Building blocks
1. Levels of analysis
Example: Trump
Trump as businessman, erratic, populist, ultra- Individual level of analysis
nationalist
Election of Trump 2020 and 2024 was symptomatic Domestic politics of state
of a sizable right-wing protectionist, ultranationalist
and xenophobic sociological current in US society
US exceptionalism = the idea that the US is State level
exceptional because of its economic and military - Certain degree of stability over a longer
preponderance and its ‘superior’ foundational term
values, so that it is either entitled, even bound, to - Only change in exception circumstances
lead the international system and multilateral E.g. great power wars, deep domestic sociological
organizations, or should not recognize any authority transformations
above itself
Any US administration is keen to maintain the International structure
country’s power position vis-à-vis other great powers
Levels of analysis in IP = those spheres in social reality where causes for international political phenomena
are located
- Potential loci of motivations for foreign policy
- It is well possible to find causal factors at all levels, but one level may weigh more than others
Kenneth Waltz: in Man, the State and War , he identified ‘three images’ (levels of analysis)
1) Human natural/individuals (confusing because ‘individuals’ is much more variated)
2) The state
3) The international system
His central question: At what level can we situate the causes for inter-state war?
1.1 Human nature
- Fatalism and defeatism: large numbers of humans, and politicians in particular, are evil, egoistic and
power-thirsty by nature
o Given the persistence of so much war and misery in the world
- More optimistic: most human beings are benign and peaceful by birth
o Can show solidarity and be cooperative
o If some people get on the wrong track, future generations can learn from their mistakes and
the traumas they caused (e.g. slavery, Holocaust)
o Humans can and tend to make use of reason to build a better world
- Biology: human beings display a staggering diversity
- Feminist literature: does it matter if men or women are in charge of foreign policy?
o No robust statistical correlation has been found
o Nature, nurture, or both?
1
,Claims with regard to the nature of humankind are so general, that they cannot explain specific wars or
instances of cooperation, neither periods with more or less war, peace and collaboration. We need more
sophisticated explanations at other levels of analysis.
1.2 The individual
- At the level of the individual, personality and psychology do matter
- However, can be constrained
o Individuals matter more when the institutional setting (incl. constitution) gives the room to
make a substantial difference
o Agency can be constrained by
Domestic institutional and political setting
International confines
The state
- Wide diversity in the characters of states
o Democratic governments (US & UK) blamed the authoritarian character of others (Germany,
Austria-Hungary, Russia) for WW1
o Communist governments blamed capitalist ones to be inherently aggressive
- Example: democratic peace theory – democratic states almost never fight wars among each other
o Combines 2 levels of analysis
Level of individual states (democracies)
Level of pairs/dyads of states
- States vary with regard to their history, sociology and culture, which informs their foreign policy –
strategic culture
o Remains relatively stable over time
o Sometimes shifts through a radical shift of society, government or major external
developments
- Foreign policy is mediated by domestic institutions
o Does the government/president have powers to make foreign policy decisions and even go to
war without consent of parliament?
o Is there a free press and vibrant civil society that can influence foreign policy making?
o What is the role of the courts?
1.4 The international system
1.4.1 Structural realism
Waltz is considered the founding father of structural realism or neorealism. The international states system is
anarchical
= it lacks a supranational government
- System is characterized by a structure consisting of one, two or more great powers, with their
respective material capabilities, alongside a number of smaller states
- The anarchical character of the system determines the important decisions in foreign policy
o States can never trust each other and have to rely on self-help for their survival
o Because of that, a state needs to design and conduct a sensible defense and alliance policy
2
,Great powers as like-units =they display common characteristics because of how the system is structured
- They all want to survive
- They all want to preserve their sovereignty, in formal and real terms
- Securing territorial integrity is a common priority of states
- All states want to be prosperous economically
So even though Waltz considers the states and especially the great powers as key actors in IP, he regards the
system level as the main source of the ontological dynamics that matter!
