IR LECTURE NOTES
Lecture 1
Global politics and international relations since Cold War, post-1991 global, regional, national
development + theoretical approaches and policies + Western and non-Western perspective.
❖ Changing the world order, transition of power and ideas (ideas follow power changing nature of
world order)
❖ Globalization and diversity
❖ New actors and issues
1. Changing nature of world order => global change after Cold War. From bipolarity (US - USSR) to
unipolarity (US) or multipolarity (China, Russia, US), or even nonpolarity.
Rise of authoritarian great powers + challenges from within (populism) and without (vs others).
Future of European integration in question, relations with Russia “revisionism”, conflicts in Europe’s
periphery. Europe no longer at the center. Disintegration of Europe with Brexit. Ideology not playing a
role anymore.
Russia revisionism: revise global political rules.
Global Liberal Order - institutions established when West was dominant (WTO, IMF); but now?
Challenges, need to adapt, especially because of China.
New era: post-post Cold War. The first decade of post-CW was era of Western supremacy, will be
missed, short moment, but then the world started changing => biggest change the rise of China.
2. Globalization and diversity => from globalization, universalism and End of History to growth of
ideological, political and economic diversity, Return to History (=return to culture).
More alike with globalization and interdependence, but:
❖ Going wild with neoliberalism, crisis and discontent
❖ Differences increased, shaped by variety of ideological cultural differences
❖ Growing economic equality between countries and inequality within (US, China, Russia equal,
but inside…)
People protecting themselves, their identity => rise of identity politics, reemergence of nationalism.
Need institutions to combine sense of diversity and authority, but it’s hard to build authoritative
institutions in a diverse world.
Less poverty tho - mostly because of China’s rise, gave opportunities to billions of people.
Inequality within countries increased, including the capitalist US.
3. New actors and issues => state + non-state actors like NGOs, big impact on world order. Form “crisis”
of the state (in the 90s, when states losing significance in face of global phenomena) to resurgence of state
and its weaknesses. State reinvented + help of others.
Transition of power between states (from West to other parts), and diffusion of power from state to non-
state actors. Future of global and regional institutions in the hands of non-state actors => crisis of
multilateralism (=procedures where states work together, like EU), growing version against it for national
interests.
New/old issues in international politics: sovereignty, identity politics, economic intervention,
environmental issues, technology development, human rights…
When power changes, ideas change too, usually coming from powerful side of the world: mostly West
ideas supporting Global Liberal Order.
Policy analysis: world in transition.
, Examples of today’s world’s disorder vary, coincide with and feed into each other. Everything related,
how to respond strategically?
Crocker’s analytical steps:
- Explanations of events, which are far beyond human agency
- Identity drivers, main actors
- How these drivers coincide and feed into each other, toxic mix of power dynamics
- Conclusion: unregulated discussion of authority, agency and responsibility
- Restoring power/legitimacy of state; strong role of UN, of regionalization => help with conflict
resolution and integration
States part of the solution, but also part of the problem.
Implication of study of IR: world war more diverse than CW and post-CW; shift of political power. Also,
IR mostly Western, widening gap with its practics, and gives no answer to change or volatile situations.
Lecture 2
IR scholarship irrelevant or inaccessible to policy makers, too abstract. But still need to theorize => 3
main theories (more important than others): realism, liberalism, constructivism.
Theory gives a different perspective on the world, like a lens; choose units and levels of analysis (state vs
state, internal structure, regional structure…), and simplify reality so it makes sense, without complexity.
Ex: Belt and Road Initiative. Positive and negative understanding of it, highlighting different
perspectives. Positive for liberalists, because of free trade; negative for realists, because of dependency on
China.
Types of theory:
❖ Explanatory theory; what causes what, descriptive, evidence, associated with realism and
liberalism.
❖ Interpretive or constitutive theory; understanding events, there can be multiple competing truths,
no “real” world, but it’s constructed. Associated with constructivism.
❖ Normative theory; political theory, what ought to be, rather than what is.
Each theory, different perspective.
Realism - billiard ball theory: states are balls, living in anarchy, independent and with no authority above
them. Human nature is selfish, so states are too => national interests are reasons for conflict.
❖ Selfish nature of state
❖ Anarchy
❖ Tendency towards conflict, which is resolved through balance of powers
Neorealism focused on distribution and balance of power between states as reason for conflict. Battle for
survival, the weaks suffer. Conflict encouraged by the fact that states are primarily concerned about
maintaining or improving their position relative to other states, making relative gains. Therefore need
prudent statecraft, smart sovereign to defend national interests. Neorealism based on balance of power, as
in CW => in bipolar system more stability than in multipolar one. Problem of structural dynamics and
distribution of capabilities to produce balance => security dilemma, military build up as defense that may
be seen as a threat by others.
Anarchical system, states as rational entities seeking relative gains for national interests; stability through
balance of power, but security dilemma!
