INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY

1. The discipline of International Relations

1.1. Introduction to the concept of International Relations

1. “Inter” National: main actor → the state.

2. “Relations”: variety (of their nature) and complexity (from cooperation to conflict).

...but something else (framework): structure, norms, values, etc.

We talk about multiple poles that have the power in the world.

IR Theories: Theoretical frameworks to argue and explain things. There is not a single
explanation for things, there are different perspectives. There are no bad theories, there are
theories that fit better under specific circumstances.

For neorealists the importance is how power is distributed (the number of poles). But that brings
us to think that power is material, for liberals how we build the order of the elements,
institutions that manage and shape relations, is also important.

● Note: high politics and low politics are terms coined by realist authors. Meaning?

IR analyses 3 forms of interaction:

1. Inter-state relations: diplomatic/strategic relations of states, war/peace,

conflict/cooperation.

2. Transnational/crossborder: social, economic and political relations between NSA.

3. Systemic: holistic approach in which states and societies are components.

1.2. Origins of the academic discipline

Why study “International Relations”: the complex nature of international reality demands a
holistic/interdisciplinary approach to its analysis (“Jack of all trades, master of none”). Other
subjects such as law or politics approach International Relations from a fragmentary way. We
need to move from the phenomenal stage to the analytical one.

The year 1919 was the end of WWI, and is also the starting point of the discipline of
International Relations. There was a rise of new international powers (USA, Japan, USSR) and
heterogeneity. Peace treaty, Peace of Versailles, established a new liberal and global order. We
need to understand this complexity to change the system and avoid other future wars:
 Causes of WWI Why was the discipline of IR created?

Expansion of balance power We need to create International norms and institutions to

policy of western countries. manage the International system and avoid violence. However,
forbidding war is very difficult. We need a legal structure and
the capability to avoid war from happening.

At the same time, there was a need to create a discipline that

bound together the different perspectives of world conflicts
and avoided conflict. There was the willingness of people to
learn about global issues “widening horizons''. By the same
token, the discipline is anglo saxon.

First schools of International Relations:

● Aberystwyth
● LSE
● Oxford
● The Royal Institute of International Affairs
● Council of Foreign Relations

Failure of traditional We need to share information to feel confident and secure.

Westphalian secret You need to be able to predict what others would do in an
diplomacy anarchic system.

Information = a more peaceful world.

Industrial and technological Development has an impact over social movements.

developments

How do we study IR? Development of IR through 3 concentric circles of Influence:

1. Change and debate within the subject itself (inter-paradigm1 debate) This means that
there is not only one paradigm in International Relations, but many paradigms instead.

2. Impact of developments in the world.

3. Influence of new ideas within other areas of social science

1
Paradigm: framework of laws in a theory that establishes the view of the discipline. Paradigms change over time.
 1.3. The main traditional schools of thought (‘The 3 R’s’) – English School of IR. Realists,
Rationalists, Revolutionists.

English school of IR: a sort of theory. A bridge between classical realism and liberalism. It
understands that the main elements of states are: power and security (same in realism). But, this
happens in a systemic anarchy (no central authority) → state system and society of states. The
system is anarchical in its structure but has some kind of order → this is important to
understand the behaviour of states. All states are equal because all hold sovereignty over their
territories. Power is not concentrated, states interact with each other as a society. What
conditions our behavior when interacting with others is the norms and rules that exist.

Martin Wight2: (considered the founder of the English School of thought) IR as a discipline is the
continuation of previous ideas: traditions of thought. “The Three Traditions of Thought” (1991).
Concepts and ideas that can be gathered in 3 traditions of thought: (Realist, Rationalist,
Revolutionist). Book published in 1996 gathering the three main classical theories of IR. His ideas
came from the 1950s, even if the book appeared much later.

Realists

Hobbesian Tradition. Conflict exists and it’s inherent to human nature. Struggle for power. Their
vision of the international system is the following:

A vision of anarchy: an international system where countries have conflict with others
(war of all against all → zero sum game3). We all want the same, the biggest slice of the
cake, no share. Conflict is systemic and inherent to humans. “War is the continuation of
politics by other means” (Clausewitz). Some authors:

a. Hobbes

b. Machiavelli

Prescription:

Anthropological pessimism (the Human being is violent and selfish). Can’t change nature.

Pragmatism: Don’t pretend to change things, because you won’t be able to do it → it is

very difficult to change the world. Try to adapt.

Neither legal nor moral constraints among states: states will use rationality to act.
States will disrespect these situations that negatively affect your interests → Pacta sunt
servanda4 does not work here.

Utilitarian5 external action of State + prudence and convenience. Instead of morals, think
about if it’s useful.

2
Martin Wight, was one of the foremost British scholars of International Relations in the twentieth century. He was the
author of Power Politics (1946; revised and expanded edition 1978), as well as the seminal essay "Why is there no
International Theory?" (first published in the journal International Relations in 1960 and republished in the edited
collection Diplomatic Investigations in 1966).

3
Zero sum game: the worth of winning is the worth of the loss of somebody else. Conflict is perpetual and continuous.

4
Pacta sunt servanda: agreements have to be followed.

5
Utilitarianism is an effort to provide an answer to the practical question “What ought a person to do?” The answer is
that a person ought to act so as to maximize happiness or pleasure and to minimize unhappiness or pain.
 Justice is not about values, justice is about how power is distributed. Justice = ‘might
makes right’.

World politics do not experience any progress (it is the same in any moment of time,
everywhere). Human nature has not changed.

Denial of the existence of any International Society. Inside the state, we might have
some order but in the International scenario, forget about that.

“the blood and iron and immorality man” (Bismark’s moto).

“War is the continuation of politics by other means” (Clausewitz).

Rationalists

Grotius Tradition. Conflict exists, but we can limit it through rules and institutions. Understand
the crisis of WWI and prevent it through tools. Their vision of the international system is the
following:

The basic units of International Systems are states (communitarianism).

Conflicts will not disappear but can be managed through rules and institutions to
create some order. Conflicts are very difficult to disappear (even more with the
anarchical order of the international community). According to rationalists, order and
anarchy can coexist → vision of the fathers of international public law, at technical and
moral dimension. (sort of mechanism established by states in order to establish some
sort of order. Moral strength of treaties and mutually contractual good faith: Pacta sunt
servanda → normative point of view, treaties have to be respected. ).

Great significance of trade as a cooperative institution: trade is transaction, and

transaction implies cooperation. (incompatible with zero sum game). Their approach to
IS is the following: When two states cooperate, one wins more than the other.

Partially distributive game → what means to win or lose? I might win more money but
that does not mean that I win. Maybe it is not fair. With trade we assume that things are
not equal. For liberal authors, trade is good.

Prescription:

Create rules and institutions to constrain State behavior: (acknowledgment of

international institutions).

Logistics and rules to the state behavior?

Prudence (rationalism)/Morality/compliance with Law: combination of three elements.

Justice → more scale than sword: for these authors justice is more scale than sword,
more about looking for the balance (not power distribution as the realists). Justice is
about values, everyone has something in return, bounds.

Bull “the law and order and keep your word men”

Grotius, Lock, De Vitoria.

 Revolutionists

Kantian Tradition. The system should be changed. Their vision of the international system is the
following:

→ emancipation / universal self-fulfillment (the other two traditions were more

pro-theory of status quo). In this tradition the main actor is not the state, actually the
state is a political tool, not a mechanism to improve the world. Kantian authors talk
about the existence of a global society (the individual goes before the state, not between
nations, cosmopolitan approach). These authors want to change things.

International relations are transnational social links between individuals linked to the
idea of Cosmopolitanism. Apart from your nationality, what is important is that we are all
humans (we have the same needs and the same rights, or at least we should). Individuals
are more important than the state. Security should provide safety to individuals R2P
(Responsibility to Protect). We have to protect the state, sovereignty to protect.
According to this state we are in a continuous “progress” → international system
should bring us to create somehow a Global Community, cooperative game (win-win).
Conflict of interests is superficial and local (elites), not universal (optimism of human
nature, which is perfectible), war happens because elites have a clash of interests,
related to colonialism, and the aim to expand.

