluctant to paint all force-wielding non-state actors as ‘terrorists’, preferring labels such as ‘freedom fighters’. Moreover, what


107

impact does a state’s domestic constitution have on the status of those using violence against it and its citizens. Are attacks against civilian or symbolic targets in an oppressive state equal to attacks against the same targets in a democracy? Can violence be permitted in states that offer non-violent means of affecting political outcomes? In our anarchic international society, there is no central authority to give final answers to these questions.

Terrorism and three IR theories

Acts perceived as ‘terrorism’ by one unit may be viewed as a legitimate form of resistance or liberation by another, to the extent that some states provide material support to ‘terrorist’ groups that share their international goals. Realists provide the most straightforward answer. Political violence, most Realists claim, should be the sole preserve of states. All use of force by non-state actors is therefore illegitimate and constitutes terrorism. Liberals vary in their responses. Some accept Realism’s statist assumptions and therefore share its conclusion that force should be used by states alone. Others recognise some situations in which non-state actors can use force legitimately. The criteria by which these situations are judged include the three main principles of a just war:

1. a just cause

2. a proportional use of force

3. the use of force as a last resort.

Although these criteria can also be problematic – leaving unanswered the questions of what is a proportional use of force – they at least provide some means of identifying terrorism when it happens. Marxists can have a different view altogether. Remember that Marxism sees the state as a tool used by the bourgeois class to control a territory’s economy. They argue that states will break up strikes, bail out banks, and defend corporate interests through whatever means necessary. Opposing the state through violence is not necessarily illegitimate. Given the overwhelming power of the state – and therefore of society’s dominant class – liberation movements may be forced to adopt unconventional tactics to destabilise and undermine their political and economic systems. This might include attacks on civilians and symbols of the state or the bourgeoisie – opening the door to attacks on public institutions, banks, businesses and any target deemed important to the status quo.

Although Realists like to associate terrorism with non-state actors, you should remember that the original ‘terrorists’ were members of the French revolutionary government between 1793 and 1794. During the so-called ‘Reign of terror’, tens of thousands of French citizens were killed by the state on suspicion of counter-revolutionary activity. This bloodbath eventually carried away its own instigators, including Maximilien de Robespierre. At what point can a state’s actions today be considered ‘acts of terror’? One relatively clear case might exist when a state provides material and ideological support to non-state ‘terrorist’ groups. Libya’s support of aeroplane hijackings and bombings in the 1980s are a case in point. Iran’s support for non-state militias in Iraq and Lebanon might be another, though your opinion is probably based on whether or not you see these militias as terrorists in their own right. What about cases in which states violate international institutions to attack foreign states, nations or countries? Might these be examples of state terrorism? Again, some cases seem relatively straightforward. The use of deadly force against one’s own citizens is normally sufficient to label a state as a ‘terrorist’. But what about the use of force against foreign states, nations and countries? At what point does the legitimate use of force in war become state terrorism?


108

Essential readingStop and read the ‘Definitions’ and ‘terrorism: from transnational to global phenomenon’ sections of Chapter 22 of your textbook.

When you have finished, complete the activity below.

ACtivity Once you have completed the Essential reading above, use the table below to give definitions of terrorism that fit the theoretical assumptions of Liberalism, Realism, and Marxism. these definitions should indicate:

� who can or cannot be a terrorist

� how terrorism is different from other, legitimate, uses of force.

include one example, drawn from your knowledge of current events, for each definition.

Theory Definition and example

Liberalism

Realism

Marxism

Terrorism in South and Southwest Asia

Although terrorism is a global phenomenon with its roots in Europe, it has recently become associated with South and Southwest Asia. Not only has this region seen more terror attacks than any other part of the world, but it is home to many of the supporters and architects of terrorist networks, such as Al-Qaeda. From the Mumbai bombings of 2011 to monthly attacks on Shi’a, Sunni and Kurdish civilians in Iraq, these networks have harnessed the power of modern communications technology to form loose networks that provide their members with the motives and means to carry out attacks. At least three states in the region – Syria, Iran and Pakistan – have been accused of overt or covert support for these attacks, many of which have been carried out in the name of jihad – a term appropriated from mainstream Islam and modified to suit the purposes of terrorist groups. Other states in the region – like Saudi Arabia – do not appear to support these groups, but are home to populations that provide them with finances and manpower. Finally, many states in South and Southwest Asia have been accused of state terrorism against their own citizens. Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons against Iraq’s Kurdish population in the 1980s is a clear case. Other instances, ranging from the Assad


109

regime’s massive use of airpower against rebellious towns and cities in Syria to Israel’s occupation and isolation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, may or may not meet the criteria for state terrorism.

The main goal of this section is to develop a better understanding of the causes behind terrorism’s apparent hold on South and South-west Asia. Why have terrorist organisations been relatively successful in securing supplies and recruits from this part of the world when in other regions, which may appear equally promising, they have not? Surely Africa – with its deep cultural divisions, relatively weak states and widespread poverty – should be a very productive recruiting ground. Yet, outside the national and geographical divisions that stretch across the Sahel (the area of grassland south of the Sahara desert), there appears to be little appetite for terrorist messages or methods. Why not? For some answers to this question, let us turn to the last activity for this section.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘terrorism: the impact of globalization’ section of Chapter 22 of your textbook (pp.369–72).

then, take another look at Box 22.1 on p.366, which talks about the four main varieties of terrorism in the world today. When you have finished, complete the activity below.

ACtivity Use the table below to assess the likelihood of terrorist activity in Sahelian Africa, non-Sahelian Africa, and South and Southwest Asia in terms of its suspected cultural, economic and religious causes.

Does each cause make the region a likely or unlikely site for terrorist activity? in the bottom row, consider what kinds of terrorism you think are most likely in each region and why.

Cause Sahelian Africa Non- Sahelian Africa South and Southwest Asia

Cultural causes?

Economic causes?

Religious causes?

What kind of terrorism?


110

Conclusion

Terrorism combines several topics already covered in this unit, looking at how security threats can come from non-state units wielding hard power to effect political changes to states and international societies. As the Essential reading below indicates, there are two dominant philosophies used by members of international society to combat this phenomenon. The first views terrorism as a form of warfare that requires a similar response from the state being attacked. The use of drones to kill suspected terrorists is a case in point, with the laws of war being invoked to justify killing individuals in foreign countries with tools that can, and often do, harm civilians as well as the intended targets. This carries risks, as a disproportionate use of force by a state may actually bolster a terrorist group’s ability to recruit angry and disaffected fighters. The second view sees terrorism as a criminal phenomenon that is best fought through national and international courts. This is thought to delegitimise terrorists’ claims that their targets are unjust and therefore deserving of attack, a line of argument that is only bolstered by the heavy-handed use of force. However, this too carries risks. Terrorists may be able to shield themselves from prosecution through a careful use of legal technicalities, leaving states with little option but to pursue alternative means of combating them.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘Combating terrorism’ section of Chapter 22 of your textbook (pp.377–78).

Note the strengths and weaknesses of each strategy.

GLOSSARy

terrorism

globalisation

westernisation

just war

state terrorism

Al-Qaeda

111U

nit 3

: Ana

lysi

ng re

gion

al is

sues

in in

tern

atio

nal r

elat

ions

Section 3.5: Regime formation in Europe and the former Soviet Union

Introduction 112

Definitions 112

Regime formation and IR in Europe and former

Soviet Union 115

Conclusion 117

Unit 3: Analysing regional issues in international relations • Section 3.5: Regime formation in Europe and the former Soviet Union

112

Introduction

As we turn our attention to Europe and the former Soviet Union, we would do well to reflect for a time on lessons we have learned so far in this unit. On the one hand, states continue to play a defining role in IR. Though non-state actors – from TNCs and NGOs to terrorist groups – have become more visible on the international stage, states tend to dominate debates on humanitarian intervention, the role of international organisations, international security and the fight against terrorism. Sovereignty remains a key principle in international society, protecting states from intervention by foreign units and encouraging them to maintain a balance of power to ensure that no single state can dominate the rest. The rise of non-state actors has not significantly altered this international institution, though much of their transnational activity poses a challenge to governments that try to regulate them.

This brings us to a second lesson. Even as they guard their independence on the international stage, states are forced to deal with regional and global problems that are beyond the control of any one government. They do so by creating webs of shared rules, norms and principles. These help to regulate the activities of state and non-state units alike, helping them to cooperate in pursuit of shared goals. The English School refers to these webs as institutions, which create order in our otherwise anarchic international society. Liberals call them regimes – sets of principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures that are designed to address problems of international cooperation. These regimes govern international behaviour, easing problems of collective action by codifying actors’ rights and responsibilities in a series of treaties, agreements and charters. It is important to note that Liberals also use the word ‘institution’, though they use it to describe international organisations rather than informal sets of principles and practices that define membership and behaviour in international society.

This section will consider the role of regimes in the international society of Europe and the former Soviet Union. First, it will consider contested concepts at the heart of regime theory and international law. It will then look at the nature of regimes, including examples in different sectors of human interaction – security, economics and ecology. This leads to a discussion of regime formation in Europe and the former Soviet Union, where two very different sets of regimes – one dense and one thin – explain the cooperative and competitive international relationships that define IR in the region.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘introduction’ of Chapter 18 of your textbook (pp.296–97).

Note key similarities and differences in the ways that Liberals and Realists understand the role of regimes in iR. Pay particular attention to points raised in Box 18.1.

Definitions

By this point, you have a solid foundation in the vocabulary used to discuss issues in contemporary IR. Before proceeding, however, we should pause to reconsider the meaning and constitution of regimes.


113

Essential readingStop and read Box 18.2 (‘Defining regimes’) in Chapter 18 of your textbook.

Make a special note of the four elements of a regime as described by Stephen Kranser.

Regimes, according to Stephen Krasner, are made up of four elements:

1. Principles represent a regime’s philosophical purpose, such as the establishment of free trade.

2. Norms are the actions that members take to implement a regime’s principles. The lowering of trade barriers, such as import duties and restrictions, are practical steps taken by members of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) and World Trade Organization (WTO) to achieve their principles.

3. Rules are specific regulations set up to ensure that members live up to a regime’s norms. In the WTO, for example, states can bring each other before a tribunal if they feel that another member state is not living up to its responsibilities.

4. Finally, a regime will include decision-making procedures that outline the formal means by which member states choose the principles, norms and rules on which their regime will be based.

Though essential to Liberal – and Realist – regimes, rules and decision-making procedures are not necessarily required of an English School institution. This makes them less formal than regimes and more difficult to identify. Sovereignty, for example, is enshrined in many international treaties and agreements. However, it first developed as an informal principle in 16th- and 17th-century Europe. In the centuries since, the principle of sovereignty has given birth to standards of behaviour – norms – such as non-intervention. This combination of principles and norms (or principles and practices) is enough to identify an English School institution. Regimes are more demanding, however, requiring a more formal set of rules and procedures to govern interactions between their members.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘Conceptualizing regimes’, ‘Defining regimes’ and ‘Classifying regimes’ subsections of Chapter 18 of your textbook (pp. 298–99).

