Dr Chris Baker-Beall

christopher.bakerbeall@ntu.ac.uk

Foundations & Challenges

INTR 106: Lecture #2
Historical Development of IR
Lecture Outline-
• IR in past civilisations
• Sumerian Civilisation and IR
• Emergence of the European State System
• 30 Years War & Westphalia
• Key Concepts – Sovereignty and the Balance of Power
• Emergence of International Relations
• 4 Great Debates and what they involve
• Introduction to certain theories of IR
 History &
International
Relations
See Buzan and Little (2000)
• Buzan and Little have
written the KEY text on
IR and History…
• This lecture in part takes
from this text.
IR in Early Civilisations
• The term ‘international relations’ was first coined at the end of the
18th century – by Jeremey Bentham (1789).
• However… where and whenever there have been territorially-
based political orders throughout history – there have been some
form of international relations.
• Sumerian civilisation (5300BC-1940BC) / Mesopotamia / City-States /
Buzan and Little: ‘the first fully fledged international system’.
• Greek City-States (7th-4th Century BC) Athens and Sparta and the
Peloponnesian War
• Ancient China (8th-2nd Century BC)
The Sumerian Civilisation
• By 4000BC, Sumer was divided into about a dozen independent city-
states.
Key-Points:
• Each city had a God.
• They were ruled over by a priestly governor or by a king.
• Characterised by developments in agriculture and establishing industries,
including weaving, leatherwork, metalwork, masonry, and pottery =
Trade / Economy
• The region was in constant conflict with numerous wars between the
various city-states.
Sumer: Mesopotamia
The Sumerian Society and IR
• Video clip
• In terms of comparison with contemporary IR/societies we have:
• Social and family life
• Agriculture
• Forms of trade, early economies
• Religion
• Education, writing, mathematics
• Technology, Military and War

