International Relations

Ken Booth

3 reasons why International Relations matter:

1. Because much of what happens in the daily lives of everybody across the world is
directly and indirectly the result of actually practised international relations in the past, at
present, and (through informed and uninformed expectations) into the future.

2. Because dominant ideas about international relations shape the common sense of
political elites about co-operation and conflict between human societies

3. Because the study of international relations grapples with the most basic
philosophical questions – What is real? What can we know? How should we live? In the
biggest political arena of all, the international system.

Kenneth N. Waltz: Anarchy has enormous “causal weight” (the power to make things
happen) in relation to “big and important things”. Anarchy is used by IR specialists to refer
to the situation in which there is no supreme political authority above the sovereign
state.
Anarchy doesn’t necessarily imply Chaos, Disorder and Confusion, in IR anarchy
can be a condition of order and stability.

The big and important things that Waltz claimed were explained by anarchy include
war and peace, balances and imbalances of power and structures of co-operation
and domination.

Much of what we take for granted in the daily activities of life on earth today is the result
of battles and deals between states long, or not so long, ago.

Each of us is born into a specific national context, with a particular history, geography,
culture and set of opportunities and constraints in the international system.
The Great War 1914-1918, WW II, decisively altered private and public lives in much of
the world up to the present. Inventions were accelerated, boundaries changed, political
horizons altered, social dreams inspired, cultures destroyed, and, of course lives and
loves were changed for ever.

Each of us is shaped by our genetic inheritance and life chances created by our parents
and their class. Who we are is inescapably related to specific geopolitical histories
and geographies. Our lives to some degree is strongly determined by how well or badly
our governments conducted themselves in the past. =➔ We are all, the children of
international relations.

International relations is defined as “The international level of world politics”

“International level” means the interactions largely (not exclusively) of sovereign states.
“World Politics” means who gets what, when and how across the world.

KB position in terms of “states centric” idea: recognize the empirical significance of

states and their relations without being statist politically and ethically.
1. Recognize the empirical significance of states and their relations:

• Recognize: Acknowledge or understand.

• Empirical: Based on observation or experience rather than theory or pure
logic.
• States: Refers to sovereign political entities, typically countries or nations.
• Relations: Connections or interactions between these states.
Putting it together, this part suggests acknowledging the real-world importance of
countries and their interactions based on observable facts and experiences.
2. Without being statist politically and ethically:
• Without being: Indicates a stance or perspective that avoids or refrains from.
• Statist: Related to the belief in a strong, centralized government or state
control over various aspects of society.
• Politically: Pertaining to the activities, actions, or policies related to
government and politics.
 • Ethically: In a manner consistent with moral principles or values.
In this context, it implies maintaining an awareness of the practical significance of states
and their relations without endorsing or aligning with a political or ethical stance that
supports strong state control.
Putting it all together, the phrase suggests the importance of understanding the
real-world impact of countries and their interactions based on observable facts and
experiences, while simultaneously avoiding a political or ethical stance that
advocates for strong state control.

The international level of world politics:

State-dominated in an Empirical Sense (some states are the most powerful “actors” in
the world)
BUT NOT
State-centrism in a Normative Sense (believing that the contemporary states-system
represents the best of all possible worlds).

Continuity and Change are always present in International Relations.

Continuity allows us to have a time-transcending understanding of the situations,
dilemmas and crisis faced by leaders and peoples in other places in other eras.
We cannot and should not assume that everything will always be the same, but it would
be foolish to underestimate the stubborn continuities of states interactions.

Intitutionally, the study of IR was born in 1919 – David Davies.

We shall never get real prosperity and security until we get peace, we shall never get
peace until we get justice, and we shall get none of these things until we succeed in
establishing the rule of law by means of the creation of a really effective international
authority equipped with those two vital institutions, an equity tribunal and an international
police force.
— Lord Davies, The Problem of the Twentieth Century, 1930
Teleology: What is Was always meant to be. Certain things become seen as part of a
grand plan, guided by nature, God, reason – or wahtever. Behind everything there must
be an ultimate purpose.