Micro vs. macro level within the international system
- Macro level = the mere distribution of great powers and other states and their respective capabilities
- Micro level = the concrete day-to-day interactions between states that serve as external stimuli to
states to which they have to respond
1.4 2 Geopolitics
= a specific sub-discipline in IR which considers the impact of the geophysical situation of countries on
foreign policy making and IP
Examples
- Russia’s obsession (across time and regimes) with buffer zones and access to the world seas through
ice-free ports
- US security outlook explained by the fact that it is located between 2 oceans
1.4.3 World-systems analysis
Analyzes
- Political and economic fates of countries
- The rise and fall of hegemonic powers
In the context of the capitalist world-system and its division between core and peripheral production, with
semi-periphery consisting of countries that host both kinds of productions in more or less equal ways.
1.4.4 The second image reversed
= how society, political economy and polity of states adapt to external pressures in order to survive
(combination system and state level)
Example: Meiji Restauration in Japan
Revolution got rid of the former regime to rapidly modernize and develop an effective central state,
strong industry and powerful army to fend off imperialist pressures from EU, US and Russia
3
,1.4.5 Two-level games
(level of state and international system)
- Level I = multilateral forums where states negotiate (e.g. WTO, G20, UN)
- Level II = domestic arena where governmental and other actors and institutions compete over ‘the
national’ position to be defended at Level I
o At this level, states conceive their win-set = the possible deals at Level I that can receive
approval at home (Level II)
An international agreement is only possible when there is some overlap between countries’ win-sets
Interactions between the two levels
- Governments that have much domestic power (= can easily push through their proposals) have a
weaker position at the international negotiating table
o Other countries know that this leader has a broad win-set
- A government with less power at home is a tougher negotiator at Level I
Example: US administration has a stubborn Congress gives US extra power at Level I because it is able to pull
the ultimate agreement towards its narrow win-set
1.5 The world society
In post-WW2, the state-centric outlook of realism was questioned. Liberal scholars drew attention to the
importance f the transnational interactions and organization of non-state actors such as companies, NGOs, and
IGOs, as well as the deepening of economic and social interdependence
Keohane & Nye: complex interdependence
- Trade, investment, migration, travel, environmental problems,… transcend national borders and
amount to transnational realities that can no longer be grasped with a state-centric model
- Rapid technological developments concerning transport and ICT helped to propel this evolution
Globalization = enhanced complex interdependence
Scholte: polycentrism = power is spread over governments, but also powerful non-state actors such as
multinational companies, banks and financial centers, sub-national government
entities, and intergovernmental/supranational institutions such as IMF and EU
New medievalism = erosion of Westphalian states system in which states increasingly have to share
political relevance and authority with cities, subnational and cross-border regions, regional
organizations (e.g. EU), global institutions, and transnational identities and value systems
o In Middle Ages equally overlapping authorities and communities
4
,1.6 Diplomatic and institutional processes
Does the mere quality of diplomacy, or the choice for and nature of specific institutional processes/formats,
make any difference?
- Example: does it matter if the response to Covid-19 is coordinated through rules-based multilateral
institutions like UN and IMF or through the informal and smaller G20, or not coordinated at all?
- Probably, composition of forums has an important effect on outcomes
Maybe, if there is potential common ground between negotiating parties, that potential can better be exploited
in one formal (informal and flexible) than another (formal)?
1.7 The discursive structure
= our political debate is characterized by competing discourses, which include narratives and framings
- Hierarchy can be distinguished between more or less powerful discourses
o Powerful discourses
Gain more traction among elites and public opinion and are mostly shared and
propagated by powerful actors (e.g. government, media)
- A discourse can become hegemonic = competing discourses are marginalized
- Discourses empower and disempower certain actors and ideas
o An actors whose interests are in line with the most influential discourses, is in a stronger
position than others, and is more powerful
1.8 The totality and history of the (social) reality
Strands such as Global History, World System History and World-Systems Analysis consider the social reality at
world scale, including its past and future, as one ontological reality
The structural interconnections across time and space hold explanatory value in their own right
Global history approach
- Comparative approach = seeks to understand events in one place through examining their similarities
with and differences from how things happened somewhere else
- Connective approach = elucidates how history is made through the interactions of geographically (or
temporally) separate historical communities
It were post-1950 evolutions that shaped the global history tradition
Helped to make history more equal and inclusive, and to make the
- Decolonization
agency of non-Western peoples, and tin the West, subordinate
- Emergence of ‘history from below’
groups more visible
From this viewpoint, we consider IP as being shaped to an important degree by the history of the ever more
interconnected world
- Connection and globalization are key concepts
- Scholars regard past and current upsurges of ethno-nationalism as reactions to global historical
process, such as (neo)colonialism, (neo)imperialism and neoliberal globalization
5
, Global history does not mean that the regional, national and local histories have become less relevant. Studies
at those scales are enriched by bringing in connections with the global, and vice versa.
