REALIST INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORYlittlenotables.weebly.com/.../4/13145069/politics_106_lecture_notes... · LECTURE NOTES!! RECAP ... relations, !individuals within states can

[email protected] Post mid-semester break

POLITICS 106 LECTURE NOTES!

RECAP!We live in a state system, states which are arbitrary and not necessarily fixed.Treaty of Westphalia signed in 1648 - end of the Thirty Years War... started the idea of states having sovereign power that other states shouldn’t interfere with.!e.g. former Yugoslavia - the idea of state’s being static is challenged by this period of massive change from the end of World War II. !

LECTURE ONETHE ROLE OF I.R. THEORY IN GLOBAL POLITICS

REALIST INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY !REALISM as a theory of international relations, and a way of understanding global politicsIt has often been the most dominant theory in international relations, perhaps coupled with liberal institutionalism.!Realism is a problem-solving theory - doesn’t necessarily try to understand its own assumptions, rather it takes a “picture” of the world and uses that try and solve existing problems.!Realism is not “real” - it is as subjective as any other I.R. theory, such as marxism or feminism.We must treat the term carefully.!Above all, realism is a state-centric theory...!Feminism tried to explain the world through gender...Marxism tried to explain the world through ideas of economic relations and class...Realism tries to explain the world through states...!BACKGROUND!Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian warA highly influential book, which is relevant today.!What Thucydides does in his account is give us an account of power and the operations of power. He develops a theory to explain the Peloponnesian War which incorporates ideas of a system of relations between states, the effects of what is happening within states with their relations, individuals within states can influence state decisions.!What happens when power is assumed to be everlasting? What dangers lie in thinking this way?!Peloponnesian War was the story of a bipolar system - it’s where power is distributed between two entities, who have dominant power over all others. (Athenians vs Spartans). This war resulted from an increase in Athenian power.!Security DilemmaIncreased power in one state -> Increased insecurity in other state(s) -> could lead to war!!!!

mailto:[email protected]


ANOTHER KEY INFLUENCE ON REALIST THEORY: MACHIAVELLI!Machiavelli was a figure in renaissance Italy. He tries to understand how the leaders of small kingdoms gain and exercise power.!He argues in his famous account The Prince that the ruler gives life meaning. Without that ruler, life has no inherent purpose - it is the place of a ruler to instill purpose and meaning in his subjects. He creates meaning for himself by creating a rule of law within his territory.Immediately below the Prince are his states-people; those who he entrusts to carry out his rule. It is this service which gives THEM meaning - the prosperity and survival of the state is what gives them purpose.!The morality of the state is the self-interest, and subsequent survival, of the state.!!ANOTHER KEY INFLUENCE: HOBBES!Hobbes tells us about political behaviour - a theory of political science modelled on the natural sciences. In this way, we see a state of nature, which tells us that we constantly need to monitor and audit our conduct... but above this is a structure of a natural mode of operations. So, there is a role for the individual, but their way of behaving is in fact dominated by this state of nature. This state of nature tells us that life is always threatened - the threat determines how we behave, and that this will ultimately govern how we conduct ourselves. By telling us life is under the threat, and the desire it creates in us to survive, which determines how we behave and act.!We look above us for protection - in other words, we look for those in power to protect us. We have a faith in this state entity to ensure our survival in this brutish state of nature. In this way, we are willing to give power to the state.!~~~!From this, we arrive at REALISM, which tries to explain violent conflict, why it occurs, and how it might be avoided.!Structural realism can be explained by statism, survival and self-help!STATISM is the centrepiece of realism - the sovereign state is the preeminent and legitimate actor in global politics. Sovereignty acts to protect the state, and gives states (as independent units) authority over the affairs of the territory.!Outside of the collection of individual states, realists believe that anarchy prevails, anarchy here referring to the lack of central authority.!Realists believe there are major differences between domestic and international politics. Domestic politics can shape behaviour and power - that each state has different domestic structures of power. However, they believe international and domestic political structures are completely different.!Realism, however, may not always take into account civil conflict within states, for example.!!!!!!!!


SURVIVAL is the primary objective of a state. All operations of the state are shaped by this desire to survive. Here, we can see echoes of Hobbes’ state of nature - that leaders will prioritise the survival of their state with their interactions with others. Power is thus a crucial concept to realist theorists when considering state relations.!Traditionally, power for realists was about military acquisition and might, but we are now seeing that we need to think of different modes of power. We are thinking more broadly - beyond simply military - as getting what we want through various means, such as control of ideas or economic coercion. !The core motivator of survival is a means to explain the moral engagements of states.!SELF-HELP is the principle of each state ensuring its own wellbeing. There is no trust in others’ motivations.!If a state feels threatened it should seeks to build up its own power capabilities - this leads to a Balance of Power. According to realists, this is a good thing, because it accords a balance: no one state will become a unipolar power.!The classic situation of Balance of Power is the Cold War - there was an awareness that conflict could break out, but that the build-up of arms kept the world in this uneasy security situation. Their lack of trust and that self-help motivator within states, led to a long-term security on the whole.!!CLASSICAL REALISMThere are variations within realism, and classical realism is our starting point. Morgenthau’s Politics Among Relations was an attempt to explain the Cold War balance of power.!Morgenthau drew on Hobbes’ notion of the state of nature - he depicted the world as a dangerous one, in which human nature itself would ultimately lead to conflict. That human nature was translated onto the behaviour of states. Lack of trust would lead to a ready inevitability of state conflict.!Classical realists assume that humans are selfish, violent and cruel, and that states operate according to these notions. States are competing against each other within this fixed anarchical system - there will be no power above states - and that states can only depend on self-help, and can act militarily to pursue this self-interest.!States with more power have more influence.!States are building up their own power in their own self-interest, which will act to preserve balance of power. This doesn’t mean war and conflict will never break out, but that it will serve as a safety valve - so that you don’t have total domination by a state / state collective.!NEO-REALISMThis is a more contemporary version of classical realism.!Morgenthau emphasised human nature - Kenneth Waltz, in his work The Theory of International Politics, emphasises the international relations system itself.!He argues that conflict and war are not outcomes of human nature, but rather effects of the international system. Changing the nature of the system, and changing the relations between states, can have powerful impacts in global politics itself - it can alter outcomes.!He doesn’t emphasise the static notion of human nature. Instead, he argues that the structure of the international system will greatly determine the strategies of states in the system.!!


