Anne-Claire Chaugny

International Relations Theory exam topics 2019

1. Realism: representatives, key assumptions, strengths and weaknesses.

Representatives:
Sun Tzu (Ancient China)
Machiavelli (Medieval Italy)
Thomas Hobbes (civil war torn England)
Hans J. Morgenthau (US 1950s)

Thucydides (400 BC)

- Justice only exists between equals

Machiavelli (16th Cent)

- Argued in The Prince
- Its far better to be feared than loved

Hobbes (1651)
- Men are equal
o Bad: possibility of military conflict
- Submit to central authority as without it, man is in a state of war (no peace)

Key assumptions:
States, Survival, Self-help

Egoistic and Self-interested

• = Becomes a moral principle
• Thus, morality has no relevance as unitary actor each move towards they own
national interests
• Humans are ‘bad’
• Morgenthau - man always seeks power
Anne-Claire Chaugny
• thus, politics is governed by objective rules
• military conflicts are thus explained by this egoistic nature of people
• e.g. US approval to Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor during the 1975-1999
periods:
- President Ford and Kissinger gave support to the Indonesian President,
Suharto and agreed to supply with arsenal needed
- US is one of 5 permanent members of UN (roots itself on liberalism and for
peace) BUT failed to approach this situation liberally
• It only tok into consideration absolute gain it will accomplish from invasion
(financial, plus would have another ally in Eastern Asia which is growing)

International system is defined by anarchy

• Because of the absence of central supranational authority, stated behave in a
bad way, due to the fact that they are influenced by anarchy
- BUT we have the UN - e.g. Korean War in 1950: UN launched an
offence against the North Korean and Chinese allies
- BUT on the other hand, not all states respect the charter, security
council principles etc. - e.g. Indi-Pakistani conflict
Because anarchy is at the international level, states revert to ‘state of nature’ and
act in their own self-interest….

International organisations and laws have no power or force

• Because sovereign states are the principal and most important actors
- legitimate
- rational
- constitutive
• Thus, realism ignore NGOs because believes that only states have legitimacy to
use use military power, have an army
- e.g.
- UN doesn’t have an army
• Organisations only exist if states accept them
• Modern realists believe that issued of hard security can only be covered by
states as their main priority is to deal with international and internal
conflicts, security etc, without states, all these initiatives fail
Anne-Claire Chaugny
Not only sovereign states v institutions, but also Great Powers v Regional states
• View of history is conflictual
• View of world politics as history of great power war
• Done by powerful states
• Smaller states cant have an impact
• Thus, no positive progress because it will only be wars between great powers
• In such a dangerous world, it is the Great Powers that are decisive
- They can only impact the dynamics of IR
- BUT also, regional and emerging powers - e.g.

Power is a central concept of IR

• Pursuit for power (e.g. boost arsenal, strong economy, development of science
etc)
• Relative gains are more important than absolute - Always seek to maximise
their power relative to other
• Because the stronger you are, the less vulnerable you are = guarantees security
• ‘zero-sum’ game
• = Thus true cooperation between states is unlikely
• Consent competition = irrational behaviour = conflicts
- E.g. US violated the rules of the system by initiating the conflict in
Vietnam

This leads to the idea of Balance of power as the only way to stabilise the
system
• Balance of power is the main regulator
• Failure to balance = war
• But today’s multiplicity is very asymmetric their goals etc. are different
• Bipolarity = more stability as the balancing is more effective and predictable
- Two superpowers would always balance each other
- Based in the nuclear weapons - they are good
- Only became bad in Cuba - thats why proxy wars

The national interest of states is survival and security

• There is no guarantee of security in an anarchic world = pursue survival
• Classical realism: states are inherently aggressive
Anne-Claire Chaugny
• Neoreaslim: states only interested in existence
• e.g. 2003 Iraq war - US invade
• No clearly specified reasons
• To disarm Saddam of WMDs?
• After the revelation that Iraq had no WMDs, Saddam suddenly became a
‘dictator’ and the invasion was for the spread of ‘democracy’
• = clearly exemplifies the issue of survival and egoism
• The state here is in fear that the opposing state is challenging it, and so it
must be dealt with.
• Also interests in the region regarding the oil that Iraq possessed and so it
can also be argued it was an issue of absolute gain rather than one of
power and fear of opposition
• Thus, nuclear weapons are a good thing
- e.g. Obama’s ‘Nuclear Zero’

Strength:
yes, they are egoistic
yes, international institutions are dying
e.g. LoN failed, UN is being criticised, EU

Weaknesses:
A reliance on a preoccupation with the Great Power relations.
• State is the most important factor, but this is to perceive the state is a monolithic,
unchanging entity. This is troublesome
• e.g. Middle East states as they are by and large the result of foreign domination, and are
struggling with the legacy of imperialism.
• It is also limited when conceptualising the state, as it does not account for agency. It does
not take into consideration the internal factors that effect state behaviour.
• e.g. the decline of pan Arabism undoubtedly contributed to the movement towards Arab-
Israeli peace. The rise of transnational Islamist politics helps explain the Iraq-Iran war and
alignment behaviour in the region more generally since the Iranian revolution
• Regional powers are involved - e.g. in proxy wars such as the Syrian Civil War

1. NeoRealism: representatives, key assumptions, strengths and weaknesses.

Representatives:
It was first outlined by Kenneth Waltz in his 1979 book ‘Theory of International
Politics.’
Anne-Claire Chaugny
Waltz criticizes his predecessors for failing to create a theory of interethnic
politics as an autonomous discipline.

