INTERNATIONAL ORDER
actors
- states / governments / ministries
- international organizations (IOs)
- non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
- multinational corporations (MNCs), banks, etc.
- transnational networks, social movements
- individuals
stage how does it shape actors’ behaviour and identity?
structure of authority
how actors are positioned vis-à-vis each other
a. vertically: there is a global government that rescues individual states in need
b. horizontally: states are on the same plane-field
do some states have a special role as a world authority?
a. designate the powerful state as a supra-national entity
b. the state is just an important actor in an anarchical system
number of great powers
- unipolarity: maximum certainty and clarity on how different actors can and do behave
- bipolarity: high certainty and stable alliances with smaller powers →if a smaller power
changes side it doesn’t affect the balance of power
- multipolarity (3-5): low certainty in which there are shifting alliances with each other
and with smaller powers → if uncertainty encourages risky behaviour it will produce
instability, if it discourages risky behaviour it will produce stability: academics disagree
about the consequences of the number of great powers
identity of the dominant power(s) what type of state(s) is on top writing the rules
various instances (Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Americana, Pax Sinica) had a different effect on
the political and economic dynamics of the nature of the international system: laws, institutions, set of
values
prevailing norms and rules the content and effectiveness of values shared (recognised and
accepted) by states and non-state actors → what we are held accountable to
● equality of states or special rights for great powers? UNSC
● non-interference or responsibility to protect? 1990s responsibility to protect other states’
citizens
● managed trade or free trade? normative priority
● group rights or individual rights?
● growth or sustainability?
mode of production and exchange how wealth is created and exchanged at the global level
Wallerstein’s capitalist world system: we live in a world economy founded on capitalist principles
and dominated by the dynamics of capitalism → consequences for states’ development trajectories,
the amount of power they accumulate, internal class relationships, ...
2 OR 3 DIMENSIONS
3 dimensions Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (1979): a system is composed of units
and the ways in which they interact, which is defined in three dimensions
the international system:
, - ordering principle: anarchic because it is horizontal, with no authority above states that
imposes behaviour PS anarchy simply defines no hierarchy, not necessarily disorder or chaos
- function of units: all states are on the same plane and have similar functions because all states
seek to survive
- capabilities of units: there is variation between states, some have great capabilities and others
less
⇒In a background condition of anarchy, we don’t need to focus on the function of states because
we assume that they all have the goal to survive. What matters to understand international
politics is the distribution of power
⇒structural realism: not based on the pessimist view on human nature but focused on the distribution
of power among states
2 dimensions
authority above states an influential decision-making process that states do not control, either:
- an independent body that can control the actions of states
- an inter-state process that no single state can control
Does this exist? If yes: world politics is (partly) controlled from above / If no: world politics is, at
most, coordinated amongst states
effectiveness of international norms and rules
international norms and rules are standards of appropriate behavior for state and non-state actors
- hard law: treaties, conventions →agreed upon, written upon, signed and ratified
- soft law: declarations, unwritten expectations →what is desirable and shared intent
effectiveness is the impact of international norms on outcomes, via
- discourse of actors (how should I talk?)
- behavior of actors (what should I do?)
- identity of actors (who am I?)
⇓
models of international order
1. international anarchy: a world populated by states with varying degrees of power (Waltz)
- states are insecure (fearful) and uncertain because they lack info about others
- self-help system: all states struggle and are responsible of their own survival
- IGOs and NGOs don’t matter: don't have the resource and power to ensure states’ survival
against others’ attacks
2. world hegemony: a powerful state or global economic elites is a hegemon that has steering
capacity to impose directions
- the hegemon creates international rules that serve its interests, uses military, economic,
ideological resources to defend them: norms and rules are a faòade fo the self-interest of the
hegemon
- the hegemon provides some public goods to keep the system functioning: the IMF and WB
were launched and maintained because the US benefits from the international system
actors
- states / governments / ministries
- international organizations (IOs)
- non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
- multinational corporations (MNCs), banks, etc.
- transnational networks, social movements
- individuals
stage how does it shape actors’ behaviour and identity?
structure of authority
how actors are positioned vis-à-vis each other
a. vertically: there is a global government that rescues individual states in need
b. horizontally: states are on the same plane-field
do some states have a special role as a world authority?
a. designate the powerful state as a supra-national entity
b. the state is just an important actor in an anarchical system
number of great powers
- unipolarity: maximum certainty and clarity on how different actors can and do behave
- bipolarity: high certainty and stable alliances with smaller powers →if a smaller power
changes side it doesn’t affect the balance of power
- multipolarity (3-5): low certainty in which there are shifting alliances with each other
and with smaller powers → if uncertainty encourages risky behaviour it will produce
instability, if it discourages risky behaviour it will produce stability: academics disagree
about the consequences of the number of great powers
identity of the dominant power(s) what type of state(s) is on top writing the rules
various instances (Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Americana, Pax Sinica) had a different effect on
the political and economic dynamics of the nature of the international system: laws, institutions, set of
values
prevailing norms and rules the content and effectiveness of values shared (recognised and
accepted) by states and non-state actors → what we are held accountable to
● equality of states or special rights for great powers? UNSC
● non-interference or responsibility to protect? 1990s responsibility to protect other states’
citizens
● managed trade or free trade? normative priority
● group rights or individual rights?
● growth or sustainability?
mode of production and exchange how wealth is created and exchanged at the global level
Wallerstein’s capitalist world system: we live in a world economy founded on capitalist principles
and dominated by the dynamics of capitalism → consequences for states’ development trajectories,
the amount of power they accumulate, internal class relationships, ...
2 OR 3 DIMENSIONS
3 dimensions Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (1979): a system is composed of units
and the ways in which they interact, which is defined in three dimensions
the international system:
, - ordering principle: anarchic because it is horizontal, with no authority above states that
imposes behaviour PS anarchy simply defines no hierarchy, not necessarily disorder or chaos
- function of units: all states are on the same plane and have similar functions because all states
seek to survive
- capabilities of units: there is variation between states, some have great capabilities and others
less
⇒In a background condition of anarchy, we don’t need to focus on the function of states because
we assume that they all have the goal to survive. What matters to understand international
politics is the distribution of power
⇒structural realism: not based on the pessimist view on human nature but focused on the distribution
of power among states
2 dimensions
authority above states an influential decision-making process that states do not control, either:
- an independent body that can control the actions of states
- an inter-state process that no single state can control
Does this exist? If yes: world politics is (partly) controlled from above / If no: world politics is, at
most, coordinated amongst states
effectiveness of international norms and rules
international norms and rules are standards of appropriate behavior for state and non-state actors
- hard law: treaties, conventions →agreed upon, written upon, signed and ratified
- soft law: declarations, unwritten expectations →what is desirable and shared intent
effectiveness is the impact of international norms on outcomes, via
- discourse of actors (how should I talk?)
- behavior of actors (what should I do?)
- identity of actors (who am I?)
⇓
models of international order
1. international anarchy: a world populated by states with varying degrees of power (Waltz)
- states are insecure (fearful) and uncertain because they lack info about others
- self-help system: all states struggle and are responsible of their own survival
- IGOs and NGOs don’t matter: don't have the resource and power to ensure states’ survival
against others’ attacks
2. world hegemony: a powerful state or global economic elites is a hegemon that has steering
capacity to impose directions
- the hegemon creates international rules that serve its interests, uses military, economic,
ideological resources to defend them: norms and rules are a faòade fo the self-interest of the
hegemon
- the hegemon provides some public goods to keep the system functioning: the IMF and WB
were launched and maintained because the US benefits from the international system