One of the key points of difference between classical realism and neo-realism is balance of power. According to neo-realists, it leads to a security dilemma - the balance of power during the Cold War was not necessarily peaceable, but that states were facing a security dilemma, whereby they could keep increasing military spending to feel more secure, but this would simply generate more and more insecurity.!!

LECTURE TWODOES SLAVERY BELONG TO THE PAST?

COLONIALISM !What is colonialism?It is the practice of establishing control over foreign territory and turning it into a colony. It is the process whereby one sovereign nation extends its rule into another territory, displacing the indigenous population.!The tricky thing is finding the link between colonialism and global politics.!There is a long history of colonial rule - we know that it’s a complex area of study, with great variation of the experiences of different colonies. This depends on administration vs settler society - also, how the indigenous people were treated by the colonial power. The colonial power also tend to have economic domination.!They may impose socio-cultural, religious and linguistic structures on the nation - for example, the indigenous people must adopt the language of the colony.!It is a very direct system of intervention related to power - it is not benign.!It has often been predicated on the notion of the colonial power being superior in some way, and imposing this on the new colony.! British Empire vs Belgian/Spanish/French Empire Both were about the imposition of direct rule, and the acquisition of land and resources.!We can see that when rule was extended, it was through the process of absorption of the colonised country into the colonial power - “the mother country”.!e.g. New Caledonia - they are officially part of the French colony, despite the desire of their indigenous peoples to succeed from France. France still believe that it is part of France, the so-called mother country.!How successful was colonialism?It was extremely successful - it extended to almost parts of the world, certainly by the early 20th century. It is not a recent phenomena - generally, when we talk about colonialism now, we are talking about the 16th - 21st century.!It was typically extractive in intent. We often hear historical accounts and discourse, even today, of the benevolence of the empire. However, we can also see that it was about direct control over a territory and people, and the subjugation of a population.!e.g. A lot of the United Kingdom’s colonial history is dark, and a lot of documents were found to be destroyed in order to try and cover up the past.!!!!!


Mercantile colonialism (1415 - 1850)Known otherwise as The Age of Discovery !It was led by the Portuguese and the Spanish, and saw the exploration of great continents, and the establishment of trading ports. It was in the name of trade expansion, but did have devastating impacts on local populations.!Natural resources were extracted and sent back to the mother country - but it was also about the expansion of markets.!According to UNESCO, some 30 million Africans were forcibly exported as slaves during this period.!Industrial colonialism (1850-1950)This was done largely in the name of continued supply of raw materials and foodstuffs, for the benefit of the colonisers.! With this acquisition of these raw materials came the “scramble for Africa”....! In 1885, the Berlin Conference, a conference of the major colonising countries (e.g. Britain, France, The Netherlands, Belgium etc.), meeting and carving up the continent of Africa. They demarcated who would have what areas. There were on indigenous leaders - it was assumed that Africa had no legitimate political authority, which facilitated this mindset of “scrambling for Africa”. ! This process set the groundwork for colonialism to occur in Africa, and the effects of this are still felt today. It was an interesting exercise in the relationship between territory and sovereignty - by laying claim to these territories, they asserted their authority.!CASE STUDY: NAMIBIAAt the heart of this colonial expansion was the desire for raw materials, expansion of markets, and the extension of socio-cultural and political rule over a population. This was done brutally.!At the dawn of the 20th century, the Kaiser’s second Reich (in Germany) ordered the brutal genocide of Namibian peoples. It is a horrendous story of resistance; of an uprising which brutally repressed, often referred to as the first German genocide.!Neo-colonialism (1950 onwards)• We saw a mass movement of resistance, where political sovereignty was sought, and a formal

end to colonial rule happened in quick succession for many former colonial states.• The question we are faced with now: Has slavery finished?• Colonialism may have formally ended in many territories, but colonial relationships have

persisted despite independence. These relationships are based on economic dependence on the original coloniser, based on political instability - the rapid extraction of administration from the coloniser often left great turmoil.

• This continued economic dependence between the former coloniser and the newly independent state has persisted. In many of these countries, they are still simply extracting resources and sending them elsewhere for processing and distribution.

• 48 out of 55 countries in Africa depend on just tea, coffee and coca for more than half of their export earnings - however, it is not the African nations who set prices for these.!

Colonialism developed a system of knowledge that objectified the colonised - this knowledge facilitated and validated the oppression and subjectification of the colonised peoples.Variations in colonial rule had repercussions for postcolonial development.e.g. Bengal Famine 1942-3: British Army redirected supplies bound for Bengal to the British Army in North Africa.!Colonialism created mutations of the modern state. Many of these orders have been disputed, but many also remain today.


LECTURE THREEInternational relations and post-colonial theory !

