Period 5: Globalizing World, Lectures & tutorials
Exam:
• multiple choice questions
• brief essay > application theoretical concepts
Resit 4th of July (not the 11th!)
(Lectures content)
Part I: historical context – Europe around 1300:
- Europe in the 14th century lacked the modern concept of nation states: it wasn’t
organized into clear single countries we see today. Instead, it was a patchwork of
kingdoms, duchies, and other regions, each ruled by its own leader with varying
degrees of independence. Borders were flexible, often overlapping, and there
wasn’t a strong sense of national identity or a central government controlling
everything.
- Feudal rule: a system where the nobles controlled land and power. Society was
divided into classes: nobles, clergy, and commoners. Nobles were rich and
powerful, clergy were religious leaders, and commoners were regular people,
often farmers.
- Stability in society was achieved by everyone having specific roles, and by
people exchanging goods and services with each other in mutually beneficial
way.
- The peace of Westphalia in 1648 ended the European wars of religion and
established important principles like sovereignty, and equality among
states.
Part II: development of the Modern State system:
- After the peace of Westphalia, the power and influence of multicultural empires
like the Holy Roman Empire, Austro-Hungarian empire, and Ottoman Empire
began to diminish.
- This period saw both bottom-up and top-down developments:
o Bottom up: meant less power for kings and religious leaders, the growth
of languages specific to nations, and people sharing common ideas more
often.
o Top down: included the promotion of national languages, creating
national armies, and building strong government bureaucracies.
Part III: dealing with security issues:
- After 1648, nation-states became strong due to nationalism and democracy,
fueled by resources, organisation, and citizen loyalty.
- Inter-national relations started to take shape, characterized by diplomacy and
war as the primary ways nations interacted, all without a higher authority
governing them. (Inter-national relations refers to the interactions and
relationships between different nations or sovereign states in the international
arena.)
- The congress of Vienna in 1815 was a gathering of major European powers to
restore stability after the fall of Napoleon. They formed a group of five nations
and sought to keep peace through diplomatic negotiations among themselves.
Part IV: Evolution of Collective security systems:
, - The League of Nations, established in 1919, aimed to create a collective security
system. However, it encountered difficulties like unfair representation among
member nations and lacked the authority to enforce its decisions.
- The United Nations, formed in 1945, was an improvement upon collective
security, boasting features such as the UN Security Council. However, it still had
shortcomings, including unequal representation and inefficiency in handling
crises.
Part V: key implications of realism:
- Realism says that countries are the main players in global affairs, and how they
act depends a lot on how much power they have compared to others. It means
that stronger countries can make their own rules and have more influence than
weaker ones, affecting how the world works. Realism highlights that the strength
of each country decides how much it can achieve and shape global events. It
also stresses that countries compete for security and goals because there’s no
higher authority to keep things in check.
- Anarchy in the international system means there’s no global referee to enforce
rules or settle fights between countries. Without a higher authority, countries are
unsure about each other’s intentions and actions. So, they focus on looking out
for themselves by building up their militaries or teaming up with others for
protection. Defensive actions taken by one state to enhance security can be
misunderstood as threats by others, sparking a cycle of mistrust known as the
security dilemma. This instability affects agreements and alliances as states
continuously strive to protect themselves against perceived threats.
(Tutorial content 2A)
Realism:
- Dominant approach during the Cold War
- Views the world as it is, cautious against idealist approaches
- Actors: the primary actors in international relations are sovereign nation-states
- Drivers: states are driven by the imperative of survival and the pursuit of power.
This leads to competition and conflict between states
- Cooperation: cooperation is possible but unstable, as states can never fully
trust each other. Conflict and war are inevitable in the long run
- Zero sum game: international relations is seen as a zero sum game, where one
state’s gain is another loss. (Since states cannot rely on others for security, they
are compelled to maximize their own power and influence relative to other
states. One state’s gain in power or security is seen as a threat to the others, as it
upsets the delicate balance of power. This leads to a competitive dynamic where
states are in constant rivalry with each other.)
