International relations theory
Nieuws internationale politiek (meest belangrijke zaken) + discussies
= leerstof
Why international relations theory?
Theories make claims about the ontology of international politics = the
reality = “How does international politics actually work?”
(≠ Methodology, which deals with epistemology = “how do we know
about international politics?”)
Types of theories
Analytical
Offering an analytical framework
Offering definitions & concepts
Explanatory
Offering explanations for the observed phenomena
(Try to) make predictions
Many theories try to generalize across cases
Normative
Prescribing ‘wise’ policy
Ethical assessments
Some, not all, of our theories are active on the three dimensions
Each theory focuses on specific elements/dimensions as the
main causes (lenses)
Relevance of theories can vary across time and space
Theories offer insight into the motives of actors ( empathy, “to
understand” ≠ approving)
1. building blocks
Levels of analysis (in international politics)
Definition
= those spheres in social reality – from the individual, over the state, to
the international system – where causes for international political
phenomena are located
levels of analysis have explanatory value
vb cause WOII -> Hitler, ec crisis in Du,…
, Most schools of thought prioritize one or more levels of analysis
over others (more explanatory value)
Levels of analysis are:
Ontological phenomena: with their relative importance and
interrelations, they belong to the reality of international
politics.
Epistemological tools: to split a complex issue into
interrelated parts or dimensions studies can combine levels
of analysis, in line with the ontological reality of levels
Kenneth N. Waltz & levels of analysis
1959 book on Three Images (= levels of analysis):
1) Nature of humankind & individuals (he mixes up both)
2) the State
3) the International System
Reality is more complicated (not advisable to reduce LoA to this
three-tiered representation of LoA)
More correct list of LoA:
Human nature
Pessimistic and optimistic visions on human nature
o egoistic, power-thirsty, evil,… VS everyone born peaceful
Men VS women in charge of foreign policy? No statistical
difference
Very general
The individual
Personality and psychology
More specific than human nature -> more useful as LoA
The state
State model: democracy, autocracy, communist state,
capitalist state
History, sociology and culture of a state -> development of
strategic culture
Domestic institutions (vb does the president have powers to
make foreign policy decisions and even go to war without
consent of parliament)
The international system -> systemic theories:
Structural realism/neorealism (Waltz)
o International states system = anarchical (no
supranational government)
Structure: 1 or more great powers + smaller states
o Anarchy -> states can never trust each other -> self-
help for survival, sovereignity,… in every state
, o Macro VS micro-level international system
Macro-level: distribution (verdeling) of great
powers and other states + their respective
capabilities
Micro-level: concrete day-to-day interactions
between states
Geopolitics
o Impact of the geophysical situation of countries on
foreign policy making and international politics (vb
Russia’s obsession with buffer zones and acces to the
world seas througt ice-free ports)
World-systems analysis
o In the Marxist tradition (Wallerstein) -> analyzes the pol
and ec fates of countries,… in the context of the
capitalist world-system
The second image reversed (Gourevitch)
o The way developments in the international system shape
the nature of states -> how does the society, pol ec of
states adapt to external pressures in order to survive?
(vb Japan meiji restauratie tegen imperialisten)
o Between state and international system
Two-level game (Putnam)
o Combination of state and international system
o 2 levels:
Level I: multilateral forums where states
negotiate (vb UN)
Level II: domestic arena where govermental and
other actors and institutios compete over ‘the
national position’ to be defended at level I (=
approval at home)
Win-set = possible deals at level I that can
receive approval at home (level II)
-> international agreement only possible
when there is some overlap betweens
countries’ win-sets
o Interactions between the levels
governments with much domestic power (level II)
have a weaker postion at the international
negotiating table (level I) because they have a
broader win-set (and vice versa)
The world society
Importance of transnational interaction and organization of
non-state actors such as companies, non-governmental
, organizations, international governmental organizations +
deepening ec and soc interdependence of states complex
interdependence
Polycentrism: power is spread over governments, but also
powerful non-state actors (banks,
intergovernmental/supranational institutions,…)
New medievalism: erosion of the westphalian state system
in which states increasingly have to share pol relevance and
authority with cities, regional organizations like EU,…
Diplomatic and institutional processes
Does the mere quality of diplomacy, or the choice for and
nature of specific institutional processes make any difference?
o vb does it matter if the response to the covid crisis is
coordinated throug rules-based multilateral institutions
like the UN or through the smaller G20, or not
coordinated at all?
The discursive structure
Our political debate is characterized by competing
discourses, which include narratives and framings
together they constitute the discursive structure
o hierarchy between more or less powerful discourses ->
the powerful discourses gain more traction among elites
and the public opinion + mostly shared and propagated
by powerful actors (vb governments and media)
Sometimes a discourse can become hegemonic/dominant
(see Gramsci) -> competing discourses are marginalized
Discourses empower and disempower certain actors and
ideas -> an actor whose interests are in line with the most
influential discourses, is in a stronger position/more powerfull
than others
Therefore discursive structure = a level of analysis + part of
the ontological reality -> because no other level of analysis
captures the redistribution of power through discourses
The totality and history of the (social) reality
Studying global history is not new -> but post-1950 evolutions
made it more equal and inclusive
o World scale, past and future -> across time and space
Eg. Ethnonationalism as reaction to global historical processes
such as colonialism
Class discussion
Explain the 24 February 2022 Russian invasion into Ukraine based
on levels of analysis
Nieuws internationale politiek (meest belangrijke zaken) + discussies
= leerstof
Why international relations theory?
