Core Module International Relations lecture notes
Lecture 1
Introduction
International Relations
- As power relations among nation-states in the international system
• Power decline of USA
• Rise of China and India
• International order (UN, WTO)
- As international conflict, war, violence and physical security
• War in Ukraine and Palestine
• Threat of war between China and USA
- As international political economy
• Trade, money, migration, etc.
- As more complicated cross-border interaction
• Emergence of the Netherlands and breaking up of the HRE
• Germany meddling with Russian politics during WW1 (Lenin)
• Wagner group fighting in civil wars in Africa
• European Union meddling with Hungarian politics
IR as Multi-level Global Politics
- Subnational politics
• Neighbourhoods
• Cities
• Provinces
• E.g. crime in Amsterdam
- National politics
• Countries/sovereign nation-states
• E.g. Dutch elections
- International politics
• Relations between sovereign nation-states
• E.g. international conflict and cooperation (BRICS, NATO, trade, war)
- Regional politics
• Relations between sovereign nation-states in a region
• E.g. international conflict and cooperation in Europe, NAFTA or Arab League
- Supranational politics
• Relations between actors who are not sovereign nation-states
• E.g. MNC-led globalization → corporations, terrorist networks (ISIS)
Explore theoretical and empirical controversies/debates in IR
- Exploring debates means focusing on a particular question (or few key questions) to
which we see different, competing answers
- We explore questions and their competing answers, rather than ‘merely’ looking at key
‘perspectives’ that often combine, in untransparent ways, answers to multiple questions
(or dimensions)
- Kinds of debates
• Descriptive
• Explanatory
• Normative
, - Depth/breadth of debates
• ‘Mid-level’ debates: Context- and problem-specific, partly resolvable through
empirical research
• Perennial debates: All-encompassing, ‘paradigmatic’, difficult-to-resolve through
empirics (i.e. realism versus liberalism versus marxism)
Explore a framework for understanding Multi-level Global Politics
1. Which levels are where the action is? (national, supranational, etc.)
2. How do levels influence one another?’
3. How do political actors seek goals at one level by taking action at another level?
- E.g. Germany sending Lenin to Russia to destabilize Russia (national), which improves
their chances of winning the war (international)
- This framework moves beyond ‘methodological nationalism’, avoids Western-centrism
and recognizes equal normative value and agency for everyone
- Amitav Acharya’s (2014) inclusive six-part ‘Global IR’…
1. …founded upon a pluralistic universalism: not “applying to all,” but recognizing and
respecting the diversity in us.
2. … grounded in world history, not just Greco- Roman, European, or US history.
3. …subsumes, rather than supplants, existing IR theories and methods.
4. …integrates the study of regions, regionalisms, and area studies.
5. …eschews exceptionalism.
6. …sees multiple forms of agency beyond material power (e.g. resistance, normative
action, local constructions of global order).
Four skills to answer questions about global politics
1. Argument-mapping
2. Connection-seeing
3. Empirical testing
4. Being courageously curious
Lecture 2
Debate 1: What is the role of power in IR? (Realism vs. Idealism)
IR Theory and the perennial debates
Why these debates?
- They informed IR thinking for decades
- They are focused on one key dimension or question about IR
- They are salient and unresolved
Two views on the role of power
Idealism Realism
Role of power and Not usually main or only cause Most important cause shaping
power-seeking in IR shaping motivations and motivations and outcomes. Power
politics outcomes. Power co-determined mainly deter mined by material
by material and non material conditions (e.g. geography, guns,
conditions (e.g. also ideas, technology)
diplomacy, institutions,
practices)
, Goals of IR analysis Often(but not only) normative: To More narrowly ‘positive’ empirical:
visualize, and identify path To reveal what actually
towards peace, democracy, etc. occurs/exists, and why.