Prescription:

There are moral (abstract) imperatives → cosmopolitan society: we are all bound to
moral imperatives, because we are all human beings, and we have to follow them, no
matter where we come from, universal, not culture, inherent to humans. Cosmopolitan
society.

There are abstract ideas of imperatives (not legal), moral goals that although they are not
written we have to respect them.

These moral imperatives imply not just cooperation among states, it goes beyond that,
these imperatives have to overcome the state.

The goal is to create a moral community of human beings where peace and harmony
reign, looking for a human moral unity. Asíntota (improvement of cooperation but
idealistic).

a. Kant → All humans are equal. Pro-republican structure of the international

community (world constituted by republics, idealist approach). Revolution is
about building a universal system of constitutional states (Republics), that
together create a Perpetual Peace. However, this author can fit in some ways in
the realist school of thought (it depends on the topic, bear in mind).

b. Marx → Revolution is about destroying the Capitalist State and getting rid of the
Class System to build up a World Society without classes. The current system is
creating differences between people who should be equal (again, an idealist and
utopic approach). On the other hand, trade is seen as a tool of exploitation.

They move beyond cooperation among States (elimination). → states to become

something geographical, not political.

Community of human race where peace and harmony reign.

Bull: “the subversion and liberation and missionary man.

All IR theories can be placed inside any of these traditions (which are ideal models). Each of
these traditions have (ontologically) a different interpretation of the nature of IR and justice.
According to how each tradition sees the world, it establishes different norms or models of
international behavior (normative prescription → justice). These are ideal models but they are
not completely contradictory, they need to combine with each other. It is not black or white.

Conception of Justice

Scale: pretends to look for equality, the right thing.

Sword: to ensure that justice is respected and enforced,

some kind of force is needed.

Some authors will see more importance in the sword or

the scale.

Blind: not being conditioned by perceptions.

“Justice”
Summary of the 3 Rs

Traditions of Realism Rationalism Revolutionism

Thought Hobbesian tradition Grotian tradition Kantian tradition

Vision of Anarchy Order International Emancipation

International State of war Society Human community
Politics [International Limited conflict Transnational social
System] Progress (use of linkages
Determinism/ reason) Cooperation
conservatism. [Global Society]
No progress. Progress/change
(social revolution)

Main actor State State Individual

Prescriptive issues No legal or moral Rules, institutions Moral imperatives

(legal and morals) constructions

Relations among Zero sum Partially disruptive Cooperative Game

actors Totally disruptive game (Win-win)

Authors Hegel, Hobbes, International Law, Rousseau, Calvino,

Maquiavelo, Locke, Burke, Grocio Kant, Marx
Morganthau,
Thucydides,
 1.4 The Four Great Debates in IR:

The four debates are based on ontological (what do they pretend to explain) and epistemological
(the process) dimension. Two clashing positions, we have a dilemma, one pretends to prevail over
the other.

In Social Sciences there is no objectivity, no neutral, they are based upon assumptions. We use
these assumptions to explain reality. To do analysis through your lenses, using a theory of IR, you
have to be consistent and use only one theory. We simplify devices that we use in IR to draw
general conclusions from a limited number of examples.

Different theories give us different answers, but some are more useful than others in specific
cases. Different theories emphasize different aspects of the world. Facts are not autonomous,
facts can only be useful from the lenses of a theory, this is important because according to the
theory applied the reality can be different.

We cannot detach the theory from reality.

All theories include two elements:

1. Explanation: establish a theoretical framework to establish causal explanations.

2. Prediction

Ontology-Epistemology-Methodology

In social sciences (including IR), all theories are dependent upon particular assumptions about:

1. Ontology (the theory of being) what do we study? Ontology is the assumptions regarding
the essence of the object that we are studying. Realists for example:

a. Main actor is the state → States are selfish → Because they are selfish, they are
conflictual → Conflicts bring war.

2. Epistemology (theory of knowledge) Deals with how we produce and acquire knowledge?
How do we have our brain codified? It’s the operative system. We also question the limits
and validity of knowledge.

a. Positivist epistemology (scientific): we can obtain objective and value free

knowledge through methods of analysis.

b. Empiricist epistemology (interpretative): what is important is to assume that

there is no universal truth (they are no pro-relativism, no hippies). Some ways of
analyzing, sometimes, fit better to the object of study.

3. Methodology (tools, procedures, mechanisms to gather data. Epistemology is the

operative system while methodology is the software (apps). Methodology is something
within epistemology (epistemology is something broader).

The Four Great Debates: When we talk about debate we assume that there are some hegemonic6
perspectives that situated their own approach as a direct counter to previous ways of thinking.

6
Nota: diferenciamos hegemónico de mainstream porque mainstream está asumido que es así, y hegemónico
hace referencia a que algo está muy extendido como creencia.
 First Great Debate: Realists vs idealists (1930s-1940)

Ontological debate, because it is about the reality that we use in international relations. We need
to understand what happened in WW1 to avoid it in the future.
a. Idealists: if we create institutions and order that helps to manage international order,
then we can get rid of war (Woodrow Wilson’s 14 point plan for a new post-WWI order).
i. It is a kind of “Enlightenment approach” where progress is possible if we
constrain the natural human condition (Kantian approach).

ii. Idealists basically want to change the world. Thus, too much value is driven
(utopians, naive, for the seek of looking so much for this international order
blocked their judgment).

iii. Briand-Kellog pact: wanted to forbid war.

iv. The League of Nations was aimed to create some kind of order.

b. Realists: the international system is anarchical in the sense that nobody is in charge to
manage the system. For realists, idealists were utopians, as they are so value-driven that
their analysis was not accurate.
i. International system is state survival. Do not waste your time thinking what
could happen if, focus on the present and what’s useful.

Second Great Debate: Traditionalism vs scientificalism (1960s)

Methodological debate.
a. The behaviorist (Chicago School of Social Sciences): sought to refine scientific methods
of inquiry in IR (highly positivists). Scientific knowledge emerges only with the collection
of observable data to identify patterns, and test formal hypotheses and conclude with the
formulation of laws. So they were establishing correlations. Inductive bottom-up
approach. Focus on quantitative data.
b. Traditionalists: They are not data-driven here, we are more history, law… drivens. The
object of study is not the same, so we can not analyze states in the same way as animals.
We can not measure human perception or motivation and interpretative judgments are
needed. Focus on qualitative data
i. They consider that context is very important to understand things.
Misperception is key to understanding the security dilemma.
 Third Debate. The inter-paradigm debate (1970s-1980s)

Ontological debate:
The inter paradigm debate took place in the 70s 80s (consensus about commitment to
positivism): existence of different theories and incommensurability of differing theoretical
perspectives/paradigms (ontological debate). Different ways to analyse. Difficult to create
bridges between paradigms.Fourth Great Debate: Positivism vs Post-Positivism.These paradigms
will eventually collide, and the newer, improved one will replace the other.
a. Thomas Kuhn (The structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962) there is always a
paradigm that dominates. In an area of normal science one theoretical school
(paradigm) would dominate (consensual agreement techniques). In the mid 70s
three paradigms competed for theoretical dominance in IR:

i. Realism (State-centrism) It does not challenge the system.

ii. Pluralism/Liberalism (globalism) It does not challenge the system.

iii. Marxism (structuralism) It challenges the system.

Which paradigm should the discipline adopt in order to move forward? There
is no answer: paradigms cannot be compared (you must choose one). Paradigms
respond to different ways to see reality..

