History of international Relations
Introduction
History of international relations: Why?
• Why is it useful for social scientist to study history?
o To predict what will happen in future (assumption that behaviour is the same over
time), draw lessons from the past
o To f.ex understand what is happening now in Gaza and in which way ➔ we need
to look at History (look back decades)
o If you want to solve the conflict do, we also need to study the past?
o Study the historical emergence of an institution you know what it is for, and to
know why it acts in a certain way (and why it fails) ➔ see Veto in UN (why UN not
attacks Israel for example)
o Wanting to escape the past ➔ if you let yourself restrain by the past, you are
stuck in that past ➔ is it possible to escape from it
o You study the past to understand how the world hangs together
• Answers professor:
o 1) Historical legacies (e.g., ‘Post-communist societies’➔ present behaviour and
international relations are burdened by the past (post-communist ➔ good
chance that the type of society will linger into the future ➔ f.ex a lot of distrust in
these societies as a heritage of the communism ➔ distrust extends into the
post-communist times)
▪ It suggest it is not that easy to shake of that past
▪ See also post-colonial countries (the hierarchical relationship between
the countries remains in some way
▪ Direct influence of past to present
o 2) The politics of historical memories (e.g., Kiev and Russian foreign policy
claims) the past is mobilized by political entrepreneurs (no direct impact but
mediation)
▪ Entrepreneurs draw attention to practical things happened in the past
and sometimes manipulate the past (f.ex nostalgia of communist past)
▪ Different way in which past influences the present
▪ Past is being remembered in different way through entrepreneurs with
different memories/ political views who mobilize the past
▪ 1 country can have multiple historical legacies and memories (ways to
talk about/ interpret the past) ➔ can also change over time (see how we
look at Belgian colonialism over time = very different, while the past did
not chance) ➔ historical memory is not objective, it is intersubjective
(created collectively)
• Political memories:
o Propagated by ‘memory activists’
o Based on ‘selection and exclusion’
o Depends on the ‘efficiency of political pedagogy’
, o Show a high degree of ‘homogeneity’
o Relies on symbols and rites that ‘enhance emotions of empathy and
identification’
• To cultivate the historical narrative successfully
o It depends on the ‘efficiency of political pedagogy’
o Not a single book ➔ but a systematic, resource heavy effort is needed, if you
want to change the memory of the past
o Every understanding of the past is selective (element included and excluded) ➔
applies both to political activist (entrepreneurs) that pursue historical causes
that you don’t favour or those who mobilise history for a cause you do favour ➔ it
is manipulative
▪ Important for social scientist to know this happens, and therefore it is
good for social scientist to study history to be able to evaluate how
political activist are mobilizing history
▪ Past != history
▪ Past is everything that happened
▪ History is a particular story of the past ➔ a recounting of the past (story
can not be endless like the past is)
▪ Many ways of manipulating history ➔ very tricky (be aware of this as a
social scientist)
o 3) The contingency of moral ideas and social arrangements (e.g., ‘gender
equality’ or ‘natural slavery’ or ‘sovereignty’
▪ by studying the past you become aware of the contingency of social
arrangement
▪ The understanding that it is not a natural giving (it exist now but it
was not so that it should have existed necessarily
▪ Gives you an understanding that things were different before and
that they can change in the future as well
o 4) Draw lessons from History (make you maybe a better political leader, so you
don’t make the same mistakes that your predecessors made)
▪ Prof is sceptical because it assumes that a successful action in
the past (from which perspective) is also in the future (what were
the conditions than and are they the same now)
▪ You can use history to make analogies and explore them critically
(not just learn lesson straight forward) ➔ therefore between
brackets
Histrory of international Relations: What?
• What do you expect to learn from this class? What people, events, concepts or
processes do you expect learn (more) about? (zie les)
o Who
o events
o concepts
o striking about the list?
, ▪ 1) most things are 19 century and beyond (presentist bias)
▪ 2) a lot of western/ EU IR (no middle-east, Africa, little Asia) ➔ME is a
notion from a EU perspective (Iran calls it western Asia) (Eurocentric bias)
▪ Both very restrictive ➔ gives us a to narrow view of international politics
• Is it a problem that IR as a discipline betrays a ‘presentist’ and ‘Eurocentric biaq’? ?
o Because it also allows for more detail in the discussions (it is a trade off) ➔
this course is the more broader view
Nieuwe slide
• Non-western powers are re-asserting themselves
o Historical legacies
o Historical memory
• China but f.ex also turkey ➔ they re-assert themselves ➔ they not accept the status
from before (therefore it is useful for us to know a bit more about their international
histories)
• They take their histories with them ➔ possibility that their current actions are formed
by their historical past
• + elites in these countries are cultivating the pre-colonial history ➔ creating
memories (see the references to Ottoman empire to restore this by turkey)
• = why it is politically useful
• But it is also scientifically useful
o By studying these various international societies compared to their colonial
past ➔ it can show that int. Politics can work differently compared to the
past
o Question is wat is the logic …. ➔ how does int. politics work (don’t draw
premature conclusion based on the past )
• What is the logic of the international system?
