SynthÃ Se IR 3

SPOL1312 – International Relations
Synthesis of the course
Table of contents
1. Introduction to international relations ................................................................................. 4
1.1. Activity: the Unhate Campaign ................................................................................... 4
1.2. Historical sketch and overview of main concepts and debates ................................... 5
2. Idealism and liberalism ....................................................................................................... 8

2.1. Idealism or utopian liberalism ..................................................................................... 8
2.2. Activity: League of Nations in the 1920s: Introduction (video) ................................. 9
2.3. Liberal theory and thinking in international relations ............................................... 10
2.3.1. Institutional liberalism........................................................................................ 11
2.3.2. Republican liberalism ......................................................................................... 12
2.4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 13
2.5. Reading: Bull, The Anarchical Society, 1977 ............................................................ 13
3. Realism ............................................................................................................................. 15
3.1. Activity: Theory in Action: Realism (video) ............................................................. 15
3.2. Realist theory ............................................................................................................. 16
3.3. Classical realism ........................................................................................................ 17
3.4. Neo-realism: Hans Morgenthau................................................................................. 20
3.5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 21
4. Neo-liberalism................................................................................................................... 22
4.1. The behaviouralist turn .............................................................................................. 22
4.2. Neo-liberal theory ...................................................................................................... 23
4.3. Neo-realist critique and “strong” neo-liberalism ....................................................... 24
4.4. Structural liberalism .................................................................................................. 26
4.5. Reading: Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation, 1984 ........................................... 27
4.6. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 27
5. Neo-realism ....................................................................................................................... 28
5.1. Neo-realist theory: Kenneth Waltz ............................................................................ 29
5.1.1. Activity: An Introduction to Waltz’ Theory of International Relations (video) 29
5.1.2. Waltz’s theory .................................................................................................... 30
ALOST Adrien Université Saint-Louis – Bruxelles
SPOL-20204254 Année académique 2021-2022
5.2. Offensive realism ....................................................................................................... 31

5.3. Neo-realism after the Cold War ................................................................................. 32
5.4. Reading: Mearsheimer, The False Promise of International Institutions, 1994 ....... 32
5.5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 33
6. International political economy ........................................................................................ 34

6.1. IPE theory .................................................................................................................. 34
6.1.1. Mercantilism....................................................................................................... 34
6.1.2. Economic liberalism ........................................................................................... 35
6.1.3. Marxism ............................................................................................................. 37
6.1.4. Hegemonic stability theory ................................................................................ 38
6.2. Reading: Gilpin, American Policy in the Post-Reagan Era, 1987 ............................ 40
6.3. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 40
7. Development and international relations .......................................................................... 41

7.1. Activity: Global Development Explained (video) ..................................................... 41
7.2. Development and modernization ............................................................................... 42
7.3. Neo-Marxist theories on development ...................................................................... 43
7.4. Evolution of the development debate ........................................................................ 45
7.5. Reading: Wallerstein, The World Capitalist System, 1974 ....................................... 47
7.6. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 47
8. Transnationalist approaches .............................................................................................. 48

8.1. Transnationalist approach .......................................................................................... 48
8.2. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) ............................................................... 49
8.2.1. Activity: short videos of NGOs’ campaigns ...................................................... 51
8.3. Transnational terrorism .............................................................................................. 51
8.4. Reading: Andonova et al., Transnational Climate Governance, 2009 ..................... 52
8.5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 53
9. Constructivism .................................................................................................................. 54
9.1. Activity: Theory in Action: Constructivism (video) .................................................. 54
9.2. The rise of constructivism ......................................................................................... 55
9.3. Constructivist theories of international relations ....................................................... 56
9.4. Critiques of constructivism ........................................................................................ 58
9.5. Reading: Adler & Barnett, Security Communities, 1998........................................... 59
9.6. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 59
2
10. International relations critical theories .......................................................................... 60

10.1. Critical theory ............................................................................................................ 60
10.2. Feminism in international relations ........................................................................... 61
10.2.1. Activity: Feminism and International Relations (video) ................................... 64
10.3. Reading: Tickner, Gendering World Politics: Issues and Approaches in the Post-Cold
War Era, 2001 ...................................................................................................................... 64
10.4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 65
11. Conclusion of the course: Analysing the world ............................................................ 66

11.1. The great theories and debates in international relations .......................................... 66
11.1.1. Idealism and liberalism ...................................................................................... 66
11.1.2. Realism ............................................................................................................... 67
11.1.3. Neoliberalism VS neorealism............................................................................. 68
11.1.4. International Political Economy ......................................................................... 68
11.1.5. Methodological debates ...................................................................................... 69
11.1.6. Transnationalist approach .................................................................................. 69
11.1.7. Constructivism ................................................................................................... 70
11.1.8. Critical approaches ............................................................................................. 70
11.2. To sum up international relations .............................................................................. 70
3
1. INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

1.1. Activity: the Unhate Campaign
United Colors of Benetton, UNHATE CAMPAIGN, 2011
Who?
Abbas M. (President of the State of Palestine) & Netanyahu B. (Prime Minister of Israel) ;
Kim Jong-Il (Supreme Leader of North Korea) & Myung-bak L. (President of South Korea) ;
Obama B. (President of the United States) & Chavez H. (President of Venezuela) ;
Jintao H. (President of the People’s Republic of China) & Obama B. ;
Benedict XVI (Pope) & El-Tayeb A. (Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Egypt) ;
Merkel A. (Chancellor of Germany) & Sarkozy N. (President of France)
• People, powerful figures
• State leaders, heads of governments, politicians
• Nations, organizations
• Only 1 woman! (Angela Merkel)
What?
• Values: peace, love
• Conflicts, tensions: “unhate” means there are conflicts (cultural, economic, political,
historical, …) to be resolved
• Transnational corporations
How? Why?
• Relations between two countries/organizations: How did the relations between France and
Germany developed after WWII?
• Reasons of tensions/conflicts: Why are there tensions between the USA and Venezuela?
• …
4
So what?
• Effects of the campaign?
• Predictions on how relations between States/organizations will evolve?
Conclusions, main takeaway
First international relations analysts focused mainly on who? (States) and what? (security, war,
order, peace). It was the period of the classical debates.
Then, analysts started to ask how/why? and so what? which focus more on interdependencies
between States.
International relations entail many factors and can be looked at from different perspectives. To
understand international relations, it is useful to keep in mind the key questions who, what,
how/why, and so what.
1.2. Historical sketch and overview of main concepts and debates

States have not always been there. They are historical institution and such a basic feature of
modern political life. For most of human history, people have organized their political lives
differently, under different institutions, most commonly through empires (ex: the Roman
Empire, the Ottoman Empire).
During the medieval era, there were empires rather than state systems. It was the prevalent
pattern of political organization. Medieval Christendom was more like an empire than a States;
even if they already existed, States were not independent or sovereign and had no clearly
defined territories with borders. Power and authority were organized on a political basis (the
Emperor) and a religious basis (the Pope): there were two parallel and connected hierarchies.
There were also a number of rulers and different organizations that operated at different levels
of social life: kings and rulers were subjects of these higher authorities and their law. It was an
era of disorder, disruption, conflict, and violence stemming from the lack of clearly delineated
territorial political organizations. This is different from the concept of centralized modern
authority (State, which is sovereign) and that there are no intermediaries between the authority
of the State and its people.
States began to be instituted in Western Europe in the 16th century (start of modern era) and
then the state system extended across the world. Competition between the different lords/kings
lead to the emergence of political centres that concentrated an increasing number of resources
and imposed their authority upon other entities. Each political centre was constructed through
the implementation of two different monopolies (fiscal monopoly and military monopoly). The
State was institutionalized as a unified, centralized and territorially bounded entity.
The emergence of the State (initially monarchist) was made official after the Thirty Years’ War
(1618-1648), which ended up with the Peace of Westphalia. It was the start of the modern
international system with State as the privileged political organization. The Westphalian
Treaties legitimised a commonwealth of sovereign States and also established the State as a
privileged form of government. It marked the triumph of the State as an entity in control of its
internal affairs and independent externally, and as the only legitimate political system.
5
Dispersed medieval authority Centralized modern authority