Is slavery a thing of the past?We want to treat slavery as a discrete period that we’ve moved beyond - this rationale has been interrogated, which resulted in independent movements in the 1960s. However, we can’t ignore that relationships still exist which remind us of colonial rule.!Post-colonialWe aren’t thinking about “post-” in the strict sense of “after” - here, we are thinking of it as “after and ongoing”: the formal end of colonial rule, but the ongoing impacts of colonial rule.!We need to consider post-colonialism because if we look at patterns over time, the states which are most economically and socially changed are those which were devastated by the impacts of colonialism - even those which were success stories mirror and echo pre-colonial relations.!The world is still shaped by these relationships - if we look to who has power, we can see which states were colonisers and which were colonised.!Two important contributors:Abrahamsen (2003) argues that many of the power structures which reflect colonialism are still in place. Young (2001) argue that post-colonialism is not about privileging the colonial, but the extent of its effects - we can’t ignore this as a discrete period of history, but one that is ongoing.!Post-colonialism attempts to interrogate the euro-centrism of International Relations - it is premised on certain ideas which privilege European notions of community and power.!It is concerned with the idea of the construction of the other through race, gender and class differences.!The White Mans Burden was that it was a task of the white man to bring civilisation, stability and democracy to other nations. It was a “mission” for white men. This notion of the White Mans Burden - a civilising mission - continues to inform notions of regime change, democratisation and development.!Two facets of colonialism:1) Militaristic side2) “Occupation of minds” - ways in which colonial administrations attempted to work with local peoples that what was happening was in their best interests. This could be done through European-style healthcare and education, as well as direct militaristic control.!There was always resistance - local populations didn’t always agree, and they did resist colonial powers. This resistance eventually led to de-colonial movements and the end of some colonial powers.!Edward Said - looked at the way in which colonial rule had an effect on populations’ thinking about themselves, but also the way colonialism was about systems of domination and “othering”. His worked is premised on other scholarly work such as Jacques Derrida.He argued that a very powerful binary of “East / West” existed - the world was carved up into the Orient (“other”) and the Occident:!Occident = cultured, learned, rational, progressiveOrient = inferiority, animalism, exoticism, mystery!!!Said terms this as Orientalism - he uses this to try and explain the ways in which the West has depicted the “other” throughout history, but does so on an ongoing basis. His work is


informed by Foucaultian notions that power and knowledge are inseparable - the way we depict others in relation to us is actually giving power to these ideas. They aren’t just loose, but have real power, and start to inform the way the media reports on events, popular opinion and policy.!We can use these tools to interrogate aspects of the relationship between cultural depictions and politics - these are very powerful tools and have great impacts.!Aladdin - an example of popular culture influencing our opinions of the “other”. It is a hint of how we can use the post-colonial framework to interrogate everyday knowledge. We need to look at the power associated with, and created by, such images.!Said interrogates orientalism’s profound effect on the way we view the Middle East, and the notion of how civilisation can be separated into hierarchies is important. Protector and vulnerable, with a dangerous intermediary.!There is a key difference between Western values and the “other”.!ANOTHER KEY THINKER IN POST-COLONIAL SCHOLARSHIPFrantz Fanon (predates the work of Said)!He was a psychologist in Algeria, and worked in medicine during the French occupation of Algeria and the Algerian resistance.!He was concerned by the way that colonialism changed the mindset of those who are occupied - psychopathology of colonialisation. It set out formal structures of rule and power relationships, but actually changed the way populations thought of themselves in relation to the coloniser. They thought of themselves as somehow inferior, and took onboard the rule set upon them.!Fanon’s work found, for instance, that Algerian people wanted to be more and more French and wanted to think and be French, despite the colour of skin.!His prominent works Black Skin, White Masks and The Wretched of the Earth have gone on to influence many scholars. For example, two feminist scholars of post-colonialist theory:!Gayatri Spivak argues that colonialism and its ongoing impacts in the post-colonial world - has rendered whole populations silent. These are the “subaltern” - the underneath. Throughout history, we’ve privileged certain voices over others, and this continues despite the formal end of the colonial period and slavery. She introduced the idea of essentialism, which can sometimes make it easier for this subaltern to be heard, if they can play on universal experiences amongst themselves. Essentialism makes it easier for the minority to be accepted by the majority.!Chandra Mohanty argues that feminism can be charged with a totalising discourse - when we speak of the “Second Wave of feminism”, we are largely looking at the experiences of Western women. This is being challenged by a diversification of feminism, with women from the “global south” asserting their need for their experiences to be heard.!She identifies the production of the “Third World Woman” - we need to break away from the binary of the West and global south.!THREE IMPORTANT CONCLUSIONS!One of the important things is that it offers us a way to challenge some of the things we take for granted in our study of international relations - it allows us to challenge international order, society and ethics. It asks: “Are these, in fact, simply Western? Do they derive from a colonial history? Is the Westphalian state-centric order the same which allowed Africa to be divvied up and colonised?”!


Can we see a supremacy of Western civilisation in these notions of the international, if we look to some of the horrors of the past. The West which is said to be bringing about democratisation, which is the same that saw the rise of fascism, genocide, and the horrors of colonial rule brought on populations.!Post-colonialism is skeptical of objectivity and neutrality - many of the theories of IR are premised on a supposed objectivism and neutralism. For example, they assume that all states are equal, without looking at where this assumption has come from.!Broadly, it is suspicious of liberalism and the way in which liberalism claims a universality, and how liberalism can be used to justified notions of universal human rights. It is suspicious of empire expansion done in the name of power - believes that the pursuit of power leads to aggression between states.!Post-colonialism attempts to foster an ethic of social justice, by recognising the past and the atrocities and inequalities of the colonial past, some of which still exist today. It also looks to encourage deliberation - perhaps some universal values can be realised, but only if these are debated and deliberated by all peoples, not just the powerful Western states.!Recognises that power shouldn’t be held by any one nation, as well as the fluidity and hybridity of cultural identity.!What does this mean in practice in our thinking about international relations?We might interrogate “empire”, and the supposed positive impacts that it brought about.We can looking at ongoing power relations, in questions like “Who has the ability to gain nuclear arsenal?” - it is no way seeking to say that nuclear arsenal is good, but we should look at who gets it and who doesn’t. This points to who should and shouldn’t have power.!!!

LECTURE FOUR How is the world organised economically?!

Looking at the relationship between economics and politics on a global scaleThey were once thought of as one discipline - however, since the late 60s, they have split apart.We can look to real-world experience to see that there is indeed a relationship between the two.! Example: Youth unemployment in Europe! 56.1% youth unemployment in Spain. Whole generations are being excluded from the economy, and in this way, excluded from society - they may turn to crime, violence or extremism. They are also looking to leave Europe, seeking emigration as a solution.! Relationship between economics and politics: There has been a policy shift in the Eurozone, in order to deal with massive amounts of foreign debt.!What is economics?There are many definitions, but focuses on the idea of scarcity - not enough means to satisfy our unlimited wants. As a result, we must make choices, which involve trade-offs and opportunity costs.!The formalised study of markets / modes of production, arose with the time of the Industrial revolution, when the scale of production altered from agrarian economies to industrial economies.!!!!!


