History of international relations
College 1: introduction
History of international relations – why?
History of international relations – what?
History of international relations – how?
History of international relations – why?
Why is it useful for social scientists to study history?
Intellectual reason: if you have a decent knowledge about world history, you will be able to
distinguish ‘new’ things from ‘normal’ things.
Intuitive reason: to understand the current state of our world (the present), it’s important to
understand the past. → There is a causal connection between the past and the present.
What is the causal link between the past and present?
o The past lingers in the present somehow.
o We study the past in order to not repeat the same mistakes and to cultivate wisdom.
For example: the mistake of ‘appeasement’ (strategy) → if we do a
concession, we will satisfy Nazi-Germany. By satisfying our opponent, they
will settle and temper their ambitions (avoid pushing their ambition). This
strategy is a failure.
For example: apparent winning formulas.
Is it dangerous to look at patterns from the past and assume that they will also happen in the
present? The context is important; it has an influence on what will happen in the present. As
human beings, we tend to look for analogies. If we use the past as a basis for policy, we need
to be aware of this.
1. Historical legacies → The past can influence the present through historical legacies (=
habits of societies that develop over time through collective experiences). They are called
‘habitus’. A habit is more deterministic while habitus is more of a preposition that is deeply
rooted in their collective history.
E.g. post-communist societies
o = societies that used to be ruled by communist leaders: Russia, East-
Germany, Georgia, Bulgaria and Poland.
o = after-communist → but they are still affected by their past, it somehow
lingers in the society… e.g. low level of trust towards the government.
o Legacy of the communist past, the experience of decades of communism
can’t be shaken of easily.
E.g. post-colonial relations
o = societies that used to be colonized.
o = after-colonial societies → the structure of these relations lingers in the
present.
o They share a colonial history; the feelings of superiority and inferiority
continue to be reproduced… It is post-colonial in a substantial matter.
2. The politics of historical memories → Historical memories are deliberate memories of
the past which are active in the present. These memories are often used in political projects
and to motivate current behaviour.
E.g. Kiev and Russian foreign policy claims.
o For example: the idea of trauma on a personal level. This memory stays
with the person. Something similar can happen to a collective group. A
collective group remember experiences of the past. Those memories
motivate their current behaviour.
1
, o For example: Russia knows its birthplace in Kiev and thus belongs to
Russia… It’s a fact, but it’s signalled out. To legitimize Russia’s claim on
Kiev, Putin tries to make it politically relevant and feed the story as a
reasoning for current behaviour.
Individual memories
o = shorter, spontaneous and limited to a set number of generations than
collective memories.
o Collective memories need to be available, cultivated.
Political memories:
o Propagated by ‘memory activists’ → People who cultivate memories,
e.g. Putin, professors, unsatisfied activists, …
o Based on selection and exclusion’ → Controlled over which things are
brought up to remember, deliberately selecting memories.
o Depends on the ‘efficiency of political pedagogy
o Show a high degree of ‘homogeneity’ → While history can broaden your
perspective, political memory will push on selection. That one story is told
many times. There is a desire for homogeneity.
o
Relies on symbols and rites that ‘enhance emotions of empathy and
identification’
3. The contingency of moral ideas and social arrangements → The moral ideas and
social arrangements could have been different. There is no natural world we live in. By
studying history, we denaturalise and learn what could been and what might be in the future.
E.g. ‘gender equality’ → The idea of gender equality is not a natural one, it is
historically situational. If we do care about this notion, then we need to recognise that
it is an accomplishment, and it could have been different.
E.g. ‘sovereignty’ → Separate political entities that will not intervene in other entities.
We live in a world of sovereign states. We need to understand that some notions are
not obvious (it’s not obvious that we should live in a world of sovereign states).
But some notions are ‘natural slavery’
It is far from obvious that the world is organised the way it is. You study history to
recognise a fundamental contingency. Therefore, you can cherish the unnatural
notions of the present and emphasise them.
4. Lessons from history (the context-specificity of scientific knowledge)
E.g. ‘balance of power’ → If one power becomes to powerful, other nations will
group together to balance that power.
E.g. ‘democratic peace’ → Democratic countries don’t fight with violence.
E.g. Lessons from history
History of international relations – what?
What do you expect to learn in this class? What people, events, concepts or
processes do you expect to learn (more) about?
Concept / process Person Event
Balance of power Adolf Hitler Cold war
Terrorism Joseph Stalin Industrial revolution
Colonialism Napoleon 9/11
Climate change Ghandi Eichmann post WWII
Silk road Picot WWI
Kissinger Brexit
Gorbatsjov Withdrawal Afghanistan
Reflective in study of international relations and our general conception of history as well.