The United Nations currently recognizes 206 states, which includes 193 member states,
2 observer states, and 11 other states. Of that number, 191 states are currently
undisputed, meaning that they are universally recognized as a sovereign countries and
not seriously disputed with any other states.
A country is a region that is identified as a distinct political entity, under the authority of a
single government and set of civil laws. Although most countries on Earth are universally
recognized, some are currently engaged in disputes with other countries over their
sovereignty.

The Montevideo Convention 1933, A State should have:

1. A permanent population
2. A defined territory
3. A Government
4. The capacity to enter into relations with other states.

Some argue that a State is not a “legal person” until it has been acknowledged as such
by other states.

Mike Featherstone, alternative trajectories include:

1. The global hegemony of one power (a world state under one overall ruler)
2. A global federal system (A decentralized world state)
3. The triumph of one dominant religion and its related political and theocratic structures.
4. The communist vision of a system dominated by the universal proletariat.

Samuel P. Huntington, The Civilizations and The Remaking of World Order, 1996:
“It is not states (legal entities) but civilizations (Cultural entities) that represent the most
fundamental building blocks of human life”.
Thucydides, Greek historian and general, The History of the Peloponnesian War:
1. Focus on the long conflict between Athens and Sparta (431-404 BCE)
2. The Foundational text of the approach to IR called “Realism” (chapter 3) which seeks
to account for relations betrween political units “as they are”, not as they ought to be.

Charles Tilly: “War made the State, The State made war”
1. "War made the state":
• This part suggests that conflict or warfare played a crucial role in the
emergence and establishment of states. Historically, wars and conflicts
have often been catalysts for the consolidation of power and the creation of
centralized governing bodies. In times of external threats or internal
disorder, societies may unite under a central authority for protection and
coordination, leading to the formation of a state.
2. "The state made war":
• This part highlights the reciprocal relationship, suggesting that once a state
is formed, it has the capacity and authority to engage in organized warfare.
States often have military institutions and the ability to mobilize resources
for conflict. Additionally, the state might use war as a means to achieve
political, economic, or territorial goals. In this sense, the state becomes an
actor in the waging of wars.
In summary, the phrase implies a symbiotic relationship between war and the state,
suggesting that historical conflicts have been instrumental in the establishment of political
entities, while established states, in turn, have the capacity to engage in and shape the
nature of warfare. The concept reflects a perspective on the intertwined nature of military
conflict and the evolution of political structures throughout history.

The Thirty Years War (1618 – 1648) between the Habsburgs (Rulers of the Holy Roman)
and the Bourbons (The Kingdom of France) – Catholics Vs Protestants. This war became
a turning point in the development of the modern state.
- The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 consisted of several treaties.
 - Westphalian system not only the outcome of the war on the ground (Border
changes, i.e) but also legitimized the growth of state power and the further
breaking up of the supposedly universal church.

Key to both developments:

1. The endorsing of state sovereignity
2. The principle of cuius regio, eius religio (Whose rule, his religion)
What the King or Queen Says, Goes

Westphalian system became synonymous with the maturing of an ideology of “Statism”,

the convergence of political loyalty as well as decision-making power at the state level.

Sovereignity is defined as the supreme right to exercise exclusive authority (Law-making

and law-enforcing) over a territory and people.
There is equality between sovereign units, which in turn implies Anarchy (NO POWER
ABOVE THE SOVEREIGN STATE)
1. Sovereign State:
• A sovereign state is a political entity with defined geographical borders, a
permanent population, a system of governance, and the capacity to enter
into relations with other states. Sovereignty implies independence and
autonomy.
2. "No Power Above":
• This part underscores the idea that, within its territorial boundaries, a
sovereign state is the highest authority. There is no external authority, entity,
or power that can supersede or control the decisions and actions of the
state.
In summary, the phrase conveys the principle of state sovereignty, asserting that the state
is the ultimate and highest authority within its own territory. This concept is fundamental
to the traditional understanding of the nation-state system, where each state is considered
autonomous and possesses exclusive control over its domestic and foreign affairs.
Sovereignity as the “divine right of Kings” – Louis XIV “LÉtat, cést moi” was challenged
by the French Revolution in 1789 “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite” trinity.

