International relations samenvatting 2025
Class 1: introduction and building blocks
I. Introduction & BUILDING BLOCKS
0. Why international relations theory?
̶ Theories make claims about the ontology of international politics = the reality = “how does international
politics actually work?”
(≠ Methodology, which deals with epistemology = “how can we know international politics?”)
̶ Theories can contribute in various ways:
• Analytical:
➢ Offering an analytical framework
➢ Offering definitions & concepts
• Explanatory:
➢ Offering explanations for the observed phenomena
➢ (Try to) make predictions
➢ Many theories try to generalize across cases
• Normative:
➢ Prescribing ‘wise’ policy
➢ Ethical assessments
Some, not all, of our theories are active on the three dimensions.
Questions asked by IR theorists
̶ Why do wars occur?
̶ Under which conditions does international cooperation occur?
̶ Do international organizations have power?
̶ Would more women in power positions make the world more peaceful?
̶ Can activists change the world?
̶ …
Additional remarks
̶ Each theory focuses on specific elements/factors/dimensions/dynamics as the main causes (they are
like different lenses)
̶ Relevance of theories can vary across time and space.
̶ Theories offer insight into the motives of actors (→ empathy, “to understand” ≠ approving).
• E.g. “redlines”
• E.g. “status, honor”
, • E.g. Why do states not intervene in all mass atrocities’?
̶ Use IR and other theory in bachelor and master dissertation.
̶ This course offers a general introduction – consult literature for sophisticated elaborations !
1. Levels of analysis
DEFINITION
- Not completely settled in literature yet.
- Levels of analysis in international politics are those spheres in social reality – from the individual to the
entire world history – where causes for international political phenomena are located.
➔ Levels of analysis have explanatory value
➔ Ontological (filosofie) and epistemological (kennistheorie)
KENNETH N. Waltz & LEVELS OF ANALYSIS
• 1959 book on Three Images (levels of analysis): Central question: at what level can we situate
the causes for inter-state war?
• First Image: Nature of humankind & individuals (he mixes up both)
• Second Image: the State
• Third image: the International System
• Reality is more complicated (not advisable to reduce LoA to this three-tiered representation of
LoA.)
• Term ‘level analysis’ → David Singer 1960 review Waltz boek
The nature of humankind
̶ “Many humans/statespersons are bad by nature” (cf. Classical Realism) (fatalism and defeatism)
̶ “Humans are good by nature; or at least, they can improve/learn, thanks to Reason” (Cf. Liberalism)
But: Explanatory value limited: how to explain periods of peace & cooperation? ( we need more sophisticated
explanations)
̶ Does the difference between men and women matter for explaining foreign policy/IR? ( no statistical
correlation has been found, question: where comes the difference from? Nature/nurture or both? )
Individuals
̶ Variety of personalities
̶ Institutional constraints of leaders (in many countries, a head of state/got has little personal power
based on the constitution) → if there is room to make a substantial difference
̶ Cf. Adolf Hitler, Mikhail Gorbachev, Donald Trump, etc.
̶ Insights from psychological studies, biographies (personality and psychology do matter)
The state
̶ “All states want to survive, seek security and economic welfare, are power-greedy.” (rooted in the
characters of humans/statespersons, see Classical Realism)
, ̶ Several strands also look at the variety among states (see next slide)
Variety across states
Kinds of states
- democratic states/authoritarian states (Cf. Democratic Peace Theory= never fight wars among
eachother)
- capitalist/communist states (historical)
Identity, role, strategic culture, collective emotions (Cf. Constructivism) → History, sociology and culture
Domestic institutions → can they do things without consent of parliament?
These aspects are relatively stable.
Foreign policy change within states
̶ Party politics & power alterations / exogenous events, filtered through domestic actors and institutions
( = Partijpolitiek en machtswisselingen / exogene gebeurtenissen, gefilterd door binnenlandse actoren en
instituties.)
modest or fundamental shifts in foreign policy
THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
̶ IR explanations to be sought at the level of the international system
̶ Waltz = founding father of structural realism/ neorealism
• Anarchical: lack of a government international → determines important decisions, trust issues
• Preserve their sovereignty, in formal and real terms
• States as key actors
̶ The whole is more than the sum of the parts
̶ The system shapes/constitutes the states; sends signals (threats & opportunities)
• Structure of the system
• Interaction between states = external environment of states (see neorealism)
• Macro and micro level
̶ Geography (cf. the tradition of geopolitics)
̶ The system shapes/constitutes the classes
̶ Cf. Anarchical international system (Cf. Structural Realists)
̶ Cf. Capitalist world-system, class struggle, world-system analysis: periphal and semi-periphery
countries (Cf. Marxism, Wallerstein)
Position of state in the system
̶ Great powers
̶ Middle powers
̶ Small states
, ̶ Two-level game (Putnam) (exam material see syllabus!)