2
, IR as a scholarly discipline is ‘presentist’ → Quite recent events.
IR as a scholarly discipline is ‘Eurocentric’ → Evolving around the EU international history.
Move away from the present and EU centric international relations and move to a broader
IR history. Need to expand your geographic horizon to talk about IR in different parts of the
world.
Is it a problem that IR as a discipline betrays a ‘presentist’ and a ‘Eurocentric bias’?
Balance of power theory → When one state becomes more powerful and dominant, other
states will try to go against the other. Evidence for this concept derived from European
sources. When looked upon in the perspective of the global world, the theory was debunked.
Non-western powers are re-asserting themselves → Turkish policymakers; Germany and
Russia are always about their historical role; China was the centre and then you had suburban
states.
o Historical legacies → Even though these countries were subdued in Western
politics, they have the intuition of how they did International Politics before Western
influence.
o Historical memory → Actively trying to remember their history, referring to historical
memories. E.g. Ottoman Empire
o They are becoming more powerful, shaping the world, and reassuring themselves. But
if we want to work together well with other cultures we better know where they come
from.
o If we want to understand/counter what they are saying, you need to know their history.
To know what our “opponents” and partners are thinking and talking about.
What is the logic of the international system?
o Contingency of present arrangements
What is an ‘international system’? What is ‘the logic’ of the international system?
o Basic unit: state, sovereign state
o Social practices: borders, flags, anthems
o Rules & norms: sovereign equality
o Implications: anarchy, security dilemma, violence
But this is an inadequate portrayal that generalizes too readily from European
experience.
Five sessions about non-European international societies, which functioned rather
differently from the ideal-typical portrayal of European international experience
o Differences within ‘non-European experience’ too
o Relatively little consideration for ‘stateless societies’
Two sessions about how Europe came to rule the world
Three sessions about the evolution of ‘European-Global international society’ since
the nineteenth century
History of international relations – how?
Some information about the course! → irrelevant to study for exam.
3
, College 2: China and East Asia
Introduction: what is China?
What is China?
Country with a rich history. What is a country? Political society where there is a common
central authority and there are a group of people (the Chinese) and they identify themselves
with that country and central authority.
What more? There is also the administrative state. China is a member of the United Nations.
This makes absolute sense, but in historical terms there is a practical interpretation of what
China is about in a political society. It will need to be qualified historically. 4 th Century of the
common area: China is not a country in this sense. It will be something else. (first insight)
What does it mean to identify a ‘Chinese’ international system?
In East-Asia there was a Chinese international system. In EA there were multiple polities that
formed a system. They were in systematic interaction with one another, and they established
with one another multiple rules and norms that organized their systematic interaction.
Why call it a Chinese international system, why not call it an East-Asian international system?
China was present within that historical EA system covering multiple centuries. China
dominated this system to such an extent that it could basically define what the rules and
norms of that system were. Those rules and norms that it defined probably were
advantageous to it. They reflected somehow a Chinese disposition, Chinese cultural tradition.
There were multiple polities, China was in interaction with these multiple polities. Rules and
norms were developed to organize these relations. It means that China apparently was at its
centre and had a major influence on what those rules and norms were and they reflected
Chinese culture.
If you think about that bit: reflect Chinese culture. What is your intuition about the substance of
those rules and norms? How to name that tradition? Not every hierarchy system is
authoritative. Main features. If we are going to discuss a Chinese international system, we try
to pin down what the norms and rules are. Its hierarchical nature will be discussed. China was
at the centre of the system but was also acknowledged to be at the centre (legitimized, not
only by China but also by those who were subordinate to the system).
Even if it were a Sino centric system, it was not necessarily stable Sino centric. It was under
attack and challenge regularly.
Influence of Confucianism as a Chinese philosophy. There was a Confucian political system
and a philosophical political traditional which translated in political practises. The political
practises and philosophical tradition solved the organisation of diplomatic organisation.
(common idea)
What China is not: a nation-state → Even though the Chinese government wants to make
China as a society into a nation-state. Nationalism is one of the main ideologies within
contemporary China. Historically China was not a Nation-state, it was not unified and there
was not a strong sense of identification by the ordinary people (citizen) with the central
authority.
o Imperial dynasties with pretence of being the ‘middle kingdom’ (Zhongguo)
→ There was a succession of imperial dynasties. However, these dynasties did not
call themselves the Chinese dynasties (the word did not exist). They would mostly use
‘middle kingdom’.
→ For example: China was historically ruled over by the Zhong-dynasty. There
existed all kinds of dynasties: not only Chinese, but some were also Nomadic.
o A civilizational zone sharing in a set of ritual practices
4
College 1: introduction
History of international relations – why?