Nation: A population, usually in a distinct territory, that shares a common language, ethnic
identity, history, religion and culture.
Nationalism: The political expression of this sense of national identity, most prominently
in the claim to self-determination.
A State: A territorial political unit.

True Nation-states, in which a very high proportion of the citizenry share the same
national identity, are rare, there are only about TEN proper Nation-States, with JAPAN as
the biggest.
1. Japan:
• Japan is a nation-state with a homogenous population sharing a common
language, culture, and history. The Japanese people have a strong sense
of national identity.
2. France:
• France is a nation-state characterized by a shared French language,
culture, and history. The concept of "Frenchness" is a central element in the
national identity.
3. Germany:
• Germany is a nation-state where the German language, culture, and
historical experiences play a significant role in shaping the national identity.
4. South Korea:
• South Korea is an example of a nation-state on the Korean Peninsula,
where the majority of the population shares a common Korean language,
culture, and history.
5. Turkey:
• Turkey is a nation-state with a predominantly Turkish-speaking population,
and the concept of Turkish identity is a key element in the national narrative.
 6. India:
• India is a diverse nation-state with a multi-ethnic and multilingual population.
While it is characterized by cultural and linguistic diversity, the idea of Indian
identity is an overarching concept.
7. United States:
• The United States is often considered a nation-state, although it is a diverse
country with a history of immigration. The American identity is often based
on shared civic values rather than a common ethnicity.
8. China
China is a nation-state with a long history and a dominant Han Chinese majority.
While it is ethnically diverse, the Han Chinese cultural and linguistic identity is a
significant unifying factor.
Italy:

9. Italy
Italy is a nation-state where the Italian language, culture, and history are central to
the national identity. The unification of various regions into a single state in the 19th
century contributed to the development of Italian nationalism.

10. Iran
Iran is a nation-state with a predominantly Persian-speaking population. The Persian
culture, history, and language are essential elements of Iranian national identity.

The concept of a nation-state is idealized, and in reality, many countries have diverse
populations with varying degrees of cultural, linguistic, and ethnic heterogeneity.

In the decades after 1815, following the defeat of Napoleon, diplomacy rose to the task
in the institution of the “concert of Europe”.

European powers acquired decisive war-making potential to conquer and colonize

overseas. The colonized learned from their colonizers; Asia, Africa, South America
developed and asserted their own national identities, sought independence from their
imperial rulers and demanded their own sovereign states. ➔combination of statism,
nationalism and imperialism transformed Europe’s Westphalian order into today’s global
international system of sovereign (so-called) nation-states.

THE GREAT RECKONING

Five contemporary challenges to the dominance of the sovereign state as the basic unit
of political life globally give pause for thought:
1. As a unit of Defence. Nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles put an end to
the idea: IF ONE’S ARMED FORCES ARE POWERFUL ENOUGH, THE NATIONAL
HEARTLAND CAN BE DEFENDED.
JOHN HERZ, 1950, argued: The basic defence function of the territorial state had
indefinitely undermined. Until a reliable defence against a missile attack with nuclear
weapons can be developed, ALL STATES MUST ULTIMATELY REMAIN VULNERABLE.

2. As a unit of Authority. Sovereignity, associated with the rights of governments rather

than their responsibilities towards their populations, has shifted after 2 nd WW. Such
developments in international declaration of human rights reflect the growing significance
of individuals (Not just States) in international relations and mark potentially radical
change in humankind’s common sense about living globally.

3. As a unit of collective identitiy.

- Migration
Standard image of state:
- Devolution
- Relatively Homogenous
UNDERMINED BY - Globalization
- Self determining & discrete
nation - The spread of global civil
society groups committed to
world citizenship,
environmentalism and peace.
Ulrich Beck, Sociologist, speculated about: Cosmopolitan Realpolitik, in which
cosmopolitan states in a globalizing world transcend their national histories in pragmatic
co-operative politics.