o Contingency of present arrangements
Nieuwe slide
• What is an ‘internationals system’? What us ‘the logic of the international system?
o Basic unite state, sovereign state
o Social practices: borders, flags, anthems
o Rules & norms: sovereign equality
o Implications: anarchy, security dilemma, violence
• We will not study IR through the mode of diplomatic history ➔ but more a comparative
history of internationals societies
o Assumption = for each of these regions of the world, some kind of international
society developed
o It means that there were multiple polities, were in regular interaction with each
other of various kinds (conflict, trade, cultural and intellectual exchange,
diplomacy) and were aware of each other existence
o Than logically all these international societies develop institutions, organise
there co-existence, common relations (make rules, norms, practices) ➔ idea of
, sovereignty (equally sovereign in theory), or balance of power (= institution of
International society ➔ it formed foreign policy
o What these institutions are vary historically ➔ so comparative history of these
international societies including the globalized internation society that
developed in the 19 century = this course
Map
• In international relations we often think about
separate countries with clear boarders and that
they have1 colour (monocultural) = not true (this
does not apply to the world especially not today)
➔ even it was once a more adequate
representation of the world, it only applies to a
specific moment in time ➔ contingency of how
the world is ordered
What are we gonna discuss, session by session (zie slide)
• Non-EU ➔ there is not such thing as non-eu international politics ➔ only reason is
because we think from EU perspective (outside EU there are also many differences)
• The danger (intellectually) of romantization = you call these pre-colonial historical
international societies non-European ➔ you portray them as being innocent or morally
worthy and pit them against evil guilty Europe. (there is evil in all of these histories
• See a text (‘memories individually and collective)
China and East Asia
Course outline
• Introduction
• Five sessions on non-European international systems
o Various international societies in different parts of the world before the era of
European colonization
o China and East Asia // India and Indianization // The Muslim Caliphates // The
Mongol Khanates // Africa
▪ Africa ➔ no clear designation for the kind of internation system that
evolved or for the kind of central actor in that international system (this is
deliberate but why we will see later)
• Two sessions on how Europe came to rule the world
o European expansion // Belgian colonialism
• Three sessions on the European-Global international system
o Global governance in the nineteenth century // The League of Nations and its
‘failure’ // The United Nations and decolonization
Introduction
History of international relations: Why?
• Why is it useful for social scientist to study history?
o To predict what will happen in future (assumption that behaviour is the same over
time), draw lessons from the past
o To f.ex understand what is happening now in Gaza and in which way ➔ we need
to look at History (look back decades)
o If you want to solve the conflict do, we also need to study the past?
o Study the historical emergence of an institution you know what it is for, and to
know why it acts in a certain way (and why it fails) ➔ see Veto in UN (why UN not
attacks Israel for example)
o Wanting to escape the past ➔ if you let yourself restrain by the past, you are
stuck in that past ➔ is it possible to escape from it
o You study the past to understand how the world hangs together
• Answers professor:
o 1) Historical legacies (e.g., ‘Post-communist societies’➔ present behaviour and
international relations are burdened by the past (post-communist ➔ good
chance that the type of society will linger into the future ➔ f.ex a lot of distrust in
these societies as a heritage of the communism ➔ distrust extends into the
post-communist times)
▪ It suggest it is not that easy to shake of that past
▪ See also post-colonial countries (the hierarchical relationship between
the countries remains in some way
▪ Direct influence of past to present
o 2) The politics of historical memories (e.g., Kiev and Russian foreign policy
claims) the past is mobilized by political entrepreneurs (no direct impact but
mediation)
▪ Entrepreneurs draw attention to practical things happened in the past
and sometimes manipulate the past (f.ex nostalgia of communist past)
▪ Different way in which past influences the present
▪ Past is being remembered in different way through entrepreneurs with
different memories/ political views who mobilize the past
▪ 1 country can have multiple historical legacies and memories (ways to
talk about/ interpret the past) ➔ can also change over time (see how we
look at Belgian colonialism over time = very different, while the past did
not chance) ➔ historical memory is not objective, it is intersubjective
(created collectively)
• Political memories:
o Propagated by ‘memory activists’
o Based on ‘selection and exclusion’
o Depends on the ‘efficiency of political pedagogy’
, o Show a high degree of ‘homogeneity’
o Relies on symbols and rites that ‘enhance emotions of empathy and
identification’
• To cultivate the historical narrative successfully
o It depends on the ‘efficiency of political pedagogy’
o Not a single book ➔ but a systematic, resource heavy effort is needed, if you
want to change the memory of the past
o Every understanding of the past is selective (element included and excluded) ➔
applies both to political activist (entrepreneurs) that pursue historical causes
that you don’t favour or those who mobilise history for a cause you do favour ➔ it
is manipulative
▪ Important for social scientist to know this happens, and therefore it is
good for social scientist to study history to be able to evaluate how
political activist are mobilizing history
▪ Past != history
▪ Past is everything that happened
▪ History is a particular story of the past ➔ a recounting of the past (story
can not be endless like the past is)
▪ Many ways of manipulating history ➔ very tricky (be aware of this as a
social scientist)
o 3) The contingency of moral ideas and social arrangements (e.g., ‘gender
equality’ or ‘natural slavery’ or ‘sovereignty’
▪ by studying the past you become aware of the contingency of social
arrangement
▪ The understanding that it is not a natural giving (it exist now but it
was not so that it should have existed necessarily
▪ Gives you an understanding that things were different before and
that they can change in the future as well
o 4) Draw lessons from History (make you maybe a better political leader, so you
don’t make the same mistakes that your predecessors made)
▪ Prof is sceptical because it assumes that a successful action in
the past (from which perspective) is also in the future (what were
the conditions than and are they the same now)
▪ You can use history to make analogies and explore them critically
(not just learn lesson straight forward) ➔ therefore between
brackets
Histrory of international Relations: What?