The study of global political economyA subdomain of international relations, which tries to re-integrate politics and economics, and often to look at politics from an economic standpoint.It is a breakdown of the disciplinary boundaries between politics and economies, traditionally including trade, international finance, ideas of hegemony and the North/South binary divide, as well as the role of globalisation and multinational companies.!GlobalisationA defining feature of international economy at the beginning of the 21st century, but the extent of the impacts of globalisation need to be traced back to the Age of Empire and colonial trading systems that were set up at that time... but certainly need to be traced to the end of the Second World War.!Can be pinpointed to a moment, where the Allied forces came together and talked about how they were going to ensure that the world in a post-war environment would prosper. They deliberately set up systems to bring nation-states together in market and trade relationships - this was hoped to give security to prevent another major depression, and the relationship that was believed at the time between the depression and the Second World War. These talks were known as the Bretton Woods conference, where this formal architecture was developed. International Monetary Fund was established, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (clear role to play in the post-war environment, with kickstarts to help countries reconstruct themselves post-war... it changed form, and part of this became the World Bank). What is known now as the World Trade Organisation was also established at this time.!!It is also important to evaluate the Bretton Woods system...The interests of the United States played a crucial role. It was about ensuring that war-torn countries were helped.!The three key institutions were determined to have separate functions:!1 IMF was set up to bring about new economic and financial stability, particularly in Europe and USA. It would fix exchange rates and stabilise the trade system in doing so. All currencies would be fixed to the US dollar.!2 World Bank was set up to bring about new monetary order, and provide loans to nation states in order to facilitate their economic development and rebuilding, a role which it continues to play.!3 World Trade Organisation set up tariff agreements to create equal terms of trade - this is being criticised nowadays, in that it could appear to favour richer, more developed countries.!!The faith in ideals of freedom of movement of capital, and later the ability for the market to determine the best conditions for trade and economic growth, were important through the development of Bretton Woods system. There was an absolute faith in the belief of the market mechanisms to offer solutions to economic, and consequently social, problems. Internationalism, and the relationship between economic growth and social prosperity and peace, were also important in this system.!Neo-classical economics and the faith in free market policiesThis was developed by Milton Friedman in the Chicago School of Economics. Here, we saw the formalisation into theory (a particularly scientific mode of inquiry) - the free market was the best way to determine socially equitable outcomes. It was believed that Keynesian-style state involvement in the economy was inefficient and bureaucratic, leading to an unnecessary drain on the public purse. By selling off loss-making public enterprises, and restricting the role of the state to regulation and economic facilitation, this was the best way to bring about efficiency and thus economic growth. Many of these ideas are prevalent today, and have been transposed into the doctrine known as neo-liberalism.


How did we get to a point where financial institutions tried to rig the global economy, and thus blamed for many of our social ills?!The triumph of neoliberalismThe adoption of common ways of solving economic and political problems - the ability of the market to best solve economic problems, to being adopted by nation states and governments, and later in the policy and practice of IFIs.!Neoliberalism is difficult to explain, and goes well beyond the economic, but started with some key economic principles. The belief in the market and how that determinism could solve national economic problems - that if key functions of state were privatised, they would be run more efficiently, and if public spending could be lowered, the economy would be free to flourish and that resources would be more efficient. This required a culture of deregulation to enable entrepreneurs to practice more freely, and the welfarist role of the government to be minimised, because it was inefficient, and the market would take care of people left behind. There was a faith in the trickle-down effect of wealth. It was adopted by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, but also Labour government in 1984.!These policies, given that they were picked up by very powerful states, were then transferred into the practices of the Bretton Woods system itself. There was an alignment of economic agendas at both the national and international levels. This meant that IFIs started to pursue common policies of free trade, liberalisation of capital markets and currency exchanges, and also a determinism to balance budgets, almost at all costs. States that wanted loans from IMF needed to demonstrate commitment, in some form, to neoliberal policies.!!One of the major developments from IFIs was the way in which these ideas were translated into policy and practice for economic development in the South. The diversity of economic policies which existed before this point disappeared.!One of the most devastating impacts of this neoliberal convergence from national to international levels is the practice of structural adjustment policies. The experience of stagflation led us to call debt into question and attempt to curb it. The IMF and World Bank established conditions for their loans - if a country wanted a loan because it was significantly indebted, then it had to meet certain conditions. These included cuts to government expenditure, reduction of the role of the state in the economy (including a reduction of welfarism) and the push towards the promotion of trade liberalisation.!These SAPs became concerning, as their effects came to be known. For many, it was a sign of a neo-colonial order, and reflected the interests of the Global North, rather than show any concern for the humanity of the Global South.!Case Study - what did these SAPs actually mean?!Ghana - POSITIVEIn the 1990s, a growth rate of 6% on the whole - this is quite impressive.It had reduced its inflation levels, with budget surplus and had increased export earnings.!Looking beyond these macroeconomic determinants, we see different impacts, and the relationship between economics and politics becomes more evident. !Ghana - NEGATIVESize of the public service was dramatically cut: 300,000 public sector workers were retrenched. Devaluation of the dollar reduced your purchasing power, which had major impacts on investment in infrastructure projects, because imports were more expensive.They weren’t really progressing, because a lot of the money resulting from greater Real GDP was being used for debt servicing. Also, there was a diversion of resources away from essential needs. Rural poverty worsened too.!