2. Actors
= entities that are clearly defined and possess agency, i.e. they can take their own decisions
International politics is made by actors.
2.1 The state
- = an aggregate; i.e. consisting of the national bodies which determine foreign policy, with a range of
capabilities at its disposal
- Unitary actor we neglect the deliberations and struggles between domestic actors (individuals,
institutions, parties,…) before foreign policy decision is formulated and implemented
2.2 Transnational government networks
= transgovernmentalism
= transnational networks of functional branches of national governments, often organized within
multilateral institutions
Example: technocratic forums with regular meetings of officials of health ministries, intelligence agencies,…
- A consensus is often formed on causes, consequences, and solutions with regard to important societal
problems
- They can be regarded as actors in their own right when they make joint decisions (e.g. advice to
governments or studies) through which they exert influence
Proliferation and growing importance of government networks is due to the ongoing modernization and
specialization of the world society
- Contributes to the erosion of an ideal-typical Westphalian state model in which international contacts
on principle occur exclusively through diplomats and embassies, run by the ministry of foreign affairs
- Today more autonomous dynamics within specialized transnational government networks
Critique: growing influence of government networks over daily lives of people is often associated with a
democratic deficit
- The networks involve highly technical knowledge and are not always transparent or accessible to civil
society
- Example: 1008 Global Financial Crisis
6
1. Levels of analysis
Example: Trump
Trump as businessman, erratic, populist, ultra- Individual level of analysis
nationalist
Election of Trump 2020 and 2024 was symptomatic Domestic politics of state
of a sizable right-wing protectionist, ultranationalist
and xenophobic sociological current in US society
US exceptionalism = the idea that the US is State level
exceptional because of its economic and military - Certain degree of stability over a longer
preponderance and its ‘superior’ foundational term
values, so that it is either entitled, even bound, to - Only change in exception circumstances
lead the international system and multilateral E.g. great power wars, deep domestic sociological
organizations, or should not recognize any authority transformations
above itself
Any US administration is keen to maintain the International structure
country’s power position vis-à-vis other great powers
Levels of analysis in IP = those spheres in social reality where causes for international political phenomena
are located
- Potential loci of motivations for foreign policy
- It is well possible to find causal factors at all levels, but one level may weigh more than others
Kenneth Waltz: in Man, the State and War , he identified ‘three images’ (levels of analysis)
1) Human natural/individuals (confusing because ‘individuals’ is much more variated)
2) The state
3) The international system
His central question: At what level can we situate the causes for inter-state war?
1.1 Human nature
- Fatalism and defeatism: large numbers of humans, and politicians in particular, are evil, egoistic and
power-thirsty by nature
o Given the persistence of so much war and misery in the world
- More optimistic: most human beings are benign and peaceful by birth
o Can show solidarity and be cooperative
o If some people get on the wrong track, future generations can learn from their mistakes and
the traumas they caused (e.g. slavery, Holocaust)
o Humans can and tend to make use of reason to build a better world
- Biology: human beings display a staggering diversity
- Feminist literature: does it matter if men or women are in charge of foreign policy?
o No robust statistical correlation has been found
o Nature, nurture, or both?
1
,Claims with regard to the nature of humankind are so general, that they cannot explain specific wars or
instances of cooperation, neither periods with more or less war, peace and collaboration. We need more
sophisticated explanations at other levels of analysis.
