Summary Analysis of International Relations

 International system
 “a set of actors and organizations operating across national borders whose
interactions are structured in particular ways”
o Why study the international system
 It has effects that cannot be attributed to the interests and choices of actors
and organizations themselves
o Four concepts
 Anarchy
 Society
 Distinction community and society (Weber and Tönnies)
o Community (see below)
 Gemeinschaft
 Intimate relationships based on shared identities,
values and beliefs
 Actors are motivated by sentiment, attitudes, and
emotions
o society
 Gesellschaft
 Functional relationships based on formal
institutions, roles, rules, and obligations
 Actors are motivated by rational calculations
 International society
o Kaczmarska
o Relations among states are shaped by formal norms, rules,
and institutions
 Opposed to International Anarchy, where
relations among states are shaped by fear of
agression and thus by security dilemmas
 Non-state actors are important as well
o Bull
 Anarchy can co-exist with a society of states
 World politics is characterised by
cooperation among sovereign states in a
society without a government
o No leviathan or hegemon, but a
society binding them
 “an international society exists when a goup
of states, conscious of certain common
interests and values, conceive themselves to
be bound by a common set of rules in their
relations with one another, and share in the
working of common institutions”
 Pillars of international society
 Shared goals of states
o Restriction of violence
o Respect for agreements
o Stabilization of possessions

,  Fundamental institutions
 Ensure the achievement of
the shared goals
o Balance of power
 See lower
o International law
o Diplomacy
o War
 See lower
o Great power management
o More may be in place then Bull
thought of
 International society combines competition
and rules
o Are rules shared?
 If not, you're back at
anarchy
o War
 Waltz: a behaviour of states, always possible
because of anarchy
 Bull: a institution of international society, involving
shared understandings and practices to limit
violence
 Ius ad bellum
o Self-defense vs. Agression
o Preemptive vs. Preventative attacks
 Preemptive legitimate
 Preventative illegitimate
 Ius in bello
o Proportionality
o Treatment of civilians vs. Enemy
combatitants vs. Unlawful
combatants vs. Prisoners of war
o War crimes
o Balance of power
 Waltz: a distribution of capabilities among states,
important because of anarchy
 Bull: an institution of international society, involving
shared undertandings and practices to limit
aggression
o Globalisation of international society
 Bull and Watson: international society emerged in
Europe and spread worldwide
 Pre-modern
o Relations between European states
 International society

, o Relations between European states
and others
 International anarchy
 Modern
o End of colonialism and the creation
of the UN caused all states to join
international society
 Critique on Bull and Watson
 In pre-modern times, relations between
non-European states themselves and with
European states were not lacking in
fundamental rules
 Thus too Eurocentric view
o Instead, the European empires and
colonialism broke those rules, and
then replaced them
o See Crawford below
o Crawford (continuation)
 Research on the Hodenosaunee nations (Iroquois
peoples)
 Pre 1450: lots of war among Hodenosaunee
nations
 1450-1777: creation of the Iroquois
Confederacy
 Set rules
 Reduced conflict
 Elimination of war
o Made by the Indians themselves
o Not very different from the post-
1815 Concert of Europe
 Hierarchy
 Conventional wisdom in IR theory:
o No hierarchy in the international system
 Realism
o there's no world government able
to protect states or ensure rule
compliance, so all seek to survive
o States differ in their power
resources, but no state has special
rights or functions
 Liberalism
o States differ in internal
structure/values/culture
 Shapes their external
interests and behaviour
o No state has special rights or
functions

,  Institutionalism
o States adopt international
institutions to achieve their joint
interests
 All are equal in rights and
functions
 Key to the domestic-international comparison
 Waltz
o In defining structures, the first
question to answer is: “what is the
principle by which the parts are
arranged”
o Domestic systems are centralized
and hierarchic
o Vs.
o International systems are
decentralized and anarchic
 Modern
o What is international hierarchy?
 Lake
 “variations in authority exerted by a
dominant state over a subordinate party”
 Zarakol
 “any system through which actors are
organised into vertical relations of super-
and subordination”
o Concepts of international hierarchy
 As a reflection of power differentials
 Very narrow conception
o States have different roles
depending on their relative power
 Powerful states are
expected to lead
 Weaker states are expected
to follow
 Emphasizes power and coercion
o Less-powerful states accept
differentiation of roles because they
have no choice
 Behavioural effects
o State action is shaped by
differentiated roles, regardless of
their actual interests or preferences
 Realpolitik hierarchy of power in IR
 Nuclear weapon possession
changes this system a bit
o Dominant power