LECTURE FIVE The triumph of neoliberalism, and a new IR theory:

NEOLIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM!Recap on neoliberalismNeoliberalism was successfully transplanted globally, but there are now more and more alternatives emerging. There is a key faith in the atomistic individual, in the market to bring greater efficiency: market will regulate more efficiently than a government’s interference.Key policies: privatisation, low public spending, deregulation, tax cuts, reduced welfare provisions by the state! Ghana case study On the macroeconomic level, things looked good, but not on the microeconomic level.!Reforming the Bretton Wood system?These came as a result of those social and political injustices, such as those seen in Structural Adjustment Programs. These were transitioned into the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers under what is known as the post-Washington consensus. It is argued that the consultation process is limited and restrictive under these new programs, so nothing has really been changed.!Global financial crisis of 2007-2009We saw it emerge from the USA, which had immediate implications to economies across the world. The IMF and World Bank were set up to avoid this, but were powerless against the impact of a strong domestic economy, and the realities of contemporary globalised trade.There are calls now for a reformed Bretton Woods system.!1) Cosmopolitan liberals argue that the reason the Bretton Woods system is failing is because it doesn’t take account of the global population - that it’s still mired in its structural set up which reflected the post war, and thus no longer effective because it doesn’t take account of emerging economies, and issues of poverty and development in the Global South. David Held (cosmopolitan) argues we need to build a new system around global civil society, and the input of more diverse voices. For example, a global parliamentary system to speak on behalf of populations about more diverse economic needs and viewpoints. This is a radical overhaul of the Bretton Woods system.!2) Market fundamentalists argue that economic and financial crises are to be expected, and further intervention and regulation will simply make matters worse. They focus on the successes of the system, rather than periods of crisis - minimising regulation will allow wealth to “trickle down”.!3) Anti-capitalists call for radical reforms of the Bretton Woods system, arguing that the most recent financial crisis highlights global inequalities and inefficiencies. What is required is a redistribution of wealth through a global structure of economic governance - these institutions need to address inequality by directing resources into parts of the world which need it most, as well as regulation of global financial markets.!4) Regulatory liberals sit halfway - they call for a curb on the excesses of neoliberalism, recognising that the post-Washington consensus has failed, and that these excesses could be curbed by changing some of the structural setups of existing institutions, and changing the way they function.!!!


NEW IR THEORY: Neoliberal institutionalismThis is not to be confused with neoliberalism!!!Neoliberal institutionalism: where did it come from and what are its key tenets?It emerged after the Second World War, partly as a challenge to the dominance of realism because of its assumption that “war is inevitable” (either because of the IR structure or that of human nature) would in fact lead to further war. In the ruins of the Second World War, there was concern amongst IR scholars and theorists that this should be avoided at all costs. There is a normative goal of peace.!At the same time, theorists looked around them and tried to explain co-operation between states, rooted in liberal thinking, but was decidedly less idealistic than the liberalism that, for example, informed the League of Nations.!It does come from the broad tradition of liberalism, which involves a faith in human progress, a fundamental commitment to individual and collective freedoms, and that in the rationality of individuals to determine what is in their best interests - this rationality will direct individual’s behaviour. Democracy is also favoured.!Also committed to a state that is limited in power - liberalism recognises that governing functions are necessary, but that these should not impede the rights and freedoms of individuals.!The last part of this picture is that of a laissez-faire economy - similar to its modern antecedent neoliberalism, there is a faith in the allocation of resources by the market itself (market is best way to ensure good access to resources, and regulate the most efficiently).!Liberalism in International RelationsNeoliberal institutionalism is the second-most dominant theory of IR, after realism. Liberalism is broad, and in fact, neoliberal institutionalism is the more specific form that we look at often in IR.!The first school of international relations that was established in Wales was committed to these principles: the pursuit of peace, democracy, shared interests would bring about collective peace, states pursuing self-help would bring them closer to security. States couldn’t be totally independent security actors in this anarchic system. They would look to co-operate to achieve self-interest. These are long-standing beliefs, challenged by the rise of realist theory.!International Law can attempt to shape the behaviour of states, but that this is limited - it can’t be absolutely binding, but can be pursued legitimately by states of ‘equal’ power.!Looking more broadly...Emphasis on international organisations, out of the belief that they can enhance international security. States will work together to achieve security, both individual and collective, in these institutions or organisations. By coming together and recognising this potential, states will develop a framework of organisations: states themselves will create the framework through which they work.!Important changes are taking place - states are increasingly co-operating through international institutions, and are also working to bring about greater collective security.!They are still working with some of the bases of a REALIST framework...- There is no higher power than individual states!But...- States are doing more and more things together in the interests of collective security and stability, as well as in their own interests!!!!


Keohane and Martin (two prominent neoliberal institutional theorists) argue that it is these institutions that states create which can provide information to states, reducing transaction costs, institutions can make more formal and credible arrangements, and establish focal points for co-ordination and co-operation.!European UnionEU emerged from a series of functional steps towards integration. Two theorists and economists (Schumann and Monet, who had very different thinking between them) came together at the end of the World War, and thought about how we could bring about peace and stability for Europe.!One way to do this was to bring together the coal and steel resources of 6 EU states - it was argued that if they pulled them together, essential to industrialisation production and that of weaponry, that they would be able to stabilise the costs and foster co-operative commitment. This was successful, and grew to include common policies on atomic energy, establishment of common trade zones (reducing trade barriers), and ultimately led to key political integration.!Neoliberal institutionalists look to the example of the EU, and demonstrates that states are willing to work through formalised institutions to work together in their self-interest, and also pursuing collective good.!United NationsFormation of voting blocsCooperation via nation-state mechanisms!Core assumptions of neoliberal institutionalism!They concur that states are the key actors in global politics, but they’re not the only important actors: international organisations are, of themselves, greatly important. States will seek to maximise their own interests through co-operating with other states, often through these institutions.They will shift their loyalties, believing that these institutions offer them the flexibility to work with different states on different issues, and give power to the institutions themselves. !UN is simply given power by states: if all states chose to withdraw from UN, this was radically diminish the effectiveness of the UN... the same is true of all international institutions. !e.g. USA not part of International Criminal Courtshows that these international organisations are successful only when states take part in their own self-interest!Criticisms of neoliberal institutionalism!It only really works to explain relations between states, where states have mutual interests.It is difficult for this theory to explain situations where there is no perceived mutual interest - e.g. security situations, cross-border disputes. Where this a lack of mutual interests and co-operation, neoliberal institutionalism can’t really account for that.Acknowledging that this is a framework of international anarchy - that there is no higher power than states. Unlike Held’s cosmopolitan thinking, neoliberal institutionalists have a great belief in international organisations, but they are still not the most powerful.!A regime is a collection of states who share self-interest, working through institutions with shared norms and rules. These regimes are fixed and can change, free to exit and enter different institutions. Therefore there is a lack at certain times.!Another critique is that it relies heavily on trust - in order to cooperate, states have to trust one another, and that information and interest is shared. This reliance is needed to achieve their own self-interest. It could be argued that there is a long history of diplomatic relations.!!


