International Relations and Global Governance
Lecture 1
Tip: spend more time on theory and less time on practical chapters
Origins of IR as a discipline
-> IR as a discipline started after the end of the WOI, because there war became a
“problem”. All of a sudden, so many countries had to define their relations & much more
civilian casualties happened then before WOI
-> WOI was the first war that was this big (it used to be named The Great War, but later
called a World War) -> People thought it was the war to end all wars, this came from the
thoughts of the enlightenment, that human beings will learn from their mistakes and not
make them again. “After the Great War, there will not be a new war, because humans see
how devastating it was and will not want to repeat that”
-> Universities thought: if we can study wars and why they happen, we can stop them from
happening (this is later called Idealism)
-> This later turned into: we should be studying things as they are, and not as they should
be. We should study war because it exists and will keep on recurring. (Later referred to as
Realism)
Are there restrictions of what countries can do in times of war?
How should countries behave in war?
If countries are in war for their national interest, what could that interest be?
-> Dependent on the conflict & country, could have cultural, territorial and historical
reasons. Also, state-remain.
-> The base that international conflicts are based on
International Relations got more known after WOI, but was actually relevant from Ancient
Greece
It often focusses on: do we have a just war? Is it possible that we have a war that is just?
Is it possible to have eternal peace?
Liberal peace theory: democracies don’t go to war with each other
-> They only go to war with authoritarian states
War: organized violence used by the state
-> Organized violence between political entities
-> A continuation of politics by other (violent) means
Civil war: war that goes on within a state
Limited vs. total war: for the Vietnamese, the Vietnam War was a total war. For all other
countries, it was a limited war; only a part of their army is at war there.
Consider: World War (what defines a World War?), Cold War (was not cold for Vietnam),
Cyberwar, terrorism
,International Relations and Global Governance
World War I & the emergence of a discipline
Woodrow Wilson, 14 points
-> “Trade facilitates peace” was one of the main arguments
-> Self-determination became a global trend after the end of the WO2
Idealism
Key assumption: human nature is good
-> War is a result of imperialism, a failure of balance of power, or undemocratic remiges
-> Democratic peace theory
-> Extension of idealist thinking in the Age of the Enlightenment
After WWI: the discipline of IR should work to end wars
-> By studying international politics (modes of international cooperation, building of
alliances, facilitation of cooperation, peaceful resolution of disputes, arbitration), scholars
aimed to find causes and solutions to the world’s main political problems.
Emphasis on international institutions and collective security
-> The security of one member is the concern of all
Then WOII happened, and a group of IR-scientists called themselves Realists
-> Instead of Realism, science should discover what “is” and not what “should be”
-> IR should study the laws of nature
,International Relations and Global Governance
-> Wars always happen, they will always happen, human nature is bad, humans are driven
by interest and interests are defined in power
-> All states should aim at maximizing the power, this is the raison d’état (reason of the
state, simply more power and having access to more power)
Read/slide: book by Morgenthau & six principles
Realism
Key assumption: statism -> there only focus is on the state
Primary objective of all states is survival -> morals are unimportant here
Are we really talking about the survival of the state or are we talking about the survival of
the government?
In the state of nature is one of anarchy where no one has more power than another, which
means in a system of anarchy, you can only help yourself
Realism logic is always about power
-> Relative gains vs. absolute gains: a relative gain is a gain where both countries get
something out of it, an absolute gain is ones loss and another’s win (a zero sum relationship)
Best: to pursue a balance of power/interest among states
-> No one (group of) state(s) is able to dominate others
-> A system of balance
-> The only peaceful system will emerge if everyone feels equal in power, so there is
nothing to win if they go to war. Here, a system of alliances (collective defence)
-> Who thought of this?
-> Late, middle aged men, white, wealthy
Check: case study named in slides
, International Relations and Global Governance
Lecture 2
The Neo-Neo debate
Why is neorealism new? -> Because it brings structure into the debate (Hans Morgenthau)
New realists focusses on structure rather than on human nature
Domestic policy here has nothing to do with foreign policy, they do believe there is a certain
national interest (example: whoever is ruling Russia, Russia will always seek territorial
hegemony)
-> Neorealism always has a focus on war, but this does not mean that they support war
High politics: power, survival, pursuit of interest (they think this is “real international
politics”)
Neoliberalism focusses on interdependence between countries
Low politics: more focussed on economics
Liberals argue that everything is related to economy-issues, thus a distinction between
low/high politics does not count
Waltz (neorealist)
“In wars, there is no victory, only varying degrees of defeat” (1959)
Kenneth N. Waltz
Asks himself, what causes war?
-> Argument: war happens not because human beings are evil, but because of another
reason
Level of analysis problem: in what way do we analyse reasons of war?
-> Individual level: because humans are evil?
