SAMENVATTING IRGG
Lecture 1
Theory: system of ideas intended to understand an object of study
Different theories generate different valid claims about the same phenomena
Introduction:
Globalization: myth or reality? (Have the processes of change really resulted in a new world political
system?
Reality:
1) Economic transformation has led to new world politics as states can not control their own
economy anymore because this has become more and more interdependent
2) Transformation of communication
3) Global culture
4) Global polity trough transnational organisations and movements
5) Global risk culture
Myth (negatives sides of globalization):
1) Not as unique as it seems, merely the last phase of capitalism. Not global, but more in blocs
2) Globalization only applies to the developed world
3) New phase of imperialism
4) Exploitive of losers of globalisation
5) Not all globalization is good
Article Jackson:
Guiding questions:
●What is the “international” and the “global”?
●What are international relations as a subject of study? And what isInternational Relations as an
academic pursuit/science?
●Does theory need to be practically relevant?
Lecture 2:
Realism historical roots:
- Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes and Rousseau were first thinkers of reason of the state
- Theorising the main concepts of statism, survival and self-help
- Morality, values and justice are unimportant in international relation dual moral standard: one
moral standard for citizens within the state and one for the state in external relations
- Unifying theme is that the state finds itself in a condition of anarchy in which security cant be
granted
- Main goal of the state is survival through self-help and the pursuit of power
Classical realist (20th century)
Morgenthau, Main ideas: politics is driven by pessimistic view of human nature. International politics
is driven by the concept of interest, defined by the balance of power
,Neorealism/structural realism
Waltz (1979) and Mearsheimer (2001)
- International politics is not explained by human nature but by the international structure, namely
the lack of overarching sovereignty (anarchy)
- Waltz (neorealism security maximizers) : structure is characterised by 1) organising principles
(anarchy/hierarchy) 2) differentiation of units 3) distribution of capabilities (distribution of power
that is driver of international politics states are security maximizers)
- Mearsheimer (offensive realism: power maximizers): 1) anarchy 2) military capable states 3)
uncertainty of intentions 4) motivated by survival 5) rational states
1) States fear each other
2) States prioritise own survival
3) States prioritise relative gains
- Causes of war/stability:
1) Polarity
2) Balance or imbalance of power
3) Shifts in power
4) Security dilemma (unsolvable uncertainty about intentions of other rivals)
Neoclassical realism:
- Consider not only the structural causes of international politics but also consider other systemic
explanations like leader’s perceptions, state identity, domestic politics etc.
Key elements of realism:
1) Statism: state is main actor in IR and sovereignty is its main trait.
2) Survival: all states are driven by survival. Disagreement about whether states are power
maximizers of security maximizers.
3) Self-help: because there is no higher force, states must rely on themselves to reach security
Criticism:
1) Statism is criticised on empirical (challenges from below and above) and normative grounds
(inability to react to global problems)
2) Oversells military power
3) Too much focus on sovereignty and survival of state
4) Assumptions become self-fulfilling prophecies
5) Diminishing the significance of non-state or non-great powers
6) Self-help is not the only option: also examples of regional security
Mearsheimer: False promises of International Institutions:
- Disputes the claim that institutions push states away form war and promote peace
- Realist believe that institutions are not a cause for peace as they are solely reflection of the power
distribution and thus have no effect on state behaviour
- Institutionalist agrue that institutions can chane state behaviour by discouraging state from
calculating self-interest every institutionalist theory has a different argument to how they alter
state behaviour
- Conclusion: institutions have minimal influene in state behaviour and thus hold little promise for
promoting stability in post CW world
- Hinders in cooperation in a realist world: 1) relative gains considerations 2) concerns about cheating
- Cooperation: alliances to satisfy the concerns about cheating and illustrate the distribution of
, power HOWEVER, cooperation does not ultimately lead to peace (WW1)
- Institutions for realists: made by greatest powers so they can maintain theur share of power
balance of power is independent variable that explains war and peace, institutions are merely a
intervening variable (example, NATO was American tool to maintain power in face of Soviet)
- Institutional theories:
1) Liberal intitutionalism: economic cooperation more likely than realist recognize and increased
cooperation is presumed to reduce war. Institutions overcome the problem of cheating. (Critic: only
focuses on economic issues to explain security, but does not cover security issues. Ignores relative-
gains)
2) Collective security: how to prevent war? 1) stop using force to change status-quo 2) states should
not deal with aggressor individually but in collective interest 3) trust to renounce aggression (Critic:
does not provide explanation to how states overcome their fears and learn to trust eachother. States
have numerous reasons to doubt that collective security will work)
3) Critical theory: transform the fundamental nature of international politics into world society
guided by norms of trust and sharing. Ideas shape the material world so to revolutionize IR is to
change the way individuals talk about IR. (critics: says little about how this change in discourse comes
about. Does not provide a view for the future)
- Do you agree that the international sphere is accurately characterised as being in a state of
war?