- This zero sum mentality leads realists to be skeptical of the possibility of mutual
gains through cooperation. They believe that in the end, there can only be one
winner, and states must be willing to engage in conflict to protect their interests
and security.
Key assumptions:
, • Anarchy: the international system lacks a central authority to enforce rules or maintain
order. States exist in a self-help environment, where they must rely on their own
capabilities for security.
• State as the primary actor: Realists view states as the principal actors in international
relations, with their primary goal being the pursuit of power and security.
• Seeking power in an anarchic system: states prioritize survival and the accumulation
of power in a world where there is no higher authority to ensure their security.
• Hard power: the use of coercive force, typically military or economic, to influence the
behavior of other states and achieve one’s national interests.
• Self help: you can’t trust anyone so you have to help yourself (security dilemma)
Types of realism:
• Classical realism: emphasizes the role of human nature and the struggle for power as
fundamental aspects of international politics. Key figures include Thuydides,
Machiavelli, and Hans Morgenthau
• Neo-realism (structural realism): developed by Kenneth Waltz, neo-realism focuses on
the structure of the international system rather than individual state behavior. It can be
divided into offensive and defensive variants.
▪ Offensive realism: states seek hegemony or dominance to maximize security. It
suggests that states aim to become the most powerful to ensure their security.
However, when one state tries to increase its security, other states may see it as
a threat, leading to a cycle of competition and insecurity known as the security
dilemma.
▪ Defensive realism: suggests that states aim to maintain a balance of power for
security. They do this by building up their own capabilities (internal balancing)
and forming alliances (external balancing) to counter potential threats. However,
alliances are viewed as unreliable, so states ultimately rely on their own
resources.
• Neo-classical Realism:
Considers both internal and external factors. It looks at how politics, such as the
influence of political parties, interest groups, public opinion and decision making styles
of individual leaders. It considers how countries perceive threats and opportunities in
the international system, influenced by their history, culture, and strategic thinking.
Key figures: Robert Jervis, Stephen Walt
(Tutorial 2B)
Realist perspective:
Defensive:
- Russia felt threatened by NATO’s eastward expansion and the potential
inclusion of Ukraine, creating a security dilemma
- Russia aimed to establish a buffer zone by controlling Ukraine to balance against
Western power
, - Mearsheimer argues the west is responsible for provoking Russia by disregarding
its security concerns
Offensive:
- Russia seeks to become the regional hegemon and expand its sphere of
influence
- The invasion is an attempt to increase Russia’s relative military power (hard
power) in the region
- Cooperation with the west is unreliable, so Russia resorted to force to achieve its
goals
Constructivist
- Russia’s actions are shaped by its identity and how its views Ukraine a part of its
historical sphere of influence
- The legacy of the Cold War and the perceived threat from NATO influences
Russia’s worldview
- Putin’s personal convictions, values and aspirations for Russia to regain its
status as a great power, influence the decisions and actions of the Russian
government (Derzhavnost)
- Public sentiment in Russia, as well as how events are depicted by state-
controlled media, contribute to legitimising the war in the eyes of the Russian
population
Liberalism:
- Russia’s authoritarian regime lacks checks and balances, allowing Putin to
redirect domestic issues through foreign agression
- Wars are less likely between democracies, but Russia is not part of NATO or the
EU
- Despite the economic ties between Russia and the West, such as trade and
investment, these connections did not prevent conflict from occurring
a) Why did Russia invade Ukraine?
1. NATO expansion concerns
Russia has long opposed NATO’s enlargement towards its borders, viewing it as
a threat to its security and sphere of influence. The idea of Ukraine joining NATO
was seen as an unacceptable “red line” by Russia. Russia worried that if Ukraine
joined NATO, it might allow NATO to establish military bases and station troops
near Russia’s borders, posing a threat to Russia’s security.
2. Regime change in Ukraine
The 2014 Euromaidan protests in Ukraine led to the ousting of pro-Russian
president Viktor Yanukovych, which Russia perceived as a Western-backed
coup. (He rejected a proposed association agreements with the EU in favor of
closer ties with Russia > this decision sparked widespread public outrage and
led to mass protests against his government). This raised concerns in Moscow
about losing influence over Ukraine and the potential for a pro-Western, anti-
Exam:
• multiple choice questions
• brief essay > application theoretical concepts
Resit 4th of July (not the 11th!)