-> State level: desire of the states
-> System level
Waltz argues that it is the system: a system of anarchy, they need to be maximize their
security
Lecture 1
Tip: spend more time on theory and less time on practical chapters
Origins of IR as a discipline
-> IR as a discipline started after the end of the WOI, because there war became a
“problem”. All of a sudden, so many countries had to define their relations & much more
civilian casualties happened then before WOI
-> WOI was the first war that was this big (it used to be named The Great War, but later
called a World War) -> People thought it was the war to end all wars, this came from the
thoughts of the enlightenment, that human beings will learn from their mistakes and not
make them again. “After the Great War, there will not be a new war, because humans see
how devastating it was and will not want to repeat that”
-> Universities thought: if we can study wars and why they happen, we can stop them from
happening (this is later called Idealism)
-> This later turned into: we should be studying things as they are, and not as they should
be. We should study war because it exists and will keep on recurring. (Later referred to as
Realism)
Are there restrictions of what countries can do in times of war?
How should countries behave in war?
If countries are in war for their national interest, what could that interest be?
-> Dependent on the conflict & country, could have cultural, territorial and historical
reasons. Also, state-remain.
-> The base that international conflicts are based on
International Relations got more known after WOI, but was actually relevant from Ancient
Greece
It often focusses on: do we have a just war? Is it possible that we have a war that is just?
Is it possible to have eternal peace?
Liberal peace theory: democracies don’t go to war with each other
-> They only go to war with authoritarian states
War: organized violence used by the state
-> Organized violence between political entities
-> A continuation of politics by other (violent) means
Civil war: war that goes on within a state
Limited vs. total war: for the Vietnamese, the Vietnam War was a total war. For all other
countries, it was a limited war; only a part of their army is at war there.
Consider: World War (what defines a World War?), Cold War (was not cold for Vietnam),
Cyberwar, terrorism
,International Relations and Global Governance
World War I & the emergence of a discipline
Woodrow Wilson, 14 points
-> “Trade facilitates peace” was one of the main arguments
-> Self-determination became a global trend after the end of the WO2
Idealism
Key assumption: human nature is good
-> War is a result of imperialism, a failure of balance of power, or undemocratic remiges
-> Democratic peace theory
-> Extension of idealist thinking in the Age of the Enlightenment
After WWI: the discipline of IR should work to end wars
-> By studying international politics (modes of international cooperation, building of
alliances, facilitation of cooperation, peaceful resolution of disputes, arbitration), scholars
aimed to find causes and solutions to the world’s main political problems.
Emphasis on international institutions and collective security
-> The security of one member is the concern of all
Then WOII happened, and a group of IR-scientists called themselves Realists
-> Instead of Realism, science should discover what “is” and not what “should be”
-> IR should study the laws of nature
,International Relations and Global Governance
-> Wars always happen, they will always happen, human nature is bad, humans are driven
by interest and interests are defined in power
-> All states should aim at maximizing the power, this is the raison d’état (reason of the
state, simply more power and having access to more power)
Read/slide: book by Morgenthau & six principles
Realism
Key assumption: statism -> there only focus is on the state
Primary objective of all states is survival -> morals are unimportant here
Are we really talking about the survival of the state or are we talking about the survival of
the government?
In the state of nature is one of anarchy where no one has more power than another, which
means in a system of anarchy, you can only help yourself
Realism logic is always about power
-> Relative gains vs. absolute gains: a relative gain is a gain where both countries get
something out of it, an absolute gain is ones loss and another’s win (a zero sum relationship)
Best: to pursue a balance of power/interest among states
-> No one (group of) state(s) is able to dominate others
-> A system of balance
-> The only peaceful system will emerge if everyone feels equal in power, so there is
nothing to win if they go to war. Here, a system of alliances (collective defence)
-> Who thought of this?
-> Late, middle aged men, white, wealthy
Check: case study named in slides
, International Relations and Global Governance
Lecture 2
The Neo-Neo debate
Why is neorealism new? -> Because it brings structure into the debate (Hans Morgenthau)
New realists focusses on structure rather than on human nature
Domestic policy here has nothing to do with foreign policy, they do believe there is a certain
national interest (example: whoever is ruling Russia, Russia will always seek territorial
hegemony)
-> Neorealism always has a focus on war, but this does not mean that they support war
High politics: power, survival, pursuit of interest (they think this is “real international
politics”)
Neoliberalism focusses on interdependence between countries
Low politics: more focussed on economics
Liberals argue that everything is related to economy-issues, thus a distinction between
low/high politics does not count
Waltz (neorealist)
“In wars, there is no victory, only varying degrees of defeat” (1959)
Kenneth N. Waltz
Asks himself, what causes war?
-> Argument: war happens not because human beings are evil, but because of another
reason
Level of analysis problem: in what way do we analyse reasons of war?
-> Individual level: because humans are evil?
-> State level: desire of the states
-> System level
Waltz argues that it is the system: a system of anarchy, they need to be maximize their
security