1.2 The individual
- At the level of the individual, personality and psychology do matter
- However, can be constrained
o Individuals matter more when the institutional setting (incl. constitution) gives the room to
make a substantial difference
o Agency can be constrained by
Domestic institutional and political setting
International confines
The state
- Wide diversity in the characters of states
o Democratic governments (US & UK) blamed the authoritarian character of others (Germany,
Austria-Hungary, Russia) for WW1
o Communist governments blamed capitalist ones to be inherently aggressive
- Example: democratic peace theory – democratic states almost never fight wars among each other
o Combines 2 levels of analysis
Level of individual states (democracies)
Level of pairs/dyads of states
- States vary with regard to their history, sociology and culture, which informs their foreign policy –
strategic culture
o Remains relatively stable over time
o Sometimes shifts through a radical shift of society, government or major external
developments
- Foreign policy is mediated by domestic institutions
o Does the government/president have powers to make foreign policy decisions and even go to
war without consent of parliament?
o Is there a free press and vibrant civil society that can influence foreign policy making?
o What is the role of the courts?
1.4 The international system
1.4.1 Structural realism
Waltz is considered the founding father of structural realism or neorealism. The international states system is
anarchical
= it lacks a supranational government
- System is characterized by a structure consisting of one, two or more great powers, with their
respective material capabilities, alongside a number of smaller states
- The anarchical character of the system determines the important decisions in foreign policy
o States can never trust each other and have to rely on self-help for their survival
o Because of that, a state needs to design and conduct a sensible defense and alliance policy
2
,Great powers as like-units =they display common characteristics because of how the system is structured
- They all want to survive
- They all want to preserve their sovereignty, in formal and real terms
- Securing territorial integrity is a common priority of states
- All states want to be prosperous economically
So even though Waltz considers the states and especially the great powers as key actors in IP, he regards the
system level as the main source of the ontological dynamics that matter!
Micro vs. macro level within the international system
- Macro level = the mere distribution of great powers and other states and their respective capabilities
- Micro level = the concrete day-to-day interactions between states that serve as external stimuli to
states to which they have to respond
1.4 2 Geopolitics
= a specific sub-discipline in IR which considers the impact of the geophysical situation of countries on
foreign policy making and IP
Examples
- Russia’s obsession (across time and regimes) with buffer zones and access to the world seas through
ice-free ports
- US security outlook explained by the fact that it is located between 2 oceans
1.4.3 World-systems analysis
Analyzes
- Political and economic fates of countries
- The rise and fall of hegemonic powers
In the context of the capitalist world-system and its division between core and peripheral production, with
semi-periphery consisting of countries that host both kinds of productions in more or less equal ways.
1.4.4 The second image reversed
= how society, political economy and polity of states adapt to external pressures in order to survive
(combination system and state level)
Example: Meiji Restauration in Japan
Revolution got rid of the former regime to rapidly modernize and develop an effective central state,
strong industry and powerful army to fend off imperialist pressures from EU, US and Russia
3
,1.4.5 Two-level games
(level of state and international system)
- Level I = multilateral forums where states negotiate (e.g. WTO, G20, UN)
- Level II = domestic arena where governmental and other actors and institutions compete over ‘the
national’ position to be defended at Level I
o At this level, states conceive their win-set = the possible deals at Level I that can receive
approval at home (Level II)
An international agreement is only possible when there is some overlap between countries’ win-sets
Interactions between the two levels
- Governments that have much domestic power (= can easily push through their proposals) have a
weaker position at the international negotiating table
o Other countries know that this leader has a broad win-set
- A government with less power at home is a tougher negotiator at Level I
Example: US administration has a stubborn Congress gives US extra power at Level I because it is able to pull
the ultimate agreement towards its narrow win-set
1.5 The world society
In post-WW2, the state-centric outlook of realism was questioned. Liberal scholars drew attention to the
importance f the transnational interactions and organization of non-state actors such as companies, NGOs, and
IGOs, as well as the deepening of economic and social interdependence
Keohane & Nye: complex interdependence
- Trade, investment, migration, travel, environmental problems,… transcend national borders and
amount to transnational realities that can no longer be grasped with a state-centric model
- Rapid technological developments concerning transport and ICT helped to propel this evolution
Globalization = enhanced complex interdependence
Scholte: polycentrism = power is spread over governments, but also powerful non-state actors such as
multinational companies, banks and financial centers, sub-national government
entities, and intergovernmental/supranational institutions such as IMF and EU
New medievalism = erosion of Westphalian states system in which states increasingly have to share
political relevance and authority with cities, subnational and cross-border regions, regional
organizations (e.g. EU), global institutions, and transnational identities and value systems
o In Middle Ages equally overlapping authorities and communities
4
,1.6 Diplomatic and institutional processes
Does the mere quality of diplomacy, or the choice for and nature of specific institutional processes/formats,
make any difference?
