Introduction

The term 'globalization' primarily denotes the increasing interconnectedness among societies, resulting in
events in one part of the world having profound effects on distant peoples and societies. In a globalized
world, political, economic, cultural, and social events become more interconnected and impactful.

Theories of World Politics

Understanding contemporary world politics amidst a vast array of events requires turning to the study of
history and theories. Theories act as simplifying devices, helping discern which historical or contemporary
facts are more crucial for developing an understanding of the world.

Realism

Realists view the 'real' world as inherently challenging. According to realism, humans are, at best, selfish.
Realism has dominated Western explanations of world politics for about 150 years, considering states as
the main actors. The struggle for power among states defines world politics, with the balance of power
preventing dominance. Military force is a crucial tool in implementing states' foreign policies. Neorealism
emphasizes the structure of the international system, evolving from bipolarity during the Cold War to
potential multipolarity.

Liberalism

Liberals believe in human improvement, the necessity of democracy, and the significance of ideas. They
reject the realist idea that war is the natural state of world politics. Liberals see various actors, such as
individuals, multinational corporations, and international organizations, as central. Cooperation among
states is a focal point, and liberals consider national interests beyond military terms, including economic,
environmental, and technological issues. Order in world politics emerges from interactions among
governing arrangements, laws, norms, international regimes, and institutional rules.

Social Constructivism

Emerging in the late 1980s, social constructivism gained influence post-1990s. It challenges the realist and
liberal perspectives by emphasizing human agency in world politics. Constructivists argue that the social
world is made and remade, advocating for the potential role of human progress. Social constructivism does
not stand alone as a theory but serves as an approach to the philosophy of social science, often combined
with realism or liberalism.

Marxist Theories

Marxist theories, rooted in historical materialism, highlight the highly unequal world capitalist economy.
Classes, not states, are the primary actors, and all other behaviors are explainable by class forces. The
world is divided into core, semi-periphery, and periphery areas. Sovereignty is less crucial for Marxists
compared to adherence to the rules of the international capitalist economy.

Poststructuralism

Poststructuralism, or postmodernism, challenges metanarratives and questions the claims of having direct
access to 'the truth.' It distrusts theories like realism, liberalism, Marxism, and social constructivism,
asserting that knowledge and power are interlinked. Truth is viewed as part of social settings, not external
to them.

Postcolonialism
Postcolonialism questions Eurocentric theories' ability to explain global politics impartially and suggests
their role in justifying neocolonialism. It emphasizes the intertwined histories of the West and the global
South, highlighting the role of racial, gendered, and class differences in global hierarchies.

Feminism

Feminism, with various approaches, analyzes gender differences in the context of hierarchy and power. It
explores how gender affects and is affected by world politics. Some feminists focus on women's exclusion
from power, while others attribute women's inequality to the capitalist system. Standpoint feminists argue
that women possess a unique perspective on world politics due to their subordination.

Metatheoretical Questions

Metatheoretical questions involve whether theories see the world as external to them (explanatory) or
believe that theories help construct the world (constitutive). Naturalist theories claim that the natural and
social worlds are the same.

The rise of the modern international order

The emergence of the modern international order is characterized by the coexistence of political units in
the absence of a central authority, prompting a fundamental concern in the study of International
Relations (IR) known as 'political multiplicity.' International orders, shaped by state interactions through
trade, diplomacy, and idea exchange, represent regularized practices among politically independent units.

The transition from historical (regional) to modern (global) international orders encompasses a global
economy, a global system of states, and the global circulation of ideas. The origins of international order
are often traced to early modern Europe, with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 marking a significant
milestone that instituted the principle of 'sovereign territoriality,' restricting state interventions based on
religious beliefs.

Interdependence, where events in one place significantly affect others, is a notable characteristic of the
'global transformation.' The 19th century witnessed the birth of international relations as social relations
were assembled, dismantled, and reassembled.

The 'great divergence' in the 19th century involved a shift in economic power from China, India, and the
third world to the West, driven by industrialization, the emergence of rational states, and imperialism.
Industrialization occurred in two waves, with the first primarily in Britain and focused on cotton, coal, and
iron, and the second in the late 19th century, centered on advances in chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and
electronics, mainly in Germany and the United States.

Rational states emerged as states assumed greater control over the use of force within their territories,
accompanied by the 'caging' of authority within states. The term 'rational state' refers to states organized
less through interpersonal relations and family ties and more through abstract bureaucracies such as civil
services and nationally organized militaries.

Imperialism played a crucial role, with Western powers assuming control of large parts of Africa during the
'scramble for Africa.' The 'great divergence' was mutually reinforced by these dynamics and deeply
intertwined with international processes.

Technological advancements, such as steamships, railways, and the telegraph, facilitated the 'shrinking of
the planet' and increased regularized exchanges forming the foundations of international order. However,
the modern international order that emerged in the 19th century was profoundly unequal, marked by
racism and economic exploitation.
Scientific racism emerged, perpetuating an unequal view of world politics based on skin color. The resulting
global 'color line' and 'standard of civilization' were strengthened by mass emigration, creating 'settler'
states ruled by white elites who considered themselves inherently superior. This racialization of
international politics became a globally recognized tool of discrimination.

The 19th-century 'standard of civilization' ranked people globally based on culture and race, determining
which parts of the world were considered outside the 'civilized' realm of white, Christian peoples. Economic
exploitation, marked by industrialization and deindustrialization, contributed to an unequal global
economy. The key feature that distinguishes international from domestic politics is that, in the international
sphere, political units are compelled to coexist in the absence of an overarching authority. Consequently,
the study of International Relations (IR) is fundamentally concerned with the challenge of 'political
multiplicity.' Interactions between states give rise to international orders, a concept that has been present
since political units initiated regular interactions through trade, diplomacy, or the exchange of ideas.
International orders are characterized by regularized practices of exchange among independent political
units.

Most accounts of international order trace back to early modern Europe, with the birth of the 'modern'
international order marked by the 1648 Peace of Westphalia. Westphalia played a pivotal role in
establishing the principle of 'sovereign territoriality,' wherein political authority is claimed over a specific
geographical space.

The 19th century witnessed the birth of modern international relations, marked by interdependence and a
'great divergence' in economic power. Three main dynamics fueled this shift: industrialization, the
emergence of rational states, and imperialism. Industrialization unfolded in two waves, the first primarily
in Britain and centered on cotton, coal, and iron, and the second, in the late 19th century, focused on
chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and electronics, primarily in Germany and the United States. Rational states,
organized through bureaucracies and national militaries, gained prominence after the French Revolution.
Imperialism, particularly the 'scramble for Africa,' marked a significant power shift.

The 'great divergence' brought profound changes in global economic power. The modern international
order, emerging in the 19th century, was characterized by racism, economic exploitation, and technological
changes that facilitated global coordination. Scientific racism emerged, justifying racial hierarchies and
contributing to the global 'color line' and 'standard of civilization.' Economic exploitation, driven by
industrialization, resulted in an unequal global economy.

The 1990s witnessed the dominance of the U.S.-led global order, characterized by attempts to reshape
global norms. The rise of emerging powers challenged this order, emphasizing economic development as a
basis for political influence. Debates about rising powers center on questions of power's nature, location,
and purpose. Some view power shifts as a redistribution among states, while others perceive it as a broader
process involving diverse global groups. The impact of rising powers on international relations remains a
subject of ongoing debate, considering realist perspectives on conflict and international society
perspectives on legitimacy and authority.

Rising Powers and the Emerging Global Order

During the 1990s, there was almost universal agreement that the global system was led by the power of
the US and its allies, along with the institutions dominating it. However, emerging powers perceived the US
order as a significant push to alter existing rules, norms, and practices in global politics. The US, particularly
after the Cold War, acted as a revisionist power, advocating for new norms on intervention, market
openings, and the embedding of liberal values in international institutions.
From the perspective of the Global South, the Western states, dominated by the US, were pushing for
changes that threatened greater interventionism and sought to reshape domestic societal orders. Despite
these challenges, there seemed to be little alternative but to accommodate Western power.

The widely held belief was that challenges to the US-led order would result from 'blowback' or 'backlashes'
against US and Western power, primarily centered around anti-hegemonic social movements and radical
states.

The US Order Under Challenge

The US-dominated global order faced a significant challenge with the 9/11 attacks. In the first decade of the
21st century, countries like Brazil, India, China, Russia, South Africa, ASEAN states, and Mexico experienced
substantial economic development. This economic progress led emerging countries to assert a greater
political say in the international community, especially considering the financial crisis of 2007, which
underscored the shift in relative economic weight.

While Southern diplomatic and institutional activism continued, doubts grew about the economic and
developmental foundations supporting the assumed new role of rising powers.

Three Questions About the Power of Rising Powers

1. If Power is Shifting, Where Exactly is the Shift Going? One view suggests that power is shifting to major
emerging states as part of the ongoing dynamic of the rise and fall of great powers.

2. What is Power? Political scientists differentiate between relational power, institutional power, and
various forms of structural power. Others distinguish between hard, coercive power and soft power – the
power of attraction.

3. Power for What? This question addresses the purpose of shifting power. Understanding the impact of
rising powers requires an understanding of why shifting power is important and what it might affect. Power
diffusion can be seen as a shift in the balance of power between states or as a broader process where
different groups globally become economically more important and politically more mobilized.

Debating the Impact of Rising Powers on International Relations

- For mainstream realist and neorealist writers, rising powers matter because their growing material
powers disrupt the balance of power, leading to potential conflict.

- For international society theorists, power hierarchies involve more than material power. Great powers
constitute a social category, tied to notions of legitimacy and authority. The stability of power transitions is
affected by how rising powers are accommodated within this social category.

The impact of rising powers in international relations is interpreted differently by various theoretical
perspectives, including realism, liberalism, and social constructivism. Here's a brief overview of how each of
these perspectives views the role of rising powers:

1. Realism:

- Realism is a theory that emphasizes power, security, and state-centric behavior in international
relations.

- Realists argue that the rise of new powers can lead to power shifts, which may result in increased
competition and even conflict among states.

- The focus is on relative gains in power, and rising powers are seen as potential threats to the existing
great powers.
 - The rise of a new power might disrupt the existing balance of power, leading to strategic rivalries and
security dilemmas.

2. Liberalism:

- Liberalism emphasizes cooperation, institutions, and the potential for win-win interactions among
states.

- Liberals argue that rising powers can contribute to global governance and stability through economic
interdependence and institutional cooperation.

- Instead of focusing solely on power competition, liberals highlight the potential for rising powers to
become responsible stakeholders in the international system.

