Part 1 - Core Theoretical-Empirical Debates
Lecture 1 (9/2)
Introduction and Perennial debates
International Relations…
- … as power relations among nation-states in the international system
- … as international conflict, war, violence and physical security
- … as international political economy (trade, money, migration, etc.)
- … as more complicated cross-border interaction
Part 1 - IR-specific academic goals: Analyze IR as Multi-level Politics
IR is about different levels of politics that are connected to each other:
- Sub-national politics → cities, provinces in the Netherlands → e.g. Criminal-rings in
Noord
- National politics → Dutch politics or of any other country alone → e.g. Dutch
elections
- Regional politics → EU, ASEAN, NAFTA, Arab League → e.g. EU integration
- Supra-national politics → non-territorial organizations like MNCs and Global Value
Chains → e.g. economic globalization, but also transnational terrorist networks
- International politics → most important in IR → cross-border politics between the
Netherlands and any other country, NATO, BRICS, UN, WHO, WTO → e.g.
international conflict and cooperation
It is important to take all these different areas into account, because in recent decades, big
changes have transformed international relations = shifting power relations and political
cleavages (=splitsingen), more and stronger international institutions, and new actors
(NGOs/MNCs)
BUT, most important fields in IR are international, supra-national and regional politics
How do we analyze IR as Multi-level Politics?
1. Explore theoretical and empirical controversies/debates in IR
● Categories = descriptive, explanatory, normative
● Depth/breadth = topical/mid-level (→debates that are context- and
problem-specific; partly resolvable through empirical research)
vs perennial debates (→all-encompassing, ‘paradigmatic’, difficult-to-resolve
through empirics)
2. Articulate a framework for understanding Multi-level Global Politics
E.g. when you’re interested in why there is still a lot of murdering going on in a
certain area, you have to take all the different areas on the right into account and ask
yourself some questions:
- Which levels are where the action is?
- How do levels influence one another?
- How do political actors seek goals at one level by taking action at another
level?
, - e.g. The framework moves beyond ‘methodological nationalism’
- e.g. The framework avoids Western-centrism theoretically, methodologically,
normatively…
- e.g. The framework recognizes equal normative value and agency for all
humans in all corners of the globe…
Amitav Acharyas (2014) inclusive six-part ‘Global IR’ is...
1. … founded upon a pluralistic universalism: not ‘applying to all’, but
recognizing and respecting the diversity in us.
2. … grounded in world history, not just Greek-Roman, European, or US history
3. … subsumes, rather than supplants, existing IR theories and methods.
4. … integrates the study of regions, regionalisms, and area studies.
5. … eschews exceptionalism
6. … sees multiple forms of agency beyond material power (e.g. resistance,
normative action, local constructions or global order)
Part 2 - General academic goals: Four skills and a mission
1. Argument-mapping = conceptually untangle and specify the reasoning, the logical
chain, of arguments. Also try to map different views and (+/-) arguments
2. Connection-seeing = identify seemingly-unrelated connections, even conspiracies,
but use ‘Occam’s razor’ (→the problem-solving principle that recommends searching
for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements, with the least
assumptions)
3. Empirical testing = carry-out empirical research to test, induce (=veroorzaken), or
revise (=herzien) theoretical arguments. How to do that:
A. What is the reasoning, the logical chain, of the claim(s) being researched (of
the ‘mapped’ argument)?
B. What is the empirical evidence for (every link in) that logical chain of the claim
being researched? This can be done through:
- Anecdotes (illustration)
- Qualitative cases (cross-unit and/or cross-time comparison)
- Descriptive quantitative information (trends and patterns)
- Inferential quantitative information (large-N correlation/causation)
4. Courageous curiosity = be open to being wrong, so as to learn
The Mission: ‘Purposive Social Science’
Use these four social science skills to answer important questions about global political life in
the pursuit of human flourishing
, Lecture 2 (15/2)
Debate 1: Realism vs Idealism
Part 1 - IR Theory and the perennial debates
Why the debates given in part 1 of the course and not other debates?