Key assumptions:
• Neorealism or structural realism is a theory of international relations that says
power is the most important factor in international relations.
• Neorealism is an ideological departure from Hans Morgenthau's writing on
classical realism than originally explained the machinations of international
politics as being based on human nature, and therefore subject to the ego
and emotion of world leaders.
• Neorealists instead propose that structural constraints—not strategy, egoism, or
motivation—will determine behavior in international relations.

Structure of International System and anarchy is what determines states’

behaviour
• Not human behaviour (classical) but rather the systematic nature of the whole
world that defined international politics
• Thus, human nature based explanations should be dismissed
• Behaviour also determined by the environment
- The characteristics of states (democracy v non-democracies etc) are NOT
important, as all states seek the survival under anarchy

Anarchy is not just absence of authority but….

• Also the presence of chaos and disorder
• It is an order in itself
• = Each state is in a pursuit of personal gain and its actions

This leads to the idea of Balance of power as the only way to stabilise the
system
• Balance of power is the main regulator
• Failure to balance = war
• But today’s multiplicity is very asymmetric their goals etc. are different
• Bipolarity = more stability as the balancing is more effective and predictable
- Two superpowers would always balance each other
- Based in the nuclear weapons - they are good
- Only became bad in Cuba - thats why proxy wars
Anne-Claire Chaugny

Power is a central concept of IR = they aren’t rational

• Pursuit for power (e.g. boost arsenal, strong economy, development of science
etc)
• Relative gains are more important than absolute - Always seek to maximise
their power relative to other
• Because the stronger you are, the less vulnerable you are = guarantees security
• ‘zero-sum’ game
• = Thus true cooperation between states is unlikely
• consent competition = irrational behaviour = conflicts emerge
- E.g. US violated the rules of the system by initiating the conflict in
Vietnam

BUT MAIN DIFFERENCE WITH CLASSICAL REALISM IS THAT

• Security is a more important goal than power
• If anyone tries to increase their power too much, fails
• e.g. Napoleon and Hitler: too big of an ambition to create an empire = failed

Thus, states are mostly defensive in nature

• For many years, neorealism was existing only way - defensive realism because
Kenneth Waltz argue that too much power is bad, you should have enough
power in order to assure your national defence, if you want to maximise the
power all the time you will face the destiny of Hitler and Napoleon
• Thus, states in their interactions, should be mostly defensive so their foreign
policy should be defensive

Strengths:
• Unlike the canonical realism, neorealism is not inclined to interpret world
politics as a kind of total resultant external politicians; it is based on the
abstraction of the political sphere from other spheres of interethnic binding.
Neorealism abstracts the political sphere from other spheres of transborder
Anne-Claire Chaugny
relations. In this way, it gets more opportunities both for analyzing the
current and for forecasting the expected.

Weaknesses:

Conclusion:
• The international system is a self-help system
• States are defensive actors as their primary, though not exclusive intention is
self-preservation
• States are self-help units, looking for their own security in an anarchical milieu
where the probability of threats to their survival (as independent states)
Anne-Claire Chaugny
2. “Offensive” and “defensive” realism: representatives, key assumptions,
differences.
Intro:
Defensive:
• Structural theory derived from neorealism
• Foundations in Kenneth Waltz’s ‘Theory of International Politics’
• Main argument: Anarchical structure of the IS encourages states to maintain
moderate and reserved politics to attain security
On the other hand, Offensive:
• Assumes that states seek to maximise their power and influence to achieve
security through domination and hegemony

DEFENSIVE = Structural Theory

Representatives:
Defensive realism is an umbrella term for several theories of international politics
and foreign policy that build upon Robert Jervis’ writings on the security
dilemma and to a lesser extent upon Kenneth Waltz’s balance-of-power
theory (neorealism). Kenneth Waltz and Jack Snyder provide a much more
stable picture of IR, despite the ubiquity of anarchy and the inevitability of
relative games.
For many years, neorealism was existing only way - defensive realism because
Kenneth Waltz argue that too much power is bad, you should have enough
power in order to assure your national defence, if you want to maximise the
power all the time you will face the destiny of Hitler and Napoleon
Thus, states in their interactions, should be mostly defensive so their foreign
policy should be defensive

Key assumptions:
• Neorealism assumptions from above
BUT up to the end of the cold war, there was a rise of new generation of conflicts,
rise of new threats = another branch of realism appeared called Offensive….

OFFENSIVE = Political
Anne-Claire Chaugny
Representatives:
John Mearsheimer (The Tragedy of Great Power Politics)

Key assumptions:
• States are rational
• All states possess military capability
• All states are concerned about their own survival, NOT safety
• All states are uncertain of others’ intentions - and the intentions are uncertain.
- E.g. dialogue between US and Russia, Russia and China, China and US
• Even though Russia and China may have a strategic relationship, they
don’t trust each other
• Friends today can be enemies tomorrow
• Absolute power is most important to states
• Power maximisation is the only way to be secure – and do this at the expense
of others because only the strongest states can guarantee their survival.
Leaders of countries should pursue security policies that weaken their
potential enemies and increase their power relative to others.
• States are never satisfied with the status quo
• Result states should strive to be as strong as possible and exploit the weakness
of others (culture of fear!)