4. As a unit of economic activity. Some observers argue that the state was becoming
irrelevant in face of the dynamics of the global marketplace.
James Rosenau, IR Theorist, 1990, suggested: The international System is not
“post-international”: the system is still within the framework or paradigm of
traditional international relations. This statement implies that there has been no
shift or departure from existing structures and that it continues to adhere to ideas
commonly associated with conventional international relations. In other words, the
system can still be identified or explained using the generally accepted framework
in the context of traditional international relations.

5. As units of political independence. To be sovereign was once assumed to

synonymous with real independence. The four challenges described political
independence as a symbol more than reality.
Remarkable growth of international institutions and global governance; UN, IGOs,
Boddies, INGOs; as a result, international politics increasingly take place within a
densifying web of institutional constraints:
The landscape of global politics is evolving with more institutions playing a role, and these
institutions are imposing constraints or influencing the behavior of nations. This can
include organizations like the United Nations, regional alliances, trade agreements, and
other international bodies that shape the conduct of states in the global arena.

The international system is dysfunctional in relation to the need for more effective
collective action in the face of common global threats (Climate change, nuclear prof, etc),
but collective agreements are difficult, because in this self-help world, competition and
mistrust remain the default settings of nation-states.
Adam Ferguson: Of all the terms that we employ in treating human affairs, those of
natural and unnatural are the least determinate in their meaning.
Ferguson is expressing the idea that when people use these terms to describe
aspects of human behavior, societal norms, or other phenomena, there is a lack of
precision or definiteness in what exactly is meant by "natural" or "unnatural."
These terms may be open to interpretation and can be subjective, varying based
on individual perspectives, cultural contexts, or historical periods.
Ferguson seems to be highlighting the challenges or limitations associated with
using these terms in discussions about human affairs, suggesting that they might
be prone to ambiguity and differing interpretations.

IR Specialists argue about 3 broad sets of questions:

1. Reality: What are the categorical elements of international relations (the units, the
actors, the agenda?)
2. Knowledge: How can we best accumulate reliable information and interpretation?
3. Ethics: How should we act?

The Fault-Lines:
The great contestations in IR can be mapped in relation to Four Major Fault-Lines:
1. Realism Vs Idealism
2. Science Vs Judgement
3. Globalism Vs State-centrism
4. Critical Vs Mainstream theory
1. Realism VS Idealism
The first IR’s Great Debates though rarely engaged directly with each other.
First idealists were the liberal internationalists – envisaged the world of reason, law and
morality, put hopes in international organisations.
Against:
Realist, argued that such idealists (utopians) engaged the world “as it ought to be” rather
than “as it is”.
Realists focused on states and struggles for power, domination of expediency over
principle, inevitability of conflict. NO HAPPY ENDINGS IN IR.

Progressive Realists labelled by William E. Scheurman: E.H. Carr, John Herz, Hans J.
Morgenthau, Reinhold Niebuhr) ➔ their theories have been marginalized or overlooked,
to include the spread of community internationally, world government, nuclear
disarmament, planetary perspectives on security, the place of morality in politics.
Normally identified as”idealism”, not static realism.

Key division within realism: Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics, 1979.
Character of IR according to realists: primacy of sovereign states, struggle of power,
expectation of conflict, etc.
Classical realists: it is human nature.
Neo-realists: it is the structure of the international system.

STRUCTURE
For structural realists, anarchy constrains state agents to act according to a logic that
maximizes security
To Idealists: there is scope for peace-promoting agency on the part of states and
individuals.
Neo-Liberal institutionalists: International system offers the possibility of positive pay-
offs for all (absolute gains)
Neo-Realists: States must focus on their power position: What matter is “relative Gains”.
Democratic Peace Theory (DPT), a version of idealism, 1990: anarchical system is open
to different behavioural logics: states can shape how the system works, not simply be
shaped by it.

2. Science VS Judgement
Positivism, new language introduced in 1950s and 1960s, central to the social scientific
approach. Involves the ideal of objectivity, and a belief in the primacy of empirical claims
to knowledge.
Argument from traditionalists: study of human society is radically different from that of the
natural world.
Objectivity is seen as an illusion in studying human society: interpretation and judgement
are what matter.
Judgement – Assessing evidence before coming to a conclusion is necessary in science,
but judgment about politics is categorically different, for there can be no claim to
objectivity, and world affairs are not laboratory in which “experiments” can be conducted.