(no sovereignty) (sovereignty)
Pope Emperor Government
Archbishop King
Bishop Baron
Priest Knight
People People
Main features of the State

• One territory
• One population
• One system of government
• One legal personality
• Sovereignty
- Internal sovereignty: it falls within a State’s own competence. It is the supreme power,
decision-making and enforcement authority that the State has over its own citizens
within its territory.
- External sovereignty: principle of self-determination and no subordination,
independence vis-à-vis other States and their interference, recognition of States,
freedom of self-governance
“The State is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use
of physical force within a given territory.”1
International
This term was first used by Bentham2 in his book Introduction to the Principles of Morals and
Legislation (1789). He set a distinction between internal law and international law.
Today, 195 States are recognized by the United Nations. 193 are members of the UN and the 2
others are observer States (Vatican, Palestine).
The core problem of international relations is how to manage the relations between independent
political States? They are therefore expected to uphold some core values (which each relies on
a specific approach and theories):
• Security: protection of citizens from internal and external threats, armed States are
competing rivals and periodically go to war with each other → realism
• Freedom and peace: personal and national freedom is essential. War threatens freedom.
Freedom fosters peace. Peace make progressive international change possible, that is, the
1
WEBER M., Politics as a Vocation, 1918.
2
Jeremy Bentham (1784-1832): English philosopher and jurist
6
creation of a better world. Therefore, States cooperate with each other to maintain peace
and secure freedom → liberalism
• Order and justice: States are socially responsible actors with a common interest in
preserving order and securing justice → international society theories/approach
• Welfare and economic interdependence: socio-economic world of States, not just a political
and military world → international political economy theories/approach
Globalisation
The entire population of the world is now living in a global State system, as a global society,
with growing interdependence (reciprocal effects among countries), growing interaction and
integration among people, governments, and companies worldwide. It is a change of
relationships between individual States from a “side by side” existence towards their integration
in an international system. It is primarily an economic process of interaction and integration
that is associated with social and cultural aspects.
“Globalisation can usefully be conceived as a process (or set of processes) which embody a
transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and transactions, generating
transcontinental flows and networks of activity, interaction and power.”3
“Interdependence in world politics refers to situations characterized by reciprocal effects
among countries or among actors in different countries.”4
“Globalization refers to an intensification of what we described as interdependence in 1977.”
(Keohane & Nye, 2001)
International Relations
“All relationships that go beyond the controlled space of individual States, whatever actors they
concern and whatever content they have.”5
3
HELD D. et al., Global Transformations Book Series, 1999.
4
KEOHANE R. & NYE J., Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition, 1977 (reedited in 2001).
5
BATTISTELLA D., Théories des relations internationales – 2e édition, 2006.
7
2. IDEALISM AND LIBERALISM

2.1. Idealism or utopian liberalism
In the 1920s, study of international relations is on an early age. World War I (1914-1918)
mainly pushed the development of international relations study. This discipline was also
influenced by other ones, such as philosophy, law, sociology, and economics. International
relations thinking has also developed in relation to historical and contemporary events.
The War was a catastrophic event which produced millions of casualties (deaths, injuries,
traumas, …). After the war, there was a determination not to let that happen again. As a first
phase of international relations study, idealism (or utopian liberalism) attempted to answer
questions like “Why did the war take place?”, “Why did France, UK, Germany, Austria and
other powers persist in waging war even in the absence of a rational purpose?” or “How to
prevent another war?”.
Idealist thinkers
According to them, WWI is attributable to the egoistic and short-sighted (mis)calculations of
autocratic leaders of the militarized countries involved. States interact in a context of anarchy
(no international order, no supreme authority over States) that can either lead to peace or to war.
Idealist thinkers had an optimistic view of humans and international relations; they believed
that a peaceful world could be achieved. War was seen as an anomaly that needs to be corrected.
Idealism (or utopian liberalism) developed first and most strongly in the two leading liberal
democratic states at that time, the United States and Great Britain. Let’s focus on the USA. This
country was drawn into the war in 1917 and its military intervention decisively determined the
outcome of the war (victory of democracy). At that time, the President was Woodrow Wilson6.
Wilsonian idealism
His main goal was to make the world “safe for democracy”. According to him, international
relations had to transform from a “jungle” of chaotic power to a “zoo” of peaceful relations
through institutions and laws. Through a rational and intelligently designed organization, it
would have been possible to put an end to war and achieve a more or less permanent peace.
He presented a 14-point programme to the US Congress on 8 January 1918 about the principles
of peace. His ideas influenced the Paris Peace Conference and pushed to institute a new
international order based on liberal ideas. The Fourteen Points stated:
• end of secret diplomacy; agreements must be open to public scrutiny
• freedom of navigation and removal of barriers to free trade (end of American isolationism)
• promotion of (liberal) democracy and people’s self-determination
• creation of a League of Nations: “A general association of nations must be formed under
specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence
and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.” (14th point of the statement)
6
Thomas Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924): American politician and academic, President of the USA (1913-1921).
8
2.2. Activity: League of Nations in the 1920s: Introduction (video)

Video: Russel Tarr, League of Nations in the 1920s: Introduction, 8 March 2011, https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1tXK2LT9mc (last watched on 10 October 2021).
What is the League of Nations?
The League of Nations is an
international organization established
in 1920 at the initiative of the victorious
Allied powers at the end of World War
I. It was an optimistic belief that a new
era of international relations was
beginning with open discussion,
importance of public opinion and
principle of self-determination of
people. The mission of the League was
to promote international cooperation and to achieve international peace and security. The idea
that international institutions can promote peaceful cooperation among states is a basic element
of liberal thinking. The idea was not to get rid of States, State leaders, armed forces, … Rather,
through the League, it would have been possible to “tame” States by subjecting them to
appropriate institutions and laws.
Even if it was proposed by American president Wilson, the United States were not there
(Congress refused to join → isolationism). Russia and Germany were not members either in the
beginning (they joined later, see map).
It was composed of different organs:
• The Assembly: annual conference of League of Nations member States
• The Council: its main function was to settle international disputes. It consisted of 15
members, including France, UK, and the USSR as permanent members. Council meetings
were held in ordinary session 4 times a year and as often as needed in extraordinary sessions.
All decisions taken by the League had to be taken by unanimous vote (Assembly + Council)
• The Secretariat: it carried out the day-to-day work of the League under the direction of the
Secretary-General. The Secretary-General wrote annual reports on the work of the League.
• Several agencies and commissions: Court of International Justice (to give decisions on
disputes), Mandates Commission, International Labour Organization (to improve working
conditions), Slavery Commission (to abolish slavery), Health Committee (to improve public
health worldwide), Refugees Committee (to help refugees and disaster victims), …
What are the main goals of the League of Nations?
• To ensure collective security
The international community had a duty to intervene in international conflicts
• To ensure nations’ disarmament
“National armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety.”
(Wilson’s programme)
To what extent is the League of Nations different from what had existed before?
9
Diplomacy was not secret anymore. The League of Nations was a first attempt to make
international diplomacy public and transparent so that citizens are more aware of the decisions
taken by the League.
Was the League of Nations a utopian project?