LECTURE SIX IS POVERTY A THING OF THE PAST?

LOOKING AT POVERTY AND DEVELOPMENT!Key issues- Over-consumption and the inequality which results- System of Washington Consensus was a new form of economic colonialism!Why are we thinking about this issue in a course of global politics?There is an increasingly globalised agenda for solutions to poverty.It is our moral duty to think of the wellbeing of others.!Compassion overload?Many argue that, collectively, particularly in the Global North, we’ve reached a point of compassion overload - we no longer want to hear about global poverty issues. We relegate it to one-off instances, but the fact that this is ongoing makes our ignorance more worrying.We can’t deal with the fact that 20,000 people die every day due to unnecessary poverty, the horror that it invokes in us, and the questions about change that this necessitates - it’s not enough to know, we need to think about why this happens. The issue is perhaps systemic, and as an issue that perhaps we can’t confront.!Global povertyMacro-level statistics are useful, but don’t tell us exactly what is happening in local communities. - More than 8 million people die globally each year because they are too poor to stay alive.- 1 in 6 people around the world live on less than $1 per day.!CASE STUDY - NamibiaBecause it has access to gold and diamond resources, it is classed as a middle-income country. However, this wealth is not evenly spread - a gini coefficient of 0.697 - one of the highest in the world.!Is poverty only somewhere else?We need to think about poverty and issues of development both in our immediate regions, but also in New Zealand itself.!PovertyIt is a subjective notion - what does poverty actually mean and how do we measure it?Most international organisations conceptualise poverty in terms of money. Poverty is broadly a condition suffered when people don’t have enough money to meet their basic material needs.!It is often regarded as a problem of the “other” and not “us” - there is evidence, however, that the Global North is starting to see poverty increase.!It has often been used as a justification for development - it’s no coincidence that we’re considering poverty and development together. At the heart of much development thinking is to ameliorate or banish poverty.!!!!!!!!!!!!


Measures of poverty World Bank measure of extreme poverty US$1 per day - doesn’t take into account changes in inflation, and this is a 2005 figure.! World Bank measure of moderate poverty US$2 per day - needs only just met, but no ability to save for future protection! World Bank measure of relative poverty Measured against a gross national average income - those under this average are deemed to experience relative poverty. Are these measures adequate? Do we have other ways of measuring poverty?!!Poverty appears to be moving up the political agenda. Some argue also that as poverty increases in the Global North, we can see increased attention to the issue more broadly.!The relationship between poverty and developmentNew actors are bringing attention to the issue.The idea that humanity is on a path to progress, and that we need to pursue this progress - development itself, when you think of the etymology of the word, can bring this progress. The need to industrialise and urbanise, pursue economic growth to the point of being “developed”. This relates back to issues of colonialism - it is no coincidence that if we look at “developing” and “least developed” countries, these countries relate directly to colonial experiences.!Development is not necessarily mutual, all good or all bad. We need to think critically about development - it’s not simply the desire to help people, because this has had tremendous negative consequences for people globally (colonialism, as an example).!There was recognition of an increasing divide during the Cold War - progress was not being achieved, and the world was becoming more unequal. As a response to this, a group of 77 post-colonial states lobbied for a better deal for these undeveloped states. This group continues today, and is essentially a lobbying group, and membership has expanded to over 120 member states.!1970sRegulating the price of oil had a tremendous effect of development - the price of oil increased, so the price of industrial and infrastructure projects increased, and the cost of living went up. A tremendous boom of debt occurred during this time, too.!1980sThere was now a supposed “orthodox” approach to development, and as the notion of consensus implies, this was introduced across nation states.!By the 1990s, there was some enthusiasm from Bretton Woods institutions to take onboard some of the criticisms, and the orthodox view started to shift a little bit. There needed to be greater attention paid to the sustainability (as opposed to the rapidity) of growth - it wasn’t enough to just poor money into massive infrastructure projects, and that the trickle-down effect would take care of things.!!!!!!!!


Indeed, development was done to populations rather than locally generated. We can see this shift in thinking when we look at the fairly radical challenge to measuring poverty, which came out of the United Nations Development Programme in the early 1990s.!The Human Development Index (HDI) sought to do away with GDP per capita - it is a summary composite index, looking at company’s average of development in terms of longevity (life expectancy at birth), knowledge (combination of adult literacy rate and combined gross ratio of primary, secondary and tertiary education enrollments) and standard of living (measured by GDP per capita). This index retains the orthodox view but starts to rethink some of the other elements - it tries to go beyond macro-economic capacity and wants to capture the quality of life, with some surprising results.!Using this index, Vietnam and Pakistan have similar GDP per capita - however, using the HDI, Vietnam has a far higher HDI than Pakistan, because of government expenditure into education which is spread across all three levels, as well as government programs around healthcare, argued to have a direct impact on average life expectancy.!Millennium Development GoalsAgreed upon at the Millennium Summit in 2000, implemented into 8 goals by the General Assembly. They are due to expire in 2015. These have set an agenda for the global community.!- What is the most important to target?- Is it too simplistic?- Does it overlook specific local circumstances and needs?!Despite these criticisms, it is argued to give a sense of focus and direction.The one we are closest, as a global community, to realising is achieving universal primary education. We are seeing a massive push of children into school, but no measure of quality, and belies the practical realities of being able to attend school on a regular basis.!

LECTURE NINE WHAT MAKES THE WORLD A DANGEROUS PLACE?

