GOV 40 | Inter national Confl ict and Cooper ation | Harvard University, Spring 2026
GOV 40
Inter national Confl ict and Cooper ation
Harvard University | Department of Government | Spring 2026
Instructor: Mikulaschek | Tuesday & Thursday, 10:30–11:45 AM
Subfield: International Relations | Division: Social Sciences
1. Cour se Over view and Pur pose
GOV 40, International Conflict and Cooperation, is a core undergraduate course in the
International Relations subfield within Harvard’s Department of Government. The course
occupies a central position in the Government curriculum because it tackles one of the oldest
and most consequential questions in the study of politics: why do states sometimes go to war,
and under what conditions do they choose instead to cooperate, negotiate, or build lasting
institutions?
This is not a course that treats war as a historical curiosity or cooperation as an obvious
default. Instead, it proceeds from the assumption that both conflict and cooperation require
explanation. War is costly — in lives, treasure, and political capital — and yet it recurs
throughout human history. Cooperation is often mutually beneficial, and yet states frequently
fail to achieve it even when they share interests. Understanding why requires moving beyond
simple narratives and engaging with the systematic, theoretical, and empirical tools of modern
political science.
The course draws on multiple disciplines. From political science it borrows formal theories of
strategic interaction and statistical methods for evaluating hypotheses. From history it draws
rich case material — the outbreak of the First World War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the
construction of the postwar liberal order, the post-Cold War conflicts of the 1990s, and
contemporary crises in Ukraine, East Asia, and the Middle East. From economics and game
theory it borrows the logic of bargaining, deterrence, and collective action. The result is a
course that gives students both theoretical vocabulary and analytical tools they can apply to
any international crisis, past or present.
By the end of the course, students are expected to be able to evaluate competing theoretical
explanations for why conflicts occur or fail to occur, apply those frameworks to real-world
cases with precision and nuance, understand the strategic logic behind military threats,
alliances, arms races, and international institutions, and write analytically rigorous essays that
engage seriously with both theory and evidence.
Harvard Department of Government | Full Course Notes
, GOV 40 | Inter national Confl ict and Cooper ation | Harvard University, Spring 2026
2. The Inter national System and the Pr oblem of
Anar chy
2.1 W hat Is An ar chy an d W hy Does It Matter ?
The concept of anarchy is the starting point for virtually every theoretical approach to
international relations. In everyday language, anarchy suggests chaos or disorder. In
international relations theory, it has a more specific and technical meaning: the absence of a
central, overarching authority above states that can make and enforce binding rules. There is
no world government, no international police force that can compel compliance, no court that
can enforce its judgments against great powers that refuse to submit.
This structural feature of world politics has profound consequences. Within a well-functioning
domestic political system, individuals and groups can appeal to courts, police, or government
institutions when they feel threatened or wronged. States in the international system have no
such recourse. When one state threatens another, the threatened state must ultimately rely on
its own resources — its military, its alliances, its diplomatic skill — to protect itself. This is
what theorists mean when they say international politics is a “self-help system.”
It is crucial to understand, however, that anarchy does not mean constant war. Anarchy is a
structural condition, not a behavioral prediction. Most of the time, most states are not at war
with most other states. What anarchy does is create a distinctive environment in which the
possibility of conflict is always present, in which states cannot fully trust each other’s
promises, and in which the question of how to achieve security, cooperation, and order takes
on a particular urgency. The great puzzle of international relations theory is explaining
patterns of conflict and cooperation under this anarchic condition.
2.2 Polar ity an d the Distr ibution of Pow er
One of the most important structural variables in international relations is polarity — the
distribution of power across the system. Theorists distinguish between three basic
configurations. A unipolar system has a single dominant state whose capabilities are so
overwhelming that no other state or coalition can effectively challenge it. The period
immediately following the Cold War, when the United States stood alone as the world’s only
superpower, is often described as a unipolar moment. A bipolar system is organized around
two roughly equal great powers, each capable of checking the other. The Cold War rivalry
between the United States and the Soviet Union is the paradigmatic example. A multipolar
system contains three or more major powers whose relative capabilities are more evenly
distributed.