One powerful social scientific approach: Rational Choice theory.

Rational choice theory is a framework used in economics, sociology, political science,
and other social sciences to understand and predict human behavior in decision-making
situations. At its core, rational choice theory posits that individuals make decisions by
weighing the costs and benefits of different options and choosing the one that maximizes
their utility or satisfaction. It assumes that individuals are rational actors who have
consistent preferences and seek to maximize their self-interest.
Critics: It oversimplifies human behavior and fails to account for factors such as
emotions, social norms, and bounded rationality.
3. Globalism VS State-centrism
The contestation is almost wholly about the character of the real world.
Transnational Relations and World Politics, 1971
Power and Interdependence, 1977
Both by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye. Against mainstream state-centrism, they
described a world of “pluralism” and “complex interdependence”.
States were still seen as important actors, but recognition was demanded for the growing
importance of transnational actors such as NGOs, Multinational Corp, individuals.
State-centrism’s focus on foreign and defence policy decision-makers (soldiers
and diplomats) shifted to network of people and organizations conducting multi-
level relations across borders.
Realists challenge the significance of transnational relations, Transnationalist question
the centrality of the role played by military security.

Most Prominent protagonist of Neo-Marxist strand of globalism was Immanuel

Wallerstein, through his 4 volumes THE MODERN WORLD SYSTEM, 1974-2011,
explained the emergence of a one-world system associated with the expansion of
capitalism.
Neo-Marxist globalist approaches: the power of capitalism, and the ways in which profit,
poverty, and exploitation transcended state boundaries. ➔socio economic classes and
multinaitonal companies seen as key actors across the world.

4. Critical VS Mainstream Theory.

Mainstream approaches since 1940s: Realism and liberalism
Radical alternatives: Peace research and Neo-Marxist approaches.
Since 1980s all have coalesced under the label “Critical Theory”.
Insider (Realism and liberalism) focus on problem within the international status quo
Outsider (Critical) approaches focus on the very problem of the global status quo.
Feminist theorists agreed about the need to eliminate “malestream’s” gender bias.
Green theorists they advocate IR with a green lens, highlighting the global significance
of climate change, for example.
The End of History, Francis Fukuyama, 1989: The collapse of communism meant the
end of ideological cleveages and the emergence of liberal democracy as the final form of
government.

The Clash of Civilizations, Samuel P. Huntingtin, 1993 Argued: The basic building
blocks of human society have been civilizations, differentiated from each other by
tradition, language, culture and especially religion.

Constructivism: Doesn’t provide a categorical picture of the real world (States and their
strategies), but is instead a social theory seeking to explain how human society works.
“Reality is a human construction”

The State of Nature

Fear: Primordial emotion, rational and irrational dimensions.
When fear takes hold, whether real or manufactured, international politics can become
the site for some of the worst excesses of “Man’s inhumanity to Man”.
Humans are not naturally inclined to live peacefully together.
A conviction in the inescapable aggressiveness, selfishness, and competitiveness of
something identified as “human nature”.
Argument: Human nature and human condition are not inescapable realities; they are
realities only in the sense that they are ideas that human societies have internalized, and
so can be changed.

Analogous to Anarchy in IR: A State of War if not a condition of actual fighting.

Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes, 1651: Hereby it is manifest that, during the time men live
without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called
war, and such a war as is of every man against every man.
John Herz, 1940s, called this a condition of “Kill or Perish”, which in turn he
labelled “The Security Dilemma”
Weapons ambiguity: what a person or nation can use defensively, for self
protection, can also be used coercively to try and gain advantage.
Security dilemmais fuelled by the inability of people to get into the heads of others.
Governments can never fully know the motives and intentions of those who posses
weapons that have the capacity to inflict harm upon them.
Thing to be certain: the determination of others to seek to survive and attempt to
gain advantage.

Some examples:
US ICMB to Russian policy-makers, national defense or unassailable coercive capability?
China’s Blue Water, Navy Development or signal of more aggressive role in SCS?
Iran’s nuclear enrichment, is it simply for domestic energy security?