Stages

1. Revolutionary stage
2. Hegemonic stage
3. Change stage
Interparadigmatic debate in IR:
Source: Barbé, E. (2020), Relaciones Internacionales (Cuarta edición), Madrid: Tecnos, p.63.

Realism Transnationalism/ Structuralism / marxism

Liberalism and pluralism

Image world Billiard table (conflict) Coweb tela de araña Octopus (domination)
(interdependence
Mechanical phenomena: (cooperation and conflict) Everything depends on this
“you hit one ball that will hit structure. Realism talks
another ball that will fall Interaction is not always about conflict. Here, some
into a hole”. related to conflict. states have the capacity to
affect others.
If you cut a thread of the
net, the interdependent
threads will be affected.

Object study National security Multiple topics (trade, Center-periphery.

climate, health)
States can only rely on Criticize and challenge the
themselves. The main point system which is unjust and
of their agenda is “how to needs a change.
get national security?”.
Often this is related to
military security.

High politics: survival.

Unit analysis State (rational) Multiple actors World capitalist economic

(transnational, substate) system
State makes decisions
according to cost and
assessment.

Vision state Unitary actor (“black box”) Complex and Represents interests elites
desagregated
The state has no agency. It
The state is some kind of is not an actor with a will
abstraction: the state is but a tool used by certain
the government, the kinds of elites to get some
media, the public benefits.
opinions… The state are
the different actors that
affect the relations.

Vision Static Progress (evolution) Rupture

change
The state tries to stay in a We come from a We don’t have to fix things
certain kind of balance. conflictual situation but but to change the system.
Balance does not mean there is the possibility of
justice but certainty and evolution through public
stability. institutions.
 Fourth Great Debate: Positivism vs. Post-positivism

(Epistemological and ontological debate) took place in the mid-80s. (Explaining vs.
understanding = rationalism vs. reflectivism). How we obtain knowledge.

a. Explanatory (scientific approach seeking to identify general causes - quantitative

methodology) vs. Understanding (interpretative approach analyzing social
meanings, language, reasons and beliefs of actors - qualitative and discursive).

b. Positivism (causality is discovered through the detection of regular patterns of

observable behavior) vs. Post-positivism (science does not produce knowledge).

c. Rationalism (rational choice theory: predictions based on a particular

understanding of individuals as utility maximizers, allowing us to generate
behavior predictions - deductive approach) vs. Reflectivism (emphasis reflexivity
and the non-natural nature of political and social explanation).

4th Great Debate summary:

Established traditions New voices

● Realism/neorealism ● Post-positivist methodologies
● Liberalism/neoliberalism ● Post-positivist issues
● International Society
● International Political Economy
(IPE)

Example of question “Why war happens?” We have to understand the concept before we try to
reach causality.
 2. Analytical Concepts to Understand IR theories

2.1. Levels of Analysis

The issue of Levels of Analysis (LoA) appears in IR theory in the 50s (Man, the State and War, 1959
by Kenneth Waltz), as part of the scientific revolution in social sciences and the search for
causality. Levels of analysis itself don't explain causality, but within them we can find
explanations. Each level is a mini-system, and in each we focus on certain kinds of elements, in
different actors. In each we find different answers to the question "why?". We have to focus on
which one responds better, don’t mix them. When we try to understand causality, this can be
different if we study the different levels that explain the causes of war:

1. INDIVIDUAL (idiosyncrasy7) → Interpersonal level → human nature

(possible causes of war)

a. Aggressive leaders.

b. Misperceptions by leaders

c. Human nature

2. STATE → National/Domestic level → political regime (a) domestic conditions-regime /

(b) organizational behaviour-bureaucracies: political parties and lobbies

(possible causes of war)

a. Capitalist states, according to radicals.

b. Nonliberal / authoritarian states, according to liberals

c. Domestic politics, scapegoating

d. Struggle between groups for economic resources

e. Ethnological challengers

3. SYSTEM (power distribution)- International level (anarchy): Right now power in the
international level is anarchical because there is an absence of central order. Even the UN
is not fulfilling this role. This is a matter of fact that most theories accept. Therefore
sovereignty is highly important because in legal terms today it is the highest form of
power.

(possible causes of war)

a. Anarchy (self-help)

b. Power transitions (rising challengers or declining great powers)

c. Aggressiveness of the international capitalist class (imperialism)

Anarchist is a political ideology, this is different from the adjective “anarchic” that refers to the
absence of government in IR.

7
Idiosyncrasies: a mode of behaviour or way of thought peculiar to an individual.
Buzan: “LoA are simply ontological referents for where explanations and outcomes are
located. They are not sources of explanation themselves”. Different LoA tend to emphasize
different actors, structures and processes. Each LoA provides a different perspective on why
actors take certain actors and not others.

Levels of analysis Foreign Policy Focus

Individual Decisions

Domestic Behaviours

Systemic Outcomes

Note:

David Singer proposed to analyze only 2 levels (but Kenneth Waltz’s approach, the one
above, became “mainstream” instead):

1. Individualism (the state system)

2. Collectivism (the international system)

Example 1-3 of analysis through Levels (class activity in groups, March 2021):

ARMS RACE EU PERESTROIKA

Desire for power Charisma of the Gorbachev (new ideas,

Individual founders young open minded)
Aggressiveness by nature (Christian-Democrat
/ Aggressive leaders (who profile of the Boris Yeltsin
lead individuals to believe politicians, Monnet and
in its necessity) Desire of economic
Schuman) → sharing
prosperity
values, world-view
Fear for survival
Economic prosperity Rising desire to self
Desire for economic determination and general
and political stability
prosperity (e.g.: The US freedoms
military industrial
complex is a major
employer in many states.

Fear for survival Economic and political Relations USSR-Republics

State independence from the → Existing growing
Influence of the US and USSR secessionist movements
military-industrial
complex Creation of a Political crisis and
continental peace economic stagnation
Authoritarian regimes structure (Brezhnev stagnation)
Powerful economic Political stability Highly-centralized system
interests groups → Lobby
Capitalist democracies CPSU and military
Foreign ambitions
(questions of prestige, Reconstruction →
military expansionism, Prosperity →
economic expansionism, Deactivation of leftist
etc) movements

Heightened tensions Bipolar system: The US pressure:

System between two, or more, Capitalist-marxist Economic and diplomatic
opposing tensions efficiency of capitalist
(politic/economic/diplo powers → The USSR's
matic/etc) blocs. Threat of a new perceived inferiority in
European war comparison with their
International Alliances rival's system

Power distribution

Systemic Anarchy

Zero sum game

 [Fig.] Levels of analysis and causes of the Cold War by Joseph S. Nye

According to Nye, conflict was caused by the reduced communication between Americans and
Russians. The concept of “ideology” is introduced as something conflictual. This is how they
brought the Cold War.

● Individual Level: Stalin’s paranoia → Exaggerated rhetoric

○ Truman’s fear of US isolationism → this reinforced the idea of clash.

● Domestic level: Soviet Union weakened by war → Tiger ideological controls.

● Systemic level: [all the above] reduced communication: Ideological process → Cold
War.

○ WWII → Bipolarity → Small states under close rein → Few alliance shifts and
less uncertainty → BUT: unlike 1914, no spark of war.
 2.2. Agency vs Structure Debate

● Agency: the degree of autonomy →To what extent what we do is what we want to do or
is what we are allowed to do. To be able to do things without being conditioned by
others. It is not about power but of capability, about acting independently. “conduct”:
ordered nature of political and social relations - predictability.
● Structure: “statu quo'' the perfect killer, you don’t see them but they act, designed to not
change, but they can change if the force relations between the units want to change it.
Structure is the context in which we perform, act, and relate to others. Structure is made
of institutions, practices, routines… This structure provides us with predictability, “the
rules of the game” rules and resources recursively involved in institutions (sort of
behavior reproduced and respected by actors) and implicated in the reproduction of
social systems→ (metaphor) you need rules to play Chess. “Context”: ordered nature of
political and social relations - predictability.