- Economic integration and the spread of democratic values are seen as mechanisms that can lead to a
more stable and cooperative international order.

3. Social Constructivism:

- Social constructivism focuses on the role of ideas, norms, and identity in shaping international relations.

- Constructivists argue that rising powers can challenge existing norms and reshape international
identities.

- The rise of new powers may lead to changes in the narratives and discourses that govern international
relations.

- Constructivists are interested in how rising powers construct their own identities and how these
identities influence their behavior on the global stage.

In summary, while realists often highlight the potential for conflict and power shifts, liberals emphasize the
possibility of cooperation and mutual benefit, and constructivists focus on the role of ideas and identity in
shaping the behavior of rising powers. Each perspective provides a unique lens through which to
understand and analyze the impact of rising powers in international relations.

Realism
Realism, as a political theory, seeks to depict the world as it truly exists rather than through idealistic
lenses. This perspective is often associated with influential thinkers such as Thucydides, Machiavelli,
Hobbes, and Rousseau. These theorists argue that international politics is an unending struggle for
power, likening it to a state of perpetual war where political actors must prioritize their own security,
sometimes resorting to the use of force.

Thucydides, in "History of the Peloponnesian War," contends that the perpetual power struggle in
international politics is rooted in human nature, superseding considerations of justice, law, and society.

Machiavelli, in "The Prince," emphasizes the pragmatic prioritization of policies over principles, asserting
that a leader's skill lies in adapting to evolving political dynamics.

Hobbes, in "Leviathan," suggests that an insatiable human lust for power, similar to the state of nature,
underlies constant fear and the drive for survival.

Rousseau, in "The State of War," attributes the challenges in international politics to the anarchical
system rather than intrinsic human nature.
These insights are often grouped under the doctrine of raison d'état, emphasizing the state's pursuit of
power as the fundamental principle of international conduct. Realists are skeptical about the existence of
universal moral principles, arguing that survival imperatives necessitate state leaders to distance
themselves from traditional notions of morality.

The classical realist tradition, originating with Thucydides, emphasizes three core elements: survival,
statism, and self-help. While classical realism focused on the ancient polis, the Peace of Westphalia shifted
attention to the sovereign state as the primary actor in international politics, marking the state-centric
assumption.

Statism posits the state as the legitimate representative of the collective will, with legitimacy enabling the
exercise of authority within domestic borders. Anarchy prevails outside the state, with no central
authority, and survival is contingent on power. Self-help becomes the fundamental principle in an
anarchical system, where each state is responsible for ensuring its own survival.

Realism further subdivides into classical realism, modern realism (emerging from the first great debate
between idealism and realism), and neorealism/structural realism introduced by Kenneth Waltz.
Neorealism emphasizes anarchy leading to a logic of self-help, and the distribution of power becomes a
critical variable in understanding international dynamics.

Different strands of neorealism include defensive realism, emphasizing security maximization, and
offensive realism, focusing on power maximization. Neoclassical realism integrates domestic politics as an
intervening variable and highlights the role of leaders in shaping foreign policy.

Statism, survival, and self-help remain central to realist thought, asserting that states are the primary actors
in international politics, with sovereignty defined by the monopoly of legitimate force. Survival is the
paramount national interest, and self-help is the only means of achieving security in a system devoid of a
central authority. Cooperation is seen as challenging in a self-help system due to concerns about relative
gains.

Realism has maintained its prominence as the dominant theory in the field of world politics since the
inception of academic International Relations. Beyond the academic realm, realism has a deep-rooted
history in the works of classical political theorists, including Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and
Rousseau. The overarching theme that unites all realist thinking is the acknowledgment that states exist in
the shadow of anarchy, and their security cannot be taken for granted.

Even as we entered the new millennium, realism continues to attract scholars and shape the perspectives
of policy-makers. However, in the post-Cold War era, there has been an increase in critiques challenging
realist assumptions. Within the academic discourse, there is a lack of consensus regarding whether realism
can be considered a single, coherent theory. Delineating different types of realism has become a common
practice.

Structural realism, for instance, divides into two camps: those arguing that states are security maximizers
(defensive realism) and those asserting that states are power maximizers (offensive realism). Neoclassical
realists contribute by reintroducing individual and unit variation into the theoretical framework.

At the core of realism lies statism. This entails two assertions: first, the state is deemed the pre-eminent
actor, overshadowing all other actors in world politics. Second, state 'sovereignty' signifies the existence of
an independent political community with juridical authority over its territory. However, criticism of
statism arises on empirical grounds, challenging the assumption of state power's absolute dominance, and
on normative grounds, questioning the ability of sovereign states to effectively address global issues such
as famine, environmental degradation, and human rights abuses.
Survival emerges as the primary objective for all states, constituting the supreme national interest to
which political leaders must adhere. Yet, this principle faces criticism questioning the limits to actions a
state can undertake in the name of necessity.

Self-help is a fundamental principle in realism, asserting that no other state or institution can be relied
upon to guarantee a state's survival. However, criticism emerges, arguing that self-help is not an inevitable
consequence of the absence of a world government; rather, it is a strategic choice made by states.
Historical and contemporary examples demonstrate instances where states preferred collective security
systems or regional security communities over self-help.

Liberalism
Liberalism is a theory of both governments within states and good governance between states and peoples
worldwide. Unlike realism, which regards the ‘international’ as an anarchic realm, liberalism seeks to
project values of order, liberty, justice, and toleration into international relations.

The high-water mark of liberal thinking in international relations was reached in the inter-war period in the
work of idealists, who believed that warfare was an unnecessary and outmoded way of settling disputes
between states.

Domestic and international institutions are required to protect and nurture these values.

Liberals disagree on fundamental issues such as the causes of war and what kind of institutions are
required to deliver liberal values in a decentralized, multicultural international system.

An important cleavage within liberalism, which has become more pronounced in our globalized world, is
between those operating with a positive conception of liberalism, who advocate interventionist foreign
policies and stronger international institutions, and those who incline towards a negative conception,
which places a priority on toleration and non-intervention.

Early liberal thought on international relations took the view that the natural order had been corrupted by
undemocratic state leaders and out-dated policies such as the balance of power. Enlightenment liberals
believed that a latent cosmopolitan morality could be achieved through the exercise of reason and through
the creation of constitutional states. In addition, the unfettered movement of people and goods could
further facilitate more peaceful international relations.

Although there are important continuities between Enlightenment liberal thought and twentieth-century
ideas, such as the belief in the power of world public opinion to tame the interests of states, liberal
idealism was more programmatic. For idealists, persuasion was more important than abstract moral
reasoning.

Liberal thought at the end of the twentieth century became grounded in social scientific theories of state
behaviour. Cooperation among rational egoists was possible to achieve if properly coordinated by regimes
and institutions.

The victor states in the wartime alliance against Nazi Germany pushed for a new international institution to
be created: The United Nations Charter was signed in San Francisco in June 1945 by 50 states. It
represented a departure from the League in two important respects. Membership was near universal and
the great powers were able to prevent any enforcement action from taking place that might be contrary to
their interests
In the late twentieth century, the embedded liberalism of the post-1945 order has come under challenge.
The ability of the USA to steer world order is diminishing, rising powers are wanting a greater share of the
spoils, and new security challenges (weapons of mass destruction (WMD), climate change) have heightened
the vulnerability of all peoples.

In the context of globalization, there is merit in contrasting a liberalism of privilege with radical liberalism.
The former seeks to restore the authority of Western states and the privileges they enjoy, while the latter
believes that the liberal order can be sustainable only if it responds to the just demands of the excluded
and the impoverished.

neo-realism and neo-liberalism

The neo–neo debate has been the dominant focus in international relations theory scholarship in the USA
for the last 10–15 years.

More than just theories, neo-realism and neo-liberalism represent paradigms or conceptual frameworks
that shape individuals’ images of the world and influence research priorities and policy debates and
choices.

There are several versions of neo-realism or neo-liberalism.

Neo-liberalism in the academic world refers most often to neo-liberal institutionalism. In the policy world,
neoliberalism is identified with the promotion of capitalism and Western democratic values and
institutions.

Rational-choice approaches and game theory have been integrated into neo-realist and neo-liberal theory
to explain policy choices and the behaviour of states in conflict and co-operative situations.

Neo-realist and neo-liberal theories are status-quo-oriented problem-solving theories. They share many
assumptions about actors, values, issues, and power arrangements in the international system. Neo-realists
and neo-liberals study different worlds. Neo-realists study security issues and are concerned with issues of
power and survival. Neo-liberals study political economy and focus on cooperation and institutions.

Kenneth Waltz’s structural realism has had a major impact on scholars in International Relations. Waltz
claims that the structure of the international system is the key factor in shaping the behaviour of states.
Waltz’s neo-realism also expands our view of power and capabilities. However, he agrees with traditional
realists when he states that major powers still determine the nature of the international system.

Structural realists minimize the importance of national attributes as determinants of a state’s foreign policy
behaviour. To these neo-realists, all states are functionally similar units, experiencing the same constraints
presented by anarchy.

Structural realists accept many assumptions of traditional realism. They believe that force remains an
important and effective tool of statecraft, and balance of power is still the central mechanism for order in
the system.

Joseph Grieco represents a group of neo-realists or modern realists who are critical of neo-liberal
institutionalists who claim that states are mainly interested in absolute gains. Grieco claims that all states
are interested in both absolute and relative gains. How gains are distributed is an important issue. Thus
there are two barriers to international cooperation: fear of those who might not follow the rules and the
relative gains of others.
Scholars in security studies present two versions of neo-realism or modern realism. Offensive neo-realists
emphasize the importance of relative power. Like traditional realists, they believe that conflict is inevitable
in the international system and leaders must always be wary of expansionary powers. Defensive realists are
often confused with neo-liberal institutionalists. They recognize the costs of war and assume that it usually
results from irrational forces in a society. However, they admit that expansionary states willing to use
military force make it impossible to live in a world without weapons. Cooperation is possible, but it is more
likely to succeed in relations with friendly states.

Contemporary neo-liberalism has been shaped by the assumptions of commercial, republican,

sociological, and institutional liberalism.

Commercial and republican liberalism provide the foundation for current neo-liberal thinking in Western
governments. These countries promote free trade and democracy in their foreign policy programmes.

Neo-liberal institutionalism, the other side of the neo–neo debate, is rooted in the functional integration
theoretical work of the 1950s and 1960s, and the complex interdependence and transnational studies
literature of the 1970s and 1980s.

