Analysis of International
Relations
Core Idea of the readings and look at questions of the syllabus before you do the readings
Class 1: Introduction (Monday 9/10/2018)
The Peloponnesian War
War between the Peloponnesians and the Spartans (1 superpower which was in his time a
democracy)
431-4044 BC
Athens & allies vs. Sparta & allies
Athens: Democracy & superpower with overseas empire. Was a sea power with strong navy,
had defeated Persia
Sparta: Autocracy. (full on dictatorship) & rising land power
Outcome: Sparta won, become dominant state/ Greek power.
United State cold war also compared to this (because of strong navy, rising power in 1960’s)
The Siege of Melos (416 BC)
Melos was helping Sparta but claimed neutrality
Athens insisted that Melos support them
Melos refused
Outcome: Athens destroyed Melos, killed the men & enslaved the women and children
Melos said no to the dictat of Sparta to support them.
Thucydides: wrote a book including the “Melian Dialogue”
Discussion 1:
Melians’ and Athenians’ views on..
Superpowers (whether they can tolerate neutral powers)
o Athenians say: the reason we cannot allow you as neutral because that would insist
other 3rd parties to resist us and would follow the melian example.
o The Melians try to convince the Athenians to be neutral by: argue to the Athenians
that if you crush the Melians, you will show the world that you are brutal and the
Athenians will lose respect by this. The Athenians say that they cannot afford to
accept you as a neutral/independent state
Reliability of allies (possibility of Sparta helping Melos)
o What do the Athenians say of Sparta helping the Melians: just because Sparta say
they are allies, will not say they will help. They will calculate.
NATO is an example: NATO has a treaty (treaty 5: attack to one is an attack to all of us.
When Trump came into office, the European countries wanted him to repeat this, but
Trump told them that if they contribute in money, US will aid)
Justice in international relations
o “Gods are on our side”: because they say they are neutral and want to live their own
lives. “ You should leave us alone because we are on the right side” : because they
have justice on their side.
1
, o Athenians say they also have their gods and they are on their side
o Athenian argument = Justice only matters of equal powers. Justice is not relevant
when it comes to weaker powers.
o Melians: it is not about the gods, but in the Athenian interest to act in a way that
others think that you are right. The Melians say we have the right to independence.
Athenians: don’t waste our time on talking about justice, because we are bigger than
you.
Discussion 2: Which modern cases appear similar?
Cuba vs. United States: The embargo on Cuba because the US did not like the government of
Fidel Castro. The Cubans also like the Melians said this is unfair and we have the right choose
our own government and be our own state.
Bush and the War on Terror: Like the Athenians: we don’t recognize neutrality, you are either
with us or against us.
Ukraine and Russia:
Russian action on Chechnya, 1991-2000?
When SU fell apart. First responsibility of Poetin, was to stop the Chechnyan rebellions. Same as
Athenians did to Melians. Russia ignored that they were committing actions of injustice. They did
not want to talk about justice.
Russians actions on Ukraine & Crimea since 2014?
The Russians sent Russian forces to occupy Ukraine and also used Russians speaking Ukrainian
They violated the law by changing the borders by force.
Discussion 3: Is international politics really just about power?
Athenians: “Justice is enforce only among those who can be equally constrained by it, and those who
have power use it, while the weak make compromises.”
Often translated as: “The strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must.”
Class 2: Theoretical Approaches (Thu 1 Nov 2018)
What is a theory in social science
• NOT a divine truth — from God so must be right!
• NOT a ‘realistic’ description of the world
• A theory: A simplification with a purpose —> to simplify the real world in order
to help us understand it.
There was once an emperor who loved maps. To please him, his map-
makers made a map in which the image of each province in the empire was
as big as a city.
But the emperor was not satisfied, so the map-makers made another map
of his empire. The new map showed every detail of the lands that the
emperor ruled. But it was as big as the empire itself.
-- from Jorge Luis Borges
A theory of IP is…
• …an analytical tool that we use to make sense of a complex world
• Different theories focus on different relationships between various actors,
social institutions, and material conditions.
2
, o Actors: individuals, governments, IGOs, NGOs, mass movements
o Social institutions: ideologies, beliefs, rules, laws, regime types
(democracy, monarchy, etc), economic systems (capitalism, socialism)
o Material conditions: nature of technology, distribution of wealth or
military power, environmental trends
Thinking about IR theory
Types of theory of IP
• Grand theory: universal explanations of general issues (realism,
liberalism, constructivisim, marxism, etc)
o What are the principal causes of war?
o Does international law make a difference?
Middle-range theory: focused explanations of limited sets of
phenomena, derived from empirical observations and tested against
other empirical evidence
o Do democratic and authoritarian states act differently in
international cases?
o How can small states prosper in the world economy?