Agents and structure are mutually constituted (Structuration Theory): structure and action as
two sides of the same coin (co-constitution). Without structure there is no agency. Combination
of limitations and opportunities, problem and solution.

Normative and ideational structures may condition the identities and interests of actors, but
those structures wouldn't exist if it were not for the practices of those actors.

Basic elements of Structuration Theory

● Importance of unobservable social structures

● Importance of human intentionality and motivation

 Within this debate we can find 2 problems

The first one is ontological. This problem is rooted in the nature of agents and structures and
their interrelationships. There are 2 wars to address the question: Making one of them
ontologically primitive (individualism - structuralism - structurationist). Giving both equal
ontological status.

The second one, epistemological. This problem tries to explain how agents and structures
perform: Agents: human beings as reflective and rational (interpretative) human beings as
mechanical stimuli processors (behaviorism). Structures: constraining choices of pre-existing
agents generating agents.

- According to Colin Hay, the structure-agency is not so much a problem as a language by

which ontological differences between contending accounts might be registered. Not a
dualist approach.
- David Marsh says that if we conceptualize structure and agency as separable - dualist -
than a dialectical relation happens:
- Structure (being both material and ideational) provides the context within which
agents act.
- Agents have preferences/objectives
- Agents interpret the context (being both structural and strategic) within which
they act
- Structures can have an effect on agents of which they are not necessarily
conscious

David Marsh says that if we conceptualize structure and agency as separable (dualist), then a
dialectical relation happens:

Structures (being both material and ideational) provide the context within which agents act;

- Agents have preferences/objectives

- Agents interpret the context (being both structural and strategic) within which they act;
- Structures can have an effect on agents which they are not necessarily conscious
- Agents, in acting, change structures

Some critical theories will think that the agency is more important that the structure and other
theories will criticize that, for instance: Feminism and Marxism will criticize the structure and
try to change it.

Who prevails over the other: debates.

1. The first debate is the intentionalism debate
2. The second is the structuralism sebate
3. The third one is structuration theory. Not so much who prevails but both are
interrelated. structure and agency as two sides of the same coin (co-constitution).
 Basic elements of Structuration Theory

● Importance of unobservable social structures

● Importance of human intentionality and motivation

● Importance of spatial and temporal structures to analyze social structures.

David Dessier. Two approaches to the structure debate.

● Positional model: deterministic, leviathan, one structure created, you can not change it.
Pessimistic. units (actors) subjects, and not objects.
● Transformative: actors are objects. inside structure units are objects and within the
framework of the structure they can take decisions, red or blue pill.
How do structures affect agents? Through different logics and norms:

a) a ‘logic of consequences’ (actors assess the consequences of their actions for their
interests -utilitarianism). Won’t do something that brings more negative input than
positive.

b) a ‘logic of appropriateness’ (rationality is heavily mediated by social norms: e.g.

non-interference in internal affairs).

Causality: we can blame the actor or the structure.

Statement on Structure: how power is distributed in the International system (there is no

central locus of power).

Some views on the order of “Structure”:

1. Anarchic order: For realist this anarchical situation States compete to maximize their
power. Sowe have more or less efficient states.

2. Decentralized power: For liberals: governance is decentralized. We have different

International Organizations that promote cooperation.

3. Other authors see that t

4. The structure is the result of the actions of the actors.

 2.3. IR Theories approach to power

● Power is the capacity to control other actors, events or resources. We can control things,
people, situations. To make happen what one wants to happen in spite of obstacles,
resistance, and opposition. Power is relational and potential.
● Power is the production in and through social relations of effects on actors that shape
their capacity to control their fate (authonomy).
● Power as resources, as property. Power as something material. Property approach was
challenged for a relational one (causation).

When we try to deal with power in ir theories we have different ways to do it. Within power we
can find three elements: (1) interests, (2) institutions (3) and norms.

The formula of power is a combination of these three. Different IR theories focus on one of
these. When we define power we include the three things, but highlight one aspect beyond
others.

Three conceptions of the international systems

Realism Liberalism Constructivism

Main theoretical Anarchy: states States want progress Collective norms and
proposition: compete for power and and prosperity. social identities shape
security. Commitment to liberal behavior.
values.

Main theoretical Military and economic Institutions, Identities and discourse

proposition: power. liberalvalues, networks
of interdependence.

Main theoretical Resurgence of great Increasing cooperation Agnostic: depends on

proposition: power competition. as liberal values spread. content of ideas.

The raw material of power:

The 2 sides of power:
- Resources/capabilities: power as an attribute, measurable, strength. Means are the raw
material of power.
- Influence: power as a social relation, based on the control over others, difficult to measure.
It’s the end.
The 4 faces of relational power

1. Command power (the public face): Power relation we detect. Ability to get others to act in
ways that are contrary to their initial preferences and strategies. Make them do what they
won’t do. We can do so via (1) rewarding or (2) punishment. The main tool is coercion
(economic, military). Agency-focused. Example: The EU sanctioned Russia by (1) taking out
Russia from the SWIFT (economic punishment) and (2) giving weapons to Ukraine
(military). Realism.
2. Agenda-setting power (the hidden face): The ability to shape others’ preferences by
affecting their expectations of what is legitimate or feasible. Establishing the rules of the
game. In this second face of power, actors are free to make decisions among options. You can
perform within the rules of the game. We are constrained in our options, and we are not aware
of these constraints. Those actors can be placed in two situations: those who are aware of the
frame, and those who are not. That's the distinction of indirect command power (becomes
public), and soft power. More structure-focused. Linked to Institutional Liberalism as a
theory. Structural-focused.
Example: The tax haven blacklist. Some countries (Switzerland, Andorra,
Luxembourg, Monaco…) were blacklisted by the EU due to their financial
impositions and suffered from a political block. In order to overcome this block, they
had to give info to the EU about banking. The EU established what is wrong (their
system) and what is good (Brussels idea) and forced them to change via soft power.
3. Establishing preferences (invisible face of power): Actor A is able to shape the
preferences of others. Ability to get others to want the same outcomes that you want so
it’s not necessary to force them to change their preferences. It’s intangible and highly
inmaterial. Example: homework. Convincing students that doing homework is good for
them. PM Rajoy advised President Puigdemont not to continue with the independence
referendum because if they did they would face consequences. We have some
methodological problems.
a. How can we prove that we have been able to change others preferences? Difficult
to prove but that’s part of power.
b. Preference-shaping as a subtitle form of domination (false consciousness).
c. Structural-focused (construction of a social environment that constrains actors
choices). Critical theory IR.
4. Creation of social meaning (knowledge). That’s a post-structural way to approach
power. We have that power is so fragmented and hard to detect that we see that power
works within structures of power and behavior, which seems to be normal. power is
expressed diffusely through the discourses that create social meaning and make society
possible. Based upon ideas of Foucault.
a. Post-positivist IR Theories:
i. Constructivist IR Theory: Effects of socialization and influence of culture,
ideas and identity) - normative power.
ii. Post-structuralist: discourse is bound up historically and it produces its
own “truths” so we need to discover the presuppositions and
assumptions that underpin theory.
b. Agency or structural focused? In fact, agency and structure are inextricably
intertwined. Example: Inclusive language. Each university establishes its own
guidelines of language related to gender.
 Aspects of relational power

Hard power vs soft power (behavior):

Hard Power: based on Command power, coupled with agenda-setting power. Both faces grasp the idea
of power characterized by an overtly or covertly conflictual relation between agents coercively
advancing their interests against the interests of other agents.
Soft Power: could be considered a kind of structural power. Based on establishing preferences and
with creating knowledge.