Neo-liberal institutionalists see institutions as the mediator and the means to achieve cooperation in the
international system. Regimes and institutions help govern a competitive and anarchic international
system, and they encourage, and at times require, multilateralism and cooperation as a means of securing
national interests.

Neo-liberal institutionalists recognize that cooperation may be harder to achieve in areas where leaders
perceive they have no mutual interests.

Neo-liberals believe that states cooperate to achieve absolute gains, and the greatest obstacle to
cooperation is ‘cheating’ or non-compliance by other states.

The neo–neo debate is not a debate between two polar opposite worldviews. They share an epistemology,
focus on similar questions, and agree on a number of assumptions about international politics. This is an
intra-paradigm debate.

Neo-liberal institutionalists and neo-realists study different worlds of international politics. Neo-realists
focus on security and military issues. Neo-liberal institutionalists focus on political economy,
environmental issues, and, lately, human rights issues.

Neo-realists explain that all states must be concerned with the absolute and relative gains that result from
international agreements and cooperative efforts. Neo-liberal institutionalists are less concerned about
relative gains and consider that all will benefit from absolute gains.

Neo-realists are more cautious about cooperation and remind us that the world is still a competitive
place where self-interest rules.

Neo-liberal institutionalists believe that states and other actors can be persuaded to cooperate if they are
convinced that all states will comply with rules, and that cooperation will result in absolute gains.

This debate does not discuss many important issues that challenge some of the core assumptions of each
theory. For example, neo-realism cannot explain foreign policy behaviour that challenges the norm of
national interest over human interests.

Globalization has contributed to a shift in political activity away from the state. Transnational social
movements have forced states to address critical international issues and in several situations have
supported the establishment of institutions that promote further cooperation, and fundamentally
challenge the power of states.
Neo-realists think that states are still the principal actors in international politics. Globalization challenges
some areas of state authority and control, but politics is still international.

Neo-realists are concerned about new security challenges resulting from uneven globalization, namely
inequality and conflict.

Globalization provides opportunities and resources for transnational social movements that challenge the
authority of states in various policy areas. Neo-realists are not supportive of any movement that seeks to
open critical security issues to public debate.

Free-market neo-liberals believe globalization is a positive force. Eventually, all states will benefit from the
economic growth promoted by the forces of globalization. They believe that states should not fight
globalization or attempt to control it with unwanted political interventions.

Some neo-liberals believe that states should intervene to promote capitalism with a human face or a
market that is more sensitive to the needs and interests of all the people. New institutions can be created
and older ones reformed to prevent the uneven flow of capital, promote environmental sustainability, and
protect the rights of citizens.

Social constructivism
International relations theory in the 1980s was dominated by neo-realism and neo-liberal institutionalism;
both theories ascribed to materialism and individualism.

Various scholars critical of neo-realism and neo-liberalism drew from critical and sociological theory to
demonstrate the effect of normative structures on world politics.

The mainstream responded coolly to these challenges, demanding that critics demonstrate the superiority
of these alternative claims through empirical research.

The end of the cold war meant that there was a new intellectual space for scholars to challenge existing
theories of international politics.

Constructivists drew from established sociological theory to demonstrate how social science could help
international relations scholars understand the importance of identity and norms in world politics.

Constructivists demonstrated how attention to norms and states' identities could help uncover important
issues neglected by neo-realism and neo-liberalism.

Constructivists are concerned with human consciousness, treat ideas as structural factors, consider the
dynamic relationship between ideas and material forces as a consequence of how actors interpret their
material reality, and are interested in how agents produce structures and how structures produce agents.

Knowledge shapes how actors interpret and construct their social reality.

The normative structure shapes the identity and interests of actors such as states.

Although the meanings that actors bring to their activities are shaped by the underlying culture, meanings
are not always fixed and the fixing of meaning is a central feature of politics.

Social rules are regulative, regulating already existing activities, and constitutive, making possible and
defining those very activities.
Social construction denaturalizes what is taken for granted, asks questions about the origins of what is
now accepted as a fact of life, and considers the alternative pathways that might have produced and can
produce alternative worlds.

Power is not only the ability of one actor to get another actor to do what they would not do otherwise, but
also as the production of identities, interests, and meanings that limit the ability of actors to control their
fate.

The recognition that the world is socially constructed means that constructivists can investigate global
change and transformation.

A key issue in any study of global change is diffusion, captured by the concern with institutional
isomorphism and the life cycle of norms.

Although diffusion sometimes occurs because of the view that the model is superior, frequently actors
adopt a model either because of external pressures or because of its symbolic legitimacy.

Institutional isomorphism and the internationalization of norms raise issues of growing homogeneity in
world politics, a deepening international community, and socialization processes.

Relations among the city-states of ancient Greece were characterized by more developed societal
characteristics, such as arbitration.

Ancient China, India, and Rome all had their own distinctive international societies.

NGO

International Organizations as Structures of Global Politics

- International organizations are structures for political communication; they are systems that constrain the
behavior of their members.

- Governments form intergovernmental organizations, and transnational actors form international non-
governmental organizations.

o Governments and transnational actors accord each other equal status by jointly creating hybrid
international organizations.

- International organizations are more than the collective will of their members. They have a distinct impact
on other global actors.

Conclusion; Issues and Policy Systems in Global Politics

A simple concept of 'power' cannot explain outcomes. Military and economic means are not the only
possibilities but also:

- Communication facilities

- Information

- Authority

- Status

o These are all important political tools.

Different policy domains have different actors, related to the importance of the issues to be discussed.
TNCs gain more influence by controlling economic means. NGOs gain more influence by obtaining and
accumulating information, gaining higher status, and communicating effectively. TNCs and NGOs have both
been the main sources of economic and political change in global politics.

Hierarchies

The text discusses the growing interest in understanding global political dynamics through the lens of
hierarchies, challenging traditional International Relations (IR) theories. It notes that recent global events
have raised questions about the effectiveness of existing theoretical frameworks in explaining the
complexities of modern international order. Scholars are increasingly focusing on hierarchies, defined as
systems of vertical relations of super- and subordination among actors, to analyze political dynamics in
areas like global governance, economic relations, and security.

The association of IR with anarchy, a concept rooted in neorealism, is critiqued for its limitations. The text
highlights that anarchy has been a foundational assumption in IR, rarely questioned explicitly, and has
hindered the productivity of hierarchy research. The goal of the book is to create a space for hierarchy-
oriented research by bringing together diverse approaches and challenging existing notions of anarchy.

The text outlines two major research questions in hierarchy studies: the nature and origins of hierarchies,
and how actors exist within hierarchies. It identifies a division in the literature based on
agentic/institutional accounts of hierarchy origins versus more structural understandings. Agentic views see
hierarchies as solutions to problems of order, emphasizing deliberate choices by actors, while structural
views perceive hierarchies as deep structures of organized inequality that shape actors and the space of
world politics.

The discussion further explores existing IR literature on hierarchy, summarizing insights into the deeply
political and stratifying nature of hierarchical systems. It identifies power as a central element in
hierarchical structures and notes the diverse types of hierarchical relations in world politics. The text
emphasizes the need for hierarchy research to move beyond recognizing the existence of hierarchies and
focus on specifying their origins, interactions, and effects on actors.

The two dominant strains of hierarchy research are distinguished: agentic accounts that view hierarchies as
deliberate solutions to problems, and structural accounts that perceive hierarchies as deeply ingrained
patterns shaping actors and the world. Examples from IR literature, such as David Lake's contract theory of
hierarchies and post-structuralist perspectives, illustrate these approaches. The text concludes by
highlighting the need for a more integrated approach that considers both agentic and structural dimensions
of hierarchy in order to advance the understanding of world politics.

The text discusses the evolving discourse in International Relations (IR) regarding the concept of hierarchy
and its impact on world politics. It begins by highlighting the limitations of traditional IR theories,
particularly the emphasis on anarchy, and introduces the idea that scholars are increasingly exploring world
politics through the lens of hierarchies. Hierarchies, broadly defined as systems organizing actors into
vertical relations of super- and subordination, are recognized as a ubiquitous feature in international
politics, influencing global governance, economic relations, and security.

The text delves into the historical association of IR with anarchy, as influenced by neorealism, and argues
that the concept of anarchy has been naturalized within the discipline. However, the author suggests that
recent scholarship on hierarchies, while diverse, converges on the insights that hierarchies are prevalent in
international politics and generate unique social, moral, and behavioral dynamics.

The two major research questions identified in the text revolve around the origins and nature of hierarchies
and the behavior of actors within existing hierarchies. The discussion emphasizes the need for a more
integrated approach to hierarchy research, bringing together scholars from different strands to challenge
each other's conceptualizations and move beyond the limitations imposed by the anarchy assumption.

The text proposes a two-part structure for understanding hierarchy research: (1) examining the origins and
nature of hierarchies, and (2) exploring how actors exist within hierarchies. It highlights the existing
cleavage in the literature between agentic/institutional accounts and structural understandings of
hierarchy. The text suggests that research on hierarchy should focus on specifying where hierarchies come
from, how different hierarchies interact, and how actors navigate hierarchies given their particular origin
and interactive effects.

The second major focus of the text is on actor behavior within existing hierarchies. This body of research
asserts that the content of actors' preferences and the importance they assign to certain issues are
influenced by their position within a hierarchical order. The discussion encompasses various substantive
areas such as security, foreign policy, diplomacy, and international law. It also explores how power
dynamics and social hierarchies affect state behavior and other actors within the international system.

The text concludes by emphasizing the need for a more direct engagement with the concept of hierarchy in
empirical research and calls for a clearer articulation of the nature of hierarchies under investigation. The
two parts of the book, each comprising chapters from different contributors, aim to further the research
agenda on hierarchy in IR by fostering a mutual engagement of diverse approaches and providing a more
comprehensive understanding of hierarchies' role in shaping world politics.

Making Empires

The chapter explores the nature and origins of hierarchical structures in empires, focusing on Qing China
and British India as examples. The author argues that understanding imperial hierarchies is crucial for
comprehending world politics throughout history. Empires are viewed as authoritarian systems based on
regimes of unequal entitlements, sustained through strategies of "divide and rule."

The rulers of Qing China and British India utilized cultural diversity among their subjects to implement
"divide and rule" strategies. This was achieved through official religious patronage and selective ethnic
military mobilization, categorized as instances of "customization." Customization, a concept derived from
Amitav Acharya's idea of localization, involves selectively appropriating and adapting indigenous ideas and
resources to imperial ends.