Lecture 1
Global politics and international relations since Cold War, post-1991 global, regional, national
development + theoretical approaches and policies + Western and non-Western perspective.
❖ Changing the world order, transition of power and ideas (ideas follow power changing nature of
world order)
❖ Globalization and diversity
❖ New actors and issues
1. Changing nature of world order => global change after Cold War. From bipolarity (US - USSR) to
unipolarity (US) or multipolarity (China, Russia, US), or even nonpolarity.
Rise of authoritarian great powers + challenges from within (populism) and without (vs others).
Future of European integration in question, relations with Russia “revisionism”, conflicts in Europe’s
periphery. Europe no longer at the center. Disintegration of Europe with Brexit. Ideology not playing a
role anymore.
Russia revisionism: revise global political rules.
Global Liberal Order - institutions established when West was dominant (WTO, IMF); but now?
Challenges, need to adapt, especially because of China.
New era: post-post Cold War. The first decade of post-CW was era of Western supremacy, will be
missed, short moment, but then the world started changing => biggest change the rise of China.
2. Globalization and diversity => from globalization, universalism and End of History to growth of
ideological, political and economic diversity, Return to History (=return to culture).
More alike with globalization and interdependence, but:
❖ Going wild with neoliberalism, crisis and discontent
❖ Differences increased, shaped by variety of ideological cultural differences
❖ Growing economic equality between countries and inequality within (US, China, Russia equal,
but inside…)
People protecting themselves, their identity => rise of identity politics, reemergence of nationalism.
Need institutions to combine sense of diversity and authority, but it’s hard to build authoritative
institutions in a diverse world.
Less poverty tho - mostly because of China’s rise, gave opportunities to billions of people.
Inequality within countries increased, including the capitalist US.
3. New actors and issues => state + non-state actors like NGOs, big impact on world order. Form “crisis”
of the state (in the 90s, when states losing significance in face of global phenomena) to resurgence of state
and its weaknesses. State reinvented + help of others.
Transition of power between states (from West to other parts), and diffusion of power from state to non-
state actors. Future of global and regional institutions in the hands of non-state actors => crisis of
multilateralism (=procedures where states work together, like EU), growing version against it for national
interests.
New/old issues in international politics: sovereignty, identity politics, economic intervention,
environmental issues, technology development, human rights…
When power changes, ideas change too, usually coming from powerful side of the world: mostly West
ideas supporting Global Liberal Order.
Policy analysis: world in transition.
, Examples of today’s world’s disorder vary, coincide with and feed into each other. Everything related,
how to respond strategically?
Crocker’s analytical steps:
- Explanations of events, which are far beyond human agency
- Identity drivers, main actors
- How these drivers coincide and feed into each other, toxic mix of power dynamics
- Conclusion: unregulated discussion of authority, agency and responsibility
- Restoring power/legitimacy of state; strong role of UN, of regionalization => help with conflict
resolution and integration
States part of the solution, but also part of the problem.
Implication of study of IR: world war more diverse than CW and post-CW; shift of political power. Also,
IR mostly Western, widening gap with its practics, and gives no answer to change or volatile situations.
Lecture 2
IR scholarship irrelevant or inaccessible to policy makers, too abstract. But still need to theorize => 3
main theories (more important than others): realism, liberalism, constructivism.
Theory gives a different perspective on the world, like a lens; choose units and levels of analysis (state vs
state, internal structure, regional structure…), and simplify reality so it makes sense, without complexity.
Ex: Belt and Road Initiative. Positive and negative understanding of it, highlighting different
perspectives. Positive for liberalists, because of free trade; negative for realists, because of dependency on
China.
Types of theory:
❖ Explanatory theory; what causes what, descriptive, evidence, associated with realism and
liberalism.
❖ Interpretive or constitutive theory; understanding events, there can be multiple competing truths,
no “real” world, but it’s constructed. Associated with constructivism.
❖ Normative theory; political theory, what ought to be, rather than what is.
Each theory, different perspective.
Realism - billiard ball theory: states are balls, living in anarchy, independent and with no authority above
them. Human nature is selfish, so states are too => national interests are reasons for conflict.
❖ Selfish nature of state
❖ Anarchy
❖ Tendency towards conflict, which is resolved through balance of powers
Neorealism focused on distribution and balance of power between states as reason for conflict. Battle for
survival, the weaks suffer. Conflict encouraged by the fact that states are primarily concerned about
maintaining or improving their position relative to other states, making relative gains. Therefore need
prudent statecraft, smart sovereign to defend national interests. Neorealism based on balance of power, as
in CW => in bipolar system more stability than in multipolar one. Problem of structural dynamics and
distribution of capabilities to produce balance => security dilemma, military build up as defense that may
be seen as a threat by others.
Anarchical system, states as rational entities seeking relative gains for national interests; stability through
balance of power, but security dilemma!