The main differences between the two:

Main difference between the two is that structural realism suggests that the search
for power is limited, states eek security and thus need this power to guarantee
this security
Defensive in nowadays mostly focused on foreign policy dimensions
Offensive’s agenda is mostly maximisation of power, what are the methods? Why
a great power should always try to obtain these goals?
Anne-Claire Chaugny

3. Liberalism: representatives, key assumptions, strengths and weaknesses.

Representatives:
John Locke (1632-1704)
• State of nature is peace, violations cause war
• Human nature is good and altruistic, or at least perfectible
• All men are born free and equal in rights to life, liberty, estate
• States exist to protect the rights of their citizens

Immanual Kant
• Diplomacy and negotiations are very useful

Robert Koehane and John Ikenberry,

• Complex interdependence
• Concept of transnational parties
• Neo liberal theory

Micheal Doyle
Bruce Russet
Robert Axelrod

Key assumptions:
Positive view of human nature = work with institutions
• Human nature overcomes anarchy in social contract as it is rational, and do this
through the international collection of social contracts of peace
Anne-Claire Chaugny
• They reinforce the role of trade and international organisations - willing to
cooperate with them to contract a peaceful society

Conflicts are not the natural relations between states

• Cane conflict BUT harmony is possible

A history that can lead to progressive change, from integration and

interdependence = peace
• Humans learn from history and achieve social progress
• All countries can increase material prosperity and high level of economic
interdependence through market liberalisation (technology and
economic interdependence, free trade)
- e.g. African Union, EU
• Sustain justice
- e.g. abolition of slave trade and apartheid, human rights (ICTR, ICTY,
ICC)
- e.g. 1948: First Universal Global Convention on Human Rights
• Sustain peace
- e.g. End of the Cold War spread Liberal Democratic Peace AND
Economic Globalisation (especially in the Eastern)
- e.g. The European Community was firstly introduced in 1950s – idea
to create a deeper, economic, interdependence
• THIS ALL LEADS TO PEACE
- govs redefine their interests in a way that makes war less likely

Pluralist and multi-centric system = power is distributed

• States are at the center, but they are not the only important actors
• Instead, they give some elements to other bodies
- Non-state transitional actors; IOs (UN, WTO, ICC) and regimes
• Power is thus decentralised

= no anarchy, clear international authority and legal-formal aspect of IR

Anne-Claire Chaugny
• Through IOs and international laws
• International Laws
- Sea: UNCLOS
- War: Geneva Conventions
- Arms control: NPT
- Trade: WTO
• They present norms - gives the right idea of how states should behave internally
and externally
- By signing, the state respect it - otherwise sanctions
• BUT: national interests and priorities are still sensitive issues
- E.g. 1966: political rights and social/economic rights documents
introduced. Soviets were one of the first to sign and ratify both texts
BUT the US rejected the social/economic rights document

Fundamental rationalist of international cooperation. How to create an

international system that encourages cooperation?

Collective Security
• Broad alliance of major actor based on the risk of retribution, involving
economic and diplomatic responses, in addition to military
• Purpose: jointly opposing aggression by an actor who would be deterred by the
prospect of joined retaliation

Conclusion/the main idea:

World politics is an interdependent ((jointly limiting their autonomy) global

social with international institutions facilitating cooperation
• Fundamental role of peace, law, justice, human rights, non-state actors
• The ‘I’ terms matter:
- ideas
- institutions
- interdependence
- interactions
- idealism
- integration
Anne-Claire Chaugny
- issue areas

Divided into three groups of sub theories – they have different agendas, and
focused on different issues…

Liberal internationalism
The Complex Interdependence Theory
• Economic interdependence and prosperity are the major tools for discouraging
states to use force
• Human society can thus be based on national order and natural harmony
through the maintenance of spread of commerce and diffusion of eduction =
natural harmony in relations

Idealism (beginning of 20th Century)

Democracy promotion/Wilsonianism
• Spread of democracy is the antidote to war
• Ideology from US’s President Wilson’s ’14 points’ AND creation of LoN
• International order and peace should be constructed and managed by an
international organisations
• Balance of power and secret diplomacy was not a guarantee of international
security

Institutionalism
Institutional Theory
• The promotion of long-term state interest (e.g. security) in a shorter period of
time, through use of international institutions, can overcome anarchy
• Trauma of WWII = building a peaceful order became illogical assumptions and
less ambitious BUT n international body with responsibility over peace and
security was maintained

Strengths:
Anne-Claire Chaugny

Weaknesses:
• Too optimistic/naïve
• Persistence of self-interest/conflict
• Reassurance/’carrots’ subject to blackmail/cheating
• Moral crusades/cultural imperialism
• Moral values/identity politics as source of conflict