• SO – many of the features of contemporary societies / and the

contemporary international system
• Skip forward a few thousands years…
 Westphalia and the
emergence of the
European state system
Origins of the European state system
• Europe in the middle ages (5th-15th Century) – political authority
was based on hierarchy under God – with authority delegated to
Popes and through them to the Holy Roman Empire (962-1805).
• Multiple forms of political organisation (kingdoms, principalities,
free cities).
• Period was characterised by claims from Kings and other rulers in
Europe for freedom (from Rome) over their territories.
• Early pre-cursor to the concept of sovereignty.
• The map of Europe looked very different from what it looks like
today
Map of Europe 200AD (Roman Empire 27BC –
476AD) Provinces
Map of Europe 1000AD
KEY DATES IN IR: The Thirty Year War (1618-1648)
• One of the longest and most destructive conflicts in European
history, and one of the longest continuous wars in modern history.
• Initially, religious war between Protestants and Catholics.
• Develops into conflict involving most of the European powers.
• Especially between France and the Habsburg Empire (territories of
Spain, Germany, Austria and Netherlands – as well as Holy Roman
Empire)
• The fighting ended in 1648 with…
• The Peace of Westphalia
Map of Europe after 1648
Why is Westphalia (1648) so importa
nt?
• It strengthened 3 key principles central to International Relations.
• 1. Sovereign territories – free from Church interference in their internal
affairs.
• ‘The monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory’
(Weber, 1919).
• 2. Members of the Holy Roman Empire were allowed to make alliances
with other states (as long as they didn’t threaten the Empire)
• The first form of foreign relations / foreign policy
• 3. There was some protection for the religious rights of minorities –
• Again, some basis established for later developments in terms of human rights
A Satirical Take on Westphalia but…
• The video does raise some important points:
• There were over 109 delegations party to the peace talks.
• There is a move towards more modern and formal types of diplomacy…
FOREIGN POLICY
• Power moves away from the Church to the leaders of the various states…
SOVEREIGNTY & DEMOCRACY
• I think there is also a point in there about the arbitrary way in which the
territories of Europe were split…. CONFLICT
• They thought it would resolve conflict but… It promotes conflict moving
forward…
• Westphalia is absolutely key to European history and IR moving forward
KEY CONCEPT: Sovereignty
• The creation of the modern-state system in 1648 acted as the pre-
cursor to the development of the concept of sovereignty, which is
essential in IR Theory.
• States = the highest form of government in the international system,
no higher sovereign
• No Leviathan…
• Internal sovereignty: MONOPOLY of the use of legitimate force within
a circumscribed territory
• External sovereignty: INDEPENDENCE from outside interference
• Waltz – ‘none is entitled to command; none is required to obey’.
Europe (17th-19th Century)
• The newly established state-system was strengthened.
• Congress of Vienna (1815) – redrawing the political map after the
dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, French Revolution and the
Napoleonic Wars.
• We now see something resembling the modern state-system
• Concert of Europe – (end of Napoleonic Wars 1815 – to WWI 1914) – a
diplomatic system between the Great Powers of Europe
• Established a ‘balance of power’.
• Broke down as a result of conflict between the states of Europe.
• WW1 follows in 1914…
The Concert of Europe (1815-1914)
KEY CONCEPT: The Balance of Power
• The balance of power theory is the idea that national security is
enhanced when military capabilities are distributed equally between all
states so that no one state is strong enough to dominate all the others.
• It is threatened if one state becomes too powerful.
• When confronted with a significant threat states can ‘bandwagon’
together to ‘balance’ (form alliances with other states) in order to tackle
the threat.
• The idea can be applied throughout human history…
• E.g. failure of the B.O.P. & World War One…
• In IR today it is most commonly used with reference to the Middle-East
World War One
• The fifth most deadly conflict in history.
• Over 9million combatants dead.
• Driven by the Imperialism of all of the great powers.
• E.g. Current debate over Germany’s role
• The war drew in all the world's economic great powers, which were
assembled in two opposing alliances:
• The Allies (based on the Triple Entente of the United Kingdom,
France and the Russian Empire)
• And the Central Powers of Germany and Austria-Hungary
International State System Today
History of IR: Conclusion
• We can identify ‘international systems’ throughout human history
• There have been different forms of political organisation beyond
the nation-state
• We can identify important IR concepts in historical societies… E.g.
• Balance of Power
• Sovereignty
• Emergence of the nation-state system - now the dominant form of
political organisation…
• Will it remain that way?
 The Discipline of
International Relations
(1919-2014)
4 Great Debates
KEY DATES IN IR: 1919 – The first Chair in IR
• The slaughter of 1914–18 persuaded a number of influential
thinkers and philanthropists that new ways of thinking about
international relations were required…
• The first chair in IR established at Aberystwyth, Wales – 1919.
• This was rapidly followed by establishment of IR at US universities
and Geneva, Switzerland.
• In the early 1920s, the London School of Economics' department of
International Relations was founded
• It was the first institute to offer a wide range of degrees in the field
The development of IR: Great Debate I
1920s-40s
• Who was the first great debate between?
• The first great debate in IR was between Idealism and Realism.
• During 1920s-30s Britain and America tried to promote ‘liberal
internationalism’ (a.k.a. Idealism)
• Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points speech:
• HOW DO WE PREVENT WAR…
• Basic logic – the people don’t want war
• The problem – no mechanism prior to 1914 to prevent war, other than the Balance of
Power
• The need for a new institution to promote peace: The League of Nations
The League of Nations
Liberal Internationalism
• Problem with the ‘balance of power’ = private commitment to non-aggression
• The League of Nations was designed to provide:
• Public / Formal assurances of Non-Aggression
• First commitment to Collective Security: an attack on one is an attack on all .
• Move towards disarmament
• What problems were there in creating The League?:
• US Senate failed to ratify the agreement
• Tied to Versailles and German view of ‘unjust peace’.
• Germany / Russia not allowed to join.
• Lack of real commitment - Liberal internationalist ideas were not at the forefront of
most statesmen’s minds.
Failure of ‘liberal internationalism’ (1930s)
• Why did liberal internationalism fail?
• The first great debate saw the failure of ‘idealism’. Events
demonstrated that the world wasn’t ready for liberal ideas. 7.00-8.30
• Economic collapse – the Great Depression
• The rise of the dictators – Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, Franco’s
Spain etc…
• A series of acts of aggression in Asia, Africa and Europe, and an inability
of the League powers led by Britain and France to prevent this.
• Appeasement of Hitler
• Failure to act over Mussolini’s war in Abyssinia
• Inaction on Spanish Civil War
The Impact of WWII on the discipline of IR
• The failure of liberal internationalism was confirmed by WWII
• Events were catastrophic in the ‘real world’ but they were equally
damaging in the world of ideas.
• Idealism (or liberal internationalism) was discredited.
• We get the rise of realism in IR:
• E.H. Carr (1939) The Twenty Year Crisis
• Hans Morgenthau (1948) Politics Among Nations
• The liberals (renamed utopians) view of human nature was too
optimistic. Realists = more pessimistic view.
• Names are important: idealism / realism
The development of IR: Great Debate II
1950s-1960s
• The second great debate in IR was between traditionalist and
behaviouralist approaches.
• Realism – now the dominant approach in IR.
• This debate was about trying to make IR a science.
• It was a debate between ‘classical realists’ who emphasised that we should
interpret world politics
• And ‘behaviouralists’ who argued for a more scientific discipline.
• We really see this distinction in the new sub-disciplines of :
• Foreign Policy Analysis and Strategic Studies
The development of IR: Great Debate III
1970s-1980s
• The Neo-Neo Debate: Neo-realism and Neo-liberalism
• It is called the inter-paradigm debate because both theories are very
similar: two sides of the same coin.
• Structural theories of world politics:
• Neo-realism – the structure promotes conflict
• Neo-liberalism – the structure promotes cooperation
• Both theories look at the international system and argue that the
structure of the system determines the behaviour of states
• Video Clip on Realism and Liberalism (00.18-02.40)
The development of IR: Great Debate IV
End of 1980s-1990s
• The End of the Cold War = one victorious state – a global hegemon –
the US
• We have a debate in IR – at the end of the 1980s – between traditional
approaches (realism/liberalism) and critical approaches.
• Critical approaches = realism failed to predict the end of the Cold War
• Too much focus on the state… What about other issues?
• Identity
• Gender
• Individuals
The development of IR: Great Debate IV
End of 1980s-1990s
• Critical Approaches challenge the notion that IR has to be scientific.
• They bring in ideas surrounding language, discourse, representation,
beliefs, myths, assumptions & morality.
• Reflecting the present???
• E.g.
• The end of the Cold War =
• ‘New Wars’
• Return of ethnic / nationalistic hatred (Balkans?)
• A less stable system = draw attention to the complexity of issues in world politics
Conclusion
Conclusion: Studying International Relations