The chapter distinguishes between narrow and broad forms of hierarchy within empires. Narrow
hierarchies involve formal imperial rule, while broad hierarchies encompass organized inequality based on
religion, race, and caste. Imperial hierarchies are seen as both exploitative and reliant on collaboration
between rulers and local intermediaries.

The author rejects coercion-based explanations for the emergence of empires, emphasizing the importance
of legitimation strategies in addition to military power. Bargaining-based explanations, which consider
asymmetric contracts between imperial elites and local intermediaries, are acknowledged but critiqued for
potentially overlooking hidden coercion. A status-based explanation, focusing on civilizational "zones of
prestige," is considered but deemed less applicable to cases like Manchu China and British India.

The alternative explanation proposed by the author centers on customization, highlighting the deliberate
fostering of cultural differences to sustain imperial rule. The chapter concludes by emphasizing the
importance of understanding empires for the study of international hierarchies and hierarchy studies.

The text discusses the nature of empires, focusing on the strategies employed by imperial elites to maintain
power through "divide and rule" tactics. It argues against the idea that empires form around asymmetric
relations between the imperial center and pre-existing subordinate communities, emphasizing the role of
constructing narrow hierarchies of rule through the organization of cultural differences.

The author contends that imperial statecraft involves the customization of cultural differences, where
subordinate societies are divided before they can be ruled. This process leads to the formation of imperial
hierarchies based on institutionalized cultural differences. The challenge for empire-builders is to integrate
local intermediaries into imperial structures while preventing them from uniting against the imperial
center.

The text explores the concept of customization practices, which involve gathering knowledge about subject
groups to define and differentiate them, and then institutionalizing these differences through practices of
imperial governance. Customization practices aim to curate collective identities, selectively empower local
intermediaries, and freeze certain forms of identity to minimize anti-imperial mobilization.

Two critical imperatives of imperial statecraft are identified: vertical incorporation between the center and
periphery and horizontal segregation between imperial segments. The necessity of "divide and rule" is
illustrated through historical examples, such as Lord Elphinstone's analogy of compartmentalization for
securing the Indian Empire.

The author delves into the role of religious patronage and selective ethnic military mobilization in early
modern empires, focusing on the Manchu and British Empires. Practices like sponsoring indigenous
religious authorities and recruiting soldiers from specific ethnic groups are discussed as tools for
consolidating imperial power.

The second part of the text provides an empirical illustration of these concepts within the Qing Empire
(1644–1912). It explores how the Manchus, as a ruling minority, used strategies like "imperial simultaneity"
to legitimize their rule among diverse subject populations. The patronage of Tibetan Buddhism and the
banner system of military organization are highlighted as mechanisms to reshape Mongol identities and
constitute the imperial hierarchy.

The text emphasizes the dynamic nature of imperial rule, where practices of customization and identity
manipulation play a crucial role in maintaining hierarchical structures within diverse empires.

The text explores the establishment of imperial identities in British India, drawing parallels with Qing
Dynasty China. The English East India Company (EIC) developed imperial hierarchy through practices like
religious patronage and selective ethnic military mobilization. Despite cultural differences and a lack of
military advantage, the EIC successfully harnessed indigenous resources to build its empire. The takeover of
religious institutions, particularly in Hinduism, played a significant role in shaping collective identities,
marking a shift towards more exclusive forms of communal identity.

In addition to religious patronage, the chapter delves into the concept of "martial races" in the Indian Army.
From the mid-eighteenth century, the EIC recruited predominantly from high-caste northern Indian Hindus,
fostering a "high-caste ethic" within the army. However, this strategy backfired during the 1857 mutiny,
leading to the recruitment of troops from previously marginalized populations like Sikhs, Rajputs, Pathans,
and Gurkhas. The invention and institutionalization of "martial races" illustrate the productive practices
involved in constituting imperial hierarchy.

The comparison with Qing China highlights common challenges faced by conquest elites in constructing
narrow hierarchies of rule. Both the Manchus in China and the EIC in India grappled with the need to adapt
to culturally distinct populations that vastly outnumbered them. The chapter concludes by reflecting on the
contemporary implications of studying hierarchy in the context of historical empires. It emphasizes the
changing conditions that either enable or limit the emergence of international hierarchies in the
contemporary world order, noting the significant shift away from the imperial norms that prevailed in
earlier historical epochs.

GENDER LENSES

This chapter discusses the intersection of gender and hierarchy in the context of Daesh/ISIS in Iraq and
Syria. It begins by addressing claims that young girls in the UK express a desire to become jihadi brides,
highlighting skepticism about the empirical validity of such statements. The chapter explores the role of
gender subordination in the depiction of "jihadi brides" and the need to analyze gender hierarchies in the
broader context of global politics.

The author argues that gender is implicated in and impacts all hierarchies in global politics. Three key
relationships between gender and hierarchy are examined: explicit gender hierarchies, hierarchies as
gendered systems shaping other distinctions, and hierarchies in global politics as gendered institutions. The
chapter aims to demonstrate that gender serves as a foundation for various hierarchies in global politics,
influencing outcomes and significations.

The discussion is divided into sections examining gender hierarchies, hierarchies as gendered, and
hierarchies as gendered institutions. The author contends that gender hierarchy is not only a distributive
ordering principle but also a structural feature of global politics. The argument extends to the assertion that
the international system itself operates as a gender hierarchy, shaping states' identities and power
distributions based on associations with masculinities and femininities.

The chapter applies these concepts to the case of ISIS/Daesh, highlighting gender hierarchies within the
organization and its treatment of women. The analysis covers sexual slavery, torture, and killings,
emphasizing context-specific manifestations of gender hierarchies. Additionally, the recruitment strategies
and portrayals of women joining ISIS/Daesh are explored, revealing gender hierarchies in global political
relations.

In conclusion, the author advocates for a feminist approach to understanding hierarchy in global politics,
emphasizing the pervasive influence of gender on various levels and dimensions of political structures. The
chapter underscores the need to recognize and analyze gender hierarchies to gain a comprehensive
understanding of power dynamics in global politics.

The chapter argues that understanding gendered hierarchies is crucial for comprehending inequality in
global politics. It distinguishes between three types of hierarchy: gender hierarchies (directly organized
around gender), gendered hierarchies (organized around other factors but expressed in gendered terms),
and gendered hierarchy (where hierarchy itself is always and everywhere gendered). The focus is on the
second type, emphasizing how hierarchies, even if structured by race, religion, class, etc., often incorporate
gendered terms and power dynamics.

The concept of feminization is discussed, emphasizing its ideological and material dimensions.
Feminization, the process of devalorizing by associating with femininity, is seen as a strategy of power. The
chapter argues for taking gendered power seriously in the study of global political hierarchies, as it is used
to subordinate individuals and groups across various axes.

The discussion extends to ISIS/Daesh, illustrating how gendered hierarchies play out in conflicts. Acts of
gendered violence, such as sexual abuse, are analyzed as mechanisms to establish dominance and
communicate superiority. The analysis suggests that gendered logics are integral to the functioning of
hierarchies in global politics.
The chapter concludes by advocating for a feminist approach to hierarchy, viewing it through the lens of
gender to better understand its complexities. The author proposes that recognizing gendered logics in
hierarchies may lead to a rearticulation that disrupts established power dynamics. Finally, the importance
of using the term "hierarchy" is emphasized to convey the intricate, informal institutions of power in global
politics, debunking the assumption of hierarchy's absence in a formal anarchy.

AGE OF EQUALITY

The chapter explores the concept of hierarchy in international relations, specifically focusing on its scarcity
in the contemporary international system. The analysis is conducted from the perspective of subordinates,
examining a group of tiny polities, including sovereign micro-states and self-governing dependent
territories. Despite functional imperatives that might favor hierarchical solutions, the chapter argues that
hierarchy is the exception rather than the rule in today's world.

The author begins by discussing different definitions of hierarchy, emphasizing the narrow conception that
links hierarchy to authority. Historical evidence challenges this narrow view, as coercion and market
transactions have played roles in establishing hierarchy. The chapter aims to take a middle ground between
narrow and broad conceptions of hierarchy.

Eight tiny polities, including the Cayman Islands, the Cook Islands, Curaçao, the Faroe Islands, Liechtenstein,
Nauru, the Seychelles, and St Kitts and Nevis, serve as case studies. These polities have populations ranging
from 10,000 to 150,000. The chapter notes that even in circumstances where hierarchical solutions would
seem logical, such as for micro-states, hierarchy is the exception. Even self-governing dependencies tend to
claim more autonomy.

The concept of hierarchy is explored further, with scholars defining it as a system of vertical relations of
super- and subordination, primarily linked to authority. The chapter highlights the challenges of defining
hierarchy based on consensual bargaining, as historical evidence contradicts this view. The distinction
between hierarchy and markets is emphasized, rejecting the idea that hierarchy is just another form of
market-based contracting.

Case studies of the eight polities reveal that hierarchy is less prevalent than expected, considering the
functional imperatives that might motivate states to trade authority for security or economic benefits. The
analysis covers areas such as defense, security, economics, and diplomatic affairs. The chapter concludes
that the scarcity of hierarchy in the contemporary international system may be due to a historical norm of
sovereign equality and associated institutions.

A caveat is mentioned regarding the focus on hierarchy, as the chapter does not systematically discuss the
norm of sovereign equality. The author asserts that hierarchy was more common in previous eras, but no
evidence is provided to support this claim. Overall, the chapter provides a nuanced exploration of
hierarchy, challenging both narrow and broad conceptions and presenting evidence from specific case
studies.

Defense and Security:

The text addresses the paradox of micro-states, which, due to their limited resources, might be expected to
seek hierarchical security arrangements for protection. Dependencies often have formal security
guarantees from their metropolitan powers, yet the evidence of clear hierarchy is less apparent. Despite
potential vulnerabilities, many micro-states don't exhibit hierarchical security arrangements, and historical
examples are provided to illustrate this point. The narrative emphasizes the historical context and the
evolution of security dynamics in these entities.

Hierarchy and Economies of Scale:

Micro-states face economic challenges due to their small size, lack of diversification, and remoteness from
major markets. While economic solutions like customs unions or dollarization could be achieved through
hierarchy, the instances of such arrangements are less common than expected. The text explores various
economic responses among micro-states, illustrating how some maintain economic sovereignty while
others delegate certain economic prerogatives. It provides examples of specific economic strategies
adopted by these entities.

Diplomacy and Constitutional Affairs:

This section delves into diplomatic recognition, constitutional structures, and practices related to
sovereignty. Dependencies may lack general diplomatic recognition, but many participate in specialized
international organizations. The text provides examples of dependencies resisting or accepting
independence and illustrates the challenges of maintaining hierarchy in the face of normative pressures.
The discussion highlights the nuances of diplomatic relations and constitutional dynamics within these
entities.