4. NeoLiberalism: representatives, key assumptions, strengths and

weaknesses.
Neoliberalism, like other neo theories, appeared in the late 70s of the 20th
Century, under the influence of new external circumstances. On the other hand
classical Liberalism of the late 19th Century. In comparing these two theories,
we see a set of differences.
Representatives:
Anne-Claire Chaugny

Key assumptions
• States are key actors in international politics, but not the only significant actors.
States are rational (or instrumental), always seeking to maximize their
interests. Rational behavior leads states to see value in cooperative behavior.
• States seek to maximize absolute gains through cooperation rather than trying
to achieve gains relative to other countries

Democracy
• Classical liberalists
• At beginning of 20th Cent: focused on concept of Collective Security
• Neo-liberalists
• Focus more on factor that democracy guarantees stability
• In the 70s: introduced concept of Theory of Democratic Peace

(Characteristics of Democratic Peace Theory)

1. Constitutional democracies do not fight each other (e.g. never gone to war
with each other since 1816 onwards)
2. Their relations are inherently more peaceful, compared to other regime-type
pairing as they share the same principles, norms and values
3. Thus, the more states are democratic, the more peaceful they are
4. Thus, domestic policy does matter
5. Cultural and norm-based explanations why democracies don't fight each other:
- Domestic political cultures based on peaceful conflict resolution
- Govs controlled by citizens (wont support war against another democracy)
- Hold common moral values = ‘zone of peace’
- This is strengthened by economic cooperation and interdependence

Institutions
• Classical Liberalists:
• States are important but Wilson advised states to be more open and
transparent (no secret diplomacy and negotiations)
• Neo-liberalists:
• After 1945 = focus on non-state actors with goal to avoid market failure and
create trust, as it reduced uncertainty, links issues and monitors behaviour
• Only international institutions can form social norms and right type of state
behaviour
Anne-Claire Chaugny
- IOs and International Law (UNCLOS, WTO etc) = monitor, control,
advise, punish etc
• = track 2 diplomacy (non-official) led by non-state actors
• Institutions are instrumental in facilitating cooperation
• Concept of Koehane and Nye ‘complex interdependence’

(Characteristics of Complex Interdependence)

1. ‘a reciprocal relationship between independent entities (jointly limiting their
autonomy)
6. the various complex transnational connections (interdependencies) between
states and societies
7. always asymmetric
8. A new agenda of international issues consists of multiple issues which are not
arranged in a clear hierarchy
9. Economic and institutional instruments are more useful than military force,
that is often not effective nor desirable solution to interstate conflicts
10. National security = not exclusive objective of states - more economic
11. To anticipate the problems of cheating and relative gains raised by realists =
the concept of ‘international regimes’ to mitigate anarchy
(Characteristics of International Regimes Concept)
1. Set of rules, norms and procedure applied to a concrete issue area (e.g. nuclear
nonproliferation, human rights, environmental problems)
12. Provide transparent state behaviour
13. Facilitate cooperation by establishing standards of behaviour - When all states
expect the other participants to cooperate, the probability of sustaining
cooperation increases dramatically. So, regimes generate the expectations
of cooperation among members.

Economic factor
• Neo-liberalists:
- More focused on the process achieving economic gains because they are
seen to be the driving force for the structure of IR and thus process of
achieving sustained patterns of cooperation under anarchy
- IR is peacefully driven by self-interested, economic behaviour
Anne-Claire Chaugny
Strengths:

Weaknesses:

5. Varieties of NeoLiberalism.
After the end of the bipolar system in the early 1990s and the rise of globalization,
Liberalism has suffered a development and presents new approaches: neo-
liberal internationalism, neoliberalism, and neo-liberal institutionalism.

NEO-LIBERAL INTERNATIONALISM
• The idea of a democratic peace has been developed since the end of the Cold
War
• Liberal states don’t use war to resolve problems between them
• Doyle defines it as the “separate peace”
• F.Fukuyama defended the triumph of liberalism after the end of the Cold War,
naming it “The End of History”
• Liberalism and liberal values have acquired a truly universal value
• Expansionism of liberalism against authoritarianism will provide peace and
stability to the international order
• The limits of liberal expansionism offer serious problems, namely concerning
sovereignty and non-intervention
• There is also the difficulty of measuring democracies

NEO-LIBERALISM
Anne-Claire Chaugny
• Also believes in democracy and that interdependence brings peace
• Peace and justice are not natural, but built
• To build a liberal peaceful order include encourage or coerce non-liberal states
to become liberal
• International institutions, essential to build such an order, also need to be
democratic as well as domestic state – double democratization
• Global social movements must be brought into the decision-making process
• Contrary to neo-liberal internationalists, neo-idealists don’t always perceive
globalization as a positive process and tend to criticize its evolution
• Falk recognizes that globalization and community are frequently at odds with
each other, and calls for “globalization from below”
• Held defends a cosmopolitan model of democracy, based upon parliamentary
innovations

NEO-LIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM

• Close to neo-realism, except for the following

- Where realists assume that states focus on relative gains and the potential
for conflict, neo-liberal institutionalists assume that states concentrate
on absolute gains and the prospect for cooperation
• Absolute gains are more important than relative: a state will enter into co-
operative relations even if another state gains more inside that relation,
contrary to the neo-realist vision
• Shit towards a more sate-centric vision of IR, viewing the state as a legitimate
representation of society
• Non-actor states are subordinate to states
• Institutions are described as ‘persistent and connected set of rules that prescribe
behavioral roles, constrain activity, and shape expectations’
• The international system has having an anarchical structure, but international
cooperation can be achieved
• The potential for conflict is overstated by realists and suggest that there are
countervailing forces, such as repeated interactions, that propel states toward
cooperation
• Cheating as the greatest threat to cooperation and anarchy as the lack of
organization to enforce rules against cheating
• Integration at global and regional levels is the privilege process
Anne-Claire Chaugny

6. Marxism: representatives, key assumptions, strengths and weaknesses.

Representatives:
Karl Marx
• The communist Manifesto (1848)
• Capital (18..)