‘Makeability’/ Emphasis on makeability/agency Emphasis on political constraint
agency
(Maakbaarheid)
Unit of analysis Individuals, groups, nations, Sovereign nation-states and the
international organizations international system
Interests of states Fundamental harmony of Unresolvable clashing of interests
interests; Conflict avoidable (zero-sum games); Conflict
unavoidable
International Order Meaningful international order Anarchy, absence of supranational
due to global institutions and authority to make and enforce
norms decisions (norms and institutions
unimportant)
Causes of war Undemocratic government; Natural antagonism between
irrational or evil leaders; states under anarchy (striving for
nationalism, feudalism, survival/hegemony, where
militarism, etc. uncertain power conditions are
dangerous)
Political Spread rule of law and human Establish stable and transparent
recommendation rights; create IGOs; foster power equilibrium; concentrate on
democracy, education and limited, ‘vital national interests’
consciousness raising
Relationship Foreign policies strongly Foreign policies mainly shaped by
between domestic influenced by domestic politics state’s position in the international
and international (e.g. democratic versus non- system (less by domestic factors)
politics democratic; character of
economy)
Historical torch- Erasmus, Kant, Bentham, Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes,
bearers Grotius, Wilson, Gandhi, Wendt, Rousseau, Churchill, Mearsheimer,
Von der Leyen (?) Waltz, Kissinger (?)
Contemporary Realism
“Primacy of power”
- All realists agree that power considerations are the most important force in IR….
- But they differ over which drivers at which ‘level of analysis’ underlie such primacy of
power:
• Is it human nature (‘man’)?:
o Humans seen as violent, power-seeking animals or social creatures
(Machiavelli, Niebuhr, Morgenthau, Konrad Lorenz)
• Is it the nation-state (‘the state’)?:
o Power and its influence is function of nation-states themselves (sovereignty,
but also authoritarian rule, offensive doctrine) (Walt, Van Evera)
• Is it the international system?:
o Anarchy (the absence of supranational authority) constrains all states in the
international system to rely on ‘self-help’ for security (through power).
(Thucydides, Waltz, Mearsheimer, Posen)
, Realism’s Power Balancing (not bandwagoning)
- ‘Power-bandwagoning’ entails acceding to, allying with and/or succumbing to the
(increasing) power of other states.
• Realists see such a response to the power of other states as a potentially reasonable
path to self-defence.
- However, realists expect that ‘power-bandwagoning’ is unlikely, emerging under only rare
conditions…
• e.g. Very small/weak states relative to very powerful neighbours (e.g. Luxembourg;
Canada; Belarus; Georgia?; Moldova?; Hungary?).
- Realists expect that the much more common power related driver of IR to be the
opposite: ‘Power-balancing’.
- ‘Power-balancing’: balancing against the (increasing or decreasing) power of other
states– through internal balancing (develop one’s own army) or external balancing
(develop alliances with other states).
• Different realists conceptualize such balancing in varying ways:
o Offensive realism (e.g. power-maximizing) versus
o Defensive realism (e.g. power-balancing)
o Normative (‘power balancing should be pursued’) versus
o Positive (‘power balancing occurs naturally, almost always’)
o Unit-driven realism (‘power balancing as human-instinct or state-necessity’)
versus
o Structural realism (‘power balancing as response to anarchy of system’)
- Power-balancing is seen as nearly universal among states.
• Not just between ideological/economic opponents or rivals, but also between
‘friends’ that share norms/institutions/history.
o (e.g. 20th -century France and Great Britain)
• Not just among old-fashioned Great Powers or militarist nation states but also
among more ideologically-oriented, ‘post realpolitik’ countries.
o (e.g. Soviet Union after 1917; USA in the 19th century and possible ‘American
Exceptionalism’?).
- Power-balancing creates a ‘Security dilemma’.
• Security dilemma: Attempts to shore-up one’s own security can undermine the
perceived security of others, who then take action to improve their own security.
(Herz 1950; Jervis 1977)
o This dilemma emerges naturally through the power-balancing intrinsic to IR
(e.g. self-help under anarchy).
o But the dilemma is worse with miscalculation, overreaction, uncertainty and
offensive-oriented doctrines and military technology…
o …whereby tit-for-tat insecurity spirals emerge (arms races, war, etc.)
o e.g.:
▪ Pre-WWI: ‘battleship gap’, ‘guns of August’ outbreak of WWI
▪ Cold War: ‘bomber gap’ of the 1950s, ‘missile gap’ of the 1960s
▪ Post-Cold War: NATO expansion and war in Ukraine?; ‘sabre-rattling’
between China-US in South China Sea today.
Realism and War
- War is natural, (almost) unavoidable artifact of anarchy, via power-balancing and the
security dilemma.
