International relations theory
1. Building blocks
1.1. Why international relations theory?
The theories in this course will make claims about the ontology of international
politics. Ontology = claims about reality, how does international politics actually
work?
Must be distinguished from epistemology = how to investigate
international politics? (methodology)
Theories can contribute in various ways:
1) Analytical: offering an analytical framework, to understand reality
2) Explanatory: explain a phenomenon and uncover the causes of the things
that are happening. By explaining phenomena, theories can try to make
predictions.
3) Normative: policy prescription (recommendable policy) and ethical
considerations (moral questions).
Each theory focuses on specific elements/factors/dimensions/dynamics as
the main causes and the relevance of theories can vary across time and
space.
Theories offer insight into the motives of actors
1.2. Levels of analysis
Levels of analysis = those spheres in social reality where causes for
international political phenomena are located.
A way to evaluate levels of analysis is by Kenneth Waltz book Man, the State and
War, which identifies three images/ three levels of analysis.
A) First image: Nature of humankind & individuals
Nature of humankind: is humankind good or bad?
- Realism: many humans/statespersons are bad by nature.
Liberalism: humans are good by nature, or at least, they can
improve/learn, thanks to reason. Feminism: Does the difference
between men and women matter for explaining foreign policy/IR?
- But: the explanatory value of this is limited, how can we explain
periods of peace & cooperation? We need more sophisticated
explanations.
Individuals: about the variety/psychology of personalities.
, - The personality of leaders like Adolf Hitler, Gorbachev, Trump
play(ed/s) an important role.
- Institutional constraints of leaders: individuals matter more when
the institutional setting gives them the room to make a
substantial difference. Agency can be constrained by the
domestic institutional and political setting as well as international
confines.
B) Second image: The State
Variety in the characteristics of states: democratic/authoritarian
states, capitalist/communist states.
- E.g. Classical realism: “all states want to survive, seek security
and economic welfare and are power-greedy”.
Strategic culture of state is the base for foreign policy. This culture
develops through history, sociology and culture
Foreign policy is mediated by domestic institutions: does the
government/president have powers to make foreign policy decisions
and even go to war without the consent of the parliament?
C) Third image: the International System (most important for Waltz)
A structure consisting of one, two or more great powers, with their
respective material capabilities, alongside a number of smaller
states.
Anarchy of the system: states can never trust each other and have to
rely on self-help for their survival. A state needs to design and
conduct a sensible defense and alliance policy, otherwise it might
perish.
Geopolitics: the impact of the geophysical situation of countries on
foreign policy making and international politics.
Position of the state: to what degree is the size of you power
important (great/middle/small)?
Gourevitch: the second image reversed = the way developments
in the international system shape the nature of states (system
theory). How does the society, political economy and polity of states
adapt tot external pressures in order to survive? E.g.: 1867 Meji
restauration in Japan against imperial pressures.
Putnam: two-level games = combination of the level of the state
and the level of the international system for international
agreements.
- Level 1: multilateral forums where states negotiate.
- Level 2: the domestic arena where governmental and other
actors and institutions compete over the ‘national position’ to be
defended at Level 1.
- Leaders balance between international and domestic pressure for
their decisions. An international agreement is only possible when
there is some overlap between countries’ win-sets (= the set of
, possible international deals that a leader can receive approval for
at home).
- Governments that have much domestic power have,
paradoxically, a weaker position at the international negotiating
table. A government with less power at home tends to have a
smaller win-set, and has to negotiate stronger to have better
conditions, so the deal is approved in domestic politics.
1.2.1. The world society
Importance of the transnational interaction and organization of non-state actors
such as companies, non-governmental organizations, as well as the deepening
economic and social interdependence of states.
Cobweb model (Burton): trad, investment, migration, travel etc.
transcend national borders and amount to transnational realities that can
no longer be grasped with a state-centric model.
Pluralism/transnationalism/polycentrism/New medievalism (states have to
share political relevance with regional/transregional organizations).
Transnational diffusion of norms and values
1.2.2. Diplomatic and institutional processes
Does the mere quality of diplomacy, or the choice for and nature of specific
institutional processes/formats, make any difference? Do multilateral fora matter?
If such aspects matter, we find some explanatory factors at a distinct level than
the other described in this chapter.