Note the distinction between ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ regime on the one hand and ‘convergent’ and ‘non-convergent’ regimes on the other.

Enrichment material: For more thoughts on regimes and institutions, read the ‘Order and institutions’ section and Box 17.1 of Chapter 17 of your textbook (pp.280–81).

As your textbook points out, regimes vary widely in terms of how formally they are organised, and the extent to which they can constrain their members’ behaviour. Since the end of the First World War, regimes have tended to become more formal, with their principles and norms enshrined in charters, treaties and agreements. The most formal regimes give rise to international organisations, whose charters describe the rights and responsibilities of their members. Not all international organisations are created equal, however. Some, like the European Union, are able to force their members to accept rules that they might otherwise reject. For example, when the European Court of Human Rights hands down a decision, its rulings can


114

supersede a government’s existing laws. This political power is a rarity among international organisations. Most are unable to pass binding legislation, relying on forms of soft power, such as moral persuasion and public pressure, to change states’ behaviour. As discussed in Section 3.1, the UN explicitly protects states’ sovereignty against potential interference from the international community in Articles 1.4 and 2.7 of its Charter. Although this limits the UN’s power, it allows the organisation to engage with states whose sovereignty concerns would lead them to reject membership in more tightly-controlled regimes. For example, it is impossible to see how states like China, Russia and the USA would accept international control over their domestic governments. Their membership in the UN is dependent on the protections afforded by the Charter’s embrace of sovereignty and the additional rights (and protection) granted to them by their veto power in the Security Council. At the extreme end of this scale are organisations whose purpose is symbolic rather than practical. These dead-letter regimes are pure political theatre, with no real ability to alter the behaviour of state or non-state units.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘Globalization and international regimes: security regimes, environmental regimes, economic regimes’ subsection of Chapter 18 of your textbook (pp. 299–301).


ACtivity After completing the Essential reading, use the table to identify each of the following international organisations as part of a security, environmental or economic regime:

NAtO, the World Bank, the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (iPCC), ASEAN, iMF, the Kyoto Protocol, the World Food Programme (WFP), OAS

Feel free to consult the BBC’s international organisation profiles for short summaries of their duties. they can be found under the ‘international Organisations’ tab. then move on to answer Question A.

Type of regime International organisation

Security

Environmental

Economic

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/country_profiles/


115

Question A

in Sections 3.1 and 3.3, you studied the difference between international and human security. Which of the international organisations listed above might be considered part of a human security regime but not an international security regime? Why?

Regime formation and IR in Europe and former Soviet Union

One of the remarkable characteristics of international society in Europe and the former Soviet Union is the division that separates EU and NATO member states from Russia and the states immediately around it. This divide can be described in terms of the different regimes that operate on either side of it. From Portugal and Iceland, to Finland and Bulgaria, much of Europe is tied together by a dense set of principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures. These regimes, which deal with issues of international security, economics, human rights and human security, have made much of the continent a model of international integration. The result has been a gradual shift towards greater unity among the states involved, a shift embodied in the enlargement of the EU and NATO. Despite ongoing disagreements about the desirability of integration, Europe’s webs of regimes and international organisations remain a model for regions hoping to achieve goals of collective security and socioeconomic development. Meanwhile, most of the states of the former Soviet Union remain outside this dense web of principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures. They have instead fallen back on foreign policies that reflect Realist concerns about sovereignty and the security dilemma – both discussed at length in Section 2.3. These units – which include the Russian Federation, Belarus and the states of Central Asia – have been less willing than their western neighbours to sacrifice their autonomy to a highly formalised and constraining international regime. As a result, their interactions tend to be based around governments’ perceptions of the national interest – choosing self-help strategies over cooperative efforts to resolve shared problems. Between these camps are a number of states – like Georgia and the Ukraine – which are attracted by the goals and possibilities of EU and NATO membership. However, given Russia’s willingness to intervene either directly or indirectly in the affairs of its neighbours, these states must balance the benefits of membership in Europe’s institutional web against the risks involved in alienating their neighbours in Moscow. The remainder of this section will look at the region’s two types of international society – one based on Liberal ideals of security through interdependence, the other on Realist ideals of survival through self-help.


116

Essential readingStop and read the ‘Europe: a work in progress’ section of Chapter 4 of your textbook (pp.70–72).


ACtivity When you have finished the Essential reading above, use the table to identify one regime principle in each of the issue areas described in the first column. in the final column, name the European international organisation most connected to each regime. you may wish to refer back to Boxes 26.1 and 26.2 on p.439 of your textbook for more information on the process of European integration. An example is provided in Row 1.

Issue area Regime principle International organisation

Electoral reform Transparency OSCE

International security

Economics

Human rights

Though far from perfect, the European project – which encompasses all of the regimes described above – remains the strongest expression of Liberal thinking in the modern world. This has not always been the case. Europe, after all, has been the most conflict-ridden continent on Earth for several centuries. The 20th century alone witnessed two incredibly destructive world wars, an armed standoff that divided the continent into two armed camps during the Cold War, and the often-bloody collapse of multiethnic states in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. In addition to its own warlike past, Europe was also the home of modern imperialism – a now-outmoded institution of international society that encouraged powerful states to occupy and administer distant territories and populations for their own political, economic or societal benefit. Europe’s history makes its present all the more remarkable. Whether in terms of its security regime – with its focus on collective defence – or its economic regime – with its focus on the creation of a common economic market – Europe continues to enjoy the fruits of cooperation between once-hostile states.


117

ACtivity in groups, consider the quote in Box 4.3 on p.71 of your textbook.

How would different writers respond to The Economist’s predictions? Write down a two-sentence response to the quotation from each of the following viewpoints:

� Liberal

� Realist

� Marxist.

The integration of Europe through a collection of overlapping regimes runs into trouble on the borders of the former Soviet Union. Apart from the three Baltic states – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – the states of the former USSR remain largely excluded from the European ‘club’. Why? Let us return to the textbook for some answers.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘Russia: from yeltsin to Putin and Medvedev’ section of Chapter 4 of your textbook (pp.72–73).

Note especially any terms that you associate with Realism.

Russia’s growing distrust of the Liberal project after Yeltsin marks an important turning point in its relationship with the rest of Europe and, by extension, with the USA. By rejecting principles such as collective defence, the foreign policy of Vladimir Putin has a taken on a distinctly Realist tone. In an anarchic world, the Putin government sees self-help as the best defence against foreign intervention in its affairs. Regime-building, particularly regimes capable of constraining states’ behaviour, plays no appreciable role in Russian IR outside of the goals listed in Box 18.1 on p.297 of your textbook. When compared to the Liberal project in Europe, Russia’s attitude to international cooperation is much less about collaboration than it is about coordination. Likewise, Russia believes that its power – particularly its military and economic power – gives it a special role in creating regimes in its immediate neighbourhood. These regimes can be either cooperative or competitive, and need not lead to a Liberal world of interdependent states and active non-state units. Indeed, given the lack of trust between the Russian state and governments in Washington and Western Europe, it is difficult to see how the former Soviet Union will be drawn into the European project without significantly weakening the ability of Europe’s international organisations to constrain state behaviour. In the meantime, Europe and the former Soviet Union remain connected only by relatively weak and informal regimes, such as the non-binding Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

Conclusion

Many of the conclusions that we can draw about regime formation in Europe and the former Soviet Union can be applied to other regions of the globe. The relatively dense network of principles and norms that bind the states of Southeast Asia can be contrasted with the relatively weak regimes that coordinate state action in East Asia. Likewise, the peaceful relationships between states on the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) – Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman – can be contrasted with the nearly invisible regimes binding Israel and its neighbours. This is not to say that regimes can bring peace to all regions and


118

solve the world’s problems. Regimes are created by states and therefore incorporate their flaws. Moreover, the process of regime formation is not a one-way street. Regimes can be destroyed as well as created. Even in the heart of the EU, states like the United Kingdom are highly suspicious of any further attempts to constrain their autonomy. What the future holds for the EU in particular and the process of regime building in general depends on your viewpoint.

GLOSSARy

regimes

principles

norms

rules

decision-making procedures

international organisations

dead letter regimes

integration

collective security

development

national interest

119U

nit 3

: Ana

lysi

ng re

gion

al is

sues

in in

tern

atio

nal r

elat

ions


Section 3.1

1. Under what conditions is humanitarian intervention both desirable and effective?

2. Would African international society be more or less stable if its members intervened more frequently and forcefully in regional humanitarian crises?

Section 3.2

1. How does power shape the relationship between states and non-state transnational actors?

2. To what extent is US international society state-centric?

Section 3.3

1. How might the pursuit of state security conflict with the security of either individual humans or the wider international society in which a state is embedded?

2. Is security best pursued through cooperation or competition? Use the example of the South China Sea to illustrate your answer.

Section 3.4

1. How has globalisation contributed to the spread of terrorism?

2. What makes a region prone to terrorist violence? Provide and analyse at least two examples from the news.

Section 3.5

1. What role do regimes play in international society?

2. Why might you describe Europe and the former Soviet Union as ‘a region divided by regimes’?

120U

nit 3

: Ana

lysi

ng re

gion

al is

sues

in in

tern

atio

nal r

elat

ions

Concluding comments

This unit has introduced you to issues five major themes in modern IR by associating them with current events in five regions of the world: humanitarian intervention in Africa, non-state actors and IOs in the Americas, international security in East Asia, terrorism and globalisation in South and Southwest Asia, and regime formation in Europe and the former USSR. Using theoretical tools from Unit 2, you have analysed these issues from many angles. For example, is international security in East Asia and the Pacific better served by a Realist exercise of state power, by a Liberal agenda of regime formation, or by a Marxist redistribution of wealth to peripheral socio-economic groups? In English School terms, the whole debate can be summarised by asking whether the cause of regional security is better served by a competitive, a cooperative, or a convergent form of international society. By asking these questions, you have probably found that specific theories – particularly Liberalism, Realism and Marxism – are better suited to analysing some regions than others. Remember that no one theory is going to able to explain all of the issues surrounding a given topic. Only by using different theories to answer different questions can we hope to grasp the complexity of IR in the modern world.



� explain the context behind the five issue areas discussed in the sections:

� humanitarian intervention in Africa

� non-state actors and international organisations in the Americas

� international security in East Asia and the Pacific

� terrorism and globalisation in South and Southwest Asia

� regime building in Europe and the former Soviet Union.

� look at each issue through different lenses provided by the English School, Liberal, Realist and Marxist theory

� use these theoretical perspectives to analyse ongoing events in the news.