Frederik Engels (1820-1895)

• The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State

Key assumptions:
It rejects
• Liberal world view of self-interested individuals
• Realist view of sovereign states and anarchy
• = It views both perspectives as limited and limiting.

Intro:
• An economic interpretation of history
• Focus on providing a critical interpretation of capitalism as a historically
produced form of social life to be challenged
• Focus also on the emancipation of the working class and the world equality

Humans are producers and products of historical processes

• It advocates a relational and process-oriented understanding of human life:
- Humans are productive agents
- In their interactions, they continuously remake their world and themselves
- They are producers and the products of historical processes
Anne-Claire Chaugny
A more extensive way of describing politics
• Politics is seen as struggle over the shaping the kind of world we live in and the
kind of people we are.

View of history is dialectical

• Classical Marxism: Stages of History – progressive evolution
• Imperialism – inter-imperial competition
• Dependency Theory - Extrapolation of Classical Marxism
• Crises of Capitalism – Unjust inequalities require oppression to sustain

Focuses on the interplay between politics and economics in the international

context - arguing world divisions are based on economic status
• Politics = pursuit of power
• Economics = pursuit of wealth
• Division of the world based on economic status NOT political motivations
- Division not between politically determined nations but into economically
determined classes
• Consequently, politics doesn’t supersede economics, but rather economics
trumps politics

History is the history of economic class struggle between groups within

society
• Proletariat grows in size, and starts a protracted struggle with bourgeoisie
• This would set the stage for revolution
• The result: the victory of opposing groups over the ruling group and the
subsequent changing of economic systems

The economic forces are more important than the concept of state
sovereignty
• Sovereignty and nationalism are viewed by many Marxists as tools of the
bourgeoisie leadership to conceal class tensions
• Thus, the very basis of traditional IR – the ‘nation’ or state – is not at the heart
of international interaction or the root of meaningful conflict
Anne-Claire Chaugny
Strengths:
• It seems to have impact on the field of IR as it is a mere domestic theory, nor a
mere economic theory
But on the other hand, Marxism had unique contribution to the field which could
be summarized as follow:
1. The only mainstream theory that put emphasis on the equality and
emancipation
2. Gave basic and systematic foundation to understand the unfairness of world,
while other theories don't
3. Focus on the problem of development, the issue of inequality, economic
dependency. Influence on International Political Economy and development
theories. Continuing influence on critical theories (e.g. concepts of agency,
emancipation etc.)

Weaknesses:
• Utopian - aims for a state where everything is perfect, too idealistic
• Ignores conventional struggles for power and security arising in anarchical
system
• Economic determinism
• Over-estimation of class political struggle – how important is class and
inequality in social life?
• Underestimated nationalism

7. NeoMarxism: representatives, key assumptions, strengths and

weaknesses.
Intro:
• From the 1970s, after bipolarity and rise of economic globalisation = new
interpretation of Marxism
Anne-Claire Chaugny
• A more complex, political economic approach to IR - an idea of external
exploitation
• NeoMarxism moved away from the idea of open, bloody revolution to one of a
more peaceful nature while keeping the revolutionary message
• Connected with
- World System Theory
- Dependency Theory

Representatives:
Paul Baran (US) The Political Economy of Growth (1957)
André Gunder Frank (Chile) Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin
America (1967)
Immanuel Wallerstein (US) The Modern World System (1974)
• Focused on how capitalist systems penetrated non-capitalist systems, using a
binary distinction between the core area and the peripheral area
• The capitalist world economy
- The evidence that states of Northwestern Europe were able to impose a
regional division of labour and specialisation of production (E.g. sugar
in the Caribbean, bullion in the Andes, cereals in Eastern Europe)
- This showed that through increasingly powerful state bureaucracies, it
could consolidate the flow of surplus toward the core countries

Key assumptions:

WORLD SYSTEM THEORY

• The international system has its own class structure:
- metropolis (exploiters)
- satellite (exploited)
Anne-Claire Chaugny
• In his book, Wallerstein argus that the world is divided into: (plus adds the
countries in 1974)
• Core countries (1st circle)
- high level of invested technology, high economic growth, stable GDP,
democratic, high standards of living, in cooperation
- e.g. France, Britain, US, Japan, Australia, Germany
• Semi-periphery (2nd circle)
- quite stable economic growth, but no advanced technology, they are
not truly democratic, usually authoritarian regimes, they share
different set of political principles
- e.g. Soviet Union (totalitarian state with no principles of democracy
and in spite of its military and social evidence, in term of political it
couldn’t be a core country)
- e.g. China (a developing power, with no aggressive strategies but
based on harmony, China lacks the standards of living, cheap labor)
• Periphery (3th circle)
- the poorest countries, absolute totalitarian, cheap labour, no possibility
to join someday the semi-periphery because they don’t get any
benefits from globalization (suffer from the inequality in fact), they
don’t have the political ways
- e.g. of Africa, Latin America, Asia

2019 (Who was added?)