Explanation of the taxonomy of power:

● Compulsory: Dahl’s command of power
● Institutional: a control over it through rules and decision-making procedures of
institutions - agenda setting
● Structural: mutually constituting actors - base/structure - Neo Marxism
● Productive: ?
Structural power: the power to decide how things shall be done, the power to shape frameworks
within which states relate to each other, relate to people, or relate to corporate enterprises (it
may flow from reputational and cultural factors). According to Strange, power can come from 3
different sources:
- Force
- Wealth
- Ideas

It’s really difficult to distinguish between political and economic power. It’s impossible to have
political power without the power to purchase or mobilize capital. The important distinction is
between relational power and structural power. To some extent relationalism can only happen
within the structure.
 2.4. Ethics

Key concepts. What is Ethics? What is Justice?

A sort of distinction between what is ethical and what is just. Justice is about right or wrong,
accountability, rules… It’s about the consequences of our actions to some extent.
● Justice is a way to display a certain kind of other, this order establishes what’s right or
wrong, and establishes ethics. More related to positivist (legal-formal perspective, much
more technical. How to act, accountability, norms…).
● Ethics we talk about values. Values become to a certain extent abstract. When we try to
draft values into laws we try to establish justice.
○ What happens when we try to assume that states are ethical or must be ethical?
To what extent states are moral agents? (Kant distinction of private and public
sphere and politics and ethics respectively).

Cosmopolitanism vs communitarianism. Debates.

Does/should morality regulate politics or vice versa?

Does/should moral value inhere in the individual or collective?
Is the international sphere morally distinct from the sphere of the domestic state?
Are moral judgments universal or particular, necessary or contingent?

Communitarianism Cosmopolitanism

Does/should morality
regulate politics or vice
versa?

Does/should moral value

inhere in the individual or the
collective?

Is the international sphere

morally distinct from the
sphere of the domestic state?

Are moral judgements

universal or particular,
necessary or contingent?

● Communitarianism/Statism/Contextualism/Particularism: responsibilities as citizens.

The state as the highest moral actor.
● Cosmopolitanism/Globalism/Universalism: responsibilities as human beings. When we
try to assess relations or decisions towards the rest, we don’t have to consider if they are
part of us or not. To what extent do we have or not have duties with others?
 ● Do we have to be ethical in International Relations? (Students answer with different
perspectives)

○ Maybe through a liberal theory in which we give importance to cooperation we

should

○ Yes but without forgetting that maybe reality works different and you have to
adapt on the approach more suitable for each situation

● Does the state need to be ethical? We talk about interests and values that sometimes
might be in conflict with each other.

○ When we talk about ethics in this context as well, we have to ask... is it more
ethical for a state to do an action that mostly benefit its own people, which it is
"responsible" for (due to sovereignty etc)- or if it is more ethical to act in a way
that has more positive impact for other people outside that sphere as well
(related to nationalism). Cosmopolitanism.

● Do we have (rich countries) to share vaccines with poor countries?

○ Even if we are selfish, we should share vaccines. It has already happened that
there are mutations of the virus coming from all over the world. Until we are all
safe no one is.

○ If the world is about survival and you see in your community your family then
you prioritize your own people (related to nationalism). Cosmopolitanism.

The Morality of States (Dower)

A state is an agent that needs to work in order to sustain the structure.

- States have a duty to support the system of States
- States have a duty to not interfere/intervene in the internal affairs of other states
- States alone have the right to engage in organized violence
- States have a general duty to observe restrictions in the conduct of war (if they are at
war)
- States have a duty to honour agreements (pacta sum servanta)
- States have a duty not to harm other states but have no duty in general to promote the
global common good, the good of other states or the good of individuals living in other
states
- States have the duty to respect sovereignty , authonomy, and independence of other
states
- Individual human beings do not have rights against any states other than those they live
in

They respond to the basics of public international law. They work and perform according to
these principles, and behind all these principles we have a higher principle: sovereignty.
Can you respond to ethics as a state? Yes. Is it required or expected that a state operforms
ethically both at the domestic and international level? No.
 Communitarianism

Characteristics

● Moral particularism (Hutchings): morality is understood as relative to historical or

cultural context.
● Community within the state and its ethical principles are a higher form of morality than
universal rule (thick morality).
● Thick morality: shattered, collective ethical standards, but quite basic. But the deeper
sense of morality belongs to the local collective (thick morality), which has higher
relevance than universal rules.
● According to this theory, morality is linked and can be found in traditions, beliefs, and
practices of these communities. These local values spread and become international
according to their scope, and eventually become hegemonic.
○ Can be linked to agency vs structure: according to this approach, society is more
important than individuals. Society as a structure conditions and explains the
behavior of individuals. We take structure being historical or culture as the one
that creates and reproduces values and moral beliefs. Tendency to reproduce.
● Reaction to the excessive individualism of Enlightened Liberalism (restrain emphasis on
individual rights, selfishness or egocentrism), but they lack a systematic alternative to
liberalism
● They don’t make alternative proposals to what they criticize.

3 kind of communitarian claims

● Importance of tradition and social context for moral and political reasoning
(methodological claim)
● Social nature of the self (ontological claim)
● Value of the community (normative claim)

Janna Thompson: individual well-being and integrity are inseparable from the integrity and
well-being of the community. Just world order would be realized through 4 important moral
objectives:
● Promoting individual liberty
● Respecting the communities
● Distributing the resources (helping to achieve the 2 previous objectives)
● Establishing peaceful relations among communities on agreed principles

Cosmopolitanism
 Readings

SMITH, S. (1995), “The Self-Image of a Discipline: A Genealogy of International Relations

Theory”

Theories and practices

Genealogy: linkage between social practice and discourses
A genealogical attitude is particularly concerned with how discursive practices emerge and are
disciplined. The study of emergence looks at how historical forms are merely transitory
manifestations of subjugation and domination.

International theory versus political theory

Wight argued that there is no international theory apart from the philosophy of history, it is
historians who could best explain “the nature of ofreign policy and the working of the
states-system”.

Communitarian versus cosmopolitan thought

Communitarian theories argue that political communities are the bearers of rights and duties in
international society; cosmopolitan theories argue that moral arguments should be based not on
communities but on either humanity as a whole or on individuals.
For realists, the international political sphere is one of necessity, regularity and danger, wholly
unsuitable for the moral philosopher.

The Three Rs
For Wight, intl theorists can be divided into 3 traditions: realists (Machiavellians), rationalists
(Groatians) or revolutionists (Kantians). In each case, the 1st group saw international politics as
anarchical, a potential war of all against all; the second saw it as a mixed domain of conflict and
cooperation, in which a society of states existed, in which rules of behavior also existed and were
observed; the third group saw intl politics as really about humanity, the civitas maxima, on
account of whom the intl society of states had to be transcended.

The three waves of the “great debates”

2 great debates:
- 1st: idealism vs realism
- 2nd: realism vs behaviouralism
You can also see a 3rd debate developing between state-centric realists and transnationalism,
whereby the latter (usually including idealists and behabouralists) see other actors centrally
involved in intl politics.
The 3 main paradigms were realism/neorealism, liberalism/globalism/pluralism and
neo-marxism/structuralism.
Realism is dealing with war and peace, liberalism with the management of international regimes
in which states and non-states are active, and neo-marxism dealing with global poverty and
development issues.
For Holsti, a paradigm of international theory must deal with 3 issues:
- the causes of war
- the essential actors
 - images of the world system/society of states
State-centrism versus transnationalism
The debate between state-centric and transnationalist accounts comprised the 3rd ‘great debate’
in the history of intl theory. The dispute is between state-centrists, globalists/transnationalism
over the role of the state in international politics.

Neo-realism and neo-liberalism

The first concerns the nature and consequences of anarchy, with neo-realists seeing concerns
over physical security as producing far more of the motivations of state action than do
neo-liberals. Second, neo-realists think that international cooperation is much harder to achieve
than neoliberals. Third, neorealists stress the centrality of relative gains for decision-makers in
dealing with international cooperation, whereas neoliberals stress the importance of absolute
gains.