Theories make claims about the ontology of international politics = the
reality = “How does international politics actually work?”
(≠ Methodology, which deals with epistemology = “how do we know
about international politics?”)
Types of theories
Analytical
Offering an analytical framework
Offering definitions & concepts
Explanatory
Offering explanations for the observed phenomena
(Try to) make predictions
Many theories try to generalize across cases
Normative
Prescribing ‘wise’ policy
Ethical assessments
Some, not all, of our theories are active on the three dimensions
Each theory focuses on specific elements/dimensions as the
main causes (lenses)
Relevance of theories can vary across time and space
Theories offer insight into the motives of actors ( empathy, “to
understand” ≠ approving)
1. building blocks
Levels of analysis (in international politics)
Definition
= those spheres in social reality – from the individual, over the state, to
the international system – where causes for international political
phenomena are located
levels of analysis have explanatory value
vb cause WOII -> Hitler, ec crisis in Du,…
, Most schools of thought prioritize one or more levels of analysis
over others (more explanatory value)
Levels of analysis are:
Ontological phenomena: with their relative importance and
interrelations, they belong to the reality of international
politics.
Epistemological tools: to split a complex issue into
interrelated parts or dimensions studies can combine levels
of analysis, in line with the ontological reality of levels
Kenneth N. Waltz & levels of analysis
1959 book on Three Images (= levels of analysis):
1) Nature of humankind & individuals (he mixes up both)
2) the State
3) the International System
Reality is more complicated (not advisable to reduce LoA to this
three-tiered representation of LoA)
More correct list of LoA:
Human nature
Pessimistic and optimistic visions on human nature
o egoistic, power-thirsty, evil,… VS everyone born peaceful
Men VS women in charge of foreign policy? No statistical
difference
Very general
The individual
Personality and psychology
More specific than human nature -> more useful as LoA
The state
State model: democracy, autocracy, communist state,
capitalist state
History, sociology and culture of a state -> development of
strategic culture
Domestic institutions (vb does the president have powers to
make foreign policy decisions and even go to war without
consent of parliament)
The international system -> systemic theories:
Structural realism/neorealism (Waltz)
o International states system = anarchical (no
supranational government)
Structure: 1 or more great powers + smaller states
o Anarchy -> states can never trust each other -> self-
help for survival, sovereignity,… in every state
, o Macro VS micro-level international system
Macro-level: distribution (verdeling) of great
powers and other states + their respective
capabilities
Micro-level: concrete day-to-day interactions
between states
Geopolitics
o Impact of the geophysical situation of countries on
foreign policy making and international politics (vb
Russia’s obsession with buffer zones and acces to the
world seas througt ice-free ports)
World-systems analysis
o In the Marxist tradition (Wallerstein) -> analyzes the pol
and ec fates of countries,… in the context of the
capitalist world-system
The second image reversed (Gourevitch)
o The way developments in the international system shape
the nature of states -> how does the society, pol ec of
states adapt to external pressures in order to survive?
(vb Japan meiji restauratie tegen imperialisten)
o Between state and international system
Two-level game (Putnam)
o Combination of state and international system
o 2 levels:
Level I: multilateral forums where states
negotiate (vb UN)
Level II: domestic arena where govermental and
other actors and institutios compete over ‘the
national position’ to be defended at level I (=
approval at home)
Win-set = possible deals at level I that can
receive approval at home (level II)
-> international agreement only possible
when there is some overlap betweens
countries’ win-sets
o Interactions between the levels
governments with much domestic power (level II)
have a weaker postion at the international
negotiating table (level I) because they have a
broader win-set (and vice versa)
The world society
Importance of transnational interaction and organization of
non-state actors such as companies, non-governmental
, organizations, international governmental organizations +
deepening ec and soc interdependence of states complex
interdependence
Polycentrism: power is spread over governments, but also
powerful non-state actors (banks,
intergovernmental/supranational institutions,…)
New medievalism: erosion of the westphalian state system
in which states increasingly have to share pol relevance and
authority with cities, regional organizations like EU,…
Diplomatic and institutional processes
Does the mere quality of diplomacy, or the choice for and
nature of specific institutional processes make any difference?
o vb does it matter if the response to the covid crisis is
coordinated throug rules-based multilateral institutions
like the UN or through the smaller G20, or not
coordinated at all?
The discursive structure
Our political debate is characterized by competing
discourses, which include narratives and framings
together they constitute the discursive structure
o hierarchy between more or less powerful discourses ->
the powerful discourses gain more traction among elites
and the public opinion + mostly shared and propagated
by powerful actors (vb governments and media)
Sometimes a discourse can become hegemonic/dominant
(see Gramsci) -> competing discourses are marginalized
Discourses empower and disempower certain actors and
ideas -> an actor whose interests are in line with the most
influential discourses, is in a stronger position/more powerfull
than others
Therefore discursive structure = a level of analysis + part of
the ontological reality -> because no other level of analysis
captures the redistribution of power through discourses
The totality and history of the (social) reality
Studying global history is not new -> but post-1950 evolutions
made it more equal and inclusive
o World scale, past and future -> across time and space
Eg. Ethnonationalism as reaction to global historical processes
such as colonialism
Class discussion
Explain the 24 February 2022 Russian invasion into Ukraine based
on levels of analysis