1. Perennial debates = all-encompassing, paradigmatic debates (not mid-level debates)
inform IR thinking on all issues for many decades (centuries)
2. Clear, focused debates = some ‘perennial debates’ are focused with respect to
(mainly) one key dimension or question about IR, more than just sorting-device
‘schools of thought’ or ‘conceptual lenses’ (e.g. Realism vs Liberalism vs
Constructivism)
3. Salient (=relevante) debates = some ‘perennial debates’ are more salient and
unresolved than others; some have been mostly resolved, and are now less salient…
(e.g. ‘levels of analysis debate’, Waltz’s article)
Part 2 - Realism and idealism in a nut-shell
Idealism Realism
1. Role of power Usually not the main or only cause Most important cause shaping
and power- that shapes motivations and motivations and outcomes;
seeking in IR outcomes; Power mainly determined by material
politics Power co-determined by material conditions (e.g. geography, guns,
and non-material conditions (e.g. technology)
also ideas/diplomacy
2. Goals or IR Often normative = to visualize and More ‘positive’-empirical = to reveal
analysis identify a path towards peace, what actually occurs/exists, and why
democracy, etc.
3. ‘Maakbaarheid’/ Emphasis on Emphasis on political constraint
agency ‘maakbaarheid’/agency (=beperking), almost no room for
‘maakbaarheid’
4. Unit of analysis Individuals, groups, nations, Sovereign nation-states and the
international organizations international system
5. Interests of Fundamental harmony of interests; Unresolvable clashing of interests
states Conflicts avoidable (zero-sum games);
Conflict unavoidable
, 6. International Meaningful international order due Anarchy = absence of strong
order to global institutions and norms supranational authority to make and
enforce decisions (norms and
institutions are not important!)
7. Causes of war Undemocratic government; Natural disagreement between states
Irrational or evil leaders; under anarchy (striving for
Nationalism, feudalism, militarism, survival/hegemony, where uncertain
etc. power conditions are dangerous)
8. Political Spread rule of law and human Establish stable and transparent
recommendation rights; power equilibrium/balance;
Create IGOs; Concentrate on limited, ‘vital national
Foster democracy, education and interests’
consciousness raising
9. Relationship Foreign policies strongly influenced Foreign policies mainly shaped by
between domestic by domestic politics (e.g. state’s position in the international
and international democratic vs non-democratic; system (less by domestic factors)
politics character of economy)
10. Historical Erasmus, Kant, Bentham, de Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes,
torch-bearers Groot, Wilson, Gandhi, Wendt, Rousseau, Churchill, Mearsheimer,
Wolfowitz Waltz, Kissinger (?)
Part 3 - Contemporary Realism: ‘Primacy of power’
All realists agree that power and power-seeking is the most important force in IR…
BUT they differ over which drivers at which ‘level of analysis’ underlie power-seeking:
- Is it human nature? = Humans seen as violent, power-seeking animals or social
creatures (Machiavelli, Niebuhr, Morgenthau, Konrad Lorenz) → Classical realism
- Is it the nation-state? = Power and its influence is the function of nation-states
themselves (sovereignty, but also authoritarian rule, offensive doctrine, e.g. S. Walt)
→ Defensive or offensive realism
- Is it the international system? (most important) = Anarchy (the absence of
supranational authority) constraints all states in the international system to rely on
‘self-help’ for security (through power-seeking) (Thucydides, Waltz, Mearsheimer,
Posen) → Structural/neorealism
3.1 - Realism and power-balancing
1. ‘Power-balancing’ entails (=omvat) the balancing of the increasing (or decreasing)
power of (other) states → realists conceptualize such balancing in varying ways:
- Offensive realism (e.g. power-maximizing) vs defensive realism (e.g.
power-balancing)
- Internal balancing (e.g. develop one’s own army) vs external balancing (e.g.
develop alliances with other states)
- Normative (‘power balancing should be pursued’) vs positive (‘power
balancing occurs naturally, almost always’)
2. Power balancing is universal among states
- Not just between ideological/economic opponents or rivals, but also between
‘friends’ that share norms/institutions/history (e.g. 20th century France/GB)
Lecture 1 (9/2)
Introduction and Perennial debates
International Relations…
- … as power relations among nation-states in the international system
- … as international conflict, war, violence and physical security
- … as international political economy (trade, money, migration, etc.)