- Example: does it matter if the response to Covid-19 is coordinated through rules-based multilateral
institutions like UN and IMF or through the informal and smaller G20, or not coordinated at all?
- Probably, composition of forums has an important effect on outcomes
Maybe, if there is potential common ground between negotiating parties, that potential can better be exploited
in one formal (informal and flexible) than another (formal)?
1.7 The discursive structure
= our political debate is characterized by competing discourses, which include narratives and framings
- Hierarchy can be distinguished between more or less powerful discourses
o Powerful discourses
Gain more traction among elites and public opinion and are mostly shared and
propagated by powerful actors (e.g. government, media)
- A discourse can become hegemonic = competing discourses are marginalized
- Discourses empower and disempower certain actors and ideas
o An actors whose interests are in line with the most influential discourses, is in a stronger
position than others, and is more powerful
1.8 The totality and history of the (social) reality
Strands such as Global History, World System History and World-Systems Analysis consider the social reality at
world scale, including its past and future, as one ontological reality
The structural interconnections across time and space hold explanatory value in their own right
Global history approach
- Comparative approach = seeks to understand events in one place through examining their similarities
with and differences from how things happened somewhere else
- Connective approach = elucidates how history is made through the interactions of geographically (or
temporally) separate historical communities
It were post-1950 evolutions that shaped the global history tradition
Helped to make history more equal and inclusive, and to make the
- Decolonization
agency of non-Western peoples, and tin the West, subordinate
- Emergence of ‘history from below’
groups more visible
From this viewpoint, we consider IP as being shaped to an important degree by the history of the ever more
interconnected world
- Connection and globalization are key concepts
- Scholars regard past and current upsurges of ethno-nationalism as reactions to global historical
process, such as (neo)colonialism, (neo)imperialism and neoliberal globalization
5
, Global history does not mean that the regional, national and local histories have become less relevant. Studies
at those scales are enriched by bringing in connections with the global, and vice versa.
2. Actors
= entities that are clearly defined and possess agency, i.e. they can take their own decisions
International politics is made by actors.
2.1 The state
- = an aggregate; i.e. consisting of the national bodies which determine foreign policy, with a range of
capabilities at its disposal
- Unitary actor we neglect the deliberations and struggles between domestic actors (individuals,
institutions, parties,…) before foreign policy decision is formulated and implemented
2.2 Transnational government networks
= transgovernmentalism
= transnational networks of functional branches of national governments, often organized within
multilateral institutions
Example: technocratic forums with regular meetings of officials of health ministries, intelligence agencies,…
- A consensus is often formed on causes, consequences, and solutions with regard to important societal
problems
- They can be regarded as actors in their own right when they make joint decisions (e.g. advice to
governments or studies) through which they exert influence
Proliferation and growing importance of government networks is due to the ongoing modernization and
specialization of the world society
- Contributes to the erosion of an ideal-typical Westphalian state model in which international contacts
on principle occur exclusively through diplomats and embassies, run by the ministry of foreign affairs
- Today more autonomous dynamics within specialized transnational government networks
Critique: growing influence of government networks over daily lives of people is often associated with a
democratic deficit
- The networks involve highly technical knowledge and are not always transparent or accessible to civil
society
- Example: 1008 Global Financial Crisis
6