Hierarchy à la Carte:

The text explores the relative rarity of hierarchy in micro-states and dependencies despite potential
economic and security advantages. It emphasizes the role of the norm of sovereign equality and shared
beliefs about legitimacy in shaping the choices of these entities. The UN Committee on Decolonization is
cited as an example, underlining the push for independence for all remaining recognized Non-Self-
Governing Territories. The conclusion reflects on the historical context and asserts that the surprising lack
of hierarchy in the contemporary international system doesn't diminish the importance of studying
international hierarchy.

In summary, the text navigates through various aspects of micro-states and dependencies, providing
insights into their approaches to defense, economies of scale, diplomatic relations, and constitutional
dynamics, all within the broader context of international hierarchy.

Rethinking IR

The text delves into the historical development of international relations, contending that this field is a
relatively recent construct, emerging around half a millennium ago. The invention of international relations
is linked to the collapse of traditional political systems and the subsequent formation of nation-states in
Europe. The term itself implies dealings among these nation-states, indicating that their creation predates
the conceptualization of international relations.

The narrative underscores the European origins of this international system, particularly tied to the
aftermath of the Thirty Years War and the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. The "Westphalian system"
becomes a focal point, shaping the dynamics of global interactions. However, the text suggests that the
contemporary challenges in Europe, Asia, and Africa highlight the inadequacies of this historical system in
addressing new actors, contexts, and issues.

The discussion then shifts to the role of empires in shaping international relations. It distinguishes between
messianic empires, driven by expansive ideologies, and self-centered empires, focused on preserving their
own culture. The integration of these empires into the modern international order has been complex,
resulting in hybrid systems. Notably, the text points to the lasting impact of extensive imperial cultures,
marked by messianism and universalism, coexisting with the Westphalian principles.

The exploration of Chinese history and its imperial past adds another layer to the analysis. Unlike the
messianic empires, China's self-centered approach is characterized by pragmatism, viewing foreign
relations as useful if they benefit the Empire. The concept of tianxia, representing an inclusive worldview,
challenges the Westphalian conception of a competitive world order. This perspective, rooted in Confucian
and Taoist culture, continues to influence China's foreign policy, creating a unique grammar of international
politics.

The text concludes by asserting that empires, with their distinctive approaches, continue to shape
international actions today. This ongoing influence challenges traditional international relations theories,
requiring a reconsideration of concepts such as territory, sovereignty, and power competition. In particular,
the Chinese approach, characterized by non-action strategies and a dissociation of politics from economics,
defies Western norms, contributing to a nuanced and intricate global political landscape.

The text explores the role of fragmented political systems, specifically tribal systems and cities, in shaping
unique conceptions of otherness distinct from the Westphalian model. Tribal systems, exemplified by the
Nuer in Sudan, challenge the traditional state-centric view of international relations. In these systems,
politics is dissociated from territory, and the fluid nature of tribal alliances complicates the understanding
of conflicts, such as those in the Sahel or Congo, through conventional international relations paradigms.

Cities, as another form of fragmented political order, question the territorial dimension of politics.
Originating from associations of families or siblings, cities challenge the conventional state-centric
perspective. The historical continuity of cities, from ancient civilizations like the Indus valley and
Mesopotamia to modern examples like Singapore or Dubai, highlights their enduring impact on global
dynamics. The concept of "virtual states" captures their contemporary transnational nature, challenging
traditional international relations theories.

The comparison between the Indus and Sumerian cities underscores the absence of universal laws in
political development. Peaceful or warlike cities can emerge based on circumstances, challenging notions
such as state competition, the territorial basis of politics, and the structuring capacity of enmity. The
emergence of war in Sumerian cities for political consolidation and resource competition challenges the
assumption of war being intrinsic to human nature, demonstrating that basic principles of classic IR theory
are context-dependent.

The narrative then explores the Westphalian invention of the first international system, emerging from the
state-building process in Europe during the post-Middle Ages period. The sovereignty of newly formed
territorial units created a need for a collective order to settle disputes and maintain order. The conceptual
ambiguity surrounding international law and mediation led to the empirically invented international system
gradually theorized by political philosophers, culminating in the Westphalian Peace of 1648. The link
between war and statehood in this system, identified by Charles Tilly as a vicious circle, became a defining
feature, shaping the realist and neo-realist theories. However, the text suggests that the contemporary
context has transformed this dynamic, with war now slipping from state control and involving new actors
and rationalities, challenging traditional theories of international relations.

The Westphalian Peace, though not an instantaneous creation, significantly contributed to establishing a
new political order. The European narratives on international politics gradually aligned with the
Westphalian model, profoundly influencing realist theory and subsequently liberal institutionalism. The
Münster and Osnabrück treaties, integral parts of the Westphalian Peace, marked a crucial shift by ending
"imperial immediacy" and establishing the principle of cuius regio, eius religio. This territorialization of
politics and the emergence of sovereign states, such as Switzerland and the Netherlands, marked the first
clear inter-state map in European history.

Territory became a central concept in international issues, influencing inter-state diplomacy, peace treaties,
war goals, and modes of war. Sovereignty, as a derived concept, became essential for efficient governance
of territories. Sovereignty initially signified emancipation from foreign tutelage and the capacity to produce
rules without external constraints. In this framework, the Westphalian system operated as a power politics
structure, emphasizing the importance of maintaining, increasing, and demonstrating power in
international relations.

The Westphalian system's dramatic vision of power emphasized the lasting competition among states and
the necessity of maintaining a balance of power to prevent war. Power competition, a consequence of the
combination of power and sovereignty, animates the international arena but poses a risk of dangerous
escalation. The balance of power concept, seen as the first conception of peace-keeping in modern history,
is challenged by contemporary transformations in the nature of power.

International law in the Westphalian system faced an inherent paradox, as no authority was empowered to
constrain or enforce supra-national decisions on states. War remained a normal method for settling
disputes between states, and military interventions were considered normal instruments of foreign policy.

The history of international relations theories evolved from the Westphalian moment. The founding fathers
of contemporary IR theories, including Machiavelli, Jean Bodin, Grotius, and Hobbes, played crucial roles.
Hobbes, with his emphasis on the sovereign state and the inherent violence in international politics, and
Grotius, envisioning an international society based on just wars and natural laws, represented contrasting
interpretations of the Westphalian moment.

The trajectory of IR theories continued with figures like Carl von Clausewitz and Carl Schmitt, emphasizing
the importance of war in state policy and the role of enmity in defining nations. The aftermath of World
War I saw a divergence in theoretical directions, with some advocating for international institutions to
prevent conflicts (in line with Grotius) and others, like Hobbes, maintaining the dominance of power politics

Post-World War II, Woodrow Wilson's vision of international institutions gained momentum but faced
challenges. The resurgence of Grotian ideas in the 1970s through scholars like Joseph Nye, Robert Keohane,
and John Ruggie led to amendments in realist theory, emphasizing increasing interdependence and
cooperation between states.

The dominance of Hobbesian realism persisted, especially during the Cold War and unipolar era. However,
the emergence of new global dynamics, rising powers, and issues concentrated in the Global South
challenge the applicability of old rules and principles, rendering the international system difficult to govern.
The contemporary world demands a reevaluation of traditional grammar in international relations to
navigate new challenges and opportunities.

IR Theory

"International Relations Theory" aims to provide a comprehensive overview of ancient, modern, and
contemporary political thought, catering to a diverse audience. The book addresses current approaches to
international relations (IR) theory and, notably, delves into the intellectual and historical roots of major
ideas shaping present-day literature on international relations. The introductory chapter sets the stage by
covering topics such as how we comprehend the world, the nature of theory, and the upcoming chapters
on images, interpretive understandings, and normative considerations.

The exploration of epistemology, methodology, and ontology is considered fundamental for critically
analyzing and understanding contemporary approaches to IR theory. Epistemology involves understanding
the ways we come to know things about the world, with popular examples like empiricism and alternative
approaches such as constructivism, critical theory, postmodernism, and feminism. Positivism, a dominant
force in IR theorizing, relies on underlying assumptions like the unity of natural and social sciences and the
distinction between facts and values.

Ontology, on the other hand, deals with how individuals view the world, shaping their understanding of the
essence of things around them. This involves questions about the existence of actual structures, the nature
of actors (e.g., states), and whether events are perceived as having discoverable causes or as random
occurrences. The ontological perspectives of theorists significantly impact their interpretations of reality
and influence the images they construct in international relations.

The chapter provides examples of how different ontologies lead to distinct theoretical perspectives.
Realists, like Kenneth Waltz, bring a darker view of human potential, envisioning a world of competition
among self-oriented states. Liberals, in contrast, tend to assume harmony as the natural condition, seeing
dissension as arising from mistaken beliefs. Economic structuralists share a dim view of reality, emphasizing
exploitation and victimization. The ontologies we bring to the field influence the images we construct,
which are general perspectives on international relations consisting of assumptions about key actors and
processes.

Understanding epistemological, methodological, and ontological foundations is crucial for navigating the
diverse landscape of IR theory. It provides a framework for critically evaluating theories and recognizing the
underlying assumptions that shape our understanding of international relations.

The term "theory" holds varied meanings, from being loosely used to signify something true "in principle"
to its more formal definition in the context of international relations (IR). In IR, theory is viewed as a means
to make the world more intelligible, moving beyond mere description to causal explanation. This involves
establishing laws and conditions that predict phenomena, aligning with a positivist approach.

Positivism, a prevalent perspective in IR, emphasizes empirical testing of hypotheses through methods like
statistical analysis. The covering-law approach seeks to identify general laws explaining phenomena, while
the reconstructive positivist strategy explains events as endpoints of historical sequences. Examples, such
as explaining the peaceful collapse of the Soviet empire, illustrate these approaches.

Various research strategies exist, ranging from quantitative methods to qualitative indicators, case studies,
and reasoned argument. Despite differences, scholars agree on the necessity of theory for explaining and
predicting outcomes. A theory, in this view, is an intellectual construct comprising propositions that guide
the selection and interpretation of facts.

Thinking theoretically involves identifying patterns and central tendencies rather than precise predictions.
Theorists focus on general tendencies, aiming to fit events into broader classes or patterns. Notably,
theories strive for parsimony, explaining behavior with few concepts.
The world of theory is abstract, and theories may exist apart from facts. While mathematical theorists work
in abstraction, empirically based theories in the social sciences relate to facts and aim to explain or predict
phenomena. Theories may be policy-relevant, but acting on them involves value preferences, distinguishing
the role of policymakers from theorists.

