Final Exam instructions: Monday 19 December, 15:30-17:30 (World Fashion Center, Westhal)
3 parts:
A. Concept/comprehension questions (answer 2 out of 4 in ca. 150 words each)
B. Essay on the major theoretical perspectives in IR (choose 1 from 3; 500 words)
C. Essay on current issues/developments in IR (choose 1 from 3; 500 words)
Tips:
• Be concise, clear, complete; show what you know and have learned reread your sentences.
• Show that you understand, master and can apply theories and you are aware of historical and
current developments in IR
Theories: realism, liberalism, radicalism, constructivism, post-positivisms
1. Realism:
Pessimistic IR view. It sees states as rational actors pursuing their national goals of sovereignty and
territorial protection. These states are positioned in an anarchic international system, without a
superior authority. States seek relative gains, leading to a security dilemma: a zero-sum game. To
prevent this, states can balance externally by making alliances, or balance internally by building own
militaries. Realists see international cooperation as difficult due to anarchy. Neorealists look at the
structure of the international system to explain things, as peace and war in the anarchic system
depends on the distribution of power. The power distribution has three forms: unipolar (one
hegemon), bipolar (two states or two coalitions) or multipolar (three or more (coalitions of) states).
2. Liberalism:
Look at specific characteristics of states as explanations. War, injustice and aggression can be
moderated and even eliminated through institutional reform or collective action. They see states,
NGOs and IGOs as important actors, with free trade and commerce creating interdependencies
between states that raise the cost of war. They see humans as rational, and good. Collective security
means that if one aggressor attacks, then all members would defend. Neoliberal institutionalism says
that states actually cooperate all the time. This is because of the complex interdependence, consisting
of three components: multiple connections (informal and formal), no issue-based hierarchy, and
decline of military force. International institutions foster cooperative interactions, leading to a
positive-sum game. These institutions prevent the threat of anarchy.
3. Radical theories:
Primacy of economic in international phenomena. Marxism sees a hierarchy between social classes.
This hierarchy became global due to overproduction, underconsumption and oversaving of
developed countries, leading corporations to expand to developing countries in imperialism.
Economic techniques of domination and suppression are the means of power. Dependency theorists
focus on the dominated states. They see a hierarchical system with dominant and dominated states,
they argue that external forces are central to the economic activities within the dependent states.
Multinational corporations are controlled by dominant states. The relation between dominant and
dominated is dynamic: it reinforces each other. This is the reason for underdevelopment in the world.
Interactions are shaped by the economy, and institutions mainly benefits the dominant class/states.
4. Constructivism:
Focus on norms and identities. The norms stem from the identities of the actors. Identities of actors
can help explain behavior: convergent identities may lead to conflict. Objects and concepts have no
, fixed meaning, as their meaning is constructed through social interaction . The identities of actors are
also constructed. Important in this is discourse. They see power in discursive contexts: they argue for
soft power. The legitimacy of one’s actions can help persuade others to adopt similar behavior. In
socialization, one adopts the identities of its peers. Constructivists focus on individuals and groups, as
well as states. Institutions are the result of, and shape interactions. They believe that actors
(individuals/groups/organizations) can change social norms = norm entrepreneur.
5. Post-positivisms:
Strand of constructivism. Argue that observer and theories constructs reality by making claims. There
is no objective way to acquire knowledge, as objective methods confirm and legitimize the status quo
(the current power relations). They argue that mainstream theories serve the dominant, with
alternative theories exposing this. Usage of certain ‘discourses’ makes certain choices logical and
justified, while it marginalizes other choices. Institutions structure IR in ways that confirms and
legitimize hierarchies. IR should focus on non-state actors, gender and ethnicity, among other things.
Actors: states, IGOs, NGOs, MNCs, transnational terrorists
1. States:
Classical IR actors, realist perspective. Central to IR. States have internal (organized extortion,
provider public goods) and external (monopoly on legitimate violence, recognition of sovereignty)
aspects. There are tricky cases in the forms of failed states and non-state structures. Multiple forms:
nation-state, multinational states, divided nations and nations without states. States are central to IR.