121U

nit 4

: Glo

bal i

ssue

s in

inte

rnat

iona

l rel

atio

ns




Aims 122



Further readings 123

References cited 123

Unit 4: Global issues in international relations 122


In this unit you will have the opportunity to use skills and knowledge gained over the last 15 sections to analyse five topics of global significance: war, development, environmental stewardship, global governance and the United Nations, and the future of international society in the 21st century. Over the past three units, you have covered a lot of territory. In Unit 1 you took a whirlwind tour of the world that introduced you to powerful states and to many of the key national and geographic divisions that influence IR at the regional level. Unit 2 explored four theoretical approaches to IR, each making its own assumptions about how the world works and emphasising different aspects of human behaviour at the international scale. Unit 3 investigated five important issues in regional IR. Several broad themes emerged from this analysis, including the continuing centrality of state sovereignty to IR, the important role of non-state actors in shaping international society, and the importance of institutions and regimes to the management of international affairs. Unit 4 brings together these lessons to shed some light on key issues affecting world events today.

Section 4.1 looks at the character of war in the 21st century, drawing heavily on ongoing events to illustrate points made in your Essential readings. Section 4.2 does the same for the issue of development and the importance of economic relations to international society. Section 4.3 considers successes and failures in the area of environmental stewardship, one of the greatest challenges facing the international community in the 21st century. Section 4.4 looks at the UN system and its role in global governance, noting how changes in international society have not yet been reflected in the UN’s organisation. Section 4.5 concludes the course by considering the future of international society, using patterns observed over the past 20 sections to make tentative predictions about future challenges and opportunities.

Week Unit Section16 4: Global issues in international

relations4.1: The changing character of war

17 4.2: Development: achieving human security

18 4.3: Global environmental change

19 4.4: Key international organisations

20 4.5: Analysing the international order

Aims

This unit aims to bring together the empirical and theoretical lessons of Units 1, 2 and 3 to shed light on the future of five key questions in global international society:

1. the changing character of war

2. the relationship between development and security

3. global environmental change

4. global governance and the UN

5. the future of the international order.

Unit 4: Global issues in international relations 123

Learning outcomes


� explain the nature of the issues under discussion in each of the first four sections, including:

� the changing nature of war

� development

� global environmental change (GEC)

� key international organisations.

� trace the impact of each issue on global international society

� use different IR theories to analyse their causes and solutions

� make convincing arguments about future developments in each field.

Essential reading



Further readings


References cited

Kaldor, M. New and old wars: organised violence in a global era. (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999) [ISBN 9780804756464].

Metz, S. Strategic horizons: the military implications of alternative futures. (Carlisle Barracks: US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, 1997). www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/download.cfm?q=234

Von Clausewitz, C. On war. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989) [ISBN 9780691018546].

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/download.cfm?q=234

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/download.cfm?q=234

124U

nit 4

: Glo

bal i

ssue

s in

inte

rnat

iona

l rel

atio

ns

Section 4.1: The changing character of war

Introduction 125

Definitions 125

War in IR theory 126

New wars in the news 128

Conclusion 129

Unit 4: Global issues in international relations • Section 4.1: The changing character of war

125

Introduction

War is an uncomfortable fact of life in IR. It has claimed around 3.5 billion lives over the course of recorded history, and remains part of human experience to this day. Defined by Hedley Bull as ‘organised violence carried on by political units against each other’, war has been central to the study of the discipline. Warfare scars our histories and fills our news reports. In 1919, the first academic position in IR was intended to help establish plans to render war ‘obsolete’. As a result, war has become the longest-running focus of our discipline: one in which IR has made significant contributions. In this section, you will be asked to think about the nature and forms of war, about war’s relationship with politics, and about the different kinds of war taking place in international society in the 21st century. While some regions of the world have become security communities – societies in which war has been made unacceptable as a means of resolving differences by collective security regimes – others have become sites of chronic warfare, with a variety of political factions fighting for control of a weak or failed state in what Mary Kaldor calls new wars. Analysing the reasons behind this phenomenon – which has seen war becoming less common between states and more common within states – will help you to understand the wars and conflicts in the news today.

Definitions

Before moving on to discuss and analyse war, we should pause to highlight a few general points about its place in IR. First, war is a deeply contested term. One of its many meanings is given above and many more are discussed in your Essential reading below. Though these differ in many respects, they generally see war as a form of organised human behaviour with its own principles and practices to guide combatants’ actions. Like diplomacy, it is a means of conflict resolution between units in our otherwise anarchic international societies. Like diplomacy, its principles and practices have changed over the centuries to reflect the changing political, economic, cultural and technological environments in which we live. At the same time, some aspects of war have remained relatively stable over time. How can we explain these simultaneous patterns of historical continuity and historical change? Carl von Clausewitz, a 19th-century Prussian general, remains one of the most useful writers on this topic. He distinguishes between the nature of war and the forms of war. The former refers to war’s universal and eternal characteristics, such as the use of violence for political ends. The nature of war, argues Clausewitz, does not change over time. Rather, war remains ‘an act of force intended to compel our opponents to fulfil our will’. It is, he famously says, ‘a continuation of political intercourse with a mixture of other means’. War is just one way in which political units – including states – press their desire for stability and/or change in international society.

While Clausewitz asserts that the nature of war remains relatively stable over time, he admits that its forms are constantly changing. The forms of war include the ways in which wars are fought – be it a fight on a battlefield between armies or in an urban centre between an occupying force and a guerrilla insurgency. The forms of war, argues Clausewitz, are transformed by changes in society and technology. Even apparently unrelated changes to a political unit can alter them. As states improve their tax collection systems, for example, so too will they boost their financial resources. This will allow them to carry on longer and more expensive military operations, changing the strategies and tactics that their generals will use to bend their adversaries to their will. Likewise, advances in technology can render old forms of war obsolete. The introduction of gunpowder into early-modern Europe radically reduced the value of medieval fortifications, which could now be brought down by cannon barrages. The invention of the nuclear bomb in 1945 radically redrew the forms of war employed by nuclear-armed states, rendering a direct


126

conflict between them highly unlikely while forcing states to invest in new delivery and defence systems. The Essential reading that follows makes a case for just such a transformation now going on globally thanks to the impact of globalisation on the forms of war.


Note the impact of globalisation on the forms of war, particularly on the role of non-state actors and the shape of the modern ‘battlespace’.

Now that you have a working understanding of the forms and nature of war, you should develop a working definition of war itself. Some of these have already been mentioned in previous paragraphs and do not require repetition. Others, such as that presented in Webster’s Dictionary and discussed in the textbook, are too limited in scope to account for the wide variety of different conflicts that count as wars in today’s world. Finding one that works is a continuing challenge for our discipline.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘Definitions’ section of Chapter 13 of your textbook (pp.217–18).

Note the different definitions of war. When you have finished, complete the following activity.

ACtivity Which definition of war from the Essential reading can be used to describe events during:

� the Second Congo War in the DRC

� the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008

� the War on terror?

Justify your arguments with a few sentences of explanation.

War in IR theory

Each of the theories of IR covered in Unit 2 has something to say about war. Liberalism is particularly interested in how to manage international conflict without resorting to war – a goal that would be familiar to most early IR thinkers. As such, Liberals tend to focus on ways to limit warfare, often turning to regimes as a potential tool (see Section 2.2). Realists are far more interested in the durability of war as a feature of international behaviour. They therefore focus on enduring causes of conflict, using explanations that include human nature, the security dilemma and the structure of the anarchic international system (see Section 2.3). Marxists have quite a bit to tell us about the role of economics in war and about the role of the state as a protector of bourgeois business interests around the world. Remember that Marxism sees politics as a product of economic forces and structures. This allows Marxists to put a new spin on Clausewitz by asserting that war is actually a continuation of economics by other means (see Section 2.4). The English School’s broad theoretical agenda makes it well-suited to discuss each of these positions. Like Liberalism, the English School accepts that international society can limit warfare by providing alternative forms of conflict resolution such as negotiation or arbitration. At the


127

same time, it accepts that war is an essential institution of contemporary international society, siding with Realists in debates about the continuing importance of anarchy and the security dilemma. Thanks to its broad understanding of IR as a combination of political, economic and societal systems and institutions, the ES can even account for Marxism’s economic determinism in order to explain the ties that bind our political and economic institutions (see Section 2.1). None of these theories is ‘right’ in the sense that it can explain everything to do with war in IR. Each highlights a small part of a much larger topic, providing its own insight into the nature and forms of war in the contemporary world.

Liberalism can tell us many things about war. First, war is a form of human behaviour that can be managed by international regimes. These, you will remember, are sets of principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures designed to help international units cooperate in pursuit of shared goals. As the Essential reading below indicates, contemporary war is regulated by a series of international rules and agreements. These form a body of international law that outlines when an actor can legitimately go to war, and how they should act when they do so. These laws are remarkably effective when applied to conflicts between similar political units, such as sovereign states. They are more problematic when applied to asymmetric warfare, in which one party’s capabilities far outpace those of the other. This leads to situations such as the Western occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, where insurgents used homemade bombs, ambushes and suicide attacks to destabilise occupying forces. The armies operating in these theatres as of the beginning of 2012 react with attacks by unmanned aerial drones against insurgent leaders and large-scale search-and-destroy missions to root out insurgent groups. This fight between radically different political units – states and insurgencies – creates major problems for international law. How is an army supposed to treat a prisoner when that prisoner is not wearing a uniform and is not a member of any recognised fighting group? The laws of war on prisoners’ rights – the Geneva Conventions – only apply to soldiers in state militaries, illustrating a problem with Liberal regime building. Because regimes depend on states for their creation and upkeep, they are often unable to cope with challenges arising from non-state actors – a problem of increasing significance as we move into the 21st century. How to deal with this failing remains an important question in contemporary Liberal writing on war and its limitations. Some point to the inclusion of non-state actors in the regime-building process, though it is difficult to see how this would solve the legal problem posed by unconventional, asymmetric warfare.

Neo-Realism chooses to focus on war’s enduring place in the world’s anarchic international system. As we have discussed several times in this course, states face a security dilemma that encourages them to build up their military strength. Because the international system lacks a central authority to mediate disputes, every state must rely on its own resources to defend its sovereignty against external invasion and domestic rebellion. This can only be done through the accumulation of hard power, requiring investments in military forces to defend the government against its opponents. However, as a state accumulates hard power, others will perceive it as a threat to their sovereignty. This will force other states to arm themselves, leading to more suspicion and more investments in hard power, leading to arms races between competing powers. Although the forms of war may change, most Realists assert that its nature remains the same – pitting units against one another in a battle for political advantage on the international stage. Once again, this vision of war runs into difficulties when it is asked to explain war from the perspective of either non-state units or economic and cultural causes. Though very effective at answer specific questions about war in IR, Realism cannot explaining everything under the sun.