Contrary to dismissive attitudes, theory is essential for navigating the complexities of a globalized world. It
provides a framework to cut through information overload and helps explain and anticipate outcomes. The
practicality of a good theory lies in its ability to guide understanding and decision-making in international
relations.

The concept of "levels of analysis" serves as a framework for systematically thinking about international
relations (IR). It involves differentiating between levels, such as the individual or group, state and society,
and the international system, to organize thinking about the causes of events like war. This framework
distinguishes between the "dependent variable" (what is being explained, e.g., war) and "independent
variables" (factors at different levels that might be causally related).

The question of which level to emphasize is crucial. For instance, the causes of war might be sought in the
nature of individuals, states and societies, or the international system. Each perspective represents a
different level of analysis. The choice of level determines what one will focus on and influences the
emphasis on actors, structures, and processes.

Various levels of analysis are commonly employed in IR, encompassing the international system, the state,
groups, and individuals. Scholars often use these levels to explain the foreign policy behavior of states.
However, determining the most important level remains a complex challenge. For example, if foreign
policies exhibit constancy, some attribute it to slow-changing external factors like the balance of power,
while others emphasize internal factors such as shared world views among decision-makers.

The emphasis on all levels of analysis is suggested, but this approach lacks specificity. Therefore, the
literature continually grapples with questions about what should be examined within each level and how
different factors or variables relate across levels and over time.

The choice of level subtly influences the various images and interpretive understandings within IR. Different
theories may start at different levels, with structuralists or neorealists emphasizing the systems level, while
liberals often focus on state-societal and individual levels. The ontological question of the agent-structure
problem, addressing the nature of human agency and structural factors, complicates the development of
theories in IR. This problem involves acknowledging and accounting for the power of agents while
recognizing the causal relevance of structural factors.

Ultimately, the levels of analysis framework, combined with the agent-structure problem, prompts scholars
to consider how voluntarism (freedom of action) and determinism (constraints) interact in the world and
influence the construction of theories that explain or predict phenomena in international politics. The
question of voluntarism and determinism significantly shapes the understanding of international relations
and the potential for peaceful change.

In the introductory section of this volume, as outlined in "International Relations Theory" by Mark V. Kauppi
and Paul R. Viotti (2019):

1. **Realism:** This perspective, covering classical and neorealism, conceptualizes states as the central
actors behaving rationally. Key figures in this tradition include Hans J. Morgenthau, John Mearsheimer, and
Stephen Walt.

2. **Liberalism:** Expanding the view to include non-state actors, liberalism emphasizes political-economic
issues. Authors like David Dessler contribute to discussions on the liberal perspective.

3. **Economic Structuralism:** Focused on economic classes and global structures, this perspective
considers capitalism's historical context. The postcolonial literature, as indicated by Dessler, contributes to
understanding capitalism's operation.

4. **English School:** Integrating realist, liberal, and institutional elements, this perspective considers the
impact of rules, norms, and institutions. While not explicitly mentioned, scholars contributing to this school
often draw from both realist and liberal traditions, as well as more recently from constructivism.

The chapter introduces interpretive understandings, such as constructivism, critical theory, postmodernism,
and feminism. Max Weber, particularly influential in interpretive understanding, highlighted the subjective
nature of human knowledge.

In the discussion of interpretive understandings in Chapter 6, the rise of constructivism is acknowledged,

impacting the field over the past two decades. Authors Mark V. Kauppi and Paul R. Viotti explore the middle
ground constructivists occupy between positivism and postmodernism.

Chapter 7 explores the debate between positivist science and critics drawing from phenomenology. Critical
theorists scrutinize narratives and justifications, with a nod to Max Weber's influence on interpretive
understandings.

Chapter 8 addresses feminism as an interpretive understanding, challenging masculinist perspectives.

Feminist scholarship, while diverse, often draws from constructivist understandings of gender and sexual
identity.
In Chapter 9, normative theory is discussed as a separate line of inquiry, involving moral or ethical values.
The authors emphasize the importance of normative theories relevant to international relations and
foreign policy choices.

Lastly, the chapter stresses the significance of acknowledging intellectual roots, citing figures like
Thucydides, Niccolò Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and Hugo
Grotius. The authors caution against dismissing historical contributions and highlight the continuity of
thinking in international relations.

Chapter 12

This chapter delves into the historical transition from medieval Christendom to the rise of the state system
and modern political thought. Noteworthy figures such as Machiavelli, Bodin, Grotius, and Hobbes
contributed to conceptualizing the international order. The narrative begins with the movement from
feudalism to the emerging state system, marked by representative assemblies challenging monarchs for
power.

The fourteenth century, marked by the Black Death and popular insurrections, saw the emergence of
national consciousness. The subsequent century witnessed conflicts and resistance to monarchical state
building, with religious wars influencing political dynamics. The Renaissance and Protestant Reformation
played pivotal roles in shaping modernity, emphasizing individualism and religious pluralism.

The Thirty Years' War, triggered by religious and power struggles, resulted in the Peace of Westphalia in
1648. This peace settlement solidified the trend toward the territorial state, with new diplomatic practices
based on the sovereign equality of victor and vanquished. The rise of state trading companies, banks, and
mercantilism marked economic developments, reinforcing state power.

The chapter underscores the role of universalism in developing international law and the concept of
external sovereignty. While Grotius and others accepted the existence of sovereign states, they
acknowledged the need to recognize a wider unity. This universalism contributed to the development of
international society, seen in present-day English School thinking, emphasizing commonly accepted rules
guiding state conduct.

Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) holds significant importance in political theory, being the first truly
"modern" political theorist. His emphasis on "what is" rather than "what should be" characterizes his
empirical, non-utopian approach. Machiavelli's impact on political thought is compared to a sword thrust
into the body politic of Western humanity, emphasizing the realist tradition.

Born in Florence, Machiavelli served in the Florentine republic until the Medici family's restoration to
power in 1512. His writings, particularly "The Prince" and "The Discourses," reveal his transitional role
between the medieval and modern world. Influenced by political events, he observed the devastation of
Italy by French and Spanish invasions, contributing to his political analyses.

Machiavelli's contribution to the legitimation of the modern state is rooted in his focus on the state's
internal and external security. His affection for the Italian city-state and admiration of the ancient Roman
republic are evident. In "The Prince," he advocates the unification of Italian city-states to restore civil order
and security.

Exploring Machiavelli's views on republics, he emphasizes their stability and flexibility. He argues that
mixed government, exemplified by a republic, combines the best aspects of principality, aristocracy, and
democracy. Republics, according to Machiavelli, are superior in sustaining the state's security due to the
active participation of the citizenry.

Machiavelli's analysis of Rome's rise involves examining its constitution, the role of conflict, and the
importance of good laws and arms. He attributes Rome's success to its leadership, religion, citizen army,
and arms. His ideal leader possesses virtù, a combination of intelligence and will, to implement political
ideas effectively.

However, Machiavelli acknowledges the cyclical nature of institutions, influenced by human nature and
fortune. Despite human fallenness, virtuous leadership and sound institutions can delay decay. He
introduces a deterministic element with "fortuna" or chance, countered by leaders' enlightened boldness.

Machiavelli's realism extends to international politics, emphasizing the leader's primary concern for the
state's security and independence. Wars, deemed necessary for preserving liberty, should align with
prevailing morality. He analyzes methods of expansion, causes of war, and the balance between offensive
and defensive strategies.

In conclusion, Machiavelli's contributions to political thought encompass the legitimacy of the modern
state, the virtues of republics, and the realism of international relations. His nuanced views challenge
stereotypes, revealing a serious engagement with moral and ethical concerns in navigating political change.

Thomas More and Machiavelli, though often contrasted, share a common perspective on the need for
rulers to receive wise counsel for effective governance. More, known for his socialist idealism in "Utopia,"
addressed the challenges of advising princes in Book One. Raphael, resembling Ulysses or Plato, hesitates
due to fear of his unconventional views causing jealousy. This dialogue explores More's ambivalence
toward public service and the complexities of advising rulers, addressing the intersection of politics and
morality.

Both More and Machiavelli appreciate classical works and observe the rise of the national state in Europe.
While Machiavelli emphasizes political realism, More, critical of the enclosure movement, laments the loss
of medieval pluralism. More's resistance to Henry VIII's absolutism and Machiavelli's acknowledgment of
the need for a strong Italian state contribute to the intellectual groundwork for the modern state system.

The concept of "Reason of state" emerges as a legitimating theory of statecraft. Botero's "Della Ragione di
Stato" popularizes this idea, justifying state actions based on security. The Thirty Years' War becomes a
turning point, solidifying the power of centralized states over medieval estates. Hobbes, associated with
"raison d'état," introduces the state of nature as an analogy to the anarchic international system. His focus
on absolute sovereignty and security shapes realist perspectives in international relations.

Hobbes' "Leviathan" establishes the state as crucial for security. He envisions a state of nature as a state of
war and emphasizes individual self-preservation. Hobbes breaks with traditional natural law, viewing it as a
means to grant absolute power to the sovereign for security. Hobbes also hints at international relations,
acknowledging states' right to pursue their benefit, emphasizing perpetual war and alliances as temporary
solutions. His work contributes foundational elements to the realist understanding of international politics.

The concept of sovereignty, both internal and external, has evolved over time to legitimize the
international system of states. Sovereignty involves the right of a state to exercise exclusive control over its
territory and the freedom to conduct foreign affairs. Despite external coercion or invasion, states maintain
their de jure right to sovereignty, exemplified by the Baltic republics during the Soviet invasion.

The notion of sovereignty as a basis for state authority originated in response to disputes over supreme
power within political communities. F.H. Hinsley argues that internal sovereignty is a compromise between
those advocating ruler supremacy and those favoring rule by the governed. The ancient Greeks, lacking a
clear distinction between community and state, did not develop the idea of sovereignty.

In contrast, the Roman and Byzantine empires established internal sovereignty, with authority
concentrated in the emperor. However, medieval Europe witnessed overlapping authorities and a lack of a
singular supreme authority until the rise of territorially based states in the sixteenth century.

Jean Bodin's work, especially "Six Books on the State" (1576), played a crucial role in formulating the
doctrine of internal sovereignty. Bodin emphasized the need for a centralized authority with absolute
power within the state, distinct from mere governmental functions. He defined sovereignty as the state's
absolute and perpetual power, distinguishing it from the concept of government.