●What is the security dilemma and is there a solution to it?
●Do you find the core argument of offensive or defensive realism more convincing? Why?
Lecture 3:
Historical origins Liberalism:
Kant and Bentham in Enlightment
- Optimistic view of human nature and reason
- Core idea that the international can be tamed: international relations have been corrupted by
undemocratic leaders and policies of balance of power
- Kant: peace through a transformation of reason, republican constitutionalism and contract to
abolish war
- Harmony of interest though trade and movement of people
Liberal Idealist
- WW1: showed that economic interdependence and trade was not a natural cause for peace but
that peace had to be constructed
- League of Nations: by Woodrow Wilson, general association of nations to reach collective security
(each state in the system accepts that the security of one concerns all and joins in collective response
to aggression)
- Self determination: practical and moral problems in the self determination of new states
- Absence of America and rise of Hitler final blow for the league undermining of liberalism
Post WW2/Cold War Liberalism
- Liberal internationalism becomes more pragmatic: more scientific approach towards theory-
building cooperation possible through institutions and rules, not solely by commerce
- After the Cold War, huge expansion of peacekeeping activity and mandates shows the comeback of
Lecture 1
Theory: system of ideas intended to understand an object of study
Different theories generate different valid claims about the same phenomena
Introduction:
Globalization: myth or reality? (Have the processes of change really resulted in a new world political
system?
Reality:
1) Economic transformation has led to new world politics as states can not control their own
economy anymore because this has become more and more interdependent
2) Transformation of communication
3) Global culture
4) Global polity trough transnational organisations and movements
5) Global risk culture
Myth (negatives sides of globalization):
1) Not as unique as it seems, merely the last phase of capitalism. Not global, but more in blocs
2) Globalization only applies to the developed world
3) New phase of imperialism
4) Exploitive of losers of globalisation
5) Not all globalization is good
Article Jackson:
Guiding questions:
●What is the “international” and the “global”?
●What are international relations as a subject of study? And what isInternational Relations as an
academic pursuit/science?
●Does theory need to be practically relevant?
Lecture 2:
Realism historical roots:
- Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes and Rousseau were first thinkers of reason of the state
- Theorising the main concepts of statism, survival and self-help
- Morality, values and justice are unimportant in international relation dual moral standard: one
moral standard for citizens within the state and one for the state in external relations
- Unifying theme is that the state finds itself in a condition of anarchy in which security cant be
granted
- Main goal of the state is survival through self-help and the pursuit of power
Classical realist (20th century)
Morgenthau, Main ideas: politics is driven by pessimistic view of human nature. International politics
is driven by the concept of interest, defined by the balance of power
,Neorealism/structural realism
Waltz (1979) and Mearsheimer (2001)
- International politics is not explained by human nature but by the international structure, namely
the lack of overarching sovereignty (anarchy)
- Waltz (neorealism security maximizers) : structure is characterised by 1) organising principles
(anarchy/hierarchy) 2) differentiation of units 3) distribution of capabilities (distribution of power
that is driver of international politics states are security maximizers)
- Mearsheimer (offensive realism: power maximizers): 1) anarchy 2) military capable states 3)
uncertainty of intentions 4) motivated by survival 5) rational states
1) States fear each other
2) States prioritise own survival
3) States prioritise relative gains
- Causes of war/stability:
1) Polarity
2) Balance or imbalance of power
3) Shifts in power
4) Security dilemma (unsolvable uncertainty about intentions of other rivals)
Neoclassical realism:
- Consider not only the structural causes of international politics but also consider other systemic
explanations like leader’s perceptions, state identity, domestic politics etc.