It can be defined as an entity with a geographically defined territory, with a stable population, an
effective government and diplomatic recognition. States have power, and its power potential
depends on resources (natural, tangible (material) or intangible). Power can be hard (exploitation of
various power sources) or soft (persuasion based on own actions). The combination of hard and soft
power is smart power. In their foreign policy, states use statecraft, based on credibility of a state’s
ability and incentive, in interactions. Part of statecraft are diplomacy (traditional, public (track one)
and nongovernmental (track two)), economic statecraft (sanctions and engagement) and force
(compellence and deterrence). There are multiple models of decision making: rational model
(realism), the organizational process (liberal), the bureaucratic model (liberalism), and the pluralist
model (liberalism). Constructivists see that states foreign policies depend on the strategic cultures
and on leaders’ interpretation of international norms. States are challenged by transnational religious
and ideological movements, ethnonational movements, transnational crime, fragile states.
2. Intergovernmental organizations:
Result of international interaction through institutions, liberal perspective. They can be used for the
management of collective goods or to address issues that individual states can’t address alone. In the
case of collective goods, IGOs can use coercion, restructure preferences of states or alter the size of
the group inside the collective. IGOs come in many forms: specific or broad causes, universal or
limited membership. IGOs expand foreign policy possibilities and add to the constraints of state
conduct. They make information more readily available, enhance transparency and set international
agendas and force states to make decisions. Prominent examples are the UN, the EU and OAS.
3. Non-governmental organizations:
Private, voluntary organizations aimed to achieve a common purpose, often oriented towards a
common good, constructivist perspective. Growing importance. The issues they take on are seen as
transnational, and global conferences have become a key venue for international activity. The end of
the cold war provided a huge opening, while communication revolution also contributed. NGOs
advocate specific policies and offer alternative channels of political participation. They are primary
grassroot actors, mobilizing mass publics. NGOs are politically independent, and use soft power. But
3 parts:
A. Concept/comprehension questions (answer 2 out of 4 in ca. 150 words each)
B. Essay on the major theoretical perspectives in IR (choose 1 from 3; 500 words)
C. Essay on current issues/developments in IR (choose 1 from 3; 500 words)
Tips:
• Be concise, clear, complete; show what you know and have learned reread your sentences.
• Show that you understand, master and can apply theories and you are aware of historical and
current developments in IR
Theories: realism, liberalism, radicalism, constructivism, post-positivisms
1. Realism:
Pessimistic IR view. It sees states as rational actors pursuing their national goals of sovereignty and
territorial protection. These states are positioned in an anarchic international system, without a
superior authority. States seek relative gains, leading to a security dilemma: a zero-sum game. To
prevent this, states can balance externally by making alliances, or balance internally by building own
militaries. Realists see international cooperation as difficult due to anarchy. Neorealists look at the
structure of the international system to explain things, as peace and war in the anarchic system
depends on the distribution of power. The power distribution has three forms: unipolar (one
hegemon), bipolar (two states or two coalitions) or multipolar (three or more (coalitions of) states).
2. Liberalism:
Look at specific characteristics of states as explanations. War, injustice and aggression can be
moderated and even eliminated through institutional reform or collective action. They see states,
NGOs and IGOs as important actors, with free trade and commerce creating interdependencies
between states that raise the cost of war. They see humans as rational, and good. Collective security
means that if one aggressor attacks, then all members would defend. Neoliberal institutionalism says
that states actually cooperate all the time. This is because of the complex interdependence, consisting
of three components: multiple connections (informal and formal), no issue-based hierarchy, and
decline of military force. International institutions foster cooperative interactions, leading to a
positive-sum game. These institutions prevent the threat of anarchy.
3. Radical theories:
Primacy of economic in international phenomena. Marxism sees a hierarchy between social classes.