External sovereignty, developing over centuries, faced challenges in reconciling individual state sovereignty
with ethical principles in international relations. Francisco de Vitoria and legal positivists like Francisco
Suarez and Alberico Gentili supported a unified European order based on divine and natural law. Naturalists
such as Samuel Pufendorf and Benedict Spinoza were more skeptical, emphasizing the state of war in
international relations.

The Bodin-Grotian perspective, advocated by writers like Hugo Grotius, aimed to reconcile internal
sovereignty with an international community. Grotius, considered the "father of international law,"
combined manmade and natural laws to establish a basis for tempering conflicts among states. His work,
"The Law of War and Peace" (1625), highlighted the importance of moderation in international relations,
contributing significantly to the development of international law.

Grotius' ideas gained prominence after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, marking the transition to a system
of sovereign states. His influence persisted through later writers like Emmerich de Vattel, and the Grotian
conception of international society shaped discussions on regional integration and international regimes in
the English School of international relations.

In reflecting on the thought of writers related to the rise of states, it is evident that they grappled with the
changing international order in Western Europe after the dissolution of the unity provided by Christendom
and empire during the Middle Ages. The settlement of the Thirty Years' War in 1648 marked the explicit
recognition of the authority of monarchs and princes over their respective territories.

Niccolò Machiavelli, a prominent figure in the realist tradition, drew upon classical works to understand
Rome's rapid ascent. His focus shifted from moral justifications to pragmatic considerations of state
conduct, emphasizing how states act rather than how they should behave. Giovanni Botero furthered this
perspective with "reason of state" arguments justifying the expansion of state power.

Thomas More, while sentimentally attached to the medieval community, recognized the growing
importance of the modern national state and the need for sound advice on wielding extraordinary power.
Thomas Hobbes laid a scientific foundation for political philosophy, justifying a powerful centralized state to
end domestic anarchy and extending this concept to the international system, highlighting the warlike
nature of states without a superordinate authority.

The emerging concept of sovereignty, championed by Jean Bodin for internal sovereignty, reinforced state
autonomy and challenged universal claims of papacy and empire. Various scholars, following Bodin, worked
on external sovereignty, contributing to the realist emphasis on the state as the principal actor in
international relations.

Hugo Grotius played a pivotal role by recognizing the necessity to develop a basis for states to relate to
each other in an anarchic realm. His idea of an international community influenced realist, liberal, and
English School perspectives, establishing interstate relations as a given in political life. Subsequent political
thought focused on analyzing the conduct of states in international politics. Overall, these thinkers
navigated the complexities of a shifting international landscape and laid the foundations for understanding
state behavior on the global stage.

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Enlightenment thinkers like Montesquieu played a significant
role in shaping international relations thought. Montesquieu, influenced by Greek and Roman ideas,
particularly Polybius, advocated for a separation of powers within a government to safeguard liberty. His
work, "The Spirit of the Laws," emphasized the diversity of cultures shaped by historical, geographical, and
climatic factors, challenging the Enlightenment's optimistic view of human perfectibility.

Montesquieu's republican preference for a balanced government aligned with the Federalists in America,
who sought to avoid excessive central authority. He recognized the connection between a state's domestic
character and its behavior in international affairs. For Montesquieu, monarchy inclined toward war and
territorial expansion, while republics favored peace and moderation.

His notion of the "law of nations" acknowledged the unitary nature of states as actors in the international
system. States, driven by the principle of self-preservation, had the right to defend themselves, even if it
involved war. Montesquieu's realism accepted the inevitability of war and highlighted the importance of
statecraft in navigating international relations. His ideas influenced later thinkers like Rousseau and Kant,
contributing to the intellectual foundations of modern international relations theory.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, an influential thinker of the 18th century, faced challenges in interpretation due to
the complexity of his ideas and unauthorized edits to his manuscripts. Born in Switzerland, his early life
involved diverse experiences, including a relationship with Madame de Warens. Influenced by Denis
Diderot, Rousseau gained fame through an essay contest. His works "Émile" and "On the Social Contract"
led to arrest orders, prompting him to flee France. Despite a brief stay in England encouraged by David
Hume, conflicts arose, and Rousseau returned to France.

Rousseau's Enlightenment thinking, akin to social contract theorists like John Locke, emphasized individuals
escaping the state of nature through a mutual agreement. His concept of the state of nature, portrayed in
"Discourse on the Origin of Inequality," differs from Locke's natural law, depicting an egocentric world
focused on short-term interests. This perspective holds relevance in international relations, drawing
parallels to the challenges of cooperation among states in an anarchical system.

Rousseau attributed human conflict to property and resulting inequality, considering them the roots of
wars and societal divisions. His emphasis on the general will, reflecting a unitary, rational actor in the state,
contrasts with Montesquieu's ideas. He questioned the right to war for conquest and advocated for jus in
bello, stating constraints on killing enemies who surrender.

Rousseau's influence extends to democratic thought, with Marx and Engels incorporating his ideas on
property and inequality into their works. Rousseau also contributed to the ideology of nationalism,
emphasizing the role of education in creating a national identity. Interpretations of his views on
international relations vary among scholars like Kenneth Waltz and Stanley Hoffmann, with debates on the
significance of federation or confederation in addressing the challenges posed by international anarchy.
While Rousseau acknowledges the need for a solution at the state level, debates persist on whether he
prioritized improving states over altering the international structure.

Immanuel Kant, an East Prussian scholar, contributed significantly to political philosophy, advocating for a
liberal world order promoting freedom and peace. Despite his support for the American and French
Revolutions, Kant acknowledged the challenges in transforming world politics and emphasized the
importance of sovereign states in any international arrangement. He proposed a "federation of states"
aimed at maintaining peace without undermining state sovereignty.
Kant's vision was rooted in a Stoic-inspired universalism, promoting world citizenship and rejecting the
amalgamation of states under a single power. He recognized the inherent challenges in human nature,
describing the natural state as prone to war. However, he believed that adversity and economic
imperatives could lead nations toward peaceful cooperation. Kant argued that the spirit of commerce,
incompatible with war, would gradually prevail, forcing states to pursue honorable peace.

Morality and politics were intertwined in Kant's philosophy, asserting that true politics must acknowledge
moral principles. He envisioned progress toward peace through constitutional arrangements, advocating
for a federation of republics gradually expanding under the law of nations. Kant's optimism rested on the
belief that, over time, moral principles would triumph over expediency in world politics.

Moving to The Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, these
documents aimed to persuade the American public to adopt a republican form of government. The authors
demonstrated a realist perspective, emphasizing the likelihood of conflict among independent sovereign
states. They questioned the efficacy of perpetual peace among republics and challenged the idea that
commerce alone could prevent wars.

Madison's discussion on factions highlighted the danger of internal divisions, but he argued that in a
republic, diverse interests and coalitions could prevent a permanent majority from dominating. This notion
of plurality of interests resonated with balance-of-power theory and contributed to the liberal
understanding of politics, emphasizing the competition among various actors.

In summary, both Kant and The Federalist Papers reflect a nuanced understanding of international
relations, considering the complexities of human nature, the role of states, and the intricate balance
between morality and politics in achieving lasting peace.

In this passage, the focus is on the perspectives of Georg W. F. Hegel, Carl von Clausewitz, and Max Weber
in the context of international relations and political thought.

Hegel's view centers on history as a rational, dialectical process, integral to the development of the state.
He contributed to historicism, challenging Enlightenment ideas, asserting that moral values vary across
cultures, and rejecting universal standards. Hegel emphasizes the sovereignty of individual states and sees
war as integral to societal development.

Clausewitz, known for "war as a continuation of political activity," argues that military force serves political
objectives. He emphasizes the importance of leadership, adaptability, and rationality in warfare. His ideas,
influential in realism, acknowledge the uncertainties and friction inherent in war.

Max Weber's impact is seen in his rejection of mono-causal explanations for societal development. He
views the modern state's monopoly on legitimate force as a result of rationalization. Weber, like Hegel,
acknowledges the role of war in shaping states. His focus on bureaucracy's rationalization has implications
for understanding the functioning of bureaucracies in foreign policy.

Weber's realism is evident in his analysis of states using force, differing attitudes toward the outside, and
the role of prestige in international relations. He highlights the desire for power as a driver of conflicts and
identifies the latent threats posed by powerful states.

Weber's ambivalence towards the rationalization process is seen in its efficiency but also its limitations. His
analysis of the dilemmas faced by politicians reflects a realist tradition, emphasizing the need to balance
passion and perspective in political decision-making.
Overall, these thinkers contribute to the understanding of international relations by providing insights into
historical processes, the role of war, and the complexities of statecraft.

In this passage, the text explores the contributions of various political thinkers such as Montesquieu,
Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Weber, and Adam Smith to international political economy. It emphasizes the
impact of the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century industrial revolution on global societies, leading
influential thinkers to analyze the political, social, and economic implications. Adam Smith's perspective on
free markets, state-centric approaches, and the "invisible hand" concept are highlighted. The text also
delves into Karl Marx's ideas on international political economy, class conflict, and his internationalist
vision. Richard Cobden's arguments linking free trade to peace and John A. Hobson's analysis of imperialism
as an economic solution to overproduction and underconsumption are explored. Overall, the passage
provides insights into the historical development of international political thought and its relevance to
economic structures and global relations.

In Lenin's "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism" (1916), influenced by Hobson, he addresses
capitalist exploitation of lesser-developed countries and the causes of war among advanced capitalist
states. Lenin emphasizes the dominance of monopolies and finance capital in imperialism, marking a stage
where the export of capital and the division of the world among international trusts have become
prominent. He contends that imperialism provides a temporary relief to the working class through colonial
spoils but intensifies global struggles among capitalist powers once the world is fully divided.

Lenin's theory, rooted in Marxist principles, suggests that imperialism arises due to capitalism's internal
contradictions. As working-class revolutions predicted by Marx did not materialize, Lenin sees imperialism
as a way to pacify proletarian discontent. The struggle among capitalist states for spheres of influence and
colonies is driven by calculations of economic, financial, and military strength, leading to constant
redivisions. Lenin's theory aligns with power transition theory, emphasizing economic determinants over
political factors.

Reflecting on modern thought related to states and capitalism, scholars observed the emergence of a new
world order marked by states and capitalism. Realists and liberals perceive states as sovereign entities, with
realists emphasizing power politics and liberals focusing on economic transnationalism. Economic
structuralists, like Lenin, view capitalism as potentially leading to destructive and exploitative
consequences, even war. These ideas, debated between the World Wars, continue to influence
contemporary thinking about international relations.