Key elements of realism:
1) Statism: state is main actor in IR and sovereignty is its main trait.
2) Survival: all states are driven by survival. Disagreement about whether states are power
maximizers of security maximizers.
3) Self-help: because there is no higher force, states must rely on themselves to reach security
Criticism:
1) Statism is criticised on empirical (challenges from below and above) and normative grounds
(inability to react to global problems)
2) Oversells military power
3) Too much focus on sovereignty and survival of state
4) Assumptions become self-fulfilling prophecies
5) Diminishing the significance of non-state or non-great powers
6) Self-help is not the only option: also examples of regional security
Mearsheimer: False promises of International Institutions:
- Disputes the claim that institutions push states away form war and promote peace
- Realist believe that institutions are not a cause for peace as they are solely reflection of the power
distribution and thus have no effect on state behaviour
- Institutionalist agrue that institutions can chane state behaviour by discouraging state from
calculating self-interest every institutionalist theory has a different argument to how they alter
state behaviour
- Conclusion: institutions have minimal influene in state behaviour and thus hold little promise for
promoting stability in post CW world
- Hinders in cooperation in a realist world: 1) relative gains considerations 2) concerns about cheating
- Cooperation: alliances to satisfy the concerns about cheating and illustrate the distribution of
, power HOWEVER, cooperation does not ultimately lead to peace (WW1)
- Institutions for realists: made by greatest powers so they can maintain theur share of power
balance of power is independent variable that explains war and peace, institutions are merely a
intervening variable (example, NATO was American tool to maintain power in face of Soviet)
- Institutional theories:
1) Liberal intitutionalism: economic cooperation more likely than realist recognize and increased
cooperation is presumed to reduce war. Institutions overcome the problem of cheating. (Critic: only
focuses on economic issues to explain security, but does not cover security issues. Ignores relative-
gains)
2) Collective security: how to prevent war? 1) stop using force to change status-quo 2) states should
not deal with aggressor individually but in collective interest 3) trust to renounce aggression (Critic:
does not provide explanation to how states overcome their fears and learn to trust eachother. States
have numerous reasons to doubt that collective security will work)
3) Critical theory: transform the fundamental nature of international politics into world society
guided by norms of trust and sharing. Ideas shape the material world so to revolutionize IR is to
change the way individuals talk about IR. (critics: says little about how this change in discourse comes
about. Does not provide a view for the future)
- Do you agree that the international sphere is accurately characterised as being in a state of
war?
●What is the security dilemma and is there a solution to it?
●Do you find the core argument of offensive or defensive realism more convincing? Why?
Lecture 3:
Historical origins Liberalism:
Kant and Bentham in Enlightment
- Optimistic view of human nature and reason
- Core idea that the international can be tamed: international relations have been corrupted by
undemocratic leaders and policies of balance of power
- Kant: peace through a transformation of reason, republican constitutionalism and contract to
abolish war
- Harmony of interest though trade and movement of people
Liberal Idealist
- WW1: showed that economic interdependence and trade was not a natural cause for peace but
that peace had to be constructed
- League of Nations: by Woodrow Wilson, general association of nations to reach collective security
(each state in the system accepts that the security of one concerns all and joins in collective response
to aggression)
- Self determination: practical and moral problems in the self determination of new states
- Absence of America and rise of Hitler final blow for the league undermining of liberalism
Post WW2/Cold War Liberalism
- Liberal internationalism becomes more pragmatic: more scientific approach towards theory-
building cooperation possible through institutions and rules, not solely by commerce
- After the Cold War, huge expansion of peacekeeping activity and mandates shows the comeback of