Marxism provides a route around some of the limitations of Liberal and Realist theory. By focusing on the role of socioeconomic classes in IR, Marxist analysis can often highlight relationships that get masked by other theories’ political and statist assumptions. For example, governments’ increasing use of private-sector contractors – called private military companies (PMCs) – to provide security is viewed by Marxists as a logical consequence of the interaction


128

between capitalism and the state. Remember that according to this worldview, the state represents the interests of the dominant socioeconomic class in society: the bourgeoisie. As long as PMCs are controlled by the same group as that controlling the state, there is no logical contradiction in the use of public money to pay for private military power. Moreover, Marxism has some success explaining wars between state militaries and non-state insurgents as battles between international or transnational bourgeois classes and local proletariats. In such battles, the bourgeoisie will always hold the upper hand in terms of hard and soft power, forcing non-state insurgents to pursue asymmetric and guerrilla-style campaigns to dislodge foreign business interests from their local economies.

Essential readingStop and read ‘the nature of war’ and ‘Postmodern war’ sections of Chapter 13 of your textbook (pp.218–20, 223–24).


ACtivity After completing the Essential reading, answer each the following questions. then, share your answers with your classmates.

1. How does Charles tilly characterise the relationship between the state and war?

2. What characteristics make postmodern war ‘postmodern’?

New wars in the news

Many of the conflicts going on in the world today are what Mary Kaldor calls new wars – conflicts that take place around a disintegrating state, with opposing groups struggling to control the state and to impose their definitions of identity on the population. The process by which such wars take place is discussed in the second paragraph of the following Essential reading.

Essential readingStop and read the first half the ‘New wars’ section of Chapter 13 of your textbook (pp.224–25: read as far as ‘Post-Westphalian warfare’).

take note of the process by which Kaldor argues that state collapse leads to ‘new wars’.

Thinking back on the sections you have already studied, several ‘new wars’ can be identified. The ongoing conflict in the DRC is one. The civil war between the southern government and northern rebels in Mali is another. The ongoing struggle in Afghanistan is a third. The fact is that Kaldor’s definition of a ‘new war’ fits too many of today’s armed struggles to be ignored. The question then becomes, ‘where will new wars most likely take place?’ One answer is provided by Steven Metz’s division of the world into three ‘tiers’ of states, with third-tier states being the most vulnerable to collapse. This is explained in the following activity.


129

ACtivity Stop and read Box 13.7 on p.226 of your textbook.

Once you have finished, navigate to the BBC news homepage. From there, visit the main news pages for any two of the following regions:

� Africa

� Latin America

� East Asia

� South Asia

� the Middle East.

Do any of the main news stories in these regions feature a ‘new war’? Which ones? Justify your selections with a sentence or two of explanation each.

Conclusion

At face value, war seems to be a relatively straightforward concept. Further investigation, however, shows it to be more complex than it first appears. Although the nature of war as ‘politics by other means’ remains largely unchanged, the forms it takes and the regimes by which it is managed continue to evolve. The rise of non-state military units – rebel fighters, terrorist groups and PMCs – is bringing about a general shift towards non-state participation in warfare. Technological leaps are replacing old-fashioned two- or three-dimensional battlefields with multi-dimensional battlespaces that include digital information systems and space-based capabilities. Perhaps the most remarkable change in the form of war has to do with its relationship to the state. Where wars once united and empowered states – a view neatly described by Charles Tilly’s claim that ‘war made the state and the state made war’ (see p.219 of the textbook) – new wars tend to weaken and divide them. The most vulnerable are the third-tier states of the developing world, whose relatively weak systems of governance and control make them vulnerable to economic downturns, ethnic divisions and political collapse.

GLOSSARy

security communities

failed state

war

Carl von Clausewitz

nature of war

forms of war

regimes

international law

asymmetric warfare

security dilemma

arms races

bourgeoisie

new wars

third-tier states

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/

130U

nit 4

: Glo

bal i

ssue

s in

inte

rnat

iona

l rel

atio

ns

Section 4.2: Development: achieving human security

Introduction 131

Definitions 132

The evolution of development theory in IR 133

Continuing issues 135

Conclusion 136

Unit 4: Global issues in international relations • Section 4.2: Development: achieving human security

131

Introduction

Your analysis of new wars and third-tier states in the last section hints at the importance of development to contemporary IR. Traditionally associated with economic growth, development is a contested concept in our discipline. ‘Orthodox’ analysts define development as the achievement of economic growth through free market capitalism, with a minimal role played by the state. ‘Critical’ analysts reject this definition, claiming that it ignores the immediate and long-term needs of poor and marginalised individuals and communities. Instead, critical analysts define development as the achievement of material and non-material goals including economic self-sufficiency, environmental sustainability and democratic inclusion in decision-making processes. The orthodox view of development has the advantage of being straightforward, focusing almost solely on achieving growth in a state’s gross domestic product (GDP). The critical view is more complex, incorporating income equality, environmental degradation and community self-reliance. It also sees a much greater role for the state than orthodox development theory – a role that needs to be backed up by democratic reforms to ensure that marginalised populations can make their voices heard.

Our discussions of humanitarian intervention, security and war indicate that development has consequences well outside the economic sector. It also affects international political, military and cultural relationships. Section 4.1 showed that most of the wars currently going on in the world take place within weak or failed third-tier states. As described in Box 13.7 on p.226 of your textbook, these third-tier states do not have the economic, political or social resources needed to exercise sovereignty in some or all of their territory. This encourages other political units to compete for control of the central government, creating conditions of extreme insecurity in which there is no effective central authority to establish law or to protect individuals against violations of their human rights. Remember that these new wars are brought about by a combination of economic, social and political crises facing the state, starting with a decline in its revenue. Because a state’s tax revenue depends on the size of its economy, so too will its ability to exercise sovereignty to protect its international autonomy and maintain its domestic hegemony. With this connection in mind, you can start to see why IR today recognises a relationship between development, state power and security – be it international or human.

This section looks more closely at competing approaches to development and the effect these are having on states and individuals. It begins by defining key terms. It then looks more closely at the debate between orthodox and critical approaches to development, particularly the concept of sustainable development. Finally, it gives you the opportunity to think deeply about the connection between development and security by reintroducing new wars and asking you to make connections between states’ levels of development and the likelihood of them being involved in human or international security crises.

Essential readingStop and read p. 463 of your textbook (‘Development’). Note especially any connection between definitions of development and definitions of human security.

you may wish to refer back to the seven principles of human security issued by the UN Development Programme (UNDP). these are listed on p.480 of your textbook, with further discussion in Box 29.1 (p.481).


132

Definitions

As your textbook indicates, development is yet another contested concept in IR. The orthodox view since 1945 has seen ‘development’ as synonymous with ‘economic growth’. This has traditionally been measured in terms of a state’s GDP – the total amount of wealth created by economic activity within its borders. The problem with GDP as a measurement of development is its lack of clarity when it comes to the distribution of wealth across different classes in society. Even while a state’s GDP grows, that is no guarantee that the lives of specific individuals will improve. This has been noted in relation to states like Nigeria, whose great oil wealth ensures a robust level of GDP growth every year despite the failure of this wealth to ‘trickle down’ to its poorest citizens – many of whom live in the shadow of its oil wells. This traditional approach to development is sometimes called neo-liberalism – a term that requires further clarification. In this case, neo-liberalism refers to a theory of economics, and should not be confused with Liberalism in IR. This is a common source of confusion for students and teachers alike. The basic assumption of neo-liberalism favours economic growth through market-based capitalism, with the state playing a minimal role in terms of regulation and decision-making. It has nothing to do with the regime-building of Liberalism.

While the orthodox definition of development continues to dominate IR debates, a growing number of writers and practitioners support an alternative understanding. This critical approach emphasises development’s ability to empower local actors to meet their own material and non-material needs. These non-material needs might include having the support of a cohesive community, having a say in matters of government, and having access to natural resources such as land, water, and energy. Critical theorists argue that development is not a purely economic problem that can be measured by looking at a state’s GDP. Instead, development is a complex process that must be judged by looking at society’s poorest and most marginal individuals, who are most in need of political empowerment, economic self-reliance and environmental sustainability. Critical theorists argue that these points, rather than GDP alone, should be the measures by which international society judges development.

ACtivity Stop and read Box 28.2 on p.463 of your textbook and the ‘taking jobs in Bangladesh’ case study on p.464.

the Hathay Bunano Proshikhan Society (HBPS) case discussed on p.464 is an example of the alternative development model in action. individually or in groups, consider the following questions:

1. What about the HBPS case makes it ‘alternative’ rather than ‘orthodox’?

2. How might an ‘orthodox’ project have pursued the goal of employing rural women in the textile industry?


133

The evolution of development theory in IR

ACtivity Stop and read the ‘Economic liberalism and the post-1945 international economic order: sixty-five years of orthodox development’ subsection on pp.464–65 of your textbook.

in the space below, record policies that would either strengthen or weaken the state’s ability to exercise effective control over its people and territory.

Policies that strengthen state sovereignty

Policies that weaken state sovereignty

Like war and diplomacy, development is a key institution of global international society. Whether you are a neo-liberal traditionalist or a critical theorist, development is a goal towards which international society strives. Its pursuit is a form of international behaviour whose historical roots stretch back to the Cold War, when the capitalist West and the socialist East battled for ascendency. Early in this period, development was closely associated with industrialisation. Both the US and Soviet blocs believed that industrial development was the best avenue by which to pursue economic growth and individual empowerment, though they disagreed about whether industrialisation should be organised by the capitalist market or by the socialist state. For most of the Cold War, both sides accepted a role for the state in development. This included the provision of law and order, the maintenance of critical infrastructure and services like education, and the management of the population’s international affairs. This phase of international development is referred to as embedded liberalism.

The West’s abandonment of embedded liberalism in favour of neo-liberalism (see above) followed a series of economic crises in the 1970s. Faced with massive debts, developing states were forced to sell off government assets and privatise industries in order to secure funding from international lenders, particularly the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Throughout the 1970s and 80s, the IMF and World Bank made these structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) an essential part of their lending strategies as a way to encourage developing states to adopt free-market principles and roll back government power – both key policy objectives of the Western bloc and good examples of how development can be used by powerful international actors to shape the behaviour of underdeveloped states. The result of these developments was the Washington Consensus – a policy programme that favoured an expansion of market activity and a minimalist state.


134

Essential readingStop and read ‘the development achievement of the post-war economic order: orthodox and alternative evaluations’ and ‘A critical alternative view of development’ subsections on pp.465–68 of your textbook.

then review the economic explanations of terrorism discussed in Section 3.4 (see pp.370–71 in your textbook).

ACtivity Based on the Essential reading above, answer the following questions:

1. Does the weakening of the state by orthodox development policies make terrorism more or less likely in developing countries?