• Level 1: Multilateral forums, negotiate
• Level 2: Domestic arena govermental and other actors and institutions compete position in level 1
• → more power at home, less negotiating <-> less power at home, more negotiating
̶ The Second Image Reversed (Gourevitch) (exam material see syllabus!)
• System theory
• How the society, political economy and polity of states adapt to external pressures in order to
survive (Example: Meji restauration)
I.D. the world society
̶ Cobweb of interconnections between actors (governmental and non-governmental across states)
• (multinational) companies, (international) organizations, banks, financial centers, sub-
national, supranational, intergovernmental, ….
̶ Pluralism (multiple actors)/ Transnationalism/Polycentrism/New Medievalism
̶ Transnational diffusion of norms and values
̶ [Note: English School theory (= later in the course) also offers a concept of World Society,
commensurate with this level of analysis]
I.E. Diplomatic and institutional processes
̶ Nature and quality of international diplomacy and institutional processes: if they matter for decision-
making.
̶ Isolate from the level analysis
I.F. The discursive structure
̶ Our political debate is characterized by competing discourses, which include narratives and framings.
̶ Together, they constitute the discursive structure, in which a hierarchy can be distinguished between
more or less powerful discourses. The powerful discourses gain more traction among elites and the
public opinion, and are mostly shared and propagated by powerful actors, such as governments and
media.
̶ Sometimes a discourse can become hegemonic (see Gramsci), in the sense that competing discourses
are marginalized.
̶ Discourses empower and disempower certain actors and ideas. Hence, an actor whose interests are in
line with the most influential discourses, is in a stronger position than others, and is more powerful.
• Example Ukraine and Russia
̶ Therefore, we can introduce the discursive structure as a level of analysis and part of the ontological
reality, since no other level of analysis captures the redistribution of power through discourses.
I.G. totality and history of the (social) reality
̶ World History or Global History approach → comparative and connective approach
̶ Comparing regions
̶ History of interconnectivity and globalization
Class 1: introduction and building blocks
I. Introduction & BUILDING BLOCKS
0. Why international relations theory?
̶ Theories make claims about the ontology of international politics = the reality = “how does international
politics actually work?”
(≠ Methodology, which deals with epistemology = “how can we know international politics?”)
̶ Theories can contribute in various ways:
• Analytical:
➢ Offering an analytical framework
➢ Offering definitions & concepts
• Explanatory:
➢ Offering explanations for the observed phenomena
➢ (Try to) make predictions
➢ Many theories try to generalize across cases
• Normative:
➢ Prescribing ‘wise’ policy
➢ Ethical assessments
Some, not all, of our theories are active on the three dimensions.
Questions asked by IR theorists
̶ Why do wars occur?
̶ Under which conditions does international cooperation occur?
̶ Do international organizations have power?
̶ Would more women in power positions make the world more peaceful?
̶ Can activists change the world?
̶ …
Additional remarks
̶ Each theory focuses on specific elements/factors/dimensions/dynamics as the main causes (they are
like different lenses)
̶ Relevance of theories can vary across time and space.
̶ Theories offer insight into the motives of actors (→ empathy, “to understand” ≠ approving).
• E.g. “redlines”
• E.g. “status, honor”
, • E.g. Why do states not intervene in all mass atrocities’?
̶ Use IR and other theory in bachelor and master dissertation.
̶ This course offers a general introduction – consult literature for sophisticated elaborations !
1. Levels of analysis
DEFINITION
- Not completely settled in literature yet.
- Levels of analysis in international politics are those spheres in social reality – from the individual to the
entire world history – where causes for international political phenomena are located.
➔ Levels of analysis have explanatory value
➔ Ontological (filosofie) and epistemological (kennistheorie)
KENNETH N. Waltz & LEVELS OF ANALYSIS
• 1959 book on Three Images (levels of analysis): Central question: at what level can we situate
the causes for inter-state war?
• First Image: Nature of humankind & individuals (he mixes up both)
• Second Image: the State
• Third image: the International System
• Reality is more complicated (not advisable to reduce LoA to this three-tiered representation of
LoA.)