• Core countries: South Korea, Singapore,
• Semi-periphery: Russia (still no advanced technology, no democratic process,
it is still an emerging power (in BRICS)
- But Russia forms and leads many regional and global trends, forms
Eurasian agenda etc therefore can be a core country

= Hierarchical structure of world politics where the wealthy exploit the poor
• A capitalist world system
• International politics is shaped by economic factors
• States and ruling classes are the dominant factor in international politics
• LEEDS TO inter class conflicts
• The world is built on a premise where surplus materials are distributed from the
periphery countries to the core countries
• Capitalism is fundamentally unjust
Anne-Claire Chaugny
- It doesn’t bring equal benefits to all regions

DEPENDENCY THEORY

CRITICAL THEORY

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

8. Constructivism: representatives, key assumptions, strengths and

weaknesses.
Representatives:

Key assumptions:
• Focus on the social context.
• Identities, norms, and culture play important roles in world politics. Identities
and interests of states matter.

The International System is socially constructed

Anne-Claire Chaugny
• Reality is ‘socially constructed’
• States are influenced by their norms = shapes who they are and the possibilities
available to them
• NOT inherent = they are not given, its a process through…
• Interactions
• Institutions
• Norms
• Cultures
• Shared philosophies
• Military power, trade relations, international institutions, domestic preferences
etc = important BECAUSE they have certain social meanings
• Thus, IR emerges from identity and belief

States are key actors but ideas underlie state paradigms about the IS
• So, ideas/social interaction and practices are important in shaping IR
• Compared to Neos who tend to focus on material factors

Actors and the system are mutually constituted

• NeoRealism: Nature of the international system shapes states’ behaviour
• Liberalism: Behaviour of actors shapes the nature of the international system
• BUT Constructivism: Actors and system are mutually constituted. Individuals
or states can influence their environment as well as being influenced by it,
through a process of interaction and mutual constitution

State’s behaviour in the IS is defined by their identities

• e.g. Different foreign policy character and agenda
• e.g. The Cold War is a product of the clash of those identities. AND the
end of the cold war may be a function of changes in the Russian
identity.
- Democracy v Communism
• Identity is a historical and often linguistic construct = social constructivism.
• The way states act towards another is based on what value the state has

Strengths:
Anne-Claire Chaugny

Weaknesses:

9. Critical theory: representatives, key assumptions, strengths and

weaknesses.
Representatives:
• Roots in Frankfurt School – International Political Economy
• Robert Cox - Social Forces, States and World Order: Beyond International
Relations Theory 1981
- The main actors of IR are social forces, NOT classes
• Andrew Linklater – Men and Citizens 1982
- Focused on the differences between critical theory and positivist theory
- It rejects the assumptions of positivism (realism and liberalism)
• Objective external reality
• Subject/object distinction
• Value free social science
• Mark Hoffman – Critical Theory and the Inter-Paradigm Debate 1987

Key assumptions:
Power is very subjective
• We don't have enough evidence to shape power and to say who is more and less
powerful
Anne-Claire Chaugny

Knowledge is neutral
• Its influenced by ideologies and politics
• Robert Cox argues that a theory is always done for someone + a purpose
- Theories are subjective
- Influenced by scholars and reflects the interest of a social group
- E.g. 2005 UN adopted the responsibility to protect – formed on the concept
proposed by Japan and Norway etc

Promote and advocate emancipation by adding 3rd World Countries in

process and institutions of globalisation
• Divided between North and South, West and East – economic, social, political
etc.
- E.g. BRICS: formed in 2006
• Informal institutions with no official parameters
• The idea was to collect the most developed emerging countries that
would resist the ideas of the west
• To present the alternative option of the international system

States aren't the main actors - social forces and knowledge are

Social forces
• Groups of interests that might not share the dominate state ideology
• Instead, have different vision of how a state should develop
• Might be different from the ruling class

Strengths:
Anne-Claire Chaugny

Weaknesses:
• This theory is still objective – as try to get the highest level of emancipation,
independent, economic impact on IR
• No knowledge is completely value free
- E.g. US: 1993 – concept of global democratization was introduced
• Arab Spring
- E.g. US 1996 – global hegemony of the US – leading global power that
should impose its own principles worldwide
• Military action in Iraq, Afghanistan etc.
Anne-Claire Chaugny

14. Critically assess the impact of rationalism and constructivism on the study of
international relations.
15. What is the value of realism and liberalism, in academia and in the real world,
today?
16. Is international anarchy a good thing, a bad thing, or neutral? What are the
implications of anarchy today? Can states cooperate with each other under
conditions of international anarchy?
17. What is the democratic peace theory? What does ‘democratic peace’ mean for
a liberal theory of international politics? Explain a realist position towards
claims of a democratic peace.