Theorists disagree about which configuration is most stable. Waltz argued famously that
bipolarity is the most stable arrangement because the two dominant powers are clearly
identifiable, each has strong incentives to monitor the other carefully, and alliance
management is simpler. Mearsheimer, by contrast, contends that certain multipolar
configurations — particularly those in which one state is in the process of rising toward
hegemony — are especially dangerous. Others have argued that unipolarity produces stability
because the hegemon can impose order. The debate remains unresolved, but what matters for
Harvard Department of Government | Full Course Notes
GOV 40
Inter national Confl ict and Cooper ation
Harvard University | Department of Government | Spring 2026
Instructor: Mikulaschek | Tuesday & Thursday, 10:30–11:45 AM
Subfield: International Relations | Division: Social Sciences
1. Cour se Over view and Pur pose
GOV 40, International Conflict and Cooperation, is a core undergraduate course in the
International Relations subfield within Harvard’s Department of Government. The course
occupies a central position in the Government curriculum because it tackles one of the oldest
and most consequential questions in the study of politics: why do states sometimes go to war,
and under what conditions do they choose instead to cooperate, negotiate, or build lasting
institutions?
This is not a course that treats war as a historical curiosity or cooperation as an obvious
default. Instead, it proceeds from the assumption that both conflict and cooperation require
explanation. War is costly — in lives, treasure, and political capital — and yet it recurs
throughout human history. Cooperation is often mutually beneficial, and yet states frequently
fail to achieve it even when they share interests. Understanding why requires moving beyond
simple narratives and engaging with the systematic, theoretical, and empirical tools of modern
political science.
The course draws on multiple disciplines. From political science it borrows formal theories of
strategic interaction and statistical methods for evaluating hypotheses. From history it draws
rich case material — the outbreak of the First World War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the
construction of the postwar liberal order, the post-Cold War conflicts of the 1990s, and
contemporary crises in Ukraine, East Asia, and the Middle East. From economics and game
theory it borrows the logic of bargaining, deterrence, and collective action. The result is a
course that gives students both theoretical vocabulary and analytical tools they can apply to
any international crisis, past or present.
By the end of the course, students are expected to be able to evaluate competing theoretical
explanations for why conflicts occur or fail to occur, apply those frameworks to real-world
cases with precision and nuance, understand the strategic logic behind military threats,
alliances, arms races, and international institutions, and write analytically rigorous essays that
engage seriously with both theory and evidence.
Harvard Department of Government | Full Course Notes
, GOV 40 | Inter national Confl ict and Cooper ation | Harvard University, Spring 2026
2. The Inter national System and the Pr oblem of
Anar chy
2.1 W hat Is An ar chy an d W hy Does It Matter ?
The concept of anarchy is the starting point for virtually every theoretical approach to
international relations. In everyday language, anarchy suggests chaos or disorder. In
international relations theory, it has a more specific and technical meaning: the absence of a
central, overarching authority above states that can make and enforce binding rules. There is
no world government, no international police force that can compel compliance, no court that
can enforce its judgments against great powers that refuse to submit.
This structural feature of world politics has profound consequences. Within a well-functioning
domestic political system, individuals and groups can appeal to courts, police, or government
institutions when they feel threatened or wronged. States in the international system have no
such recourse. When one state threatens another, the threatened state must ultimately rely on
its own resources — its military, its alliances, its diplomatic skill — to protect itself. This is
what theorists mean when they say international politics is a “self-help system.”
It is crucial to understand, however, that anarchy does not mean constant war. Anarchy is a
structural condition, not a behavioral prediction. Most of the time, most states are not at war
with most other states. What anarchy does is create a distinctive environment in which the
possibility of conflict is always present, in which states cannot fully trust each other’s
promises, and in which the question of how to achieve security, cooperation, and order takes
on a particular urgency. The great puzzle of international relations theory is explaining
patterns of conflict and cooperation under this anarchic condition.
2.2 Polar ity an d the Distr ibution of Pow er
One of the most important structural variables in international relations is polarity — the
distribution of power across the system. Theorists distinguish between three basic
configurations. A unipolar system has a single dominant state whose capabilities are so
overwhelming that no other state or coalition can effectively challenge it. The period
immediately following the Cold War, when the United States stood alone as the world’s only
superpower, is often described as a unipolar moment. A bipolar system is organized around
two roughly equal great powers, each capable of checking the other. The Cold War rivalry
between the United States and the Soviet Union is the paradigmatic example. A multipolar
system contains three or more major powers whose relative capabilities are more evenly
distributed.
Theorists disagree about which configuration is most stable. Waltz argued famously that
bipolarity is the most stable arrangement because the two dominant powers are clearly
identifiable, each has strong incentives to monitor the other carefully, and alliance
management is simpler. Mearsheimer, by contrast, contends that certain multipolar
configurations — particularly those in which one state is in the process of rising toward
hegemony — are especially dangerous. Others have argued that unipolarity produces stability
because the hegemon can impose order. The debate remains unresolved, but what matters for
Harvard Department of Government | Full Course Notes