Micro-theory: explanations of specific events
o Why did 1914 Balkans crisis become a world war?
o Why did the UK decide to join the European Economic
Community (later, the EU)?
Levels of analysis (LoA)
• All phenomena (single events & general patterns) can
be analysed from different levels
Single event: Why did the Titanic sink?
Ocean-level: icebergs, fog
Ship-level: poor design, weak engines, ineffective rudders
Individual-level: sleepy crew, risk-taking captain
Pattern: Why has the NL never won the World Cup?
FIFA-level: competing teams were always better
Team-level: internal disputes weakened Dutch teams
Individual-level: Dutch coaches chose poor strategy
Some explanatory variables in levels of analysis in IR
International system:
Distribution of power, alliances, norms/rules
State:
Type of government, election results, national culture
Individual
Personality, perceptions, choices
3
, Single event: Why WW2 in Europe?
System:
o Germany was a rising power, tried to break out of limits imposed
by UK, FR, US after WW1
State:
o Nazi ideology of racial/national superiority
o Nazi regime needed war to justify internal repression
Individual:
o A man called Adolf…
Pattern of events: Why no war between FR& UK since 1990?
• System:
o Other states were more threatening
o US defence umbrella since 1945
o European integration since 1950
• State:
o Democracies don’t fight each other (comes from the type of
government, which is between states)
• Individual:
o Leaders of Fr &UK know and trust each other, value peace over
war
Conclusions on Level of Analysis (LoA)
No LoA is right or wrong
When considering a theory/explanation, ask yourself:
o What LoA is it using?
o What are the advantages & disadvantages of this LoA?
o What would I understand better if I used a different LoA?
Classical Approaches (here: Kant, Hume, Hobbes)
Hugo Grotius
• On the Law of War and Peace (1625)
• Written during Dutch Wars of Independence 1568-1648 & Thirty Years War
1618-1648
Grotius on war & peace: the foundation of modern international law
• Goal: use legal arguments to make wars between sovereign states less
common & less bloody
Arguments:
No authority above states so war cannot be eliminated
Law is based on human nature: social, not egotistical
All states have a right to trade with each other
War is allowed for just causes, such self-defence, compensation for
loss, stopping mass slaughter & persecution (crimes against
humanity)
Only legitimate sovereigns may fight wars
Once begun, wars must be fought without cruelty
4
Relations
Core Idea of the readings and look at questions of the syllabus before you do the readings
Class 1: Introduction (Monday 9/10/2018)
The Peloponnesian War
War between the Peloponnesians and the Spartans (1 superpower which was in his time a
democracy)
431-4044 BC
Athens & allies vs. Sparta & allies
Athens: Democracy & superpower with overseas empire. Was a sea power with strong navy,
had defeated Persia
Sparta: Autocracy. (full on dictatorship) & rising land power
Outcome: Sparta won, become dominant state/ Greek power.
United State cold war also compared to this (because of strong navy, rising power in 1960’s)
The Siege of Melos (416 BC)
Melos was helping Sparta but claimed neutrality
Athens insisted that Melos support them
Melos refused
Outcome: Athens destroyed Melos, killed the men & enslaved the women and children
Melos said no to the dictat of Sparta to support them.
Thucydides: wrote a book including the “Melian Dialogue”
Discussion 1:
Melians’ and Athenians’ views on..
Superpowers (whether they can tolerate neutral powers)
o Athenians say: the reason we cannot allow you as neutral because that would insist
other 3rd parties to resist us and would follow the melian example.
o The Melians try to convince the Athenians to be neutral by: argue to the Athenians
that if you crush the Melians, you will show the world that you are brutal and the
Athenians will lose respect by this. The Athenians say that they cannot afford to
accept you as a neutral/independent state
Reliability of allies (possibility of Sparta helping Melos)
o What do the Athenians say of Sparta helping the Melians: just because Sparta say
they are allies, will not say they will help. They will calculate.
NATO is an example: NATO has a treaty (treaty 5: attack to one is an attack to all of us.
When Trump came into office, the European countries wanted him to repeat this, but
Trump told them that if they contribute in money, US will aid)
Justice in international relations
o “Gods are on our side”: because they say they are neutral and want to live their own
lives. “ You should leave us alone because we are on the right side” : because they
have justice on their side.
1
, o Athenians say they also have their gods and they are on their side
o Athenian argument = Justice only matters of equal powers. Justice is not relevant
when it comes to weaker powers.
o Melians: it is not about the gods, but in the Athenian interest to act in a way that
others think that you are right. The Melians say we have the right to independence.
Athenians: don’t waste our time on talking about justice, because we are bigger than
you.
Discussion 2: Which modern cases appear similar?