2. What effect does increasing economic inequality have on terrorist threats?

The era of absolute orthodoxy in development studies is over. Even the most market-oriented observers today realise that the state must play some role in managing and directing the development process. The incorporation of critical concepts like empowerment and environmental sustainability into the orthodox approach has led to the post-Washington Consensus – a policy programme that continues to press for trade liberalisation while acknowledging the need for development to be ‘pro-poor’ in the sense that it benefits even the most marginal groups in society. Since the late 1980s, this has included a call for sustainable development – defined as economic growth that does not jeopardise the resources available to future generations. Critical theorists, meanwhile, continue to press for a much wider package of reforms. These centre around five principles adopted by the Alternative Declaration of the NGO Forum at the Copenhagen Summit:

� community participation

� empowerment

� equity

� self-reliance

� sustainability.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘Resistance, empowerment, and development’ and ‘the orthodoxy incorporates criticisms’ subsections on pp.468–69 of your textbook.

Note especially the terms adopted in the Alternative Declaration from the Copenhagen Summit’s NGO Forum. Consider whether the policy of ‘sustainable development’ represents a real change, or is just a buzzword with little real impact on policy.

Enrichment material: Further information may be found in Box 21.2 in Chapter 21 of your textbook (p.351).


135

Continuing issues

Development is an important topic in IR because it impacts on every level of analysis in the discipline. For individuals, development provides a chance to reach our potential and have a say in our political, economic and social future. For states, development is a path to economic growth and sovereignty. For international society, development is a means to manage potential conflicts by improving economic and social conditions, thereby alleviating some of the causes behind war, terrorism and criminality. International security, it turns out, is closely related to human security. Damage to one tends to damage the other. Today, wars between two or more sovereign states – ‘interstate’ wars – seem to be becoming less common in international society. Instead, the world is facing an increasing number of ‘intrastate wars’ – violent conflicts between two or more groups inside of one state. The Syrian Civil War, still raging as of the time of this guide’s publication, is a case in point. The highly unstable situation in the eastern DRC is another. Indeed, from the mountains of Colombia to the deserts of Mali and the jungles of Myanmar, civil conflicts and new wars are the ‘new normal’ in many parts of the world.

These new wars have their roots in development. Mary Kaldor is very clear on this point when she notes that many intrastate conflicts begin when a state’s economy is performing so poorly as to reduce the government’s tax revenues and therefore undermine its ability to provide services, such as law and education, to its population. This means that the state’s monopoly of violence – which gives the government the right to use force on behalf of its citizens – disintegrates, opening the door to armed non-state units such as paramilitary militias, criminal gangs and terrorist organisations. Unable to defend its own citizens, the government’s political legitimacy collapses, leading to further rounds of violence by non-state actors trying to seize control of the now-failed state.

This raises several questions about development and security. Is it possible to achieve human security in a severely underdeveloped state? Is it possible to achieve international security under the same conditions? What role might income inequality or social exclusion play in motivating groups to oppose the government and take up arms against it? Finally, what kind of development policies are best suited to avoid the security problems that emerge from failed states? These questions remain high on the agenda of international society as it tries to manage issues arising from the world’s grossly unequal distribution of economic wealth and political power.

ACtivity Stop and read the ‘Post-Westphalian warfare’ subsection of Chapter 13 in your textbook (pp.225–26).

then look at the Human Development index (HDi) 2012 that is posted on the vLE. this ranks the states of the world on the basis of a mixed set of economic and social factors. Note which states are in the bottom third of the index. Looking back at the news stories you have kept track of during your weekly news briefings, can you make any predictions about the likelihood of state collapse and ‘new warfare’ on the basis of the HDi?


136

Conclusion

Development is an important topic in IR for several reasons. It directly impacts on the lives of billions of individuals around the world, affecting levels of poverty and hunger (see Figure 28.1 on p.461 of your textbook). It also shapes the capacities of states, which rely on their societies for the tax revenue on which their hard and soft power are based. At the deepest level of analysis, it also affects international society by impacting the principles and practices by which states relate to one another, and by ensuring that developed units will continue to have a greater say in the evolution of international institutions than their relatively underdeveloped neighbours.

GLOSSARy

development

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

neo-liberalism

embedded liberalism

structural adjustment programs (SAPs)

Washington Consensus

post-Washington Consensus

sustainable development

human security

137U

nit 4

: Glo

bal i

ssue

s in

inte

rnat

iona

l rel

atio

ns

Section 4.3: Global environmental change

Introduction 138

GEC and global environmental governance 138

International environmental regimes 140

Climate change in the news 142

Conclusion 142

Unit 4: Global issues in international relations • Section 4.3: Global environmental change

138

Introduction

Global environmental change (GEC) is one of the most complex and daunting policy challenges facing international society today. Driven by a rapid increase in the concentration of deleterious gases in the atmosphere and by the rapid expansion of humanity’s ecological footprint, GEC is changing the planet on which we live. It promises to affect a wide range of international issues – from development and human security to war and international law – with uncertain consequences for the states, nations and countries of the world. Managing GEC has become a growing international priority, as illustrated by the growing number of meetings and agreements that have focused on the topic. Yet, despite its obvious importance to the future of humanity, attempts to manage the causes and effects of GEC have been remarkably unsuccessful. Studying the reasons for these failures will give you a better grasp of the coming environmental crisis in particular and issues of global governance in general.

Global governance describes attempts to regulate and control international and transnational issues without recourse to a central organising authority. Depending on your theoretical preferences, this is accomplished through the evolution of English School institutions, the creation of Liberal regimes, the forging of Realist alliances, or some combination of the three. Global governance is therefore very different from global government. Governance takes place in conditions of anarchy – with no central authority to resolve disputes or coordinate action. Government takes place in conditions of hierarchy, with relationships mediated by some form of state. Because global governance takes place in an anarchic international environment, it must try to coordinate action among the globe’s 190+ sovereign states, each of which has the right to reject international intervention in its domestic affairs. This limits the effectiveness of the resulting institutions and regimes, allowing some states to ‘cheat’ by ignoring or rejecting recommendations from the international community. Enforcement is therefore a pressing concern, though one that can only be solved with the consent of the sovereign members of international society.


Note especially the role of globalisation as a cause of GEC and the textbook’s definition of global governance.

GEC and global environmental governance

Since it first emerged as an issue on the global stage at the UN Conference on the Human Environment in 1972, the environment has been seen as a ‘first world’ problem and therefore of interest to only a handful of economically developed states. Issues surrounding natural resource conservation and pollution control – the main subjects of environmental governance prior to the Cold War – have only slowly been taken up by states around the world. The system of whale protection established by the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, passed in 1946, is one of the oldest multilateral environmental regimes in the world. Compared to other systems of global governance, it is very young indeed. The reasons for this are many. First, the environment has long been labelled as part of low politics – a term used by many classical IR scholars to describe economic, cultural, intellectual and environmental (i.e. non-political and non-military) relationships. Given IR’s early fascination with states and conflict, it should come as


139

no surprise that the environment has often been ignored in favour of questions of high politics: war, diplomacy and interstate relations.

The arrival of environmental issues on the international agenda is often dated to the UN Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm in 1972. This important meeting took several early steps toward regime formation, particularly the establishment of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to study environmental problems and recommend solutions. The Stockholm Conference also set the stage for the emergence of sustainable development as an institution of international society in the late 1980s, linking the environment to development and human security. For the states of the developing world, the long-term threat of GEC was of secondary importance compared to the immediate dangers posed by faltering economies and weak systems of government. International society – dominated by relatively powerful and developed states – therefore embraced the vocabulary of sustainable development in 1987 as a way to bring the developing world ‘on board’ with efforts to manage global environmental change. This apparently sensible decision has had the problematic effect of tying environmental protection to questions of economic development. Though justified from the viewpoint of developing nations, this connection has opened the door to claims by some developed states that they cannot implement carbon dioxide emission cuts without damaging their economies. Economic competition has therefore created a significant ‘free rider’ problem in global environmental governance, with many individual political units (i.e. Canada and the USA) choosing to ignore their international responsibilities while benefitting from the more responsible actions of others.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘Environmental issues on the international agenda: a brief history’ section of Chapter 21 of your textbook (pp. 349–51).

Note especially the accelerating pace of regime creation in Box 21.1 (‘Chronology’) by underlining key meetings and agreements between 1946 and 2009.

The processes by which global environmental governance has sought to coordinate action in international society follow the pattern of regime creation first discussed in reference to Europe and the former Soviet Union in Section 3.5. This carries with it the usual problems. As noted on p.352 of the textbook, international action is often affected by struggles for power, wealth and status. This is true between states, as when the USA and China argue over their respective responsibility for carbon emissions, and between non-state units. These units, including TNCs, NGOs and international organisations, will jealously guard their power and status against attempts by others to limit them, hampering the regime-building process. This is a problem predicted by Realists, who expect all units to protect their power and independence against international or transnational regulation. Thus, state and non-state actors may choose to block international agreements on the grounds of self-interest. One could certainly point to the oil and gas industry’s financial support of climate change deniers as an example of this sort of blocking action.

Marxists also point to a second problem. When two regimes have different goals, their principles, norms and rules can come into conflict. Such is the case with environmental protection and international trade. The first, guided by the precautionary principle, asserts that when an action is likely to cause environmental damage, it can be banned before absolute proof of such damage is found. Trade, meanwhile, is guided by the neo-liberal economic principles that


140

dominate the international trading regime. These favour minimal international regulations except where trade can be shown to cause unacceptable harm to national security. When these regimes collide, their members need to decide which principles will receive priority. According to the assumptions of Marxism, this should result in a regular pattern in which economic considerations trump environmental concerns. Neo-liberalism, they contend, will defeat the precautionary principle. The historical record shows that they are not entirely wrong, with environmental regulation often falling victim to economic necessity.

Essential readingStop and read part one of ‘the functions of international environmental cooperation’ section and Box 21.3 in Chapter 21 of your textbook (p.352).

Note especially the tension between free trade and environmental regulation at the international level.

International environmental regimes

Despite this tension between international economic and environmental regimes, we should not underestimate the amount of progress that has been made over a relatively short period of time. In the 40+ years since the Stockholm Conference in 1972, a number of principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures have developed around issues of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

ACtivity Stop and read the ‘Norm creation’, ‘Capacity building’ and ‘Scientific understanding’ subsections of p.353 of your textbook.

then, using the table below, identity each of the following terms as a principle, norm, rule or decision-making process:

precautionary principle; capacity building; prior informed consent; sharing of scientific information; sovereignty; sustainable development; framework convention; control protocol.

Principle

Norm

Rule

Decision-making procedure

Note: refer back to Box 18.2 on p.299 of your textbook for a refresher on regimes.