Fourth, neorealists tend to deal with national security issues, whilst neoliberals look at political
economy, with the result that each sees rather different prospects for cooperation.
Fifth, neorealists concentrate on capabilities rather than intentions, whilst neo-liberals look
more at intentions and perceptions. Finally, whereas neoliberals see institutions as able to
mitigate international anarchy, neorealists doubt this.

The post-positivist debate

There are 4 main groupings involved in this challenge:
- Critical theory: knowledge of the world is always to be understood within a context of
interests, following on from the pioneering work of the Frankfurt School (J.Habermas).
Knowledge is not neutral, as positivists suggest. For critical theorists, problem-solving
positivism needs to be replaced by a critical theory, aware of the political interests it
represents, and with an overt commitment to emancipation.
- Overlap between sociology and IR, under the general heading of historical sociology.
Historical sociologists show that the state, made by war in many cases, is the product of
the interaction between internal forces and an external setting. This undermines realist,
and especially neorealist, claims of the power of the external setting in determining state
behavior, and of the functional equivalence of states, whatever their internal make-up
and regardless of their location in time and space.
- Feminist writers. The work done by feminist IR writers ranges from those concerned to
look at issues concerning women, through those intersted in structures of male
dominance, construction of gender, or examining the nature of identity.
- Postmodernism: attack the very notions of reality, or truth, or structure or identity that
are central to international theory as well as all other human sciences.

Put simply, critical theory, historical sociology and feminist work are firmly located within
foundationalism, and are explicitly part of what can be called an Enlightenment tradition.

Constitutive versus explanatory theory

Giddens sees constitutive theory as being able to encompass the structural and external factors
dealt with by explanatory theory, whilst Bhaskar sees explanatory theory as able to deal with
meanings and understandings.

Foundationalists and anti-foundationalist international theory

Distinguish between critical interpretive theory and radical interpretivism.
Problem-solving theories are seen as positivist, whereas critical interpretive theory is seens as
emancipatory. Radical interpretivism, on the other hand, shares with critical interpretive theory
this rejection of positivism, but does not share its minimal foundationalism. Instead, it posits a
power-knowledge relationship that calls into question even the emancipatory claims of critical
interpretive theory.

Buzan, B. and Little, R. (2000), “Chapter 4. The Theoretical Toolkit of This Book” in
International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations, Oxford
University Press, p. 68-89.

Levels of Analysis (LoA)

The 5 most frequent used LoA are:
- International systems: largest conglomerates of interacting or interdependent units that
have no system level above them
- International subsystems: groups of units within an international system that can be
distinguished from the whole system by the particular nature or intensity of their
interactions/interdependence with each other. ASEAN, OECD, OPEC…
- Units: entities composed of various sub-groups, organizations, communities and many
individuals; and sufficiently independent to be differentiated from others and to have
standing at the higher levels (e.g. states, nations, transnational firm)
- Subunits: organized groups of individuals within units that are able to affect the behavior
of the unit (e.g. bureaucracies, lobbies)
- Individuals: bottom line of most analysis
Levels aren’t theories by themselves!

Neorealism locates its source of explanation (structure) at the system level and its main
outcomes (self-help, balance of power) at the unit level. Some writers explain war by human
nature (individual level), others by the nature of the state (unit level) and others by the anarchic
structure of the international system (system level).

Some organizations (UN), structures (global market), and processes (international law) operate at
the system level, others (NATO, EU, NAFTA, ASEAN…) are clearly subsystemic.

Realism is based on an inside/outside view of political reality, in which ‘inside’ is the hierarchic
domestic realm of states, susceptible to progress, and ‘outside’ is the anarchic international
realm of unchanging power politics.

Sectors of analysis
In IR, sectoral analysis refers to the practice of approaching the international system in terms of
the types of activities, units, interactions, and structures within it.
In analyses of the social world, there are at least 5 commonly used sectors:
- Military sector: relationships of forceful coercion, and the ability of actors to fight wars
with each other and the perceptions of each other’s intentions
- Political sector: about relationships of authority, governing status and recognition
- Economic sector: about relationships of trade, production and finance and how actors
gain access to the resources, finance, and markets necessary to sustain acceptable levels
of welfare and political power
 - The societal or socio-cultural sector: about social and cultural relationships. Concerns
collective identity, and the sustainability, within acceptable conditions for evolution, of
traditional patterns of language, culture, and religious and national identity and custom.
- Environmental sector: about the relationship between human activity and the planetary
biosphere

The military strategist looks at human systems in terms that highlight the offensive and
defensive capability of actors, and justify restrictive assumptions such as the motivation of
behavior by opportunistic calculation of coercive advantage.
The political realists look at the same systems in terms that highlight sovereignty and power, and
justify restrictive assumptions such as the motivation of behavior by the desire to maximize
power.
The economist looks at them in terms that highlight wealth and development, and justify
restrictive assumptions such as the motivation of behavior by the desire to maximize utility.
The sociologist will also see power and states, but in addition will see patterns of identity such as
clan, class, and nation, and the desire to maintain cultural independence.
International lawyers see states and to a lesser extent other legal persons such as firms and
individuals, but focus on the customs, rules, and contracts that should constrain their behavior.
The environmentalist looks at the system in terms of the ecological underpinnings of civilization,
and the need to achieve sustainable development.

Realism: military + political sectors.

The English school: political + societal sectors
IPE: political + economic sectors
Sociology: societal + political sectors

Sources of explanation
Adding sectors to levels enables one to specify the nature of theories more precisely than can be
done with levels alone. Neorealism, for example, locates a structural explanation
(anarchy/hierarchy, polarity) on the system level in the military and political sectors.

Process
Process is distinct from structure, which is about how units are arranged in a system, and which
is therefore more static and positional. Process as a source of explanation applies to all levels of
analysis. The national system (interactions amongst units), and also within the units that make
up that system (every unit can be seen as a system in its own right).

Process formations include war, arms racing, balance of power, the security dilemma, security
complexes, alliance, diplomacy, regimes, international organizations, trade competition,
recession, liberal and mercantilist orders, and other patterns in international economic relations.
Process formations often embody action-reaction theories of unit behavior, and so are
conditioned by structure, both at the system level (whether anarchic or hierarchic), and at the
unit level (for example whether units are ideologically compatible or incompatible).

Interaction capacity
It refers to the amount of transportation, communication, and organizational capability within
the unit or system.
It is about the tech capabilities (e.g. caravans, ships, railways…) and the shared norms, rules and
institutions, on which the type and intensity of interaction between units in a system depends. It
refers to the carrying capacity of a social system, its physical potential for enabling the units
within it to exchange information, goods or blows. If process defines what units actually do when
they interact, interaction capacity defines what they can do.

Economic interaction almost always involves the transport of goods, and therefore requires
higher levels, though long-distance trade in high-value, low-volume goods can occur with quite
modest capabilities.
Interaction capacity is thus a precondition for process and structure, defining the potential of a
system to support them.

International anarchies throughout history often developed norms and rules for diplomatic
interaction, and in the modern world anarchy these have been supplemented by permanent
institutions.

Structure
Structure focuses on the principles by which units are arranged into a system, how units are
differentiated from each other, and how they stand in relation to each other in terms of relative
capabilities.

Economic structure: deep structure terms as being about the difference between market and
command economies, and in polarity terms as being about the spectrum from perfect
competition through oligopoly to monopoly.

International society is a blend of the political and societal sectors as defined above, while world
society is more strictly about socio-cultural matters.

Structural differentiation: the issue of whether units have similar or different institutional
arrangements

Functional differentiation: if units are functionally differentiated, they each take on different,
specialized, elements of the function of government. If they are not differentiated each unit
performs the same tasks as all the others.

In neorealism, function is about the tasks of government that political units perform. In other
words, it is about sovereignty and how it is distributed amongst the units in an intl system.
 Wend E., Alexander. The agent-structure problem in international relations theory.