• IR is a theoretical discipline…
• Not suggesting any particular theory is right or wrong.
• Over the next few weeks we will learn about the different theories
in a lot more detail.
• Theories provide a way for you to frame your arguments.
• Think about how the different theories can be applied to (and how
they focus) on different issues
Seminar Questions – 16.10.2014
• 1. What have been the main theoretical perspectives used to study IR during the
twentieth century?
• 2. How are ‘facts’ and ‘values’ linked when we talk about international relations?
• 3. How has the study of IR been linked to changes in international relations in the
‘real’ world?
• 4. What have been the significant ‘drivers’ in formulating approaches to the
study of IR?
• 5. How have concepts such as ‘power’, ‘justice’, ‘equality’ and ‘development’
been integrated into various perspectives?
• 6. What themes would you wish to highlight in formulating your own approach
to the study of IR?
IR Reflects Developments in the Real World
1945-1989
• Developments in IR theory reflect developments in the real world.
• 1945-70: Height of the Cold War – reflects realism and promotion of the national
interest
• Bi-polar system / two superpowers / equal balance of power
• 1970-89: Global economic interdependence, cooperation between states in different
IGO’s – reflects neo-liberalism.
• Soviet system collapses in 1989 / end of history / liberalism victorious / only one
superpower
2000+
• 2001-Present: Identity, Religious Conflict, Terrorism etc. = are more critical
approaches relevant?