(Lectures content)
Part I: historical context – Europe around 1300:
- Europe in the 14th century lacked the modern concept of nation states: it wasn’t
organized into clear single countries we see today. Instead, it was a patchwork of
kingdoms, duchies, and other regions, each ruled by its own leader with varying
degrees of independence. Borders were flexible, often overlapping, and there
wasn’t a strong sense of national identity or a central government controlling
everything.
- Feudal rule: a system where the nobles controlled land and power. Society was
divided into classes: nobles, clergy, and commoners. Nobles were rich and
powerful, clergy were religious leaders, and commoners were regular people,
often farmers.
- Stability in society was achieved by everyone having specific roles, and by
people exchanging goods and services with each other in mutually beneficial
way.
- The peace of Westphalia in 1648 ended the European wars of religion and
established important principles like sovereignty, and equality among
states.
Part II: development of the Modern State system:
- After the peace of Westphalia, the power and influence of multicultural empires
like the Holy Roman Empire, Austro-Hungarian empire, and Ottoman Empire
began to diminish.
- This period saw both bottom-up and top-down developments:
o Bottom up: meant less power for kings and religious leaders, the growth
of languages specific to nations, and people sharing common ideas more
often.
o Top down: included the promotion of national languages, creating
national armies, and building strong government bureaucracies.
Part III: dealing with security issues:
- After 1648, nation-states became strong due to nationalism and democracy,
fueled by resources, organisation, and citizen loyalty.
- Inter-national relations started to take shape, characterized by diplomacy and
war as the primary ways nations interacted, all without a higher authority
governing them. (Inter-national relations refers to the interactions and
relationships between different nations or sovereign states in the international
arena.)
- The congress of Vienna in 1815 was a gathering of major European powers to
restore stability after the fall of Napoleon. They formed a group of five nations
and sought to keep peace through diplomatic negotiations among themselves.
Part IV: Evolution of Collective security systems:
, - The League of Nations, established in 1919, aimed to create a collective security
system. However, it encountered difficulties like unfair representation among
member nations and lacked the authority to enforce its decisions.
- The United Nations, formed in 1945, was an improvement upon collective
security, boasting features such as the UN Security Council. However, it still had
shortcomings, including unequal representation and inefficiency in handling
crises.
Part V: key implications of realism:
- Realism says that countries are the main players in global affairs, and how they
act depends a lot on how much power they have compared to others. It means
that stronger countries can make their own rules and have more influence than
weaker ones, affecting how the world works. Realism highlights that the strength
of each country decides how much it can achieve and shape global events. It
also stresses that countries compete for security and goals because there’s no
higher authority to keep things in check.
- Anarchy in the international system means there’s no global referee to enforce
rules or settle fights between countries. Without a higher authority, countries are
unsure about each other’s intentions and actions. So, they focus on looking out
for themselves by building up their militaries or teaming up with others for
protection. Defensive actions taken by one state to enhance security can be
misunderstood as threats by others, sparking a cycle of mistrust known as the
security dilemma. This instability affects agreements and alliances as states
continuously strive to protect themselves against perceived threats.
(Tutorial content 2A)
Realism:
- Dominant approach during the Cold War
- Views the world as it is, cautious against idealist approaches
- Actors: the primary actors in international relations are sovereign nation-states
- Drivers: states are driven by the imperative of survival and the pursuit of power.
This leads to competition and conflict between states
- Cooperation: cooperation is possible but unstable, as states can never fully
trust each other. Conflict and war are inevitable in the long run
- Zero sum game: international relations is seen as a zero sum game, where one
state’s gain is another loss. (Since states cannot rely on others for security, they
are compelled to maximize their own power and influence relative to other
states. One state’s gain in power or security is seen as a threat to the others, as it
upsets the delicate balance of power. This leads to a competitive dynamic where
states are in constant rivalry with each other.)
- This zero sum mentality leads realists to be skeptical of the possibility of mutual
gains through cooperation. They believe that in the end, there can only be one
winner, and states must be willing to engage in conflict to protect their interests
and security.