The League knew some successes (ex: Kellogg-Briand Pact7). But soon it became just a forum
for discussion with no clear action. At the same time, totalitarianism and authoritarianism were
growing and then World War II occurred. It was seen as the failure of the League of Nations
and of idealists’ ideas about international relations.
The League was dissolved on 18 April 1946. The United Nations (UN) assumed its assets and
carried on much of its work.
2.3. Liberal theory and thinking in international relations

Liberalism contains a variety of concepts and ideas on how to contain the power of states. It
focuses specifically on the role of the individual, citizens, and institutions/organizations. Its
traditional opponent is realism (which has a less optimistic world view). The basic elements of
liberalism are:
• It is closely connected with the emergence of the modern liberal state
• Trust in human progress, in modern civil society and capitalist economy which can flourish
in states which guarantee individual liberty
• General positive view of human nature
• Individuals share many interests and can engage in collaborative and cooperative social
action
• Conflict and war are not inevitable
The main concerns and focus of liberalism are:
• Ensuring the right of an individual to life, liberty, and property as the highest goal of a
government
• Wellbeing of the individual as a fundamental building block of a just political system
• Construction of institutions that protect individual freedom by limiting and checking
political power
Inspirations
• Locke8 and Two Treatises of Government (1689)
7
The Kellogg-Briand Pact was an international agreement on peace in which signatory States promised not to use
war to resolve “disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among
them”. It was signed on 27 August 1928.
8
John Locke (1632-1704): English philosopher and physician.
10
States exist to underwrite the liberty of their citizens and thus enable them to live their lives
and pursue their happiness without undue interference from other people State is seen as a
“Rechtsstaat” based on Rule of law.
• Bentham²
It is in the rational interests of constitutional States to adhere to international law in their
foreign policies to secure cooperation and peace.
• Kant9 and Perpetual Peace (1795)
Republican States should have no reason for going to war against one another. The more
liberal States there are in the world, the more peaceful it will become, since liberal States
are ruled by their citizens and citizens rarely desire war.
• Grotius10 and On the Law of War and Peace (1625)
All individuals bear rights. Individuals need a peaceful social life that must be protected by
the people's law.
• Montesquieu11
Idea of “doux commerce”: Trade progressively brings peace, as it enhances the costs of a
potential war.
2.3.1. Institutional liberalism

Beneficial effects of international institutions. International institutions foster cooperation
between States (but more sceptical than idealist predecessors). Institutions help reduce member
states’ “fear” of each other and provide a forum for negotiation.
International institutions are a “set of rules meant to govern international behavior”12.
“International institutions can be divided into international organizations and international
regime. The most basic differences (…) consist in the capacity of international organizations
to function as an actor in international politics and to transcend the boundaries of issue areas,
in contrast to international regimes, which always relate to specific issue areas and do not
function as actors.”13
An example of international organization: the United Nations
The United Nations was created after WWII (in 1945) in the continuity of the ineffective League
of Nations. Its main goal is to maintain international peace and security and to achieve
international cooperation. It is the world’s largest international organization (193 Member
States). The aims of the United Nations largely reflect the liberal way of thinking about
international relations.
“To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective
measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts
9
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804): German philosopher.
10
Hugo Grotius (1583-1645): Dutch humanist, diplomat, lawyer, and theologian.
11
Charles de Montesquieu (1689-1755): French judge, historian, writer, and political philosopher.
12
SIMMONS B. & MARTIN L., “International Organizations and Institutions”, p.194, in CARLSNEES W. et al.,
Handbook of International Relations, 2002.
13
HASENCLEVER et al., 2002, p.11.
11
of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in
conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of
international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace” (Article 1 of the
United Nations Charter)
The main organs of the United Nations are:
• The General Assembly
• The Security Council
5 permanent members with veto rights (China, France, Russia, UK, USA) and 10 non-
permanent members (two-years terms) have the primary responsibility within the UN of
maintaining international peace and security. It is the only UN organ that has the power to
make decisions that Member States are obligated to implement.
• The Economic and Social Council
• The Trusteeship Council
• The International Court of Justice
• The United Nations Secretariat
Weiss14 is one of the most renowned liberal institutionalists specialised in the study of the
United Nations. International institutions help promote cooperation between States. But how
do they assess such potential? There are two dimensions15 of “institutionalisation”:
• Scope: quantity or number of institutions existing, number of issue areas in which
institutions exist
• Depth: 3 main criteria to measure this dimension:
- Commonality: degree to which participant share common expectations regarding States’
behaviour
- Specificity: degree to which these expectations are defined in specific norms and rules
- Autonomy: degree to which an institution can change or alter its norms and rules without
interference from external actors
2.3.2. Republican liberalism

Liberal democracies are more peaceful and law-abiding than other political systems. The theory
of “democratic peace” does not mean that democracies never go to war, but that democracies
do not fight each other (Kant). The more democracies there are, the more peaceful the world
will be.
Doyle16 and Liberalism and World Politics (1986)
All interstate conflicts have involved either non-democratic States fighting against each other
(Soviet Union VS Afghanistan, China VS Vietnam, Iran VS Iraq, …) or democratic States
14
Thomas G. Weiss (1946): American scholar of international relations and global governance.
15
KEOHANE R., International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory, 1989.
16
Michael W. Doyle (1948): American scholar of international relations.
12
fighting against non-democratic ones (India VS Pakistan, North Korea VS South Korea, …).
But why does democracy lead to peace?
• Existence of domestic political cultures based on peaceful conflict resolution. Democratic
governments are controlled by their citizens.
• Democracies hold common moral values which lead to the formation of a zone of peace
based on the common moral foundations of all democracies.
• Peace between democracies is strengthened through economic cooperation and
interdependence (what Kant called the “spirit of commerce”).
Republican liberalism has a strong normative element. According to republican liberals,
democratic peace is a dynamic process taking place over time (not a fixed condition). But there
are also some critics, especially after the end of the Cold War or about the fragility of
democratization processes (democratic transformation in Eastern Europe, Latin America, and
Africa → the evidence does not support such high optimism).
2.4. Conclusion
Back to the 4 key questions, about idealism and liberalism.
Who? What?
• States International relations are about war and peace,
• Individuals and civil societies in the with a focus on peace
framework of States
How? Why? So what?
• Anarchy is what civil societies want States Advice, normative dimension on international
to do about it relations
• Two main trends of liberalism: institutional
and republican
• Focus on institutions and on democracy
2.5. Reading: Bull, The Anarchical Society, 1977

