THE LIBERAL VIEW: THE KANTIAN TRADITION
- International relations -> relations of trans-national social bonds that link individual
human beings
- Dominant theme: relationship b/w members of mankind
- Interests of all men one and the same: maintain peace, help development
- Conflicts of interest exist, but only at superficial level of states
o If we find the common ground, we can overrun the conflict of interests of
states and follow the wishes of the citizens
o Most conflicts evolved due to state interests and nationalistic state policies
o To find peace (Kantian), we need to create/find common ground of mankind;
use common interests to create moral principles that will save us from
international conflicts
▪ Majority of individuals overrule the wishes/interests of the state
- Moral imperatives limiting action of states
- Imperatives overthrow system of states, replaces with cosmopolitan society
- Rules that sustain coexistence, social intercourse among states should be ignores I
the imperatives of this higher morality require it
- Three approaches to explain the international system:
1. international system not a structure but a process
▪ in the process multiple interactions occur among different parties
(never-ending process)
▪ actors learn from the interactions
▪ Actors: states, international gov’tal organizations, non-governmental
organizations, multinational corporations, subnational actors (local
gov’ts, individuals)
▪ Each diff. type of actor -> interactions with all the others
▪ Diversity of actors characterizes liberal int’l system
▪ National interests: security, economic, social, environmental,
humanitarian issues
▪ International system – interdependent system, in which different actors
both sensitive and vulnerable to actions of others
● Cooperation, not conflict
2. International system not a political structure but an international society:
▪ Individuals also integrated part of the international system
▪ Actors frequently interact with each other, and to help these
interactions they create specific organizations and regulations
▪ Members of the int’l society share common identities
, ▪ Normative implications: liberals view the int’l system as an
arena/process for positive interactions
3. Neoliberal institutionalism: international system is anarchic; states follow
self-interests
▪ Institutions make orders; they are developed and recognized by all
members of the international society
▪ Institutions created out of self-interest, moderate state behavior
THE RADICAL VIEW
- International system highly stratified, hierarchical due to uneven distribution of
available resources
- Analyzes economy and not political structures
- Actors in international system divided into exploiters and exploited
- Control and stability:
o System can become unstable if something blocked developed countries to
exploit resources
▪ E.g. causes of world wars
▪ Colonial powers and conflict between colonial powers when staking
colonies
o System can become unstable if powers seek to gain more and more
resources
▪ Conflicts around geopolitical fault lines
o Reason for hierarchy: capitalism
THE CONSTRUCTIVIST VIEW
- International actors are units of the same system
o System (with state and individual levels) are influenced by norms that people
and society follow
o If we want to understand international interactions/events, we need to
understand first the norms, societies that create these (international) norms
o System is anarchic; however, anarchy is what states make out of it
o System can become unstable when society changes its norms
o However, norms constantly changes so the system is always constantly
changing
▪ Does not make system constantly unstable, but more of a continuous
process like the liberalist view
- Marthe Finnemore, 4 types of international system:
o System based on balance of power (18th century)
o Based
- International relations -> relations of trans-national social bonds that link individual
human beings
- Dominant theme: relationship b/w members of mankind
- Interests of all men one and the same: maintain peace, help development
- Conflicts of interest exist, but only at superficial level of states
o If we find the common ground, we can overrun the conflict of interests of
states and follow the wishes of the citizens
o Most conflicts evolved due to state interests and nationalistic state policies
o To find peace (Kantian), we need to create/find common ground of mankind;
use common interests to create moral principles that will save us from
international conflicts
▪ Majority of individuals overrule the wishes/interests of the state
- Moral imperatives limiting action of states
- Imperatives overthrow system of states, replaces with cosmopolitan society
- Rules that sustain coexistence, social intercourse among states should be ignores I
the imperatives of this higher morality require it
- Three approaches to explain the international system:
1. international system not a structure but a process
▪ in the process multiple interactions occur among different parties
(never-ending process)
▪ actors learn from the interactions
▪ Actors: states, international gov’tal organizations, non-governmental
organizations, multinational corporations, subnational actors (local
gov’ts, individuals)
▪ Each diff. type of actor -> interactions with all the others
▪ Diversity of actors characterizes liberal int’l system
▪ National interests: security, economic, social, environmental,
humanitarian issues
▪ International system – interdependent system, in which different actors
both sensitive and vulnerable to actions of others
● Cooperation, not conflict
2. International system not a political structure but an international society:
▪ Individuals also integrated part of the international system
▪ Actors frequently interact with each other, and to help these
interactions they create specific organizations and regulations
▪ Members of the int’l society share common identities
, ▪ Normative implications: liberals view the int’l system as an
arena/process for positive interactions
3. Neoliberal institutionalism: international system is anarchic; states follow
self-interests
▪ Institutions make orders; they are developed and recognized by all
members of the international society
▪ Institutions created out of self-interest, moderate state behavior
THE RADICAL VIEW
- International system highly stratified, hierarchical due to uneven distribution of
available resources
- Analyzes economy and not political structures
- Actors in international system divided into exploiters and exploited
- Control and stability:
o System can become unstable if something blocked developed countries to
exploit resources
▪ E.g. causes of world wars
▪ Colonial powers and conflict between colonial powers when staking
colonies
o System can become unstable if powers seek to gain more and more
resources
▪ Conflicts around geopolitical fault lines
o Reason for hierarchy: capitalism
THE CONSTRUCTIVIST VIEW
- International actors are units of the same system
o System (with state and individual levels) are influenced by norms that people
and society follow
o If we want to understand international interactions/events, we need to
understand first the norms, societies that create these (international) norms
o System is anarchic; however, anarchy is what states make out of it
o System can become unstable when society changes its norms
o However, norms constantly changes so the system is always constantly
changing
▪ Does not make system constantly unstable, but more of a continuous
process like the liberalist view
- Marthe Finnemore, 4 types of international system:
o System based on balance of power (18th century)
o Based