This hierarchy became global due to overproduction, underconsumption and oversaving of
developed countries, leading corporations to expand to developing countries in imperialism.
Economic techniques of domination and suppression are the means of power. Dependency theorists
focus on the dominated states. They see a hierarchical system with dominant and dominated states,
they argue that external forces are central to the economic activities within the dependent states.
Multinational corporations are controlled by dominant states. The relation between dominant and
dominated is dynamic: it reinforces each other. This is the reason for underdevelopment in the world.
Interactions are shaped by the economy, and institutions mainly benefits the dominant class/states.
4. Constructivism:
Focus on norms and identities. The norms stem from the identities of the actors. Identities of actors
can help explain behavior: convergent identities may lead to conflict. Objects and concepts have no
, fixed meaning, as their meaning is constructed through social interaction . The identities of actors are
also constructed. Important in this is discourse. They see power in discursive contexts: they argue for
soft power. The legitimacy of one’s actions can help persuade others to adopt similar behavior. In
socialization, one adopts the identities of its peers. Constructivists focus on individuals and groups, as
well as states. Institutions are the result of, and shape interactions. They believe that actors
(individuals/groups/organizations) can change social norms = norm entrepreneur.
5. Post-positivisms:
Strand of constructivism. Argue that observer and theories constructs reality by making claims. There
is no objective way to acquire knowledge, as objective methods confirm and legitimize the status quo
(the current power relations). They argue that mainstream theories serve the dominant, with
alternative theories exposing this. Usage of certain ‘discourses’ makes certain choices logical and
justified, while it marginalizes other choices. Institutions structure IR in ways that confirms and
legitimize hierarchies. IR should focus on non-state actors, gender and ethnicity, among other things.
Actors: states, IGOs, NGOs, MNCs, transnational terrorists
1. States:
Classical IR actors, realist perspective. Central to IR. States have internal (organized extortion,
provider public goods) and external (monopoly on legitimate violence, recognition of sovereignty)
aspects. There are tricky cases in the forms of failed states and non-state structures. Multiple forms:
nation-state, multinational states, divided nations and nations without states. States are central to IR.
It can be defined as an entity with a geographically defined territory, with a stable population, an
effective government and diplomatic recognition. States have power, and its power potential
depends on resources (natural, tangible (material) or intangible). Power can be hard (exploitation of
various power sources) or soft (persuasion based on own actions). The combination of hard and soft
power is smart power. In their foreign policy, states use statecraft, based on credibility of a state’s
ability and incentive, in interactions. Part of statecraft are diplomacy (traditional, public (track one)
and nongovernmental (track two)), economic statecraft (sanctions and engagement) and force
(compellence and deterrence). There are multiple models of decision making: rational model
(realism), the organizational process (liberal), the bureaucratic model (liberalism), and the pluralist
model (liberalism). Constructivists see that states foreign policies depend on the strategic cultures
and on leaders’ interpretation of international norms. States are challenged by transnational religious
and ideological movements, ethnonational movements, transnational crime, fragile states.
2. Intergovernmental organizations:
Result of international interaction through institutions, liberal perspective. They can be used for the
management of collective goods or to address issues that individual states can’t address alone. In the
case of collective goods, IGOs can use coercion, restructure preferences of states or alter the size of
the group inside the collective. IGOs come in many forms: specific or broad causes, universal or
limited membership. IGOs expand foreign policy possibilities and add to the constraints of state
conduct. They make information more readily available, enhance transparency and set international
agendas and force states to make decisions. Prominent examples are the UN, the EU and OAS.
3. Non-governmental organizations:
Private, voluntary organizations aimed to achieve a common purpose, often oriented towards a
common good, constructivist perspective. Growing importance. The issues they take on are seen as
transnational, and global conferences have become a key venue for international activity. The end of
the cold war provided a huge opening, while communication revolution also contributed. NGOs
advocate specific policies and offer alternative channels of political participation. They are primary
grassroot actors, mobilizing mass publics. NGOs are politically independent, and use soft power. But