The Anarchical Society (1977) from Bull17 is a key textbook in the field of international
relations and the so-called “English School”.
English School
This theoretical school is the middle-ground between liberal and realist theories. According to
it, the international system is anarchic: the world lacks any supreme authority or sovereign
power. States then form an “Anarchical Society” where order can exist based on shared norms.
Key concepts
• International society
17
Hedley N. Bull (1932-1985): Australian-British professor of international relations.
13
A society of states (or international society) exists when a group of states, conscious of
certain common interests and common values, forms a society in the sense that they
conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one
another, and share in the working of common institutions. Ex: Christian international
society, Greek international society (Hellas), European Union, …
To be part of an international society of States means:
- Respecting one another’s claim of independence
- Honour agreements
- Limit the exercise of force
Elements of an international society:
- common language
- common epistemology and understanding of the universe
- common religion
- common ethical code
- common aesthetic or artistic tradition.
All these elements facilitate communication and foster awareness and definition of common
rules. They also reinforce a sense of common interest.
• International system
Two or more states in contact with each other and interacting in such a way as to be
necessary factors in each other’s calculations without being conscious of common interests
and values, without conceiving themselves to be bound by a common set of rules or
cooperating in the working of common institutions. An international system is not
necessarily an international society (ex: Turkey-Europe before 1856, Persia-Greece, …).
There is communication, exchange of envoys, agreements, … between States.
Isolated States → International system → International society
• World society
Focus on individual human beings. World society transcends the state system and takes
individuals, non-state actors and ultimately the global population as the focus of global
societal identities and arrangements.
14
3. REALISM
With the failure of idealism (or utopian liberalism) and the interwar period and World War II
(1939-1945), a new theory emerged to explain “reality” and war: realism. During the interwar
period, people needed a theory that could explain why there were wars across time, a theory
that was putting emphasis on the competitive and conflictual dimensions of international
relations.
Basic ideas and assumptions of realism:
• Pessimistic view of human nature
While liberalism was putting an emphasis on faith on the good of the human nature; in this
regard, realist theory is the complete opposite. Realists believe that humans are self-
interested and always want to prevail over the others.
• International relations are necessarily conflictual and international conflicts are ultimately
resolved by war
• Focus on the values of national security and State survival
• Scepticism that there can be progress in international politics comparable to that in domestic
life
3.1. Activity: Theory in Action: Realism (video)

Video: Soomo Publishing, Theory in Action: Realism, 4 May 2011, https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=UnKEFSVAiNQ (last watched on 10 October 2021).
What is the main message of the video?
In a world where you cannot trust anyone, you do not want to be interdependent. You never
know who is going to be against you. They do not believe in the utopian models that would
provide a peaceful. They see the world in terms of tragedy and evil (people choose how good
they can be). There is no natural harmony in this world, realists understand that they believe
that we just have to deal with it. The only just war is the one that protects national interests and
not humans’ rights. The State of nature: everyone one for themselves.
Forcing democracy on people, does not work. You cannot be for equality if you want everyone
to adopt de democratic point of view. The interviewee seems to be against liberalism. The idea
of one state to import democratic values from another state is more utopian that achievable.
Liberalism is not all « pink » (ex: Iraq war with the USA)
“A realist walks into a bar and orders a half-empty glass of vodka”, “Who wants to be
interdependent in a world that’s very dangerous?”, “Today’s friend could be tomorrow’s
enemy”, …
How can realism be summarized?
• Pessimistic view of the world
• Contrast with the optimism of idealists and liberals
• Focus on power, security, and autonomy
• States seek autonomy
15
• You cannot trust anyone

• Interdependence must be avoided
• States can never have enough power
• Rejection of idea of perpetual peace based on harmony of interests. There is no natural
harmony of interests
• The only just war is the one that promotes the national interest
• The danger of war is always present
What are some key differences between realism and liberalism?
Realism Liberalism
• pessimistic view on international relations • optimistic view on international relations
• interdependence should be avoided • interdependence should be avoided
• peace in the world cannot be achieved • peace in the world can be achieved
• promoting democracy elsewhere does not • it is possible to promote democratic values
work and rights
3.2. Realist theory

The individual
Individuals act according to their self-interest. Relationships are framed in a competitive way;
people want to prevail. Humans strive to have the “edge” in relations with other people,
including international relations with other countries. In that sense, humans are the same
everywhere. The desire to enjoy an advantage over others and to avoid domination by others is
universal.
The international arena
An arena of struggle over power, conflict, and war between States. The core assumption of
realists is that world politics exists and operates in a permanent condition of international
anarchy (analogy: if there is anarchy, in a situation of emergency, there is not on to call). The
State is the pre-eminent actor in world politics: individuals, international organizations, … are
either far less important or irrelevant.
The State
States are not equal: there is a hierarchy of power. The most important States in world politics
are great powers. International relations are seen as a struggle between the great powers.
The main normative values of the State are national security and State survival. The State is
essential for protecting its territory, its populations, and the good life of its citizens. The national
interest is the final arbiter in judging foreign policy.
International relations
International agreements are provisional and conditional on the willingness of States to observe
them. According to realism, there is not a lot of trust between States. Any kind of agreement
observes the interests of the State, it is not pursued in the name of values that could be shared
with other States. The priority is always to protect the national interest.
16
States must be prepared to sacrifice their international obligations for the sake of their own self-
interest if the two come into conflict. There are no international obligations. The only
fundamental responsibility of States is to advance and defend the national interest. There cannot
be progressive change in world politics comparable to the development that characterizes
domestic political life
Balance of power
The concept of balance of power is a key analytical tool used by realist theory. It refers to the
constant pursuit of power by multiple States to dominate others.
States secure their survival by preventing any one State from gaining enough military power to
dominate all others. This leads to a balance. States put efforts to create an equilibrium using
forces, such as alliances. Desirable as it creates an inability to be dominated by another State
and therefore provides security.
3.3. Classical realism