141

The challenges facing the global environmental regime are neatly captured by the ‘tragedy of the commons’. The global commons are areas that do not come under the sovereign jurisdiction of any state, such as the global ocean, outer space or the atmosphere. Under international law, these areas are not owned by anyone. As a result, nobody is responsible for policing and regulating them. In such conditions, actors may choose to maximise their own benefit from the commons by overusing the shared resource. This has taken the form of overfishing in international waters and the uncontrolled discharge of pollution into the sea and air. By maximising their own benefits, actors can degrade the common resource in question. The collapse of the Atlantic cod fishery on the Grand Banks of the western Atlantic is a good example of the tragedy in action. It took place when industrial fishing trawlers removed increasing amounts of fish from an apparently rich source of supply in the second half of the 20th century – a pattern of resource use that finally triggered a massive decline in fish numbers and the imposition of a moratorium on (suspension of ) cod fishing in the area.

In modern IR, there appear to be two solutions to the problem of the commons. First, a state may choose to take responsibility for policing a common resource. Canada’s decision to extend its jurisdiction to the ‘nose’ and ‘tail’ of the Grand Banks, which had previously been located in international waters, represented just such an attempt to nationalise a transnational resource – making it the property of a single state. Though effective, this will often lead to tension with other international actors wishing to access the common resource in question. Canada’s declaration over the Grand Banks, for example, sparked a short-lived and non-violent ‘Cod War’ between the Canadian Coast Guard and fishing trawlers from Spain in 1994 and 1995, with several trawlers being impounded by the Canadian government.

A second solution – more common and less contentious than nationalisation – is global governance. This puts policing and regulation in the hands of a regime, often represented by a formal international organisation. This does not solve the ‘free rider’ problem at the heart of the tragedy of the commons. However, it can establish systems of enforcement that raise the costs of ‘cheating’ to an unacceptable level – encouraging compliance by members of international society. It is interesting to note that these systems have given NGOs a new role in IR as ‘compliance officers’, checking and reporting on regime violations.

ACtivity Stop and read the ‘Governing the commons’) subsection of pp.353–55 of your textbook. Also look at Boxes 21.4 (‘the tragedy of the commons – local and global’) and 21.5 (‘the Montreal Protocol and stratospheric ozone regime’).

then, using the table below, identify rules within the Montreal Protocol that encourage compliance on the part of developed and developing states.

Rules encouraging developed states’ compliance

Rules encouraging developing states’ compliance


142

Climate change in the news

Despite its success with the Montreal Protocol and Antarctic Treaty, international society remains largely unable to tackle the much more complex issue of global environmental change brought on by humanity’s increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. This is certainly not for want of trying. As the learning activity below shows, international society has established a range of principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures to tackle this particular tragedy of the commons. It is your job to identify these regime characteristics.

ACtivity Stop and read the ‘Climate change’ section of Chapter 21 of your textbook (pp.356–59).

then, using the table below, identify the principles, norms, rules and decision-making processes that constitute the global climate change regime. Remember that it is sometimes difficult to identify something as either a norm or a principle or a rule, so justify each of your decisions with a short sentence of explanation.

Regime component Climate change examples

Principles

Norms

Rules

Decision-making procedures

Conclusion

Despite a growing recognition that climate change threatens many aspects of human civilisation, remarkably little has been accomplished in the fight to mitigate its impact. The complex regime created to manage this process has not been able to ensure compliance by developed or developing states, both of which tend to see a natural opposition between greenhouse gas emission cuts and economic growth. It is interesting to note that developing states are today at greatest risk from climate change – a process that has itself been caused by carbon emissions from the developed world. As your textbook argues, the global climate change regime has been negatively impacted by the structural division between the global North and South – a division that continues to derail effective climate governance. Unfortunately, we may need to wait until future environmental disasters – including crop failures and widespread coastal flooding – alter states’ calculations before we see real progress towards international cooperation on this issue.


143

GLOSSARy

global environmental change (GEC)

anarchy

hierarchy

conservation

pollution

sustainable development

‘free rider’ problem

precautionary principle

tragedy of the commons

144U

nit 4

: Glo

bal i

ssue

s in

inte

rnat

iona

l rel

atio

ns

Section 4.4: Key international organisations

Introduction 145

The United Nations 145

The World Bank, the IMF and the WTO 147

The International Atomic Energy Agency 148

Conclusion 150

Unit 4: Global issues in international relations • Section 4.4: Key international organisations

145

Introduction

This section will consider the global governance potential of several international organisations around the world. As we have discussed, these are an important product of regimes and institutions that bring order to our anarchic international society. International organisations provide us with a ‘way in’ to understand the sometimes hidden principles by which units interact. Criticised by some for being too powerful and by others for not being powerful enough, international organisations range from purely technical organisations – such as the Universal Postal Union and the World Meteorological Organisation – to those dealing with much broader issue areas, such as security, the world economy and regional integration. You job now is to analyse them in order to evaluate their successes and failures.

The discussion that follows will consider the practical and theoretical implications of several important international organisations:

� the United Nations (UN)

� the World Bank

� the International Monetary Fund (IMF)

� the World Trade Organization (WTO)

� the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Despite the limited power granted to these international organisations by their member states, each has become crucial to the functioning of international society, carrying out jobs that states are unwilling or unable to do. An influential argument suggests that international organisations constitute a new system of global governance that operates independently of the states system. This is an overstatement. The fact remains that international organisations exist in an international society dominated by sovereign states that are largely unwilling to surrender independent decision-making authority to an international or transnational unit. Within this society, states have delegated some responsibilities to international organisations, giving these international actors some autonomy. It would be a gross exaggeration, however, to think of them as sovereign actors. Sovereignty remains the sole possession of the world’s states, leaving international organisations to deal with international affairs as best they can through coordination and regime management.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘international organizations as structures of global politics’ subsection of Chapter 20 of your textbook (p.337).

Note the characteristics of an international organisation, such as goals and a founding document.

The United Nations

The First World War (1914–18) led to a desire among statesmen and citizens to create a new kind of organisation to maintain peace and security without the use of force. The result was the League of Nations. Founded in 1920 and based in Geneva, the League had a chequered history. It managed to survive the 1920s, doing much good work in the process. However, the 1930s proved disastrous, beginning with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931 and ending with the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. The League was formally dissolved in early 1947. Its successor, the United Nations – founded in 1945 – was different from the League


146

in several respects. Its membership included the USSR and the USA. It formally recognised the privileged position of the five major powers in international society – the USA, the USSR, the United Kingdom, France and China (then represented by the Nationalist government). The UN granted these states – called the Permanent Five (P5) – veto powers in the Security Council, the UN organ dedicated to preserving ‘international peace and security’. Designed to ‘save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’, the organisation continued to grow as new states were created through decolonisation and new agencies were created to deal with specific international issues.

The UN’s critics often ridiculed it as a ‘talking shop’ without the power to alter states’ behaviour. It is sometimes blamed for failing to carry out tasks for which it has never been given a mandate or resources, such as ending war and eradicating poverty. However, rather than judging the organisation against impossible goals, analyses should focus on its successes and failures ‘on the ground’: looking after refugees, keeping warring factions apart, feeding starving populations, and delivering some kind of hope to the world’s most underdeveloped people and groups. In each of its areas of responsibility, the UN’s performance has been less than perfect. How much of this is the organisation’s own fault depends on how much responsibility you place at the feet of member states. After all, the UN is an intergovernmental organisation, organised by and for the member sovereign states. Without their permission, there is little the UN Secretariat can do.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘introduction’ and ‘A brief history of the United Nations and its principal organs’ sections of Chapter 19 of your textbook (pp.312–16).

ACtivity Use the table to note the main issue areas with which each of the five main organs of the UN system are concerned

General Assembly

Security Council

Economic and Social Council

International Court of Justice

Trusteeship Council


147

By the end of the Cold War, the UN acquired a degree of authority among its member states that the League of Nations never had. Even a government as hostile to the UN as George W. Bush’s administration ran up against its authoritative power when it decided to go to war in Iraq without the organisation’s backing. This stripped the war of its legitimacy in the eyes of international society – a critical problem for the USA and Iraqi governments ever since. The Bush administration’s infringement of international norms made it far more difficult for the USA to represent the war as something other than a land grab driven by a combination of US oil interests, a president out to finish his father’s business, and a variety of neo-conservative advisers keen on spreading democracy to the Arab world at the point of a bayonet. Without UN backing, US policy looked like an exercise in imperialism rather than one aimed at the maintenance of international peace and security, delegitimising the actions of even the most powerful state in the world.

The World Bank, the IMF and the WTO

The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) have a narrower mandate than the UN. They were first designed to support the global economy, which in 1945 was in terrible shape after decades of depression and war. This led economic policy-makers to conclude that the world needed a system of international policy coordination to avoid the economic turbulence that had destabilised the 1930s and 1940s. Three new international organisations were created as part of the Bretton Woods system, which was meant to promote a new world economic order. It incorporated three distinct organisations: the IMF, whose purpose was to ensure a stable exchange rate regime and the provision of emergency financial assistance to states; the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development – later the World Bank – whose immediate goal was to facilitate European post-war reconstruction, but whose longer term job was to provide development assistance more generally; and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which became a forum for negotiations on trade liberalisation. Underwritten by the enormous power of the USA, this multilateral system of economic governance has since been reinforced by the creation of new agencies and international organisations. These include the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), formed in 1960 to undertake multilateral policy surveillance; the WTO, which succeeded the GATT in 1995; and the Group of Eight (G8), established as the G5 in 1975 to facilitate policy coordination among the world’s most developed economies.

Essential readingStop and read ‘the post-war world economy’ section of Chapter 15 of your textbook (pp.248–52). As you read, complete the following activity.


148

ACtivity Using the table below, note down the international organisations and norms associated with each of the following regimes.

International exchange rate regime

Organisation:

Norms:

International development regime

Organisation:

Norms:

International trade regime

Organisation:

Norms:

Over the course of their lives, these organisations have experienced a form of ‘mission creep’ – progressively widening their responsibilities beyond their creators’ original intentions. For example, for the IMF this happened in the economically turbulent 1970s when its purpose was transformed from being the arbiter of global monetary stability, to being the leading advocate of the Washington Consensus – discussed in Section 4.3. Before the 1960s, the IMF encouraged growth through a combination of state-led and private sector spending. From the 1970s onwards, its task was conceived in narrower, neo-liberal economic terms. These tied financial assistance to far-reaching economic reforms. Structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) – see Section 4.3 – became central to IMF loans, forcing states to cut back on their spending in order to balance their budgets. Although SAPs reduce budget deficits, they also reduce the services that states are able to provide to their citizens, undermining government’s ability to exercise sovereign control over their territory and population. This can have dramatic implications for peace and human security; connections covered at some length in Sections 4.1 and 4.2.