- … as more complicated cross-border interaction
Part 1 - IR-specific academic goals: Analyze IR as Multi-level Politics
IR is about different levels of politics that are connected to each other:
- Sub-national politics → cities, provinces in the Netherlands → e.g. Criminal-rings in
Noord
- National politics → Dutch politics or of any other country alone → e.g. Dutch
elections
- Regional politics → EU, ASEAN, NAFTA, Arab League → e.g. EU integration
- Supra-national politics → non-territorial organizations like MNCs and Global Value
Chains → e.g. economic globalization, but also transnational terrorist networks
- International politics → most important in IR → cross-border politics between the
Netherlands and any other country, NATO, BRICS, UN, WHO, WTO → e.g.
international conflict and cooperation
It is important to take all these different areas into account, because in recent decades, big
changes have transformed international relations = shifting power relations and political
cleavages (=splitsingen), more and stronger international institutions, and new actors
(NGOs/MNCs)
BUT, most important fields in IR are international, supra-national and regional politics
How do we analyze IR as Multi-level Politics?
1. Explore theoretical and empirical controversies/debates in IR
● Categories = descriptive, explanatory, normative
● Depth/breadth = topical/mid-level (→debates that are context- and
problem-specific; partly resolvable through empirical research)
vs perennial debates (→all-encompassing, ‘paradigmatic’, difficult-to-resolve
through empirics)
2. Articulate a framework for understanding Multi-level Global Politics
E.g. when you’re interested in why there is still a lot of murdering going on in a
certain area, you have to take all the different areas on the right into account and ask
yourself some questions:
- Which levels are where the action is?
- How do levels influence one another?
- How do political actors seek goals at one level by taking action at another
level?
, - e.g. The framework moves beyond ‘methodological nationalism’
- e.g. The framework avoids Western-centrism theoretically, methodologically,
normatively…
- e.g. The framework recognizes equal normative value and agency for all
humans in all corners of the globe…
Amitav Acharyas (2014) inclusive six-part ‘Global IR’ is...
1. … founded upon a pluralistic universalism: not ‘applying to all’, but
recognizing and respecting the diversity in us.
2. … grounded in world history, not just Greek-Roman, European, or US history
3. … subsumes, rather than supplants, existing IR theories and methods.
4. … integrates the study of regions, regionalisms, and area studies.
5. … eschews exceptionalism
6. … sees multiple forms of agency beyond material power (e.g. resistance,
normative action, local constructions or global order)
Part 2 - General academic goals: Four skills and a mission
1. Argument-mapping = conceptually untangle and specify the reasoning, the logical
chain, of arguments. Also try to map different views and (+/-) arguments
2. Connection-seeing = identify seemingly-unrelated connections, even conspiracies,
but use ‘Occam’s razor’ (→the problem-solving principle that recommends searching
for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements, with the least
assumptions)
3. Empirical testing = carry-out empirical research to test, induce (=veroorzaken), or
revise (=herzien) theoretical arguments. How to do that:
A. What is the reasoning, the logical chain, of the claim(s) being researched (of
the ‘mapped’ argument)?
B. What is the empirical evidence for (every link in) that logical chain of the claim
being researched? This can be done through:
- Anecdotes (illustration)
- Qualitative cases (cross-unit and/or cross-time comparison)
- Descriptive quantitative information (trends and patterns)
- Inferential quantitative information (large-N correlation/causation)
4. Courageous curiosity = be open to being wrong, so as to learn
The Mission: ‘Purposive Social Science’
Use these four social science skills to answer important questions about global political life in
the pursuit of human flourishing
, Lecture 2 (15/2)
Debate 1: Realism vs Idealism
Part 1 - IR Theory and the perennial debates
Why the debates given in part 1 of the course and not other debates?