Para 1: What is democratic peace theory

Definition of Democratic Peace Theory
Scholars
• Kant- Perpetual Peace: if all nations are republic, no war
• Doyle: peace is not found in democratic dyads but in liberal democracies
- Requirements: Democracy, economic interdependence, liberal values
- Cultural argument: mutual respect to each other
- Structural argument: diplomatic institutions can resolve tension

Para 2: what democratic peace means for a liberal theory

• Institutional peace is prompted by economic interdependence and IOs can help
to preserve peace.
• Contrast to neorealism (distinguishes states according to capabilities),
liberalism gives rise to ideological factor that distinguishes states according
to regime type.
• Once they accept a foreign state as democratic liberal they won’t go to war with
a fellow state.
Anne-Claire Chaugny
• This is mostly because liberal democracy are believed to be trustworthy,
reasonable and most importantly predictable, because they are governed by
people.

Para 3: Realist position toward democratic peace

• It’s not common politics but common interests because structure of the
international system is the key determinant factor in states’ behaviour.
• Dogs don’t bark- absence of war doesn’t mean absence of conflict
• Problems with the definition of democracy
• Subjectivity of definition
• Western imposed values
• It is simply a justification of intervention – Iraq, Libya Syria

10. What is a “security dilemma”? Is there a solution to a security dilemma?

Illustrate your answer with contemporary examples

Para 1: What is security dilemma?

• The term was coined by the German scholar John H. Herz in his 1951 book
Political Realism and Political Idealism.

Eight major aspects are

1. Source = anarchic nature
2. They are uncertain about present and future intentions = fear each other =
accumulation of power/capabilities as means of defence - lead to offensive
3. Unintentional in origin: exists between two defensive realist states (they both
merely want security, without intending to threaten the other).
5. Leads to the worsening of relationships and arms races.
7. The vicious cycle derived from the security dilemma can lead to tragic results,
such as unnecessary or avoidable wars.

Para 2: solution for the security dilemma

How to reduce intervening variables?:
Anne-Claire Chaugny
• Defensive weapons
• Arms control
• Anti nuclear agreements
• Anti prolifiration
• Collective security= states will be volunteer as they’ll pay less for security
• Offence-defense balance = defensive attitude makes aggression less likely

Distinguishable + defence adv. = Very safe environment; minimal security

dilemma.= status quo

Para 3: examples
Cold War
Both US and USSR afraid of each others intentions therefore, continued to
increase their security and causing insecurity of the other side.

Comtemporay Examples
After the Cold War = more liberal understanding and the security dilemma and its
message was highly criticized and dismissed to be a central guideline of
international relations (Wendt, 1992).
Even though it is losing its role as an explanatory factor in IR, SD can explain
some of the 21st century conflicts.

South China Sea

• Several states claiming small islands, some with natural resources like oil, and
naval trade routes as they have done for centuries.
The rising power China is now, due to its economic and military strength, able to
increase its influence and security in relation to its neighbours, which makes
them see their own security in danger and therefore feel forced to react.
Smaller neighbour states which are not able to keep up with the rising state
bandwagon with the rising power
Anne-Claire Chaugny
or form new alliances (like Japan and India did) and try to balance the new power
out by bringing in other great powers, here mainly the USA.
This is because China’s actions are not perceived as defensive in nature or a
response to an existential threat. Rather, they are perceived as inherently
revisionist and “greedy,” heightening U.S. perception of threat and thus,
fueling the security dilemma in U.S.-China relations.

Classical realists such as Hans, Morgenthau introduces power as ‘means and end’
where states follow rational thinking to obtain power. Therefore, power is the
overriding focus of states and they aim to obtain it following the egoistic
impulses that arise from the human nature. Power is distributed among all
powers.
Liberalists have a slightly different perception of power due to the more positive
perception of human nature and intentions.

11. From H.Morgenthau to J.Nye, power is one of the most critically

reviewed variables in the international relations literature. Discuss the
evolution and theoretical reach of power, both as a characteristic of
states and as a structural characteristic of inter-state relations
Para 1: Intro
Power is the central concept in all theories - all different
Scholars of international relations disagree not only with the role of power but
with the nature of power.
Hans J. Morgenthau suggests that ‘the concept of political power poses one of the
most difficult and controversial problems of political science.’
K. Waltz notes that power is a key concept in realist theories of international
politics, while conceding that 'its proper definition remains a matter of
controversy.’
And Robert Gilpin describes the concept of power as 'one of the most troublesome
in the field of international relations'.

Para 2: The definition of power

Political scientists principally use "power" in terms of an actor's ability to
exercise influence over other actors within the international system.
Anne-Claire Chaugny

States are critical actors because they have power, which is the ability not only to
influence others but to control outcomes so as to produce results that would
not have occurred naturally. Whether power is effective at influencing
outcomes depends on the power potential of each party.
A state’s power potential power depends on its natural sources of power. The
three most important natural sources of power are: geographic size and
position, natural resources, population size.
The sources of power are also classified into tangible and intangible.
Tangible source of power would be industrial development, which outweighs
geographical disadvantages. For example, large but poorly equipped armies
are no match for small armies with advanced equipment. Intangible source of
power are: national image, public support and leadership.
Citizens have images of their state’s power potential—images that translate into
an intangible power ingredient. A state’s power is magnified when there
appears to be unprecedented public support.
For example, China’s power was magnified under Mao Zedong because there
was unprecedented public support for the communist leadership. Visionaries
and charismatic leaders such as Mohandas Gandhi and Franklin Roosevelt
were able to augment the power potential of their states by taking bold
initiatives. Likewise, poor leaders diminish the state’s power capacity.