The International Atomic Energy Agency

Since the invention of atomic weapons in 1945, there has been a powerful impulse to create a regulatory framework to control the use of atomic energy and to promote nuclear non-proliferation. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) main principle is to pursue ‘safe, secure and peaceful uses of nuclear sciences and technology’. To achieve this, the IAEA has been tasked with two purposes: to facilitate the spread of peaceful atomic and nuclear power technology, and to oppose its weaponisation. Based in Vienna, the organisation is responsible for a two-pronged strategy to ensure that atomic power is used for peaceful purposes, while establishing safeguards to protect compliant states against weapon proliferators who might cheat the international nuclear regime.


149

Efforts to conclude an international agreement to limit the spread of nuclear weapons did not begin in earnest until the early 1960s. Although initial efforts stalled, they renewed in 1964 after China detonated its first nuclear weapon. By 1968, after much debate and a lot of disagreement between the nuclear ‘haves’ and the nuclear ‘have nots’, the text of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was finally completed. The NPT entered into force in March 1970. It is a deeply unequal document insofar as it distinguishes between five governments who are deemed legitimate weapons states – the USA, the USSR, the UK, France and China – and the rest of the world, which are not. Nevertheless, the treaty has become invested with a high degree of international legitimacy. It is a very practical document, establishing a specific system of controls, confidence-building measures and safeguard systems under the direct responsibility of the IAEA. In addition, the treaty promotes cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear technology and promises all states equal access to this technology. This two-pronged approach – encouraging states’ peaceful use of nuclear technology while opposing its weaponisation – is not without its tensions, particularly as many peaceful uses of nuclear power feature dual-use technologies that are easily adapted to military applications.

Only a few states initially refused to sign on to the NPT. These included:

� India, who criticised the treaty because it privileged the powerful and undermined Indian sovereignty

� Pakistan, who feared India’s nuclear ambitions

� Israel, who feared its Arab neighbours

� North Korea, who feared South Korea and its Western allies.

Still, these were the exceptions rather than the rule. By the end of the 1980s, the world at large could feel reasonably satisfied with its coordinated efforts to produce a workable non-proliferation regime.

The situation has since taken a more ominous turn. First there was the collapse and disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991. This generated new fears that the number of weapons states would rapidly expand, fuelled by the flight of nuclear materials and scientists from Russia. The situation deteriorated further when it was discovered that North Korea and Pakistan were actively collaborating in nuclear weapons development. Pakistan detonated its first nuclear weapons in 1998 in response to five Indian nuclear tests earlier that year. North Korea detonated its first nuclear device in 2006, using Pakistani nuclear secrets provided to them by A.Q. Khan. Meanwhile, according to western intelligence, Iran began enriching its own uranium stockpile in 2007, a step viewed with suspicion by its neighbours and the IAEA.

Whether or not international organisations like the IAEA and treaties like the NPT are able to deal with these serious problems remains an open question. Among those who doubt the utility of international regimes are powerful voices in the international community – especially among Realists in Israel and the USA – calling for ‘decisive’ (i.e. military) action to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons. One war has already been fought – albeit on the basis of false intelligence – to prevent Iraq acquiring weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). It is possible that similar operations might be waged in the future. If or when this happens, it will not only pose a serious risk to international peace and stability in the Middle East, but also to the credibility of international organisations and norms that make up the non-proliferation regime.


150

ACtivity in 2012, the iAEA became concerned by iran’s continuing enrichment of uranium at a number of nuclear sites around the country. iran’s government claims that its enrichment is part of a peaceful research programme and is therefore protected by the NPt. Other states disagree and are pressing for stronger action against potential proliferators.

in groups, consider how you would go about controlling the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. you may wish to think about the following questions:

� At what stage is military intervention an effective way to block nuclear proliferation?

� Does the power of the proliferating state affect the way you need to deal with it? if so, how? if not, why not?

� Does geography play a role in pushing some states to seek nuclear weapons?

� What kind of regime is best able to control the long-term spread of nuclear weapons around the world?

Note: For more on proliferation and the nuclear regime, you may wish to refer to the ‘theorizing nuclear proliferation and non-proliferation’ and ‘Evolution of global nuclear control and anti-proliferation measures’ sections of Chapter 23 of your textbook (pp.388–94).

Conclusion

Whatever their responsibilities, international organisations exist within an international society whose dominant institutions favour state sovereignty over international cooperation. This has created a constant source of tension between the national interest of individual states and the shared interests of the wider interests of international society. Balancing these competing forces is the key to modern global governance, which must balance the independence of governments with the needs of humanity. As the international organisations described in this section show, this balance remains elusive. The UN, the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO and the IAEA are imperfect organisations, sometimes trying too hard to control states’ behaviour and sometimes giving them too much leeway. It is only by looking at their principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures that we can learn why.

GLOSSARy

international organisation

League of Nations

United Nations

Permanent Five (P5)

authority

legitimacy

Bretton Woods system

non-proliferation

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

weaponisation

Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

dual-use technology

151U

nit 4

: Glo

bal i

ssue

s in

inte

rnat

iona

l rel

atio

ns

Section 4.5: Analysing the international order

Introduction 152

Different perspectives on the international order 152

Application and analysis 156

Unit 4: Global issues in international relations • Section 4.5: Analysing the international order

152

Introduction

This course has covered a lot of ground in a relatively short period of time. It has introduced you to states, nations and countries in Africa, the Americas, East Asia and the Pacific, South and Southwest Asia, and Europe and the former Soviet Union. It has used four theories to highlight specific questions about human behaviour at the international scale. It has asked you to think about key regional issues in IR: humanitarian intervention, non-state transnational actors, international security, terrorism and regime building. Finally, it has asked you to analyse topics of global importance, including the changing character of warfare, issues around development, the planet’s growing environmental crisis and tensions between the sovereign states in which we live and the international organisations we have tasked with managing shared issues. Even so, there is much left to study in IR. New theoretical approaches are evolving, new regional powers are emerging and new issues are coming to the fore. This course cannot prepare you for all of them. However, it has given you tools with which you can analyse them for yourself.

Different perspectives on the international order

Much of the discussion in the past 20 sections has revolved around a fundamental tension between the world’s sovereign states and the institutions and regimes that define international society. This tension has been responsible for a number of ongoing problems: from the merits of humanitarian intervention in the domestic affairs of a failed state to the best strategy to curb nuclear proliferation in our anarchic international system. Other tensions also exist, however, such as the deep divide that separates states and nations in the economically developed North from the much less developed states of the global South. We have also looked at discontinuities between the world’s governments and nations, which can lead to ethnic and cultural conflicts within and between states. Many of these tensions are either caused or exacerbated by the global system of production and exchange that Marxists refer to as the world capitalist system. This tends to concentrate economic power in a few hands, giving certain regions, states and individuals a greater voice when it comes to designing and managing global institutions and regimes. There is no doubt that these tensions make the world a more complicated place. They also make it more comprehensible. By looking carefully at them, it becomes possible to identify eight elements that combine to make up our current international order – elements that you can use to understand and analyse a wide range of issues. Think of these as eight different ways of looking at the same thing. Each will produce a slightly different image of reality, deepening your understanding of any international issue you should care to analyse.

1. The English School order: international societyInternational society is the most fundamental element in any international order. This is inhabited by a range of international units, but is currently dominated by sovereign states. These have been the basic building blocks of international society since they first evolved in Europe around the 16th century. Thanks to their ability to mobilise large numbers of people and large amounts of capital, states have been particularly successful in war, an advantage they used to defeat, dissolve and absorb a variety of other international units such as empires and city states. Interaction between units has led to the evolution of institutions – shared principles and practices that act as informal rules of membership and behaviour in international society. Over time, these have transformed the role of the state from a simple provider of physical security into a complex organisation responsible for economic management, health and welfare, social planning and political representation.

The fundamental premise of international society is that, figuratively speaking, ‘no state is an island’. Even the most autonomous political units are engaged in a process of socialisation with their neighbours, copying successful practices and learning from one another’s mistakes.


153

This need not result in a peaceful social system. Societies can be – and often are – competitive to the point of combat. Even so, states develop patterns of behaviour that get copied by other actors when they prove to be successful. For example, France’s mobilisation of its population into a citizen army to protect the First French Republic in the 1790s was soon emulated by other states that envied the resulting military success. Similar claims can be made about the spread of parliamentary democracy, capitalism and industrialisation. Even the most isolated states in the world today – arguably North Korea and Myanmar – face pressure to copy international principles and practices. Whether they like it or not, states around the world are part of a larger society that they ignore at their peril.

Essential readingStop and read ‘the “social-state” system’ subsection on p.548 of your textbook.

Note especially the effect of ‘social’ pressure on states’ willingness to conform to international institutions.

2. An order of nations: identity, states, nations and nation-statesA second element in the contemporary international order is the growing disconnection between individuals’ sense of identity and the identity of the states in which they live. This was discussed at some length in Unit 1, which highlighted some of the national divisions that cut across different regions of the world. As we move deeper into the 21st century, identity seems to be becoming increasingly fragmented, with ethnic separatism, global citizenship, religious orthodoxy and linguistic division becoming increasingly visible on the global agenda. As these non-state sources of identity become more powerful, they threaten to undermine citizens’ sense of nationality and, thereby, weaken the state’s hold on their loyalty. Where governments could once rely on citizens to unite behind the state in pursuit of shared goals, contested nationalisms have now thrown this assumption into doubt, setting the stage for many of the new wars described by Mary Kaldor in Section 4.1. Identity, it turns out, is a major driver of international behaviour.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘identity and the nation-state’ subsection on pp.548–49 of your textbook.

3. A Realist order: polarity and international securityA third element in the international order today is what your textbook refers to as ‘the traditional security order’. This is a system, described by classical and neo-Realists, in which questions of security are dominated by the distribution of power among the states of the world. The more power a state possesses, the theory goes, the greater will be its influence on international security debates. You can therefore draw some conclusions about the nature of IR within an international society on the basis of the number of great powers within it – its polarity. A system in which one great power holds a position of hegemony is called unipolar. The international society of the Americas has long been such a system. A system divided between two great powers – as in Europe during the Cold War – is bipolar. More common are societies with three or more great powers. These multipolar systems have existed for most of human history and appear to on the rise once more with the end of the Cold War and the rise of emerging powers such as China, India and Brazil.


154

Polarity influences international society by giving some units greater say in the development and maintenance of international institutions. This is particularly evident in matters of international security, where the presence of a great power can have a decisive effect on lesser states’ decision making. Note the examples given in the Essential readings below.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘Polarity and the collectivization of security’ subsection on p.549 of your textbook.

4. A Marxist order: the world capitalist systemJust as the traditional security system is an important element of the contemporary international order, so too is the economic system that describes production, distribution and exchange. The importance of economics to IR has been reinforced over the past 20 years by the rise of international political economy (IPE) as a subset of IR. This looks specifically at the relationship between the international economic and political systems, tracing ways in which each impacts the other. This trend is nothing new to Marxists, who have long stressed the importance of economic relationships in determining international behaviour.