Hard and Soft Power

Power in IR allows actors to achieve their goals.
History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides, 416 BCE: “The strong do what they can
and the Weak suffer what they must”.

All political relations are between: Dominators and dominated, users and used.
The power to dominate being measured: who has greater population? Numbers of armed
forces? Industrial strength?

According to Joseph S. Nye:

Hard Power is exercised through both carrots (Inducements) and sticks (Coercions)
Soft Power is exercised through attraction and persuasion.
➔Ethical Judgement, not the type of power, but the purpose of which it is exercised.
Security policy is always politics and politized.
3 basic dimensions of security:
a. The referent object (who or what is to be secured)
b. The threats to that referent (what the priority dangers are)
c. The policies to be chosen for meeting the threats identified.

Security issues, is evolving:

1. From traditional military security (Balance of power) to security involving human rights,
economic justice and threats from climate chaos.
2. From the sovereign priorities of states to viewing IR as if people really matter.

Balance of power (equilibrium): capabilities of one state or combination of states are

balanced and checked by the capabilities of others.

“War makes rattling good history”, Thomas Hardy

Man, the State and War, Kenneth N. Waltz, 1959

The most persuasive theory about the causes of war focuses on the structure of anarchy
(War occurs because there is nothing to prevent it)

Vom Kriege, Karl von Clausewitz, 1832

War is a continuation of politics with an admixture of other means, namely violence.

The harmony of interests ➔ Liberal optimism: people act according to a rational

calculaiton of their interests and so work together across border. Individual rational
interests merge into a common interest = outcome is peace and absolute gain for ALL.

Foreign ministry and diplomats responsible for shaping and impelementing their country’s
foreign policy remain important.
Foreign Policy consists of the general attitudes, specific aims and forms om
implementation by which governments seek to promote “the national interest”.
The Essence of Decision, Graham Allison, 1971:
Decisions as the product of rational actors, organizational processes and bureaucratic
politics.

Groupthink, Irving Janis, 1972: social dynamics of decision making, how supposedly
moral people can make stupid decisions.

Rational choice approaches to interpreting foreign policy: better in theory that in

practice.
Rational diplomatic man is a real human being in a particular cultural and political context,
facing dilemmas with limited time and information.

Diplomats and foreign ministries:

At best, they are seen as having become merely commercial representatives
At worst, they are considered redundant.

Chronic in the case of “burden sharing” within NATO:

While all sign up to the principle rhetorically, in practice national self-interest quickly kicks
in on all sides, as members try to have the benefit of collective defence while trying to
minimize how much they contribute in money, equipment, personnel and especially blood.

Functionalism: Theories uniting economics, politics and moral ends in

international relations.

A Working Peace System, David Mitrany, 1943:

Working together on common functional projects across borders would reshape
loyalties and strengthen the ties that bind people together.

Mercantilism: Building state power through the growth of economic strength at home
and abroad by “beggar my-neighbour” policie in pursuit of favourable trade balances,
wealth and war potential.
Neoliberalism:
Economic policy aims include moving towards deregulating markets and labour,
privatizing state assets, reducing the state (including shrinking the public sector), and
cutting public expenditure on social provosion (individual responsibility rather that
welfare).

Communitarianism: Political and ethical positions can be properly understood only in

relation to distinct cultural, ethnic, and political communities.
Realists: The state is asserted as having primacy as the source and arbiter of ethical
positions.
Cosmopolitanism: All humans are equal, and that political and cultural boundaries have
no moral standing.

When considering the place of religion in international relations, 4

Oversimplifications should be avoided:
1. The complete separation of religion and politics.
2. The assumption that there must be one truly authentic religious view on each political
issue.
3. The tendency to impose solitaris identities.
4. The incompatibility in the political realm of secular ideas and religion.

Perpetual Peace, Immanuel Kant, 1975:

A Violation of rights in one place is felt throughout the world. He thought it rational
to hope for a better world, but knew the difficulties. Harmony of of morality and
politics, order through justice, the unity of right and law, the need to think
universally, and the openness of human potential through thought.