Classical realism has a normative approach that focuses on the core political values of national
security and state survival. International conflicts are portrayed above all else as “power
politics”. It takes inspiration from ancient thinkers (from a contemporary standpoint, they had
a “realist” point of view). They all share the same view to a greater or lesser extent: the
acquisition and possession and use of power as a central preoccupation of political activity (the
search of power as the central concern of any political activity).
Thucydides18 and History of the Peloponnesian War (early 4th century BC)
“International relations” are seen as the inevitable competitions and conflicts between ancient
Greek city-states (Hellas) and between Hellas and neighbouring non-Greek empires (ex:
Persia). It was also a rivalry between “Great powers” (Athens, Sparta, Persian Empire) and
smaller and lesser powers (ex: the tiny island-States of the Aegean Sea). Inequality is therefore
inevitable and natural (naturalistic character of realism). Men are “political animals” unequal
in their powers and capabilities to dominate others and to defend themselves. All States must
adapt to the reality of unequal power and conduct themselves accordingly.
There are limited choice and restricted area of action in foreign policy. Decisions have
consequences: ethics of caution and prudence in the conduct of foreign policy. Foresight,
prudence, caution, and judgment are the characteristic political ethics of classical realism.
Thucydides is also the author of the Melian Dialogue (Peloponnesian War → Athens VS
Sparta). The “radical” realist philosophy reflected in the dialogue of the leaders of Athens (a
great power) with the leaders of Melos (a minor power). Athens wanted to add Melos to its
territory, which the Melians were opposed. The Melians appealed to the principle of justice.
But justice is not about equal treatment for all. It is about knowing your proper place and
adapting to the natural reality of unequal power. Athens replied to Melos that international
18
Thucydides (±460 BCE - ±400 BCE): Athenian historian and general.
17
relations are a system of separate States that have no real choice except to operate according to
the principles and practices of power politics.
Thucydides came up with the idea that the weak will always be weak and that it will not change;
they must accept the fact that they will always have someone stronger than them. “The standard
of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they
have the power to do and the weak can accept what they have to accept … this is the safe rule
– to stand up to one’s equals, to behave with deference to one’s superiors, and to treat one’s
inferiors with moderation. Think it over again, then, when we have withdrawn from the meeting,
and let this be a point that constantly recurs to your minds – that you are discussing the fate of
your country, that you have only one country, and that its future for good or ill depends on this
one single decision which you are going to make.” (Thucydides, 1972, p. 406)
Machiavelli19 and The Prince (1532)
Machiavelli saw the human nature as “insatiable, arrogant, crafty, and shifting and above all,
malignant, iniquitous, violent and savage”. Power (the Lion) and deception (the Fox) are the
two essential means for the conduct of foreign policy. The main responsibility of rulers is to
seek the advantage and defend the interests of their State and ensure its survival. This requires
strength, but also cunning and ruthlessness in the pursuit of self-interest; the ruler must be both
a Lion and a Fox. If rulers are not astute, they might miss an opportunity that could bring great
advantages or benefit to them and their State.
He developed the “theory of survival”. The world is a dangerous place, but also a place of
opportunities. To prosper, State leaders need to recognize and exploit the opportunities that
present themselves. The conduct of foreign policy is thus an instrumental activity based on the
intelligent calculation of one’s power and interests as against the power and interests of rivals
and competitors. The realist leader is alert to opportunities in any political situation and is
prepared and equipped to exploit them.
“A prince … cannot observe all those things for which men are considered good, for in order
to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against
humanity, and against religion. And therefore, it is necessary that he have a mind ready to turn
itself according to the way the winds of fortune and the changeability of [political] affairs
require … as long as it is possible, he should not stray from the good, but he should know how
to enter into evil when necessity commands.” (Machiavelli, 1984, pp. 59-60)
The State leader must not act in accordance with the principles of Christian ethics: these moral
maxims are seen by Machiavelli as politically irresponsible. Political responsibility is different
from private morality. Fundamental values are the security and the survival of the State, and
these values must guide foreign policy. The civic-virtue aspect of Machiavelli’s thinking refers
to that rulers must be both lions and foxes because their people depend upon them for their
survival and prosperity.
19
Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527): Italian diplomat, historian, and theorist.
18
Hobbes20 and Leviathan (1651)

Men and women can be imagined as living in a “natural” condition prior to the invention and
institution of the sovereign State: the “state of nature”. The state of nature is an extremely
adverse human circumstance in which there is a permanent state of war of every man against
every man. A way out from the state of nature is possible through the creation and maintenance
of a sovereign state.
“Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all
in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against
every man.” “In such condition there is (…) no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society;
and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man,
solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes, 1651, chap 13)
Men and women are “civilized by fear of death”. They are driven to institute a sovereign state
not by their reason but by their passion (or fear). They collaborate to create a State with a
sovereign government that possesses absolute authority and credible power to protect them.
Hobbes developed what he called the “security dilemma”. A peaceful and civilized life can only
be enjoyed within a state. It cannot extend beyond the state or between states. The very act of
instituting a sovereign state creates another state of nature between states. That creates a
‘security dilemma’ in world politics: the achievement of personal security and domestic security
through the creation of a state is necessarily accompanied by the condition of national and
international insecurity that is rooted in the anarchy of the state system. There is no escape from
the security dilemma because there is no possibility of forming a global state or world
government. The international state of nature is not as threatening as the original state of nature:
it is easier for States to provide security than it is for individuals to do it on their own. States
can arm themselves and defend themselves against foreign-security threats in a credible and
continuous way.
According to Hobbes, there is no permanent or guaranteed peace between sovereign States.
War is necessary for resolving disputes between states that cannot agree. States can arrange
treaties with each other to provide a legal basis for their relations. But international law is
created by States, and it will only be observed if it is in the security and survival interests of
States to do that; otherwise, it will be ignored.
Classical realists’ thinking
• Human condition is a condition of insecurity and conflict.
• There is a body of political knowledge or wisdom to deal with the problem of security.
• No final escape from this human condition, which is a permanent feature of human life.
• No permanent solutions to the problems of politics, including international politics.
• No enduring peace between States.
20
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679): English political philosopher.
19
3.4. Neo-realism: Hans Morgenthau

Contemporary (neo-)realism is a more recent international relations doctrine. It is more
scientific in approach and focuses on the international system or “structure” and it is largely
American in origin. Analysis of Politics Among Nations (1948) by Morgenthau21 and his theory.
As an aftermath of WWII, Morgenthau sought to develop a comprehensive theory of
international relations. Politics is governed by objective laws that have roots in human nature.
His main concern was to clarify the relationship between interests, power, and morality in
international politics. He was also inspired by classical realists.
Humans are by nature political animals: they are born to pursue power (animus dominandi →
human “lusts” for power). They search for a secure political space within which to maintain
oneself free. The ultimate political space within which security can be achieved is the
independent sovereign state. Security beyond the state is impossible. The animus dominandi
inevitably brings men and women into conflict with each other. “Politics is a struggle for power
over men, and whatever its ultimate aim may be, power is its immediate goal and the modes of
acquiring, maintaining and demonstrating it determine the technique of political action”. The
anarchical system of States invites international conflict which ultimately takes the form of war.
The struggle between States leads to the problem of justifying the threat or use of force in
human relations. Here lies the opposition to idealists (ex: Woodrow Wilson), it was necessary
for political ethics to be brought into line with private ethics. This outlook is wrong: there is a
difference between the public sphere of politics and the private sphere or domestic life. Political
ethics and private ethics are not the same. The former cannot be and should not be reduced to
the latter.
Therefore, power is over morality: every political action is directed towards keeping,
increasing, or demonstrating power. Policies based on morality or idealism can lead to
weakness, and possibly the destruction or domination of a state. Political ends must sometimes
justify morally questionable means: “situational ethics”. Pursuing the national interest is
“amoral”, meaning that it is not subject to calculations of morality.
Reading: “Six principles of political realism”
• Key principle 1: objective laws
“Politics is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature.” Morgenthau
also talks about:
- a theory of international politics
- a rational theory, “a measure of systemic order” (ex: theory of the balance of power)
He distinguishes truth (true objectively and rationally, supported by evidence and
illuminated by reason) from opinion (subjective judgement, divorced from facts, informed
by prejudice and wishful thinking).
• Key principle 2: interests
“Interests defined in terms of power.” Politics as different from economics, ethics,
aesthetics, or religion (political versus non-political facts).
21
Hans J. Morgenthau (1904-1980): German American scholar, “father” of realism in international relations.
20
3.5. Conclusion
Critiques on realism
• Realists perpetuate the violent and confrontational world that they describe.
• By assuming the egoistic nature of humankind and the absence of hierarchy, realists
encourage leaders to act in ways based on suspicion, power, and force (self-fulfilling
prophecy).
• Excessively pessimistic (confrontational nature of the international system as inevitable)
• Realism was not able to predict or explain the end of the Cold War.
Differences between realism and liberalism
Realism Liberalism
• world politics is primarily about power and • world politics is about cooperation
domination
• pessimistic view: war and conflict are • optimistic view: the world is about
common and inevitable cooperation and peace
• the State is the dominant actor in IR, but • the State is the dominant actor in IR, but
States partake in international organizations important role for non-state actors, such as
only when it is in their self-interest to do so international organizations
Back to the 4 key questions, about realism