1.2.3. The discursive structure
Our political debate is characterized by competing discourses, which include
narratives and framings. Together, they constitute the discursive structure, in
which a hierarchy can be distinguished between more or less powerful
discourses. The powerful discourses gain more traction among elites and the
public opinion, and are mostly shared and propagated by powerful actors, such as
governments and media. Sometimes a discourse can become hegemonic (see
Gramsci), in the sense that competing discourses are marginalized.
Discourses empower and disempower certain actors and ideas. Hence, an actor
whose interests are in line with the most influential discourses, is in a stronger
position than others, and is more powerful. Therefore, we can introduce the
discursive structure as a level of analysis and part of the ontological reality, since
no other level of analysis captures the redistribution of power through discourses.
1.2.4. The totality and history of the social reality
, Global history approach: comparing regions to explain events elsewhere and
studying the connectivity of history through its interactions of communities.
Postcolonial tradition: imperialism and colonialism have shaped the world
order with a lasting legacy until this day. Holistic perspective
1.3. Actors
International politics is made by actors. Actors are entities that are clearly
defined and possess agency, i.e. they can take their own decisions.
A) The state
Unitary actor: we neglect the struggles between domestic actors
(individuals, institutions, parties…) before a foreign policy decision is
implemented.
B) Transnational government networks / transgovernmentalism
Transnational networks of functional branches of national governments.
E.g.: a network of national police of different states.
Within these networks a consensus is often formed on causes,
consequences and solutions with regard to important societal problems.
Growing importance of these networks because of modernization and
specialization: they gain autonomy
Democratic deficit? Often untransparent and not accessible to society.
C) International governmental organizations (IGOs)
International organizations set up and politically steered by
governments. Formal (UN, WTO, IMF) or informal (BRICS, G20).
Can they take their own decisions? Or do they rely on their member
states?
D) Individuals and foreign policy elites
E) Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
Moral power, expertise, mobilization capacity…
F) Multi-stakeholder partnerships or global public policy networks
Informal networks of governmental actors, multinational companies and
NGOs, that collaborate on a cause of global governance. E.g.: COVAX
offering equal access to vaccinations.
Set up by a light agreement (e.g.: memorandum of understanding).
G) Epistemic communities
Transnational networks of experts. E.g.: International Panel on Climate
Change. They sometimes overlap with transnational government
networks.
H) Classes
1. Building blocks
1.1. Why international relations theory?
The theories in this course will make claims about the ontology of international
politics. Ontology = claims about reality, how does international politics actually
work?
Must be distinguished from epistemology = how to investigate
international politics? (methodology)
Theories can contribute in various ways:
1) Analytical: offering an analytical framework, to understand reality
2) Explanatory: explain a phenomenon and uncover the causes of the things
that are happening. By explaining phenomena, theories can try to make
predictions.
3) Normative: policy prescription (recommendable policy) and ethical
considerations (moral questions).
Each theory focuses on specific elements/factors/dimensions/dynamics as
the main causes and the relevance of theories can vary across time and
space.
Theories offer insight into the motives of actors
1.2. Levels of analysis
Levels of analysis = those spheres in social reality where causes for
international political phenomena are located.
A way to evaluate levels of analysis is by Kenneth Waltz book Man, the State and
War, which identifies three images/ three levels of analysis.
A) First image: Nature of humankind & individuals
Nature of humankind: is humankind good or bad?
- Realism: many humans/statespersons are bad by nature.
Liberalism: humans are good by nature, or at least, they can
improve/learn, thanks to reason. Feminism: Does the difference
between men and women matter for explaining foreign policy/IR?
- But: the explanatory value of this is limited, how can we explain
periods of peace & cooperation? We need more sophisticated
explanations.
Individuals: about the variety/psychology of personalities.
, - The personality of leaders like Adolf Hitler, Gorbachev, Trump
play(ed/s) an important role.
- Institutional constraints of leaders: individuals matter more when
the institutional setting gives them the room to make a
substantial difference. Agency can be constrained by the
domestic institutional and political setting as well as international
confines.
B) Second image: The State
Variety in the characteristics of states: democratic/authoritarian
states, capitalist/communist states.
- E.g. Classical realism: “all states want to survive, seek security
and economic welfare and are power-greedy”.
Strategic culture of state is the base for foreign policy. This culture
develops through history, sociology and culture
Foreign policy is mediated by domestic institutions: does the
government/president have powers to make foreign policy decisions
and even go to war without the consent of the parliament?