1. Perennial debates = all-encompassing, paradigmatic debates (not mid-level debates)
inform IR thinking on all issues for many decades (centuries)
2. Clear, focused debates = some ‘perennial debates’ are focused with respect to
(mainly) one key dimension or question about IR, more than just sorting-device
‘schools of thought’ or ‘conceptual lenses’ (e.g. Realism vs Liberalism vs
Constructivism)
3. Salient (=relevante) debates = some ‘perennial debates’ are more salient and
unresolved than others; some have been mostly resolved, and are now less salient…
(e.g. ‘levels of analysis debate’, Waltz’s article)
Part 2 - Realism and idealism in a nut-shell
Idealism Realism
1. Role of power Usually not the main or only cause Most important cause shaping
and power- that shapes motivations and motivations and outcomes;
seeking in IR outcomes; Power mainly determined by material
politics Power co-determined by material conditions (e.g. geography, guns,
and non-material conditions (e.g. technology)
also ideas/diplomacy
2. Goals or IR Often normative = to visualize and More ‘positive’-empirical = to reveal
analysis identify a path towards peace, what actually occurs/exists, and why
democracy, etc.
3. ‘Maakbaarheid’/ Emphasis on Emphasis on political constraint
agency ‘maakbaarheid’/agency (=beperking), almost no room for
‘maakbaarheid’
4. Unit of analysis Individuals, groups, nations, Sovereign nation-states and the
international organizations international system
5. Interests of Fundamental harmony of interests; Unresolvable clashing of interests
states Conflicts avoidable (zero-sum games);
Conflict unavoidable
, 6. International Meaningful international order due Anarchy = absence of strong
order to global institutions and norms supranational authority to make and
enforce decisions (norms and
institutions are not important!)
7. Causes of war Undemocratic government; Natural disagreement between states
Irrational or evil leaders; under anarchy (striving for
Nationalism, feudalism, militarism, survival/hegemony, where uncertain
etc. power conditions are dangerous)
8. Political Spread rule of law and human Establish stable and transparent
recommendation rights; power equilibrium/balance;
Create IGOs; Concentrate on limited, ‘vital national
Foster democracy, education and interests’
consciousness raising
9. Relationship Foreign policies strongly influenced Foreign policies mainly shaped by
between domestic by domestic politics (e.g. state’s position in the international
and international democratic vs non-democratic; system (less by domestic factors)
politics character of economy)
10. Historical Erasmus, Kant, Bentham, de Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes,
torch-bearers Groot, Wilson, Gandhi, Wendt, Rousseau, Churchill, Mearsheimer,
Wolfowitz Waltz, Kissinger (?)
Part 3 - Contemporary Realism: ‘Primacy of power’
All realists agree that power and power-seeking is the most important force in IR…
BUT they differ over which drivers at which ‘level of analysis’ underlie power-seeking:
- Is it human nature? = Humans seen as violent, power-seeking animals or social
creatures (Machiavelli, Niebuhr, Morgenthau, Konrad Lorenz) → Classical realism
- Is it the nation-state? = Power and its influence is the function of nation-states
themselves (sovereignty, but also authoritarian rule, offensive doctrine, e.g. S. Walt)
→ Defensive or offensive realism
- Is it the international system? (most important) = Anarchy (the absence of
supranational authority) constraints all states in the international system to rely on
‘self-help’ for security (through power-seeking) (Thucydides, Waltz, Mearsheimer,
Posen) → Structural/neorealism
3.1 - Realism and power-balancing
1. ‘Power-balancing’ entails (=omvat) the balancing of the increasing (or decreasing)
power of (other) states → realists conceptualize such balancing in varying ways:
- Offensive realism (e.g. power-maximizing) vs defensive realism (e.g.
power-balancing)
- Internal balancing (e.g. develop one’s own army) vs external balancing (e.g.
develop alliances with other states)
- Normative (‘power balancing should be pursued’) vs positive (‘power
balancing occurs naturally, almost always’)
2. Power balancing is universal among states
- Not just between ideological/economic opponents or rivals, but also between
‘friends’ that share norms/institutions/history (e.g. 20th century France/GB)