Who? What?
States International relations are about war and peace,
with a focus on war
How? Why? So what?
• War can be explained by the international Realism pictures the world as it is in “reality”,
system of anarchy not as it “should” be.
• Focus on national security and state survival
21
4. NEO-LIBERALISM
4.1. The behaviouralist turn
The behaviouralist approach transforms social sciences in the 1950s-1960s. It aims at applying
empirical qualitative and quantitative methods in social sciences, and, therefore, also in
international relations (statistics, modelling, …). Behaviouralists seek to examine the
behaviour, actions, and acts of individuals and groups in different social settings and explain
this behaviour as it relates to the political system. Analysis of observable facts and measurable
data in the “external world”. An example of the behaviouralist method is Game theory, which
studies how individual actors interact together.
“The Traditional approach: the approach to theorizing which derives from philosophy, history
and law, and that is characterized above all by explicit reliance upon the exercise of judgement
and by the assumption that if we confine ourselves to strict standards of verification there is
very little that can be said of international relations, that general propositions about the subject
must therefore derive from a scientifically imperfect process of perception and intuition, and
that these general propositions cannot be accorded more than the tentative and inconclusive
status appropriate to their doubtful origin.
The Behaviouralist approach: the concern with explanatory rather than normative theory; a
concern with recurring patterns rather than the single case; a concern with operational
concepts that have measurable empirical reference rather than reified concepts; a concern with
the conceptual frameworks; the concern for the techniques of precise data gathering,
measurement and presentation.” (Finnegan, 1972, pp. 42-52)
The Prisoner’s Dilemma
The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a standard example of a game analysed in game theory. It was
originally framed in 1950 by two American mathematicians. It shows how two completely
rational individuals might decide not to cooperate, even if it appears that it is in their best
interests to do so. It can be applied to the world of international relations to frame cooperation
problems and discuss why states might cooperate or not. The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a way to
represent cooperation problems in international relations.
How does it work? Two members of a criminal organization are arrested and imprisoned. Each
prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of communicating with the other. The
prosecutors lack sufficient evidence to convict the pair on the principal charge, but they have
enough to convict both on a lesser charge. The prosecutors offer each prisoner a bargain. Each
prisoner is given the opportunity either to betray the other by testifying that the other committed
the crime (to defect) or to cooperate with the other by remaining silent. Possible outcomes:
• If A and B each betray the other, each of them serves 2 years
in prison.
• If A betrays B but B remains silent, A will be set free, and B
serve 3 years in prison. / If A remains silent but B betrays A,
A will serve 3 years in prison, and B will be set free.
• If A and B both remain silent, both will serve only 1 year in
prison (on the lesser charge).
22
What can we observe? From a purely rational self-interested point of view, betraying the other
(choice to defect) offers a greater reward than cooperating with them (0 or 2 years in prison).
The best solution for an individual is to betray the other without being accused (no year in
prison). Gains are higher in the column corresponding to accusing. Yet, if we think about what
the most satisfying solution is, when adopted collectively, that consists in remaining silent
(cooperating → 1 year). The paradox of the prisoner’s dilemma states that both criminals can
minimize their total jail time only if they both cooperate, but the incentives that they each face
separately will always drive them each to defect.
In international relations, players are replaced by States, remaining silent means cooperating
while defecting means not cooperating. From a neo-realist interpretation of the game, the focus
is on maximising the relative gains (defecting). From a neo-liberal interpretation of the game,
the focus is on absolute gains or collective interests (cooperation).
4.2. Neo-liberal theory

Neo-liberal theories appeared in international relations after 1945, as a reaction to (neo-)realist
theory and as a rejection of idealism (yet, neo-liberals still believe in progress, change and
modernization). It was also the time of the rise of international institutions as collective actors
(United Nations, European integration, pluralism in the USA, …) and a focus on new actors
(transnational corporations, NGOs, …) and new patterns of interaction (economic
interdependence, integration, …).
As close to realists, neo-liberals acknowledge the importance of States in international relations
and that the international system is anarchical. The power of States is significant in determining
international relations. Neo-liberals noticed that the Prisoner’s Dilemma illustrates two
important points:
• it is often in the interest of States to cooperate because a free rider behaviour is counter-
productive
• States do not cooperate instinctively: they must be guided towards cooperation through
international institutions (organizations and regimes)
• The liberal core idea that international institutions can facilitate cooperation remains
Main postulates of neo-liberalism
• International regimes and international organizations create absolute gains
Everybody benefits from those absolute gains and comparative advantage
• Absolute gains: “as long as we do well it doesn’t matter if others do even better”
• Relative gains: “we will do our best, but number one priority is that the others don’t get
ahead of us”
• International institutions facilitate information sharing
International institutions are (ideally) transparent and create and environment in which it is
easier for States to make reliable commitments. Ex: international institutions for
information sharing → “Barriers to information and communication in world politics can
impede co-operation and create discord even when common interests exist” (Keohane,
1984, p.69).
23
• Reputation is important
As States cooperate several times on a wide range of international issues, a good reputation
creates positive expectations.
Example of a neo-liberal interpretation: the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
The NPT is an international treaty signed in 1968 and entered into force in 1970. 191 States
have joined the Treaty to date (including the 5 nuclear-weapon States → the 5 permanent
members of the UNSC). Four UN Member States have not joined (Israel, India, Pakistan, and
South Sudan). The treaty was extended indefinitely in 1995. The NPT non-nuclear-weapon
States (NNWS) agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in
exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear
disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals. Its main objectives are:
• to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology
• to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy
• to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament
The NPT creates:
• Rules: ban of any transfer of nuclear weapons to States that do not have them (“horizontal”
proliferation)
• Principles: to renounce to nuclear weapons in exchange for civilian technology
• Procedures: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) sends experts to verify
compliance with the Treaty
Thanks to the NPT:
• The dark scenario of nuclear war was kept at bay
• Several States have been prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons
• International security is ensured
• Several states have renounced to nuclear weapons (NNWS → South Africa, Brazil, …)
• No conflicts with nuclear weapons since 1945 (trust building)
• Reputation is at play
• A basis for cooperation in the exchange of peaceful nuclear energy
• States can have access to civilian uses of nuclear technology
4.3. Neo-realist critique and “strong” neo-liberalism