DANGER!Terrorism hasn’t made the world necessarily dangerous, but actually the effects of terrorism have restricted movement around the world, making the world seem more dangerous.!What are the features of terrorism? What does terrorism try to do?It tries to instill fear, and tries to provoke a reaction - perhaps we are imbued with a sense of security away from the threat of terrorism.!How can we explain terrorism?In order to end terrorism and its threat, we first need to understand it. This isn’t a way of justifying it, but rather to critically understand it - what are the underlying causes of terrorist activity?!A common explanation has been one of economic deprivation - for example, poverty leads to terrorist activity: e.g. When London bombings occurred, Tony Blair in 2005 argued that what we know, if we didn’t before, is that where there is extremism and fanaticism or acute forms of poverty, then the consequences were not be fixed or controlled. This is his attempt to make a link between poverty and terrorism. Where we see deprivation, we see terrorism.!There has been a lot of empirical research on why this link was made, and try to critique this relationship. This work shows that terrorism can actually occur anywhere, and includes participants from a far wider range of backgrounds than the deprivation thesis.!If we look at who is a contemporary terrorist, we will often see participants from a wide range of backgrounds, including wealthy people. e.g. Al Qaeda


It’s not the state of being poor that turns us into terrorists, but rather the rapid urbanisation and a sense of disenfranchisement from a former stability. We will look at this in connection to globalisation.!There’s also a danger with the poverty = terrorism equation, in that it demonises the poor. Poor people become suspicious objects for government and public surveillance. Terrorist activity can be conducted with relatively few means, but more so, is reliant on new technologies and lots of weaponry. e.g. recent attacks in Kenya, which involved a lot of planning, access to weaponry and a lot of networking via ICTs.!Are there other explanations?One of the most common, especially recently, is religion - religion, per se, somehow explains recent terrorist activity.!Critical scholarship and analysis of this connection would argue that religion might be a powerful motivating factor, particularly religious extremism, but it isn’t the ultimate driving force of terrorist activity itself. There is no monopoly of violence in any one particular form of religion, but also shunned by the majority of moderate religious stances.!Too often, religion and culture are overly simplified, and can see this in Huntington’s Clash of Civilisations theories. Increasingly, world conflict would be shaped by divisions of the world into separate religious civilisations, and that conflict would erupt where civilisations were under threat.!When there is a perceived threat to their way of life, coming from Western world especially, but not necessarily as simple to say religion alone is driving terrorism. Rather, religion acts as a tool, but fanaticism takes hold and leads to the terrorist activity.!Religion acts as a vehicle of wider political, economic or socio-cultural discontent. When we look at Edward Said’s orientalism, and the unfortunate way in which religion has become a short-hand way of designating terrorists, the danger of this particular thesis arises.!Another way of conceptualising terrorism is rapid urbanisation and globalisation - globalisation has brought about disruption to people’s everyday traditional way of life. This disruption has been rapid rather than slow and gradual. With this change brings threats to livelihoods, places of living and of worship. At the same time, globalisation also brings about interesting new opportunities for terrorism.!The idea of networked terrorism is a relatively new occurrence. Terrorists organisations are creating networks of mutual assistance, which is radically changing the way attacks occur, but also changing how states must respond to this.e.g. al-Shabaab emerged out of Somalia and diverged from Al Qaeda, in part by the American forces’ occupation of Somalia. They’ve been able to mobilise participants from around the globe, for a vague cause of a radical revolution based on fundamentalist ideas of Islam. It could be argued that their fight contradicts some Islamic ideas.!Reliance of new technologiesThese have increased the reach and impact of terrorism.Terrorism’s goal: reaching a wider audience than its immediate victims - new technologies helps terrorists to reach this wider audience. Prior to the late 1960s, terrorist activity rarely had such an impact outside of territorial borders. We read about them, and sometimes saw news reel footage, but there was a delay: this delay impacted our ability to feel the immediacy of that impact.!We now have an increased sense of connection, but on the flipside, terrorist activity now has the ability to occur anywhere in the world. More likely to occur in the Global South than the Global North.!A lot of surveillance legislation is about monitoring these terrorism networks, but hasn’t been entirely successful in doing so.!


Have they brought us closer to a sense of security or do we feel insecure, or just under surveillance?!For example, when travelling through the United States of America, you need your iris scanned. Something like this would not have been accepted even 15-20 years ago - look to debates over identity. Are these useful to the country in combatting terrorism? You have no control over this data, and no choice either.!States and agencies are working together to operate black sites, where people can be tortured or at least held, in the name of preventing further terrorism, and the desire for justice.!THEORIES AND TERRORISM!NeorealismIf we look at the issue of terrorism through a neorealist lens, we would think about the way in which terrorist activity is a threat to the state. Neorealism evolved precisely to recognise non-state actors, but only in relation to the state. It does recognise for example the role of the global political economy, international organisations, and also tries to take account of terrorism but only insofar as it will illicit a state response - what do states do in relation to terrorism?!Neoliberal institutionalismOn the other hand, it sees a way in which states can work together through international organisations to pursue individual state interests. In terms of terrorism, they would join forces when it is seen as the most effective way to combat terrorism. States are still operating in self-interest, but see co-operation as a way of reaching it.!PoststructuralismWould ask us about the underlying ways that we perceive terrorism, that we used certain discourses to uphold certain ideas. Notion of certain religions being more fanatical than others, and allows certain types of action to occur. Might look to notion that terrorism is an all-pervasive, universal threat, and allowed certain actions to occur. These terrorist acts have power and have effect.!!SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISMThis completes our beginner’s set of international relation theories: we will look at them all again in exam revision lecture.This theory emerged from two dominant theories: neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism. It is still state-centric, and still a problem-solving theory, but tries to bridge between problem solving and more critical approaches. It came out of a period of the 1970s / 1980s when scholars were asking questions of global politics and international relations, to think about why states act in certain ways. If we were trying to understand certain issues, neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism didn’t talk about looking towards a common good - we can’t understand ideas of diplomacy without trying to better understand the nature of power as being both material and ideational (of ideas).!It tries to insert the role of ideas much more firmly into the state-centric notion of global politics, but not a radical rethinking of international relations theory - it sits halfway between the two.!!!!!!!!!!!