Cuba vs. United States: The embargo on Cuba because the US did not like the government of
Fidel Castro. The Cubans also like the Melians said this is unfair and we have the right choose
our own government and be our own state.
Bush and the War on Terror: Like the Athenians: we don’t recognize neutrality, you are either
with us or against us.
Ukraine and Russia:
Russian action on Chechnya, 1991-2000?
When SU fell apart. First responsibility of Poetin, was to stop the Chechnyan rebellions. Same as
Athenians did to Melians. Russia ignored that they were committing actions of injustice. They did
not want to talk about justice.
Russians actions on Ukraine & Crimea since 2014?
The Russians sent Russian forces to occupy Ukraine and also used Russians speaking Ukrainian
They violated the law by changing the borders by force.
Discussion 3: Is international politics really just about power?
Athenians: “Justice is enforce only among those who can be equally constrained by it, and those who
have power use it, while the weak make compromises.”
Often translated as: “The strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must.”
Class 2: Theoretical Approaches (Thu 1 Nov 2018)
What is a theory in social science
• NOT a divine truth — from God so must be right!
• NOT a ‘realistic’ description of the world
• A theory: A simplification with a purpose —> to simplify the real world in order
to help us understand it.
There was once an emperor who loved maps. To please him, his map-
makers made a map in which the image of each province in the empire was
as big as a city.
But the emperor was not satisfied, so the map-makers made another map
of his empire. The new map showed every detail of the lands that the
emperor ruled. But it was as big as the empire itself.
-- from Jorge Luis Borges
A theory of IP is…
• …an analytical tool that we use to make sense of a complex world
• Different theories focus on different relationships between various actors,
social institutions, and material conditions.
2
, o Actors: individuals, governments, IGOs, NGOs, mass movements
o Social institutions: ideologies, beliefs, rules, laws, regime types
(democracy, monarchy, etc), economic systems (capitalism, socialism)
o Material conditions: nature of technology, distribution of wealth or
military power, environmental trends
Thinking about IR theory
Types of theory of IP
• Grand theory: universal explanations of general issues (realism,
liberalism, constructivisim, marxism, etc)
o What are the principal causes of war?
o Does international law make a difference?
Middle-range theory: focused explanations of limited sets of
phenomena, derived from empirical observations and tested against
other empirical evidence
o Do democratic and authoritarian states act differently in
international cases?
o How can small states prosper in the world economy?
Micro-theory: explanations of specific events
o Why did 1914 Balkans crisis become a world war?
o Why did the UK decide to join the European Economic
Community (later, the EU)?
Levels of analysis (LoA)
• All phenomena (single events & general patterns) can
be analysed from different levels
Single event: Why did the Titanic sink?
Ocean-level: icebergs, fog
Ship-level: poor design, weak engines, ineffective rudders
Individual-level: sleepy crew, risk-taking captain
Pattern: Why has the NL never won the World Cup?
FIFA-level: competing teams were always better
Team-level: internal disputes weakened Dutch teams
Individual-level: Dutch coaches chose poor strategy
Some explanatory variables in levels of analysis in IR
International system:
Distribution of power, alliances, norms/rules
State:
Type of government, election results, national culture
Individual
Personality, perceptions, choices
3
, Single event: Why WW2 in Europe?
System:
o Germany was a rising power, tried to break out of limits imposed
by UK, FR, US after WW1
State:
o Nazi ideology of racial/national superiority
o Nazi regime needed war to justify internal repression
Individual:
o A man called Adolf…
Pattern of events: Why no war between FR& UK since 1990?
• System:
o Other states were more threatening
o US defence umbrella since 1945
o European integration since 1950
• State:
o Democracies don’t fight each other (comes from the type of
government, which is between states)
• Individual:
o Leaders of Fr &UK know and trust each other, value peace over
war
Conclusions on Level of Analysis (LoA)
No LoA is right or wrong
When considering a theory/explanation, ask yourself:
o What LoA is it using?
o What are the advantages & disadvantages of this LoA?
o What would I understand better if I used a different LoA?
Classical Approaches (here: Kant, Hume, Hobbes)
Hugo Grotius
• On the Law of War and Peace (1625)
• Written during Dutch Wars of Independence 1568-1648 & Thirty Years War
1618-1648
Grotius on war & peace: the foundation of modern international law
• Goal: use legal arguments to make wars between sovereign states less
common & less bloody
Arguments:
No authority above states so war cannot be eliminated
Law is based on human nature: social, not egotistical
All states have a right to trade with each other
War is allowed for just causes, such self-defence, compensation for
loss, stopping mass slaughter & persecution (crimes against
humanity)
Only legitimate sovereigns may fight wars
Once begun, wars must be fought without cruelty
4