According to neo-realists, neo-liberals overlook the issue of relative gains (ex: Prisoner’s
Dilemma). In realist theory, it is the individual pursuing of gain that matters. “Gains” are
benefits that accrue to participants that cooperate. The problem of relative gains is what makes
cooperation unlikely to be successful because States worry that other states gain more from
cooperation than they do.
As a response, neo-liberals put emphasis on the conditions for cooperation between States.
Keohane highlighted the most important conditions to be in place for cooperation. If States have
interests in common, they will not worry about relative gains. In the absence of common
interests, States will be competitive, and institutions will not be of much help. This makes the
24
liberal position less vulnerable to realist attacks. But it leads liberalism closer and closer to neo-
realism.
“Strong” neo-liberalism: a new strand
The end of the Cold War was a boost to a more pronounced “strong” liberal views. “Strong
liberals” wanted to provide a more robust answer to neo-realists’ critique. Qualitative change
has taken place; economic interdependence ties countries much closer together; economies are
globalized; production and consumption take place in a worldwide marketplace.
It is extremely costly for countries to opt out of that system. Neo-liberals form a group of
consolidated liberal democracies for whom reversion to authoritarianism is unthinkable. These
countries conduct their mutual international relations in new and more cooperative ways, and
for them there is no going back. Historical change is irreversible.
“Strong liberals” question the concept of anarchy by realists and neo-realists. Anarchy is far
more complex than the one depicted by (neo-)realists. International politics need not be a “raw
anarchy” with fear and insecurity all around. There is no need to constantly fear attack from
other countries. There can be significant elements of legitimate and effective international
authority (ex: international relations of firmly consolidated, liberal democracies).
Security Communities
Analysis of Deutsch22 Political Community and the North Atlantic Area: International
Organization in the Light of Historical Experience (1957).
One way of characterizing international relations: the liberal democracies of Western Europe,
North America and Japan constitute a security community. It is extremely unlikely (or even
unthinkable) that there will be violent conflict between any of these countries in the future.
“A group of people believing that they have come to agreement on at least this one point: that
common social problems must and can be resolved by processes of peaceful change”.
Neo-liberal view on peace
Peace is not merely the absence of war. There are different degrees: “warm” peace between the
countries of the security community; “cold” peace between the USA and the USSR. War has
grown more and more destructive; there is a risk of unlimited destruction through nuclear war,
which creates incentives for States to cooperate. In important parts of the world, anarchy does
not produce the insecurity that realists claim. Peace is fairly secure. There are two main types
of peace in the world:
• peace among the heavily armed powers where total war threatens self-destruction. Balance
created by military power.
• peace among the consolidated democracies of the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD). This is a far more secure, “liberal” peace, built upon liberal
democracies values.
22
Karl W. Deutsch (1912-1992): Czech political scientist.
25
To sum up
Strong liberals remain optimistic about the future. Progress is possible and is taking place in
important parts of the world. There is no world government but in several areas the world has
moved far beyond the realist condition of anarchy. The notions of modernization and progress
are built into the theoretical foundation of neo-liberal theory.
But there are also some problems with strong liberals’ argument. What about those countries
that do not experience change and modernization? How to measure how much has “changed”?
How “secure” is democratic peace?
4.4. Structural liberalism

The theory of “structural liberalism” has been developed by Deudney23 and Ikenberry24 in 1999,
as an attempt to “update” the liberal thinking.
Anarchy creates a deep sense of insecurity among States. But the negative effects of anarchy
can be managed. Structural liberalism seeks to “mitigate” the problem of anarchy by identifying
and characterizing the major features of the Western Order. All these 5 elements together make
the Western Order functions well:
• Security co-binding: liberal practices of States locking one another into mutually
constraining institutions (ex: NATO)
• Penetrated reciprocal hegemony: the special way in which the USA leads the Western
Order, exerts hegemony power but there is also space for other partners to share power with
the USA.
• Semi-sovereign and partial great powers: the special status of Germany and Japan. They
have imposed constraints on themselves as great powers; they have foregone the acquisition
of nuclear powers. They renounced to some sovereignty and military power.
• Economic openness: in a world of advanced industrial capitalism, focus is on benefits from
absolute gains derived from economic openness or trade between countries.
• Civic identity: a common Western support for the values of political and civil liberties and
market economics. Interdependence is based on common vision and values regarding
political, social, …
Deudney and Ikenberry argue that these features of the Western liberal order are so strong and
entrenched (embedded into liberal democracies) that they will survive the collapse of the
common external threat (the Soviet Union), they will still pursue cooperation. In short, the
liberal order rests on a liberal foundation, not on a particular balance of power or a certain
external threat.
Problems and critiques on structural liberalism
• Historical events question the liberal optimism of the theory. The coming to power of
George W. Bush in the USA and the security strategy focused on “war on terrorism” have
23
Daniel H. Deudney (1953): American political scientist and professor.
24
Gilford J. Ikenberry (1954): American theorist of international relations and scholar.
26
strained relations across the Atlantic. The strategy pursued by the Americans strained the
relations within the West.
• Europe and the United States live in two different worlds, where it is complicate to have
complete relations:
• Europeans live in a Kantian world of peace
• Americans remain anchored to an anarchic Hobbesian world where international rules and
laws are unreliable (Kagan, 2003).
• Possible answer: this overstates the differences between Europe and the USA, since there
is no prospect that the transatlantic disagreements will lead to violent conflict. The security
community based on liberal values remains in place (it is unthinkable that there would be a
war between the USA and liberal countries).
4.5. Reading: Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation, 1984

In the preface of his book, liberal thinker Axelrod25 uses the game theory to understand
interactions between the States.
Key ideas
• Key idea 1: innovative methodology
Ex: computer tournaments, historical cases, mathematical theorems, strategy that evolves
automatically → “The Prisoner’s Dilemma as the ‘E.coli of the social sciences’”
• Key idea 2: the limits of decision-making
• possibility of misunderstandings between the players
• misimplementation of a choice
• cultural factors
• Key idea 3: policymaking
“My own research agenda was deeply affected by these dramatic and unexpected
transformations.” “To help promote cooperation between the two sides of a bipolar world.”
1986 Committee on International Security and Arms Control
4.6. Conclusion
Back to the 4 key questions, about neo-liberalism.
Who? What?
States International institutions and cooperation
How? Why? So what?
International institutions are robust and last Strategies to collaboration continuously
because of the absolute gains they provide to expanding
States
25
Robert M. Axelrod (1943): American political scientist and scholar.
27
5. NEO-REALISM
Difference between classical realism and neo-realism
Classical realism has a normative approach that focuses on the core political values of national
security and State survival and is largely inspired by ancient political thinkers. Neo-classical
thinkers focus on these core values. Realism as a doctrine, when it developed, was very much
linked to history and philosophy. This explains why it focuses on the human nature.
Neo-realism is a more recent international relations doctrine. It has a more scientific approach
and focuses on the “structure” of the international system. It has no longer so many concerns
with human nature of the ethics of State craft. It looks at the reality and its structure. Therefore,
it is also called structural realism.
The behaviouralist turn
During the 1950s-1960s, there was an application of empirical and quantitative methods in
social sciences and in international relations (statistics, modelling, …). The focus is on the
behaviour, actions, and acts of individuals/groups/States in different social settings. It is an
analysis of observable facts and measurable data. If we observe the behaviour of States, we can
observe patterns.
Neo-realism is focused on observation while realism is on interpretation. Neo-realism is
strongly influenced by the behaviouralist turn; it seeks to apply scientific methods to the
theoretical and practical problems posed by the Cold War.
Cooperation in a neo-realist world
Let’s remember the Prisoner’s Dilemma and the different interpretations of the game.
• Neo-liberal approach: focus on absolute gains and collective interests (= cooperation)
• Neo-realist approach: focus on maximising relative gains (=defecting)
The Cold War
Neo-realism is very
much linked to the
Cold War.
According to
Quétel26, the Cold
War is a “political,
strategic, military
as well as
ideological and
cultural opposition that took place between two antagonistic blocks structured around two
superpowers that never entered into direct conflict” (translated from Quétel, 2008, p.11).
26
Claude Quétel (1939): French historian.
28
This war happened in different stages (yet these stages are not “set in stone” and can differ
depending on the specialists):
• 1945-1953: setting up of the Cold War
• 1956-1961: peaceful coexistence
• 1961-1962: the acute crises
• 1962-1975: the Détente
• 1979-1985: the tense observation
• 1985-1991: the end of the Cold War
5.1. Neo-realist theory: Kenneth Waltz