Sessions according ChatGPT

The session on International Relations (IR) Theories, conducted by Professor Chiara Ruffa on September 11,
2023, aimed to provide an introduction to various IR theories. The session was structured into practical
points, discussions on IR theories (neo-realism, neoliberal institutionalism, and constructivism), and a
concluding section.

In terms of practical points, the professor emphasized the importance of preparing using slides and
readings provided before each session. Textbooks and additional recommended texts were mentioned for
guidance, and online information was encouraged. Communication with the professor via email and during
office hours was highlighted, with specific dates mentioned for office hours.

Moving on to IR theories, the focus was on three main theories: (neo-)realism, liberal institutionalism, and
constructivism.

1. (Neo-)Realism:
 - Originating from ancient philosophers like Thucydides to modern scholars like Kenneth Waltz, realism
posits that international politics is a struggle for power. It emphasizes the anarchical nature of the
international system, with states as key actors in a self-help system characterized by competition and the
security dilemma.

- Classical realists view international politics as an endless power struggle rooted in human nature, while
neorealists (or structural realists) approach it more scientifically, emphasizing the role of material
capabilities and anarchy.

- Defensive realism (Kenneth Waltz) argues that states should acquire an appropriate amount of power
for survival, while offensive realism (John Mearsheimer) contends that states should maximize relative
power to become hegemons.

- Neoclassical realism considers unit-level factors in addition to systemic constraints and opportunities.

- A practical application of realism was discussed regarding the run-up to and conduct of the war in
Ukraine.

2. Neoliberal Institutionalism:

- Emerging as a counterpart to realism in the 1970s, neoliberal institutionalism focuses on cooperation

and institutions. It assumes an anarchical international system but emphasizes cooperation, institutions,
and absolute gains.

- Democratic peace theory, commercial liberalism (economic interdependence), and neoliberal

institutionalism were discussed. Prominent scholars include Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye.

- A practical application of liberalism was discussed regarding the run-up to and conduct of the war in
Ukraine.

3. Constructivism:

- Reacting to the end of the Cold War, constructivism emphasizes the role of ideas in shaping
international relations. It posits that reality is socially constructed and that the international system is a
social structure subject to change.

- Key concepts include the idea that "anarchy is what states make of it" (Wendt), and actors' identities
are shaped through interaction. Constructivism focuses on the importance of norms, ideas, and identities
in shaping international behavior.

- A practical application of constructivism was discussed regarding the run-up to and conduct of the war in
Ukraine.

The class also engaged in an exercise discussing how proponents of each theory would explain the US-China
trade war in terms of key actors, motivations, and aims, highlighting the practical application of IR theories.
Additional literature recommendations were provided for further exploration of the topics covered in the
session.

(Neo-)Realism Perspective:

- Key Actors: The U.S. and China as self-interested states in a competitive international system.

- Motivations and Aims: Pursuit of relative power, security, and survival. Both states engage in the trade
war to enhance their own national interests.

(Neo)liberal Institutionalism Perspective:

- Key Actors: Besides states, international organizations and businesses play vital roles.

- Motivations and Aims: Economic interdependence is emphasized. Both the U.S. and China, recognizing the
benefits of cooperation, might engage in the trade war to seek absolute gains and long-term economic
welfare.

Constructivism Perspective:

- Key Actors: Not just states but also individuals, ideas, and norms.

- Motivations and Aims: The trade war could be seen as a clash of differing norms and ideas about trade
practices and economic governance. Actors' identities and perceptions shape their actions, influencing the
conduct of the trade war.

Overall: While realism focuses on power dynamics, neoliberal institutionalism emphasizes cooperation and
institutions, and constructivism brings in the role of ideas and social constructs. Each perspective provides a
unique lens through which to analyze the US-China trade war, showcasing the richness and complexity of
International Relations theories.

Session Overview: The Structure of the International System

1. Recap:

The session began with a recap of three major International Relations theories: Neo-realism, Liberalism,
and Constructivism. These theories differ in their perspectives on actors, motivations, aims, and the
international system itself.

2. Agency vs. Structure in the International System:

The discussion focused on the agent-structure problem in International Relations. It introduced key
concepts, emphasizing that human actors and social relationships shape the international system. Theories
differ in whether they emphasize the role of structures or actors.

3. Dominance of Anarchy in the International System:

Neo-realism asserts the importance of an anarchic international system where states, as rational actors,
pursue security due to the security dilemma and balance of power.

4. Emergence of Hierarchy in the International System:

The session delved into how hierarchy can coexist with anarchy in the international system. Neo-liberalism
suggests that institutions, trade, and democracies can stabilize the anarchic structure.

5. Hierarchies and Inequalities:

Hierarchies, defined as vertical relations of super- and subordination, were introduced. The discussion
touched upon different types of hierarchies and their deep connection with power. The importance of
recognizing inequalities within hierarchies was emphasized.

6. Conclusion:

The session concluded with the assertion that understanding the international system as hierarchical is
crucial. Hierarchies and inequalities, whether based on status, power, or other criteria, should be studied
with a focus on how they may reinforce one another, especially considering intersectionality.

Questions for Reflection:

- How do Neo-realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism differ in their views on agency and structure?
- What common ground exists among these theories?

**Key Concepts and Perspectives:**

1. **Agent-Structure Problem:**

- The debate over the relative importance of human actors (agents) and social structures in shaping the
international system.

2. **Anarchy in the International System:**

- The assumption of a decentralized and anarchic international system, foundational to structural realism,
with states as key actors.

3. **Hierarchy and Inequality:**

- The acknowledgment that hierarchies exist within the anarchic system, leading to varying degrees of
power and status among actors.

4. **Intersectionality:**

- The consideration of the cumulative effects of different forms of inequalities, such as gender, age, class,
race, etc., reinforcing each other in the global space.

**Conclusion:**

The session aimed to provide a nuanced understanding of the structure of the international system,
emphasizing the coexistence of anarchy and hierarchy. Exploring hierarchies and inequalities is crucial, and
their study requires a focus on different types, levels, and intersections to gain a comprehensive
perspective.

The information provided pertains to Session 4 of a course conducted by Prof. Chiara Ruffa at Sciences Po,
Campus de Reims, focusing on the international system and its components. The session discusses key
aspects of the modern international order, the emergence of states, and the 'great divergence' in global
development.

The session outlines the midterm exam, which is a significant component, constituting 30% of the grade.
Students are expected to choose an essay topic, make a claim, and defend it using concepts, theories, and
examples covered in sessions 1-5. The session date is set for October 14, and students are explicitly
instructed to focus on the material covered in sessions 1-5 only.

The course's recap covers paradigms, hierarchies in the international system, and the importance of
studying them. It emphasizes the role of states in producing and reproducing the hierarchical structure and
the persistence of inequality. The narrow and broad conceptions of hierarchies are discussed, with
examples such as the UN Security Council.

The conceptualization of the international order is explored, detailing regularized practices of exchange
between political units. International orders, both sparse and intensive, hierarchical and equal, formal and
informal, have existed since political units interacted regularly. The dominance of Western ideas, the global
political economy's functioning, and global governance are key perspectives discussed.

The historical development of international orders is traced, highlighting the rise of the West through
processes like imperialism and the global expansion of capitalism. The information dispels the
misconception that the global international order was born in Westphalia and delves into alternative
historical accounts.

The 'great divergence' is explained, addressing the significant economic and technological disparities that
arose between the West and other regions. Multiple explanations, including innovations, European inter-
state wars, and the role of ideas, are presented. Additionally, international processes such as imperialism
are considered as crucial drivers of this divergence.

The 'rational' state and its attributes are explored, drawing on the Westphalian model. The state is defined
by its monopoly of legitimate violence within a defined territory, population, and sovereign government.
The emergence and features of the rational state, including centralization, differentiation,
institutionalization, sovereignty, and territorialization, are outlined.

The role of expertise in the rational state and its international dimensions are discussed, emphasizing the
growth of permanent bureaucracies and the export of the Westphalian model. Examples, such as the
socialization of overseas cadets into military academies, illustrate the spread of Western norms.

The conclusion emphasizes the need to contextualize the effects of the Treaty of Westphalia and highlights
the contemporary global international order's dependence on international processes.

References mentioned during the class are provided, offering additional resources for interested students.

In Session 5 of the international relations course at Sciences Po, Professor Chiara Ruffa explores the
diversification of actors beyond the state in the international system. This is a critical aspect of
understanding the contemporary international order, emphasizing the need to move beyond a Western-
centric perspective. The session delves into various aspects, and the midterm exam, scheduled for October
14, focuses on topics covered in sessions 1-5.

The course begins with a recap of the current international order, tracing its roots back to 5000-6000 BC
and highlighting its truly global nature dominated by Western states. The essay draws attention to the
diversification drivers, such as the great divergence, economic interaction, infrastructure,
industrialization, rational state, and imperialism.

The definition of the state, as given by Weber in 1919, outlines three central attributes: territory,
population, and a sovereign government. The emergence of the rational state, a product of the peace of
Westphalia, is marked by traits like centralization, differentiation, institutionalization, sovereignty, and
territorialization. The state remains a crucial actor, but its role is evolving in the global space.

The discussion then shifts to non-state actors (NSAs), defined as individual or collective entities with
autonomy, identity, and resources acting across borders. The types of NSAs include international
organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and business actors. These actors operate at
various levels, from national to supranational, influencing and interacting within the international system.

The essay explores the historical context of NSAs, emphasizing that while they have been active for
centuries, their regularity, visibility, and institutionalized recognition have increased over time. The growth
of NSAs is attributed to factors such as democratization, information and communication revolution, and
increased support from international governmental organizations.

The second part of the essay focuses on non-state actors within the international system. It categorizes
them into international organizations, NGOs, business actors, and other actors. These are further classified
based on dimensions like public/private, national/transnational, individual/organization, profit/non-profit,
and legal/illegal.
The discussion delves into the roles of different NSAs. For instance, multinational firms pursue global
strategies, while NGOs engage in partnerships with states, private actors, and international organizations.
The blurring of lines between public and private, national and international, and profit and non-profit
underscores the complexity of these interactions.

The essay concludes by emphasizing the increased diversity of actors in the international system. It
highlights the importance of recognizing the evolving roles of states and non-state actors, acknowledging
the network logic and communication factors, and understanding the shift from a stato-centric to a multi-
centric world. The concluding section also prompts students to discuss the significance of different actors
based on theoretical paradigms, such as realism, liberalism, and constructivism.

In summary, Session 5 of the course provides a comprehensive overview of the diversification of actors
beyond the state in the international system, emphasizing the need for students to analyze and articulate
their understanding in the midterm essay.