C) Third image: the International System (most important for Waltz)
A structure consisting of one, two or more great powers, with their
respective material capabilities, alongside a number of smaller
states.
Anarchy of the system: states can never trust each other and have to
rely on self-help for their survival. A state needs to design and
conduct a sensible defense and alliance policy, otherwise it might
perish.
Geopolitics: the impact of the geophysical situation of countries on
foreign policy making and international politics.
Position of the state: to what degree is the size of you power
important (great/middle/small)?
Gourevitch: the second image reversed = the way developments
in the international system shape the nature of states (system
theory). How does the society, political economy and polity of states
adapt tot external pressures in order to survive? E.g.: 1867 Meji
restauration in Japan against imperial pressures.
Putnam: two-level games = combination of the level of the state
and the level of the international system for international
agreements.
- Level 1: multilateral forums where states negotiate.
- Level 2: the domestic arena where governmental and other
actors and institutions compete over the ‘national position’ to be
defended at Level 1.
- Leaders balance between international and domestic pressure for
their decisions. An international agreement is only possible when
there is some overlap between countries’ win-sets (= the set of
, possible international deals that a leader can receive approval for
at home).
- Governments that have much domestic power have,
paradoxically, a weaker position at the international negotiating
table. A government with less power at home tends to have a
smaller win-set, and has to negotiate stronger to have better
conditions, so the deal is approved in domestic politics.
1.2.1. The world society
Importance of the transnational interaction and organization of non-state actors
such as companies, non-governmental organizations, as well as the deepening
economic and social interdependence of states.
Cobweb model (Burton): trad, investment, migration, travel etc.
transcend national borders and amount to transnational realities that can
no longer be grasped with a state-centric model.
Pluralism/transnationalism/polycentrism/New medievalism (states have to
share political relevance with regional/transregional organizations).
Transnational diffusion of norms and values
1.2.2. Diplomatic and institutional processes
Does the mere quality of diplomacy, or the choice for and nature of specific
institutional processes/formats, make any difference? Do multilateral fora matter?
If such aspects matter, we find some explanatory factors at a distinct level than
the other described in this chapter.
1.2.3. The discursive structure
Our political debate is characterized by competing discourses, which include
narratives and framings. Together, they constitute the discursive structure, in
which a hierarchy can be distinguished between more or less powerful
discourses. The powerful discourses gain more traction among elites and the
public opinion, and are mostly shared and propagated by powerful actors, such as
governments and media. Sometimes a discourse can become hegemonic (see
Gramsci), in the sense that competing discourses are marginalized.
Discourses empower and disempower certain actors and ideas. Hence, an actor
whose interests are in line with the most influential discourses, is in a stronger
position than others, and is more powerful. Therefore, we can introduce the
discursive structure as a level of analysis and part of the ontological reality, since
no other level of analysis captures the redistribution of power through discourses.
1.2.4. The totality and history of the social reality
, Global history approach: comparing regions to explain events elsewhere and
studying the connectivity of history through its interactions of communities.
Postcolonial tradition: imperialism and colonialism have shaped the world
order with a lasting legacy until this day. Holistic perspective
1.3. Actors
International politics is made by actors. Actors are entities that are clearly
defined and possess agency, i.e. they can take their own decisions.
A) The state
Unitary actor: we neglect the struggles between domestic actors
(individuals, institutions, parties…) before a foreign policy decision is
implemented.
B) Transnational government networks / transgovernmentalism
Transnational networks of functional branches of national governments.
E.g.: a network of national police of different states.
Within these networks a consensus is often formed on causes,
consequences and solutions with regard to important societal problems.
Growing importance of these networks because of modernization and
specialization: they gain autonomy
Democratic deficit? Often untransparent and not accessible to society.
C) International governmental organizations (IGOs)
International organizations set up and politically steered by
governments. Formal (UN, WTO, IMF) or informal (BRICS, G20).
Can they take their own decisions? Or do they rely on their member
states?
D) Individuals and foreign policy elites
E) Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
Moral power, expertise, mobilization capacity…
F) Multi-stakeholder partnerships or global public policy networks
Informal networks of governmental actors, multinational companies and
NGOs, that collaborate on a cause of global governance. E.g.: COVAX
offering equal access to vaccinations.
Set up by a light agreement (e.g.: memorandum of understanding).
G) Epistemic communities
Transnational networks of experts. E.g.: International Panel on Climate
Change. They sometimes overlap with transnational government
networks.
H) Classes