History of international relations – what?
History of international relations – how?
History of international relations – why?
Why is it useful for social scientists to study history?
Intellectual reason: if you have a decent knowledge about world history, you will be able to
distinguish ‘new’ things from ‘normal’ things.
Intuitive reason: to understand the current state of our world (the present), it’s important to
understand the past. → There is a causal connection between the past and the present.
What is the causal link between the past and present?
o The past lingers in the present somehow.
o We study the past in order to not repeat the same mistakes and to cultivate wisdom.
For example: the mistake of ‘appeasement’ (strategy) → if we do a
concession, we will satisfy Nazi-Germany. By satisfying our opponent, they
will settle and temper their ambitions (avoid pushing their ambition). This
strategy is a failure.
For example: apparent winning formulas.
Is it dangerous to look at patterns from the past and assume that they will also happen in the
present? The context is important; it has an influence on what will happen in the present. As
human beings, we tend to look for analogies. If we use the past as a basis for policy, we need
to be aware of this.
1. Historical legacies → The past can influence the present through historical legacies (=
habits of societies that develop over time through collective experiences). They are called
‘habitus’. A habit is more deterministic while habitus is more of a preposition that is deeply
rooted in their collective history.
E.g. post-communist societies
o = societies that used to be ruled by communist leaders: Russia, East-
Germany, Georgia, Bulgaria and Poland.
o = after-communist → but they are still affected by their past, it somehow
lingers in the society… e.g. low level of trust towards the government.
o Legacy of the communist past, the experience of decades of communism
can’t be shaken of easily.
E.g. post-colonial relations
o = societies that used to be colonized.
o = after-colonial societies → the structure of these relations lingers in the
present.
o They share a colonial history; the feelings of superiority and inferiority
continue to be reproduced… It is post-colonial in a substantial matter.
2. The politics of historical memories → Historical memories are deliberate memories of
the past which are active in the present. These memories are often used in political projects
and to motivate current behaviour.
E.g. Kiev and Russian foreign policy claims.
o For example: the idea of trauma on a personal level. This memory stays
with the person. Something similar can happen to a collective group. A
collective group remember experiences of the past. Those memories
motivate their current behaviour.
1
, o For example: Russia knows its birthplace in Kiev and thus belongs to
Russia… It’s a fact, but it’s signalled out. To legitimize Russia’s claim on
Kiev, Putin tries to make it politically relevant and feed the story as a
reasoning for current behaviour.
Individual memories
o = shorter, spontaneous and limited to a set number of generations than
collective memories.
o Collective memories need to be available, cultivated.
Political memories:
o Propagated by ‘memory activists’ → People who cultivate memories,
e.g. Putin, professors, unsatisfied activists, …
o Based on selection and exclusion’ → Controlled over which things are
brought up to remember, deliberately selecting memories.
o Depends on the ‘efficiency of political pedagogy
o Show a high degree of ‘homogeneity’ → While history can broaden your
perspective, political memory will push on selection. That one story is told
many times. There is a desire for homogeneity.
o
Relies on symbols and rites that ‘enhance emotions of empathy and
identification’
3. The contingency of moral ideas and social arrangements → The moral ideas and
social arrangements could have been different. There is no natural world we live in. By
studying history, we denaturalise and learn what could been and what might be in the future.
E.g. ‘gender equality’ → The idea of gender equality is not a natural one, it is
historically situational. If we do care about this notion, then we need to recognise that
it is an accomplishment, and it could have been different.
E.g. ‘sovereignty’ → Separate political entities that will not intervene in other entities.
We live in a world of sovereign states. We need to understand that some notions are
not obvious (it’s not obvious that we should live in a world of sovereign states).
But some notions are ‘natural slavery’
It is far from obvious that the world is organised the way it is. You study history to
recognise a fundamental contingency. Therefore, you can cherish the unnatural
notions of the present and emphasise them.
4. Lessons from history (the context-specificity of scientific knowledge)
E.g. ‘balance of power’ → If one power becomes to powerful, other nations will
group together to balance that power.
E.g. ‘democratic peace’ → Democratic countries don’t fight with violence.
E.g. Lessons from history
History of international relations – what?
What do you expect to learn in this class? What people, events, concepts or
processes do you expect to learn (more) about?
Concept / process Person Event
Balance of power Adolf Hitler Cold war
Terrorism Joseph Stalin Industrial revolution
Colonialism Napoleon 9/11
Climate change Ghandi Eichmann post WWII
Silk road Picot WWI
Kissinger Brexit
Gorbatsjov Withdrawal Afghanistan
Reflective in study of international relations and our general conception of history as well.