Lecture 1
Introduction
International Relations
- As power relations among nation-states in the international system
• Power decline of USA
• Rise of China and India
• International order (UN, WTO)
- As international conflict, war, violence and physical security
• War in Ukraine and Palestine
• Threat of war between China and USA
- As international political economy
• Trade, money, migration, etc.
- As more complicated cross-border interaction
• Emergence of the Netherlands and breaking up of the HRE
• Germany meddling with Russian politics during WW1 (Lenin)
• Wagner group fighting in civil wars in Africa
• European Union meddling with Hungarian politics
IR as Multi-level Global Politics
- Subnational politics
• Neighbourhoods
• Cities
• Provinces
• E.g. crime in Amsterdam
- National politics
• Countries/sovereign nation-states
• E.g. Dutch elections
- International politics
• Relations between sovereign nation-states
• E.g. international conflict and cooperation (BRICS, NATO, trade, war)
- Regional politics
• Relations between sovereign nation-states in a region
• E.g. international conflict and cooperation in Europe, NAFTA or Arab League
- Supranational politics
• Relations between actors who are not sovereign nation-states
• E.g. MNC-led globalization → corporations, terrorist networks (ISIS)
Explore theoretical and empirical controversies/debates in IR
- Exploring debates means focusing on a particular question (or few key questions) to
which we see different, competing answers
- We explore questions and their competing answers, rather than ‘merely’ looking at key
‘perspectives’ that often combine, in untransparent ways, answers to multiple questions
(or dimensions)
- Kinds of debates
• Descriptive
• Explanatory
• Normative
, - Depth/breadth of debates
• ‘Mid-level’ debates: Context- and problem-specific, partly resolvable through
empirical research
• Perennial debates: All-encompassing, ‘paradigmatic’, difficult-to-resolve through
empirics (i.e. realism versus liberalism versus marxism)
Explore a framework for understanding Multi-level Global Politics
1. Which levels are where the action is? (national, supranational, etc.)
2. How do levels influence one another?’
3. How do political actors seek goals at one level by taking action at another level?
- E.g. Germany sending Lenin to Russia to destabilize Russia (national), which improves
their chances of winning the war (international)
- This framework moves beyond ‘methodological nationalism’, avoids Western-centrism
and recognizes equal normative value and agency for everyone
- Amitav Acharya’s (2014) inclusive six-part ‘Global IR’…
1. …founded upon a pluralistic universalism: not “applying to all,” but recognizing and
respecting the diversity in us.
2. … grounded in world history, not just Greco- Roman, European, or US history.
3. …subsumes, rather than supplants, existing IR theories and methods.
4. …integrates the study of regions, regionalisms, and area studies.
5. …eschews exceptionalism.
6. …sees multiple forms of agency beyond material power (e.g. resistance, normative
action, local constructions of global order).
Four skills to answer questions about global politics
1. Argument-mapping
2. Connection-seeing
3. Empirical testing
4. Being courageously curious
Lecture 2
Debate 1: What is the role of power in IR? (Realism vs. Idealism)
IR Theory and the perennial debates
Why these debates?
- They informed IR thinking for decades
- They are focused on one key dimension or question about IR
- They are salient and unresolved
Two views on the role of power
Idealism Realism
Role of power and Not usually main or only cause Most important cause shaping
power-seeking in IR shaping motivations and motivations and outcomes. Power
politics outcomes. Power co-determined mainly deter mined by material
by material and non material conditions (e.g. geography, guns,
conditions (e.g. also ideas, technology)
diplomacy, institutions,
practices)
, Goals of IR analysis Often(but not only) normative: To More narrowly ‘positive’ empirical:
visualize, and identify path To reveal what actually
towards peace, democracy, etc. occurs/exists, and why.