Key assumptions:
, • Anarchy: the international system lacks a central authority to enforce rules or maintain
order. States exist in a self-help environment, where they must rely on their own
capabilities for security.
• State as the primary actor: Realists view states as the principal actors in international
relations, with their primary goal being the pursuit of power and security.
• Seeking power in an anarchic system: states prioritize survival and the accumulation
of power in a world where there is no higher authority to ensure their security.
• Hard power: the use of coercive force, typically military or economic, to influence the
behavior of other states and achieve one’s national interests.
• Self help: you can’t trust anyone so you have to help yourself (security dilemma)
Types of realism:
• Classical realism: emphasizes the role of human nature and the struggle for power as
fundamental aspects of international politics. Key figures include Thuydides,
Machiavelli, and Hans Morgenthau
• Neo-realism (structural realism): developed by Kenneth Waltz, neo-realism focuses on
the structure of the international system rather than individual state behavior. It can be
divided into offensive and defensive variants.
▪ Offensive realism: states seek hegemony or dominance to maximize security. It
suggests that states aim to become the most powerful to ensure their security.
However, when one state tries to increase its security, other states may see it as
a threat, leading to a cycle of competition and insecurity known as the security
dilemma.
▪ Defensive realism: suggests that states aim to maintain a balance of power for
security. They do this by building up their own capabilities (internal balancing)
and forming alliances (external balancing) to counter potential threats. However,
alliances are viewed as unreliable, so states ultimately rely on their own
resources.
• Neo-classical Realism:
Considers both internal and external factors. It looks at how politics, such as the
influence of political parties, interest groups, public opinion and decision making styles
of individual leaders. It considers how countries perceive threats and opportunities in
the international system, influenced by their history, culture, and strategic thinking.
Key figures: Robert Jervis, Stephen Walt
(Tutorial 2B)
Realist perspective:
Defensive:
- Russia felt threatened by NATO’s eastward expansion and the potential
inclusion of Ukraine, creating a security dilemma
- Russia aimed to establish a buffer zone by controlling Ukraine to balance against
Western power
, - Mearsheimer argues the west is responsible for provoking Russia by disregarding
its security concerns
Offensive:
- Russia seeks to become the regional hegemon and expand its sphere of
influence
- The invasion is an attempt to increase Russia’s relative military power (hard
power) in the region
- Cooperation with the west is unreliable, so Russia resorted to force to achieve its
goals
Constructivist
- Russia’s actions are shaped by its identity and how its views Ukraine a part of its
historical sphere of influence
- The legacy of the Cold War and the perceived threat from NATO influences
Russia’s worldview
- Putin’s personal convictions, values and aspirations for Russia to regain its
status as a great power, influence the decisions and actions of the Russian
government (Derzhavnost)
- Public sentiment in Russia, as well as how events are depicted by state-
controlled media, contribute to legitimising the war in the eyes of the Russian
population
Liberalism:
- Russia’s authoritarian regime lacks checks and balances, allowing Putin to
redirect domestic issues through foreign agression
- Wars are less likely between democracies, but Russia is not part of NATO or the
EU
- Despite the economic ties between Russia and the West, such as trade and
investment, these connections did not prevent conflict from occurring
a) Why did Russia invade Ukraine?
1. NATO expansion concerns
Russia has long opposed NATO’s enlargement towards its borders, viewing it as
a threat to its security and sphere of influence. The idea of Ukraine joining NATO
was seen as an unacceptable “red line” by Russia. Russia worried that if Ukraine
joined NATO, it might allow NATO to establish military bases and station troops
near Russia’s borders, posing a threat to Russia’s security.
2. Regime change in Ukraine
The 2014 Euromaidan protests in Ukraine led to the ousting of pro-Russian
president Viktor Yanukovych, which Russia perceived as a Western-backed
coup. (He rejected a proposed association agreements with the EU in favor of
closer ties with Russia > this decision sparked widespread public outrage and
led to mass protests against his government). This raised concerns in Moscow
about losing influence over Ukraine and the potential for a pro-Western, anti-