Neorealists define international systems structures in terms of the observable attributes of their
member states (the "distribu- tion of capabilities"), and as a result, they understand the
explanatory role of those structures in individualist terms as constraining the choices of pre-
existing state actors. World-system theorists, on the other hand, define inter- national system
structures in terms of the fundamental organizing principles of the capitalist world economy
which underlie and constitute states, and thus they understand the explanatory role of
structures in structuralist terms as generating state actors themselves. Neorealism embodies an
individualist ontology, while world-system theory embodies a holistic one.

The agent-structure problem has its origins in two truisms about social life:
1) human beings and their organizations are purposeful actors whose actions help
reproduce or trans- form the society in which they live
2) society is made up of social relationships, which structure the interactions between
these purposeful ac- tors

The agent-structure problem is really two interrelated problems, one on- tological and the other
epistemological. The first concerns the nature of both agents and structures and concerns the
nature of both agents and structures and what kind of entities are these and how are they
interrelated? two basic ways to approach this question: by making one unit of analysis
ontologically primitive, or by giving them equal and therefore irreducible ontological status.
Depending on which entity is made primitive, these approaches gen- erate three possible
answers to the ontological question, which I will call individualism, structuralism, and
structurationism.

Neorealists reduce the structure of the state system to the properties and interactions of its
constituent elements, states, while world-system theorists reduce state (and class) agents to
effects of the reproduction requirements of the capi- talist world system. The structurationist
approach, on the other hand, tries to avoid what I shall argue are the negative consequences of
individualism and structuralism by giving agents and structures equal ontological status.

Rational choice theory generates agent-explanations that are, broadly speaking, "interpretive"-
that is, cast in terms of the goals, beliefs, and self-understandings of agents. approaches that
conceive of human beings as nothing more than complex organisms processing stimuli-such as
behaviorism- generate agent-explanations that are more mechanistically causal in form Social
theories that reduce system structures to the properties of individuals usually construe the
explanatory role of structures as one of constrain- ing the choices of pre-existing agents, while
those that conceptualize system structures as irreducible entities underlying agents typically
understand structures as generating or explaining agents themselves.
 Barnett and Duvall. Power in International Politics.

Introduction

Discussions about power in International Relations have been dominated by actor-oriented

realist thinking — one actor using material resources to control other actors. This has created a
‘theoretical tunnel vision’ leading to the neglect of other forms and effects of power.

One reason for the pre-eminence of the realist conception is the aversion of rival theories to
power considerations. Liberals, neoliberals and constructivists alike have attempted to
demonstrate theoretical salience by claiming causal immunity from power variables for their
explanations of empirical outcomes.

Neoliberals have argued how states with convergent interests create international institutions
and arrangements that effectively tame (state) power, highlighting processes of social choice and
leaving the impression that institutions are the antidote to power. Scholars of liberal
international relations theory typically stress that many important international outcomes
cannot be adequately explained with reference to power, but instead are better understood by
the salutary presence of democracy, particular configurations of domestic interests, liberal
values, economic interdependence, or international institutions. Mainstream constructivists, too,
have pitted themselves against explanations in terms of power as they have attempted to
demonstrate the causal significance of normative structures and processes of learning and
persuasion.

These rival theoretical approaches could have drawn unique insights about the forms and effects
of power from their distinct theoretical traditions. But that hasn’t happened. As such, the ability
of IR scholars to make sense of global outcomes produced by power relations has been severely
constrained.

Conceptualizing Power

Power is the production, in and through social relations, of effects on actors that shape their
capacity to control their fate. The conceptualisation of power that emerges from this definition
— the consequential term being “social relations” — has two dimensions: the kinds of social
relations that affect actors’ capacities and the specificity of those social relations. Firstly, social
relations could work through interaction or constitution. Secondly, the effects of social
relations of “interaction” or “constitution” could be specific or diffuse.

How Power is Expressed: Interaction or Constitution

Power could work through interactive relations. The behavior of an actor (his actions,
interactions, etc.) affects the ability of others to control the circumstances of their existence.
This is a “power over” concept as the exercise of control is over others and as such it tends to see
its effects in terms of the behavior of the object of power.

Power could also work through constitutive relations. The constitution of an actor (his
capacities, interests, etc.) affects his ability to shape the circumstances of his existence. This is a
“power to” concept as it defines the actor’s ability to perform an action and as such its effects are
generally seen in terms of the identity of the subject of power.

However, these two concepts are not exclusive. Examining power through social interaction can
reveal effects on social identities, and examining power through constitutive relations can reveal
effects on actions.

If power works through the actions of specific actors in shaping the ways and the extent to
which other actors exercise control over their fate, it can have a variety of effects, ranging from
directly affecting the behavior of others to setting the terms of their very self-understandings;
behavioral power, then, can have effects on actors' subjectivities and self-understandings.

Similarly, if power is in social relations of constitution, it works in fixing what actors are as social
beings, which, in turn, defines the meaningful practices in which they are disposed to engage as
subjects; constitutive power, then, has effects on behavioral tendencies.

The Specificity of Social Relations of Power: Specific or Diffuse

The social relations through which power works could be specific. This entails immediate and
tangible causal and constitutive connections between the subject and object of power and
usually depends upon them (subject and object) being in social proximity.

The social relations through which power works could also be diffuse. This entails detached and
mediated causal and constitutive connections between the subject and object of power which
generally operate at a physical, temporal and social distance.

Taxonomy of Power

These two dimensions — the kinds of social relations that affect actors’ capacities and the
specificity of those social relations — generate a fourfold taxonomy of power.
Compulsory power exists in the direct control of one actor over the conditions of existence
and/or the actions of another. Institutional power exists in actors' indirect control over the
conditions of action of socially distant others. Structural power operates as the constitutive
relations of a direct and specific-hence, mutually constituting-kind. Productive power works
through diffuse constitutive relations to produce the situated social capacities of actors.

Compulsory Power: Direct Control Over Another

This conception focuses on the relations that allow an actor to directly shape the circumstances
or actions of others. Most famous definitions (Max Weber, Robert Dahl, Peter Blau) of power fall
under this concept. Compulsory power, in contrast to Dahl’s famous formulation, counts even
when an actor controls another unintentionally.

Dahl's concept has three defining features. One, there is intentionality on the part of Actor A.
What counts is that A wants B to alter its actions in a particular direction. Two, there must be a
conflict of desires, to the extent that B now feels compelled to alter its behavior. Three, A is
successful because it has material and ideational resources at its disposal that lead B to alter its
actions.

Compulsory power has significantly informed discussions about power in international politics.
It steers attention towards the deployment of material resources to control others. Great
powers often use (or threaten to use) resources to influence others. MNCs use capital resources
to shape economic policies at national and global levels. Non-state actors resort to
unconventional strategies to achieve their aims.

Compulsory power could also utilize symbolic and normative resources too. NGOs employ
policies of shaming to alter state policies. Non-permanent members of the UNSC use legal norms
to constrain the permanent members. International organizations use their expert, moral,
delegated, and rational-legal authority to discipline both state and non-state actors.

Institutional Power: Actors’ Control Over Socially Distant Others

This conception focuses on the relations that allow an actor to indirectly shape the
circumstances or actions of others. The conceptual focus is on the institutions that mediate
between actors.

Compulsory and institutional power differ in the following ways.

a. Whereas compulsory power typically rests on the resources that are deployed by A to
exercise power directly over B, A cannot necessarily be said to "possess" the institution
that constrains and shapes B.
 b. Institutional power highlights that A and B are socially removed from — only indirectly
related to — one another. This distance can be spatial or temporal.
c. Analyses of institutional power necessarily consider the decisions that were not made
because of institutional arrangements that limit some opportunities and bias directions,
particularly of collective action

Institutions enable some actors to shape the behavior or circumstances of socially distant others.
Dominant actors set the agenda of most global institutions and that agenda might work to the
development or detriment of other actors. Market forces can create dependent relationships
that limit the choices of weaker nations. Systems of exchange can also be a media of power.