‘Makeability’/ Emphasis on makeability/agency Emphasis on political constraint
agency
(Maakbaarheid)
Unit of analysis Individuals, groups, nations, Sovereign nation-states and the
international organizations international system
Interests of states Fundamental harmony of Unresolvable clashing of interests
interests; Conflict avoidable (zero-sum games); Conflict
unavoidable
International Order Meaningful international order Anarchy, absence of supranational
due to global institutions and authority to make and enforce
norms decisions (norms and institutions
unimportant)
Causes of war Undemocratic government; Natural antagonism between
irrational or evil leaders; states under anarchy (striving for
nationalism, feudalism, survival/hegemony, where
militarism, etc. uncertain power conditions are
dangerous)
Political Spread rule of law and human Establish stable and transparent
recommendation rights; create IGOs; foster power equilibrium; concentrate on
democracy, education and limited, ‘vital national interests’
consciousness raising
Relationship Foreign policies strongly Foreign policies mainly shaped by
between domestic influenced by domestic politics state’s position in the international
and international (e.g. democratic versus non- system (less by domestic factors)
politics democratic; character of
economy)
Historical torch- Erasmus, Kant, Bentham, Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes,
bearers Grotius, Wilson, Gandhi, Wendt, Rousseau, Churchill, Mearsheimer,
Von der Leyen (?) Waltz, Kissinger (?)
Contemporary Realism
“Primacy of power”
- All realists agree that power considerations are the most important force in IR….
- But they differ over which drivers at which ‘level of analysis’ underlie such primacy of
power:
• Is it human nature (‘man’)?:
o Humans seen as violent, power-seeking animals or social creatures
(Machiavelli, Niebuhr, Morgenthau, Konrad Lorenz)
• Is it the nation-state (‘the state’)?:
o Power and its influence is function of nation-states themselves (sovereignty,
but also authoritarian rule, offensive doctrine) (Walt, Van Evera)
• Is it the international system?:
o Anarchy (the absence of supranational authority) constrains all states in the
international system to rely on ‘self-help’ for security (through power).
(Thucydides, Waltz, Mearsheimer, Posen)
, Realism’s Power Balancing (not bandwagoning)
- ‘Power-bandwagoning’ entails acceding to, allying with and/or succumbing to the
(increasing) power of other states.
• Realists see such a response to the power of other states as a potentially reasonable
path to self-defence.
- However, realists expect that ‘power-bandwagoning’ is unlikely, emerging under only rare
conditions…
• e.g. Very small/weak states relative to very powerful neighbours (e.g. Luxembourg;
Canada; Belarus; Georgia?; Moldova?; Hungary?).
- Realists expect that the much more common power related driver of IR to be the
opposite: ‘Power-balancing’.
- ‘Power-balancing’: balancing against the (increasing or decreasing) power of other
states– through internal balancing (develop one’s own army) or external balancing
(develop alliances with other states).
• Different realists conceptualize such balancing in varying ways:
o Offensive realism (e.g. power-maximizing) versus
o Defensive realism (e.g. power-balancing)
o Normative (‘power balancing should be pursued’) versus
o Positive (‘power balancing occurs naturally, almost always’)
o Unit-driven realism (‘power balancing as human-instinct or state-necessity’)
versus
o Structural realism (‘power balancing as response to anarchy of system’)
- Power-balancing is seen as nearly universal among states.
• Not just between ideological/economic opponents or rivals, but also between
‘friends’ that share norms/institutions/history.
o (e.g. 20th -century France and Great Britain)
• Not just among old-fashioned Great Powers or militarist nation states but also
among more ideologically-oriented, ‘post realpolitik’ countries.
o (e.g. Soviet Union after 1917; USA in the 19th century and possible ‘American
Exceptionalism’?).
- Power-balancing creates a ‘Security dilemma’.
• Security dilemma: Attempts to shore-up one’s own security can undermine the
perceived security of others, who then take action to improve their own security.
(Herz 1950; Jervis 1977)
o This dilemma emerges naturally through the power-balancing intrinsic to IR
(e.g. self-help under anarchy).
o But the dilemma is worse with miscalculation, overreaction, uncertainty and
offensive-oriented doctrines and military technology…
o …whereby tit-for-tat insecurity spirals emerge (arms races, war, etc.)
o e.g.:
▪ Pre-WWI: ‘battleship gap’, ‘guns of August’ outbreak of WWI
▪ Cold War: ‘bomber gap’ of the 1950s, ‘missile gap’ of the 1960s
▪ Post-Cold War: NATO expansion and war in Ukraine?; ‘sabre-rattling’
between China-US in South China Sea today.
Realism and War
- War is natural, (almost) unavoidable artifact of anarchy, via power-balancing and the
security dilemma.