• Term ‘level analysis’ → David Singer 1960 review Waltz boek
The nature of humankind
̶ “Many humans/statespersons are bad by nature” (cf. Classical Realism) (fatalism and defeatism)
̶ “Humans are good by nature; or at least, they can improve/learn, thanks to Reason” (Cf. Liberalism)
But: Explanatory value limited: how to explain periods of peace & cooperation? ( we need more sophisticated
explanations)
̶ Does the difference between men and women matter for explaining foreign policy/IR? ( no statistical
correlation has been found, question: where comes the difference from? Nature/nurture or both? )
Individuals
̶ Variety of personalities
̶ Institutional constraints of leaders (in many countries, a head of state/got has little personal power
based on the constitution) → if there is room to make a substantial difference
̶ Cf. Adolf Hitler, Mikhail Gorbachev, Donald Trump, etc.
̶ Insights from psychological studies, biographies (personality and psychology do matter)
The state
̶ “All states want to survive, seek security and economic welfare, are power-greedy.” (rooted in the
characters of humans/statespersons, see Classical Realism)
, ̶ Several strands also look at the variety among states (see next slide)
Variety across states
Kinds of states
- democratic states/authoritarian states (Cf. Democratic Peace Theory= never fight wars among
eachother)
- capitalist/communist states (historical)
Identity, role, strategic culture, collective emotions (Cf. Constructivism) → History, sociology and culture
Domestic institutions → can they do things without consent of parliament?
These aspects are relatively stable.
Foreign policy change within states
̶ Party politics & power alterations / exogenous events, filtered through domestic actors and institutions
( = Partijpolitiek en machtswisselingen / exogene gebeurtenissen, gefilterd door binnenlandse actoren en
instituties.)
modest or fundamental shifts in foreign policy
THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
̶ IR explanations to be sought at the level of the international system
̶ Waltz = founding father of structural realism/ neorealism
• Anarchical: lack of a government international → determines important decisions, trust issues
• Preserve their sovereignty, in formal and real terms
• States as key actors
̶ The whole is more than the sum of the parts
̶ The system shapes/constitutes the states; sends signals (threats & opportunities)
• Structure of the system
• Interaction between states = external environment of states (see neorealism)
• Macro and micro level
̶ Geography (cf. the tradition of geopolitics)
̶ The system shapes/constitutes the classes
̶ Cf. Anarchical international system (Cf. Structural Realists)
̶ Cf. Capitalist world-system, class struggle, world-system analysis: periphal and semi-periphery
countries (Cf. Marxism, Wallerstein)
Position of state in the system
̶ Great powers
̶ Middle powers
̶ Small states
, ̶ Two-level game (Putnam) (exam material see syllabus!)
• Level 1: Multilateral forums, negotiate
• Level 2: Domestic arena govermental and other actors and institutions compete position in level 1
• → more power at home, less negotiating <-> less power at home, more negotiating
̶ The Second Image Reversed (Gourevitch) (exam material see syllabus!)
• System theory
• How the society, political economy and polity of states adapt to external pressures in order to
survive (Example: Meji restauration)
I.D. the world society
̶ Cobweb of interconnections between actors (governmental and non-governmental across states)
• (multinational) companies, (international) organizations, banks, financial centers, sub-
national, supranational, intergovernmental, ….
̶ Pluralism (multiple actors)/ Transnationalism/Polycentrism/New Medievalism
̶ Transnational diffusion of norms and values
̶ [Note: English School theory (= later in the course) also offers a concept of World Society,
commensurate with this level of analysis]
I.E. Diplomatic and institutional processes
̶ Nature and quality of international diplomacy and institutional processes: if they matter for decision-
making.
̶ Isolate from the level analysis
I.F. The discursive structure
̶ Our political debate is characterized by competing discourses, which include narratives and framings.
̶ Together, they constitute the discursive structure, in which a hierarchy can be distinguished between
more or less powerful discourses. The powerful discourses gain more traction among elites and the
public opinion, and are mostly shared and propagated by powerful actors, such as governments and
media.
̶ Sometimes a discourse can become hegemonic (see Gramsci), in the sense that competing discourses
are marginalized.
̶ Discourses empower and disempower certain actors and ideas. Hence, an actor whose interests are in
line with the most influential discourses, is in a stronger position than others, and is more powerful.
• Example Ukraine and Russia
̶ Therefore, we can introduce the discursive structure as a level of analysis and part of the ontological
reality, since no other level of analysis captures the redistribution of power through discourses.
I.G. totality and history of the (social) reality
̶ World History or Global History approach → comparative and connective approach
̶ Comparing regions
̶ History of interconnectivity and globalization