• What do you expect to learn from this class? What people, events, concepts or
processes do you expect learn (more) about? (zie les)
o Who
o events
o concepts
o striking about the list?
, ▪ 1) most things are 19 century and beyond (presentist bias)
▪ 2) a lot of western/ EU IR (no middle-east, Africa, little Asia) ➔ME is a
notion from a EU perspective (Iran calls it western Asia) (Eurocentric bias)
▪ Both very restrictive ➔ gives us a to narrow view of international politics
• Is it a problem that IR as a discipline betrays a ‘presentist’ and ‘Eurocentric biaq’? ?
o Because it also allows for more detail in the discussions (it is a trade off) ➔
this course is the more broader view
Nieuwe slide
• Non-western powers are re-asserting themselves
o Historical legacies
o Historical memory
• China but f.ex also turkey ➔ they re-assert themselves ➔ they not accept the status
from before (therefore it is useful for us to know a bit more about their international
histories)
• They take their histories with them ➔ possibility that their current actions are formed
by their historical past
• + elites in these countries are cultivating the pre-colonial history ➔ creating
memories (see the references to Ottoman empire to restore this by turkey)
• = why it is politically useful
• But it is also scientifically useful
o By studying these various international societies compared to their colonial
past ➔ it can show that int. Politics can work differently compared to the
past
o Question is wat is the logic …. ➔ how does int. politics work (don’t draw
premature conclusion based on the past )
• What is the logic of the international system?
o Contingency of present arrangements
Nieuwe slide
• What is an ‘internationals system’? What us ‘the logic of the international system?
o Basic unite state, sovereign state
o Social practices: borders, flags, anthems
o Rules & norms: sovereign equality
o Implications: anarchy, security dilemma, violence
• We will not study IR through the mode of diplomatic history ➔ but more a comparative
history of internationals societies
o Assumption = for each of these regions of the world, some kind of international
society developed
o It means that there were multiple polities, were in regular interaction with each
other of various kinds (conflict, trade, cultural and intellectual exchange,
diplomacy) and were aware of each other existence
o Than logically all these international societies develop institutions, organise
there co-existence, common relations (make rules, norms, practices) ➔ idea of
, sovereignty (equally sovereign in theory), or balance of power (= institution of
International society ➔ it formed foreign policy
o What these institutions are vary historically ➔ so comparative history of these
international societies including the globalized internation society that
developed in the 19 century = this course
Map
• In international relations we often think about
separate countries with clear boarders and that
they have1 colour (monocultural) = not true (this
does not apply to the world especially not today)
➔ even it was once a more adequate
representation of the world, it only applies to a
specific moment in time ➔ contingency of how
the world is ordered
What are we gonna discuss, session by session (zie slide)
• Non-EU ➔ there is not such thing as non-eu international politics ➔ only reason is
because we think from EU perspective (outside EU there are also many differences)
• The danger (intellectually) of romantization = you call these pre-colonial historical
international societies non-European ➔ you portray them as being innocent or morally
worthy and pit them against evil guilty Europe. (there is evil in all of these histories
• See a text (‘memories individually and collective)
China and East Asia
Course outline
• Introduction
• Five sessions on non-European international systems
o Various international societies in different parts of the world before the era of
European colonization
o China and East Asia // India and Indianization // The Muslim Caliphates // The
Mongol Khanates // Africa
▪ Africa ➔ no clear designation for the kind of internation system that
evolved or for the kind of central actor in that international system (this is
deliberate but why we will see later)
• Two sessions on how Europe came to rule the world
o European expansion // Belgian colonialism
• Three sessions on the European-Global international system
o Global governance in the nineteenth century // The League of Nations and its
‘failure’ // The United Nations and decolonization