Para 3: Different perspectives of power from different theories:

Realists hold a state-centric view: the state is an autonomous actor constrained
only by the structural anarchy of the international system. As a sovereign
entity, the state has a consistent set of goals—that is, a national interest—
defined in terms of power. Once the state acts, it does so as an autonomous,
unitary actor.
Liberalism: the state enjoys sovereignty but is not an autonomous actor. The
state is a pluralist arena whose function is to maintain the basic rules of the
game.There is no explicit or consistent national interest; there are many.
These interests often change and compete against each other within a
pluralistic framework.
There are many means of exercising influence and many ways to categorise such
means, such as symbolic means, economic means, military means and
diplomatic means. Before one can measure power, one must first have a
concept of power.
Anne-Claire Chaugny
For example, United States can influence the politics of North Korea by
economic means such as sanctions due to its superiority in GDP measures.
The current international disputes regarding North Korean denuclearisation acts
as an example of power demonstration by the two opponents. The US
demonstrates its economic and political power by imposition of sanctions and
organisation of negotiations.
Power: For structural realists, power is not equated with outcome. Rather
power corresponds to material capabilities. Mearsheimer divides state
capabilities into latent (economy and population and actual military).
Mearsheimer gives overwhelming importance to the military power in
the analysis of world politics, because it is the ultimate ratio of international
politics‟.
According to the liberalists, power includes other aspects like trade, cultural
interaction and cooperate advancements, among numerous other
interactions. States obtain power through other means rather than military
dominance. Liberalism holds the assumption that power is a broader concept,
thus it cannot be based on limited focus as exhibited by realists (Jackson &
Sørensen, 2007).
Realism, which is confounded on the antecedents of power by the states, is quite
pessimistic when it comes to the issue of power modalities by states. This is
backed by the contemporary developments in the international political
economy, where each actor uses various tools to consolidate power. Realism
believes that power is strongly founded in military dominance of a given
state over other states.
Constructivists: see power in discursive terms—the power of ideas, culture, and
language. Power exists in every exchange among actors, and the goal of
constructivists is to find the sources of power and how it shapes identity.
Power is not only the ability of one actor to get another actor to do what they
would not do otherwise, but also the production of identities, interests, and
meanings that limit the ability of actors to control their fate.
Anne-Claire Chaugny
18. How useful is the realist injunction ‘always follow the national interest’?
Justify your response and provide empirical examples to substantiate your
argument.
19. “The central theme of International Relations is not evil but tragedy. States
often share common interests, but the structure of the situation prevents
them from bring about the mutually desired situation.” (R.Jervis). The
following quote symbolises an overwhelming problem in international
relations today. What is that problem and why does it plague international
relations in particular? What, if anything, can be done about it? Justify
your response and provide empirical examples to substantiate your
argument.
20. Some suggest that the emergence of constructivism has presented a
fundamental challenge to neorealism and neoliberalism as core paradigms
in international relations. Other contend that constructivist ‘challenge’ has
generally swept the social sciences and has added depth to all paradigms of
most disciplines and international relations is enhanced by this trend. To
which view do you subscribe? Discuss the ways in which constructivist
approaches undermine, reinforce, or depart from the two traditional
theoretical approaches mentioned above.
21. Which theoretical approach do you find most appealing and why? Justify your
response and provide empirical examples to substantiate your argument.
22. What are the theoretical traditions or “competing” paradigms that dominate
the contemporary study of international relations?
12. What is theory of IR for? Key functions and agenda.

Definition of theory of IR:

• International relations theory is the study of international relations (IR) from a
theoretical perspective
• The three most prominent theories are realism, liberalism and constructivism
• It attempts to provide a conceptual framework upon which international
relations can be analyzed

Theories are to help understand causes of events in IR and to answer 10 foundational

questions:

1. How can human nature be characterized?

- People are egoistic and never think about each other, thus IR is so bad
- Constructivists: humans must be motivated by their identity and shared
ideas, ideologies, concepts etc.
2. What is the relationship between the individuals and society?
3. What is the relationship between societies and states?
4. What are the characteristics of the states? What are their national interests?
Anne-Claire Chaugny
5. What should be the role of the state or any other actor?
6. What is power? Anarchy etc?
7. What ought to be the norms of international society?
8. How might international society be structured to achieve order harmony?
9. What is the international system/structure?
10. What is the best way to make the international system predictable and
peaceful?

Functions of theories:

1. An intellectual framework that is devised to explain a group of facts. So, it is a

system of explanations that can be tested
11. A ‘cognitive map’ that helps to organize reality and to make sense out of a
multitude of events. Cause and effect
12. Different paradigms offer different models of reality or views of the wordl
13. Different paradigms focus attention toward some things and ignore others
simplifications and not complete
14. Serve as foundations for political actions serve as unstated premise
15. Help to make predictions for the future