The behavioral constraints and governing biases of institutions often create institutional rules
that generate unequal leverage in determining collective outcomes. As such, weak actors often
lose out on the collective rewards that are created by institutions.

Structural Power: Direct and Mutual Constitution of the Capacities of Actors

Structural power concerns the constitution, through social structures, of social subjects with
capacities and interests. These structures are co-constitutive internal relations of structural
positions which define what kinds of social beings actors are. (This must be contrasted with the
institutional notion of structures [see the second form in this taxonomy of power] as
synonymous with pre-constituted institutions with sets of rules, procedures and norms that
constrain behavior).

Structural power shapes the fates and conditions of existence of actors in two critical ways.
Firstly, structural positions allocate differential capacities and advantages to different positions.
Secondly, the social shapes the self-understanding and subjective interests of the actors.

In other words, structural power can work to constrain some actors from recognizing their own
domination. To the degree that it does, actors' self-understandings and dispositions for action
serve to reproduce, rather than to resist, the differential capacities and privileges of structure.

Various IR scholars forward arguments that have strong shades of structural power. Marxists
argue that the structure of global capitalism substantially determines not only the capacities and
resources of actors but also shapes the interpretive system through which actors understand
their interests. World-systems theorists stress the logical generation of identities and interests
that serve to perpetuate the domination of weaker actors.

Constructivists argue that the institutionalization of a world authority structure that is organized
around rational-legal values increasingly privileges the voices of international NGOs.

Productive Power: Production of Subjects Through Diffuse Social Relations

Productive power concerns the constitution, through systems of knowledge and discursive
practices, of social subjects with various social capacities and interests. The move is away from
structures to systems of signification and meaning.

Productive power concerns the social discourses through which meaning is produced, fixed,
lived, experienced, and transformed. These discourses produce social identities and capacities
for all subjects.

Because structural power concerns the co-constitution of subjects, it typically envisions

hierarchical and binary relations of domination that work to the advantage of those structurally
empowered, to the disadvantage of the socially weak. In contrast, productive power concerns the
boundaries of all social identity, and the capacity and inclination for action for the socially
advantaged and disadvantaged alike, as well as the myriad social subjects that are not constituted
in binary hierarchical relationships.

Questions that concern the kinds of subjects that are produced point towards productive power.
Classificatory categories like ‘civilized’, ‘Western’, ‘rogue’ and ‘democratic’ create differences in
social capacities because of the meanings associated with them. The gendered categories of
‘civilian’ and ‘combatant’ in international humanitarian law have real consequences for those on
the ground, protecting some while putting others at the risk of death.

Our taxonomy of power offers several advantages for scholars of international relations theory.

1. First, because it is founded on an explicit and logically systematic decomposition of the

general concept of power, it is able to detach discussions of power from the limitations
of realism and to encourage scholars to see power's multiple forms.
2. Second, our approach provides a framework for integration. Taxonomies not only
highlight distinct types but also point to connections between them.
3. Third, our approach represents a decisive advantage over recent contributions to the
debate about power in international relations because it incorporates both social
relations of interaction and constitution, that is, both "power over" and "power to".
4. Last, but hardly least, our taxonomy does not map precisely onto different theories of
international relations. Scholars can and should draw from various conceptualizations of
power that are associated with other theoretical schools.

Governance and Empire

Global Governance
Global governance is typically tied to institutionalized cooperation, coordination of convergent
interests and the production of collective goods which has traditionally made analysing how
power operates problematic. The proposed taxonomy sheds some light on the ways through
which power operates.

Institutional power provides a conceptual starting point. First, global institutions have long
considered and determined which issues are worth considering and which are not. Such
decisions enable some actors to exercise control over others. Second, the institutional rules that
establish a common focal point also generate unequal leverage or influence in determining
collective outcomes which advantage certain actors at the expense of others. And the third is the
ability of great powers to establish international institutions to further or preserve their
interests and positions of advantage.

But institutional power, alone, does not tell the whole story. Great powers often exhibit
compulsory power by determining the content and direction of global governance by using their
decisive material advantages to determine what areas are to be governed. This extends to
international organizations too. Even materially challenged actors are able to exercise
compulsory power through unconventional, rhetorical and symbolic tactics.

Analysis of global governance needs to consider the constitutive aspects of global social life.
Historical materialists point towards the liberal and capitalist character of global institutions and
see structural power at work. The working of global governance reflects the underlying class
structure. This class structure is perpetuated by the ideologies which foster a worldview that the
current social order is desirable.

The concept of productive power as applied to global governance highlights how the discourses
of international relations produce actors with associated social powers, self-understandings, and
performative practices. The practices of guiding and steering collective outcomes in global social
life derive from the social identities of the actors so engaged. The human rights regime, for
example, is an expression of a discursively constituted world.

Although these different concepts of power illuminate different ways in which power operates in
global governance, there is an important difference between the first two and the last two that
affects how we think about governance: the first two concern who governs in global governance,
whereas the latter two concern not who governs, but instead how the governing capacities of
actors are produced, how those capacities shape governance processes and outcomes, and how
bodies of knowledge create subjects that are to be, at least in part, self-regulating and
disciplined.

American Empire

The American empire pivots around compulsory power. The ability — and post 9/11, willingness
— of the US to use its overwhelming resources to directly shape the actions of others has been
made abundantly clear. In fact, the willingness to unilaterally take action has been argued to
signal the new status of the US as an empire.
However, the longevity of American hegemony after World War II is attributable to the
construction of multilateral institutions — an expression of institutional power — with
democratized and autonomous decision-making processes which nonetheless reflect American
interests. These multilateral institutions mobilize bias to serve US purposes. The United States
exercises power indirectly through institutions.

The role of structural power in US hegemony entails an exploration of the US as an imperial

center structurally constituted by relations of material production. Its capitalist clout creates a
particular set of social positions and practices. The deterritorialized nature of capitalism extends
these practices to a global rule which is perpetrated through tactics of coercion or through
attempts at generating consent regarding the order of things.

In terms of productive power, the development of new discourses like human rights, equality
and democracy along with participatory decision-making processes have played an important
role. These transformative discursive and material processes have created the American empire
which extends a diffuse network of hierarchy designed to privilege and pacify the multitudes.
The US, being seen as a responsible and benevolent actor on the global stage, is the ultimate
embodiment of productive power.

Conclusion

International relations scholars have erred by fixating on one conception of power. The wise
thing would be to consider and utilize the various conceptual forms of power presented here to
capture the different and interrelated ways in which actors are enabled and constrained by their
circumstances.

Hutchings, Kimberly. (1999). 2. The Ethics of International Politics in International Political

Theory: Rethinking Ethics in a Global Era.
 Part 2: Theoretical approaches to International Relations

3. Realism
3.1 Classical Realism
3.2 Neorealism/Structural Realism
3.3 Neoclassical Realism

4. Liberal internationalism
4.1 Classical Liberalism
4.2 Post WW2 Liberalism (Neoliberal institutionalism)
4.3 Neoliberalism vs. Neorealism (‘The Neo-Neo debate’)

5. Marxism and Critical Theory

5.1 Classical Marxism
5.2 Dependency School
5.3 World system approaches
5.4 Critical Theory (the State, knowledge and emancipation)

6. Constructivism
6.1 Constructivism vs. Rationalism
6.2 Agency vs. Structure
6.3 Norms and values

7. Post-structuralism
7.1 Introduction to Postmodernism
7.2 Post-structuralism: Power, Knowledge, Discourse, Representation
7.3 Post-colonialism

8. Feminism
8.1 Intersectionality: gender, inequality and power
8.2 Different Feminist IR approaches (liberal, critical, post-modern)