LECTURE 22 LOOKING AGAIN AT SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM

+ THINKING ABOUT WAR, PEACE AND INTERVENTION!Social constructivism is the last of our theoretical lenses we are considering in this course.!In brief, it is an attempt to try and understand the world as being shaped not just by material structures, but also ideas. These ideas form what social constructivists call norms.!The argument is that in the 1980s/90s, IR scholars looked at the world around them and found that the two dominant theories [realism/neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism] were struggling to account for some things.!These ideas can form structures - they tell us about the world, and tell us about patterns and predictive behaviour within it.!For social constructivists, some structures are normative - informed by ideas. This conclusion was reached by looking at the way states behaved with each other, and were interested in pursuing co-operation on certain matters which couldn’t be accounted for in terms of material structures which are important to neo-realists and neoliberal institutionalists.!One of these was sovereignty: for social constructivists, it is not fixed, but rather shaped by ideas and practices of these ideas. States are willing to enter into trade negotiations which will compromise their sovereignty in pursuit of self-interest, but also ideas of co-operation more broadly.!Ideas like human rights take on meaning not necessarily because they are written in international law, but are negotiated and placed in a structure. There may be a lack of consensus, but important normative structures can be put in place through this discursive negotiation.!Structure is socialSocial structures are key for social constructivists. They argue that these structures are made up of shared knowledge and ideas, practices, negotiations etc., as well as material resources.!Even if we look at something like military relationships between states, there is still a material reality of the structure, but also importantly, it is the way these ideas inform these material realities: treaties, armament, conflict or peace – these ideas give meaning to the material structures themselves.!The idea of norms is important: certain ideas become powerful because of their shared nature. They aren’t hegemonic, but they are taken on and can become dominant. They are based on shared expectations of a group as to what is appropriate.!Human rights? Use of weaponry? Diplomatic action and negotiation? What is expected? What is norm? !!!!!!!!!


Alexander Wendt is a social constructivist who argued that anarchy (the key principle of how and why states behave as they do in the international system) is the result of social structures - ideas, negotiations and common knowledge. It has become a norm of international relations.!He uses ideas of security to explore this, arguing that actually during the Cold War, states were distrustful of each other resulting in a material reality of the arms build-up, but that this actually came about because of shared ideas and knowledges – states were willing, despite their animosity, to share some knowledge. This was more so than just a material structure.!Furthermore, Wendt argues that it was a security dilemma, but states are also willing together (e.g. NATO) to share their ideas and knowledges about security, and essentially trust each other. This belies many of the ideas realists certainly had about the world, and security in particular. We can see norms emerging from co-operation.!States aren’t just concerned with security, but also influenced by ideas like human rights, co-operation and the rule of law. These will also drive states’ actions, and social constructivists are interested how these broad ideas become enacted into practice, and take on these norms. The liberal notion of peace can actually become a norm for the international community – not always effective, but between many states, it can actually be achieved.!In sum, this theory tries to tell us the way shared meanings and interpretations impact human actions. According to social constructivists, it is vital to pay attention to the role of ideas – we still need to look at material structures (economic resources, armaments), but also think about how these structures are informed by the social, and then enacted.!!Security and intervention!Critical Security Studies is quite a different way of thinking about international security than that of earlier frameworks like neorealism, neoliberal institutionalism and social constructivism.It is a broad theory which is trying to move away from state-centric theory - it is a critical engagement with ideas of security which have placed the state at the centre, and tries to argue that if we want to security, we need to think about the security of the individual.!Emancipation is a key tenet of critical security studies - in its broadest sense, it means freedom from persecution, fear, to have a viable future.!It means different things to different people:!Feminism might look at how war affects communities, with particular emphasis on how traditional theories have failed to account for the gendered impact of war - perhaps the impact on women and children, for example.!Post-structuralism might urge us to rethink security itself – that if we are only talking about the security of the state and its survival (as realist theory would have us do), we are ignoring the plight of individuals within them.!A new security environment?!After the Cold War, the security environment could no longer be explained in bilateral terms.Predominantly, the issue of civil war became much more apparent in the post-Cold War world – wasn’t enough to take account of the security concerns of states. We also needed to take account of non-traditional security concerns like that of climate change, and that things like drought could have very real and immediate security impacts for individuals and communities, both to the threat of their livelihood, and also leading people to flee their environs, move across borders, and what this displacement might mean for other states. The new security environment is more complex, and we needed to shift our thinking to account for this.!


The question of intervention!It first requires us to think carefully about the sorts of situations which might call for an international response. One of the preconditions of a call for intervention is the idea of evidence – that we know for sure something is happening within a state, in gross violation of human rights norms. That it is indeed happening in the full knowledge of the state, or is the perpetrator of these crimes.!

So what happens next?The answer is quite complex. Action is not always taken, when the basic

knowledge of “something is wrong” is met.!Human intervention raises issues of sovereignty, human rights and how we know when they are violated. There is also the role of the United Nation (UN) as a protector of rights, and acting on behalf of the international community, and the idea of the responsibility to protect.!A working definition of humanitarian intervention is contentious:It is the threat of use of force with the aim of preventing further violations of human rights. It takes place without permission of the state. (Holzgrefe, 2003).!On the one hand, UN aims to uphold rights of all peoples, but also uphold the sovereignty of states. This can come into conflict.!We need to get out of our mind the idea that any intervention is humanitarian - humanitarian assistance is NOT the same as humanitarian intervention.If it happens with the permission of the state, it is assistance.If it does NOT happen with the permission of the state, it is intervention.!For example... Syria: USA could have said it was in the name of gross injustice, but it wasn’t humanitarian intervention - it would have been a unilateral act, not with the support of UN.!In 2003, Kofi Annan argued that “the sovereignty of states must no longer be used as a shield for gross violations of human rights.”

Documents

REALIST INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORYlittlenotables.weebly.com/.../4/13145069/politics_106_lecture_notes... · LECTURE NOTES!! RECAP ... relations, !individuals within states can