IPE forces us to look beyond the state for explanations. On the one hand, we might look within the state to the socioeconomic classes that make it up: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The struggle between these groups for control over, and access to, goods and services helps to explain many of the economic divisions that continue to cut across developed and developing states. On the other hand, we might look beyond the state to the three great triads – regional trading groups based in North America, Europe and East Asia. Though integrated in a global system of production and distributions, economic relations between these regions remain problematic as each tries to protect its own interests and economic power within the world capitalist system of which it is a part.

Essential readingStop and read ‘the organization of production and exchange’ subsection on p.549 of your textbook.

5. A liberal order: multilateral governanceIf Realists sharpen our understanding of the world by pointing out the role of polarity in IR and Marxists do so by highlighting economic relations, liberals deepen our understanding of how the world works by identifying the regimes by which units manage international and transnational affairs. These have been described in previous sections (see Section 3.5) as ‘webs of principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures’ that bind units together to solve shared problems. They exist alongside Realists’ security systems and Marxists’ economic systems, and are affected by both. As discussed earlier, regime formation has been deeply affected by the distribution of power among the states of the world. The ascendency of the USA has been particularly important in this respect, as it has coincided with a period of regime-expansion backed up by US military and financial power.

It is helpful at this point to separate liberals’ idea of governance through regimes from the English School’s idea of governance through institutions. Remember that liberal regimes are always intended to bolster cooperation between international actors, and do so by establishing formal


155

sets of principles, norms, rules and decision making procedures. The English School makes no such claim. For them, institutions can help or hinder cooperation, depending on what kind of behaviour they encourage. Thus, the rise of militarism as an institution in 19th-century Europe did nothing to increase cooperation between its states. Indeed, it did the exact opposite, leading to the tragedy of the First and Second World Wars. This is why international society and multilateral governance are presented here as separate elements of the contemporary international order.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘Multilateral management and governance’ subsection of p.549 of your textbook.

6. A geographical order: regionalismOn top of these global and local developments is one that was hinted at in Unit 1: regionalism. Regions, it is argued, are more than simple geographic abstractions. They have a real role in contemporary IR. Some regions are characterised by cooperative – even convergent – international societies. Europe and North America come to mind. Others are competitive, and even combative. East and Southwest Asia are but two examples. Europe’s successful integration has probably played a leading role in bringing about similar projects in other parts of the world. Thus, the EU has its African counterpart – the AU. NATO’s success as a collective security organisation has been copied by similar bodies in South America (the South American Defense Council (SADC)) and Asia (the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)). Regionalism has emerged as an increasingly important institution of global society – one that encourages states to band together with their neighbours to solve regional issues surrounding international and human security.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘Regionalism’ subsection on pp.549–50 of your textbook.

7. An order of individuals: human rightsWhereas each of the previous elements has focused on some sort of collective actor – defined in Section 1.1 as a group of individuals with enough centralised decision-making ability to:

� reproduce their groups over time

� be treated as individuals for the purposes of analysis.

But IR is not just about the interactions, rights and responsibilities of groups. Individuals also play a growing role in defining IR’s main interests. This is particularly noticeable in the rise of human security as a major focus of our discipline. Yet, human rights do not mean the same thing to everyone on the planet. The mainstream view is dominated by liberal rights – which reflect the priorities of individuals living in the developed states of Europe, North America and East Asia. In recent decades, this has come under increasing pressure by non-Western groups who see liberal rights as, at best, an invention of the West and, at worst, a new form of cultural imperialism. The ongoing debate about women’s rights in Muslim and Hindu countries is but one example of a supposedly ‘universal’ norm coming under attack from a traditional culture’s alternative reading of human freedom. More generally, it is becoming clear that principles and practices once


156

considered universal are under increasing pressure from local state and non-state units, who wish to enforce their own understanding of individuals’ rights and responsibilities on the international stage.

Essential readingStop and read ‘the liberal rights order’ subsection of p.550 of your textbook.

8. Two world orders: the North–South divideThe last element that needs to be incorporated into our analytical toolkit is the North–South divide between the highly developed states of Europe, North America and East Asia, and underdeveloped states in the rest of the world. This has been noted several times in this course, including during the discussion negotiations to curb greenhouse gas emissions and in international society’s continuing debate on the desirability of humanitarian intervention to protect human security. Given our discussion so far in this course, the North–South divide should not be a surprise. If development helps to determine the amount of power that a state can wield, so too must it help to determine their priorities in international society. A state in the bottom third of the UNDP’s Human Development Index will likely share more in common with states similarly situated in the Index. Likewise, states near the top of this list will have a very different set of priorities from those at the bottom.

Things are not so simple, however. Within highly developed states, there are always segments of the population who do not enjoy the full benefit of their citizenship. The aboriginal peoples of Canada, who have a much lower standard of living than their fellow countrymen, are a good example. Likewise, the ruling elites of underdeveloped states will have more in common with other elites than with their own poor. The result is a highly complex division in which states in the global North and South will generally have different priorities from one another, but whose elites and underclasses will nevertheless hold much in common.

Essential readingStop and read the ‘North–South and the two world orders’ subsection of p.550 of your textbook.

Application and analysis

Now it is your turn to use these elements to analyse the world around you. Choose an issue in IR. Look into its history and its current debates. Then, using the eight elements of world order described above, consider how each has (or has not) contributed to the topic you are studying. You will no doubt find that a few are more enlightening than the rest. Feel free to focus on these as you analyse your chosen topic. Just stay aware that there are other possible points of view. The process of analysis is fairly straightforward, though it will require you to keep thinking about and using the many concepts you have covered in the past 20 sections. This should not be hard. Every day the news is filled with international issues needing attention. All you need to do is choose one.


157

ACtivity individually, choose one international issue or crisis currently in the news. Drawing on at least five news reports and whatever information you can find in reputable textual and online sources, use the eight elements of international order to draw some conclusions about the following questions:

� Who are the main units involved?

� is it in states’ interests to intervene?

� What about the situation under analysis makes it well suited/poorly suited to govern-ance through an international regime?

� Would different solutions present themselves if the units involved had more or less power?

� Would state action threaten the principle of sovereignty? Does this matter?

� What international regimes and organisations might help to resolve or manage the situation?

GLOSSARy

socialisation

polarity

unipolar

bipolar

multipolar

international political economy (IPE)

triads

regionalism

North–South divide

158U

nit 4

: Glo

bal i

ssue

s in

inte

rnat

iona

l rel

atio

ns

Test your knowlegde and understanding

Section 4.1

1. What does Carl von Clausewitz mean when he distinguishes between the nature of war and the forms of war?

2. Which is a greater threat to international security around the world: traditional interstate war or new wars? Why?

Section 4.2

1. What are the main differences between orthodox and critical approaches to development?

2. How can development affect human and international security?

Section 4.3

1. Why is international environmental regulation a job for global governance rather than global government?

2. How has the division between developed and developing states contributed to international society’s failure to establish an effective climate change regime?

Section 4.4

1. Is the UN a system of global governance or a system of global government? Why?

2. What role does state power play in determining the effectiveness of international regimes?

Section 4.5

1. How will your understanding of international affairs change depending on the element of international order on which you focus your attention?

2. How does the North–South divide affect each of the following issues in IR:

� security

� development

� environmental regulation?

159U

nit 4

: Glo

bal i

ssue

s in

inte

rnat

iona

l rel

atio

ns

Concluding comments

This unit has asked you to analyse five important issues in modern IR: the changing character of war, economic development, environmental stewardship, the structure of the UN system, and the future shape of international societies around the globe. These sections have drawn heavily on the empirical and theoretical lessons of previous units, using IR’s theoretical tools to analyse and better understand ongoing events in the world’s news. Some broad trends have emerged from this analysis, including the continuing centrality of state sovereignty to IR, the important role of non-state actors in shaping international society, and the importance of English School institutions and Liberal regimes to the management of international affairs. The future of global international society depends very much on how these trends interact over the coming decades. How much sovereignty will states be willing to cede to IOs? Will non-state actors such a terrorist and criminal organisations successfully compete with states’ coercive power? How will debates between protecting sovereignty and encouraging interdependence affect the future of the UN? Is the distribution of global wealth getting in the way of solutions to key concerns such as global environmental change? These questions have no easy answers and will be with us for many decades to come.


Having completed this chapter, and the Essential reading and activities, you should be able to:

� explain the nature of the issues under discussion in each of the first four sections, including:

� the changing nature of war

� development

� global environmental change (GEC)

� key international organisations.

� trace the impact of each issue on global international society

� use different IR theories to analyse their causes and solutions

� make convincing arguments about future developments in each field.

160A

ppen

dix

1: S

ampl

e ex

amin

atio

n pa

per


Appendix 1: Sample examination paper

Important note: This Sample examination paper reflects the examination and assessment arrangements for this course in the academic year 2013–2014. The format and structure of the examination may have changed since the publication of this subject guide. You can find the most recent examination papers on the VLE where all changes to the format of the examination are posted.

Time allowed: two hours

Candidates should answer NINE of the following THIRTEEN questions: ALL SIX from Section A (25 marks), BOTH from Section B (25 marks) and ONE (out of five) from Section C (50 marks).

Section A Answer all of the following six questions [25 marks]

1. Define the following terms: state, nation, country. [3 marks]

2. Define international society. [3 marks]

3. Define unipolarity, bipolarity and multipolarity. [3 marks]

4. Is the United Nations an example of global government or global goverance? [4 marks]

5. Briefly outline the main arguments of two of the following IR theories: Realism, Liberalism, Marxism. [6 marks]

6. Who are the ‘P5’ and what distinguishes them from other states? [6 marks]

Section BAnswer both of the following two questions [25 marks]

7. On the map provided, mark the following features using the letter references below [1 mark each]:

A. Republic of South Africa

B. Nile River

C. Nigeria

D. the Democratic Republic of Congo

E. the Sahara Desert

F. the Great Rift Valley

G. Egypt

H. Algeria

I. the Mediterranean Sea

J. the Suez Canal

K. South Sudan

L. Lake Chad

M. Angola

N. Senegal

O. Somalia

P. Limpopo River

Q. Western Sahara

R. Mount Kilimanjaro

S. Kenya

T. Zimbabwe

U. Niger River

V. Mali

Appendix 1: Sample examination paper 161

8. On the map provided, draw the dividing line between majority Muslim and majority Christian populations on the continent. [3 marks]

Section CAnswer one of the following essay questions [50 marks each]

9. Why do some analysts claim that Europe and the former Soviet Union inhabit ‘a region divided by regimes’?

10. What effects will China’s increasing political power have on international society in East Asia and the Pacific?

11. Under what conditions is humanitarian intervention effective and desirable?

12. ‘New wars are a greater threat to international society than traditional, interstate wars.’ Discuss

13. What effects does development have on human and international security?

Documents

International relations - Library Management System · International relations is the study of human interaction at the international scale. This gives it a very wide range of themes