2
, IR as a scholarly discipline is ‘presentist’ → Quite recent events.
IR as a scholarly discipline is ‘Eurocentric’ → Evolving around the EU international history.
Move away from the present and EU centric international relations and move to a broader
IR history. Need to expand your geographic horizon to talk about IR in different parts of the
world.
Is it a problem that IR as a discipline betrays a ‘presentist’ and a ‘Eurocentric bias’?
Balance of power theory → When one state becomes more powerful and dominant, other
states will try to go against the other. Evidence for this concept derived from European
sources. When looked upon in the perspective of the global world, the theory was debunked.
Non-western powers are re-asserting themselves → Turkish policymakers; Germany and
Russia are always about their historical role; China was the centre and then you had suburban
states.
o Historical legacies → Even though these countries were subdued in Western
politics, they have the intuition of how they did International Politics before Western
influence.
o Historical memory → Actively trying to remember their history, referring to historical
memories. E.g. Ottoman Empire
o They are becoming more powerful, shaping the world, and reassuring themselves. But
if we want to work together well with other cultures we better know where they come
from.
o If we want to understand/counter what they are saying, you need to know their history.
To know what our “opponents” and partners are thinking and talking about.
What is the logic of the international system?
o Contingency of present arrangements
What is an ‘international system’? What is ‘the logic’ of the international system?
o Basic unit: state, sovereign state
o Social practices: borders, flags, anthems
o Rules & norms: sovereign equality
o Implications: anarchy, security dilemma, violence
But this is an inadequate portrayal that generalizes too readily from European
experience.
Five sessions about non-European international societies, which functioned rather
differently from the ideal-typical portrayal of European international experience
o Differences within ‘non-European experience’ too
o Relatively little consideration for ‘stateless societies’
Two sessions about how Europe came to rule the world
Three sessions about the evolution of ‘European-Global international society’ since
the nineteenth century
History of international relations – how?
Some information about the course! → irrelevant to study for exam.
3
, College 2: China and East Asia
Introduction: what is China?
What is China?
Country with a rich history. What is a country? Political society where there is a common
central authority and there are a group of people (the Chinese) and they identify themselves
with that country and central authority.
What more? There is also the administrative state. China is a member of the United Nations.
This makes absolute sense, but in historical terms there is a practical interpretation of what
China is about in a political society. It will need to be qualified historically. 4 th Century of the
common area: China is not a country in this sense. It will be something else. (first insight)
What does it mean to identify a ‘Chinese’ international system?
In East-Asia there was a Chinese international system. In EA there were multiple polities that
formed a system. They were in systematic interaction with one another, and they established
with one another multiple rules and norms that organized their systematic interaction.
Why call it a Chinese international system, why not call it an East-Asian international system?
China was present within that historical EA system covering multiple centuries. China
dominated this system to such an extent that it could basically define what the rules and
norms of that system were. Those rules and norms that it defined probably were
advantageous to it. They reflected somehow a Chinese disposition, Chinese cultural tradition.
There were multiple polities, China was in interaction with these multiple polities. Rules and
norms were developed to organize these relations. It means that China apparently was at its
centre and had a major influence on what those rules and norms were and they reflected
Chinese culture.
If you think about that bit: reflect Chinese culture. What is your intuition about the substance of
those rules and norms? How to name that tradition? Not every hierarchy system is
authoritative. Main features. If we are going to discuss a Chinese international system, we try
to pin down what the norms and rules are. Its hierarchical nature will be discussed. China was
at the centre of the system but was also acknowledged to be at the centre (legitimized, not
only by China but also by those who were subordinate to the system).
Even if it were a Sino centric system, it was not necessarily stable Sino centric. It was under
attack and challenge regularly.
Influence of Confucianism as a Chinese philosophy. There was a Confucian political system
and a philosophical political traditional which translated in political practises. The political
practises and philosophical tradition solved the organisation of diplomatic organisation.
(common idea)
What China is not: a nation-state → Even though the Chinese government wants to make
China as a society into a nation-state. Nationalism is one of the main ideologies within
contemporary China. Historically China was not a Nation-state, it was not unified and there
was not a strong sense of identification by the ordinary people (citizen) with the central
authority.
o Imperial dynasties with pretence of being the ‘middle kingdom’ (Zhongguo)
→ There was a succession of imperial dynasties. However, these dynasties did not
call themselves the Chinese dynasties (the word did not exist). They would mostly use
‘middle kingdom’.
→ For example: China was historically ruled over by the Zhong-dynasty. There
existed all kinds of dynasties: not only Chinese, but some were also Nomadic.
o A civilizational zone sharing in a set of ritual practices
4