5.1.1. Activity: An Introduction to Waltz’ Theory of International Relations (video)
Video: Franz Tuñez, Realistas An Introduction to Kenneth Waltz’ Theory of International
Relations A Macat Politics Vi, 27 February 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
Lz_EnqamQwU (last watched on 26 October 2021).
What is Waltz’s point of departure, when looking at the international system?
States live in an anarchical system. They fear each other and cannot predict each other’s
behaviour, which means that any State could attack another State at any time. This kind of
condition (anarchy) results in a power balancing determined solely by relative military power.
How can States’ behaviour be understood?
Billiard table metaphor: the billiard table represents the international system. Balls represent
individual States.
• If each ball is affected equally by its contacts with others, the system is multipolar.
• If we imagine a different billiard table where as well as the equally sized balls, there are
two huge ones, that system is bipolar. They represent superpowers and it’s these two balls
that dominate the whole system.
States are like billiard balls: it’s just about billiard balls and their size, reflecting military power.
What is the difference between a multipolar and a bipolar system?
In a multipolar system, all balls affect one another; everyone has influence.
In a bipolar system, the mere fact that the bigger billiard balls exist affect what is possible for
all the other balls.
Is the billiard table metaphor convincing in explaining States’ behaviour?
One of the criticisms to Waltz was that his way of thinking was very much attached to the Cold
War context. He did not consider the fact that smaller States can form coalitions and alliances
and have almost as much power as a superpower. Real world is actually much more nuanced
and multifaceted than what Waltz suggests. What about the unipolar world? Waltz’s metaphor
does not apply to it neither.
29
5.1.2. Waltz’s theory

Analysis of the book of Waltz27 Theory of International Politics (1979)
The balance of power
The theory over the balance of power describes a situation where States seek to increase their
capabilities, especially military capabilities. In a situation of anarchy, each State wants to
survive; here comes a balance of power. “If there is any distinctively political theory of
international politics, balance-of-power theory it is.” (Waltz, 1979, p.117)
“[Cold war] is firmly rooted in the structure of post war international politics, and will last as
long as that structure endures” (Waltz, in Rotberg & Rabb, 1989, p.52). His international
relations theory focuses on the structure of the system, on its interacting units, and on the
continuities and changes of the system.
In classical realism, State leaders and their international decisions and actions were at the centre
of attention. In neo-realism, the central analytical focus is the structure of the system (external
to the actors) and the relative distribution of power. Actors are relatively unimportant because
structures compel them to act in certain ways. Structures determine action.
States
In the context of anarchy, States are alike: despite their differences in terms of cultures,
ideologies, history, or constitutions, they all perform the same basic tasks (all States must
collect taxes, conduct foreign policy, …). States differ significantly only regarding their greatly
varying capabilities in performing similar tasks.
Waltz also developed the concept of sovereign State: “To say that a state is sovereign means
that it decides for itself how it will cope with its internal and external problems”. States decide
for themselves. They are in a position of independence from other sovereign States. Each State
is formally the equal of all the others.
The Great Powers
The states that have greater capabilities (the Great Powers) are the ones that determine changes
in the structure of the international system. The power differentials between States explain
international relations. International change occurs when Great Powers rise and fall and the
balance of power shifts accordingly.
With the billiard table metaphor, Waltz set a distinction between bipolar systems (ex: Cold War
with the USA and the USSR) and multipolar systems (those existed both before and after Cold
War). Bipolar systems are more stable and peaceful than multipolar systems. The main idea is
that the less superpowers you have, the more difficult it is to maintain stability. Three reasons:
• The number of great-power conflicts is fewer, less possibilities of great-power war.
• It is easier to operate an effective system of deterrence, fewer powers are involved.
• Chances of miscalculation and misadventure are lower if only two powers dominate.
27
Kenneth N. Waltz (1924-2013): American political scientist and scholar.
30
“Defensive” realism
States seek power to be secure and to survive, but excessive power is counter-productive, it
provokes hostile alliances by other States. States should not strive for excessive power beyond
that which is necessary for security and survival. The structure of the international system leads
to the development of several great powers (or hegemonic powers). Because these powers are
equal, they maintain a relationship of peaceful observation. This is not actual peace, but the
“absence of war”.
5.2. Offensive realism

A counter theory
“Offensive” realism appeared as a counter theory of “defensive” theory. According to
Mearsheimer28, anarchy compels States to compete for power. States seek hegemony and are
more aggressive than what Waltz argues (ex: USA during and after Cold War aimed at
dominating the entire system). This created the idea of “regional hegemons”: States can only
become the hegemon in their own region of the world, and this downplays the idea that States
seek to be “global hegemons”.
All states want to become regional hegemons. For instance, the USA ensure that no Great Power
intervene militarily in the Western hemisphere and that no real competitor threatens American
security. If a competitor existed (ex: China), the USA would try to contain and prevent China’s
influence. “Great powers are always searching for opportunities to gain power over their
rivals, with hegemony as their final goal” (Mearsheimer, 2001, p.29). Compared to Waltz,
Mearsheimer leaves some aspects aside such as the fact that not all States can manage to become
regional hegemons.
Criticism
There are several critiques on offensive realism theory:
• It debunks liberal democratic theory: that democracies are less likely to wage war against
each other. According to Mearsheimer, regardless of the type of government, the goal of
great power is to become hegemons: having no competitors. If the great power feels
threatened, it is more likely to go to war. But liberal democratic theory affirms the opposite.
• It fails to explain peaceful change and cooperation between great powers (ex: between UK
and USA).
• It fails to explain the emergence of the European Union (pooling of sovereignty by states in
an international community). States willingly decide to renounce to a part of their
sovereignty for a cooperation at the international level.
28
John J. Mearsheimer (1947): American political scientist and international relations scholar.
31
5.3. Neo-realism after the Cold War

Example: the issue of NATO expansion
There is a debate between those in
favour of NATO expansion into Eastern
Europe and those against. Both
arguments disclose realist and neo-
realist ideas and concerns. Realists and
neo-realists can have significant
differences of opinion among
themselves on important issues of
foreign policy.
In favour of expansion in Eastern Europe Against expansion in Eastern Europe

• Reinforcement of democratic reforms in • A threat to the entire post-cold War
Eastern Europe settlement
• Increase in transparency in defence planning • A threat to Russia and to those Russian
and military budgets politicians in favour of more cooperation
• Closer integration and cooperation • Against NATO’s claim to be a purely
• Article 10: membership is open to any defensive alliance
“European State in a position to further the • Dangerous division between former Soviet
principles of the Treaty and to contribute to countries that entered NATO and those who
the security of the North Atlantic area” did not
• Increased regional stability and security (a • Diminished NATO capacity to defend its
deterrent for Russia) member states
• Benefits on Russia too • Expansion could jeopardize American
commitment to NATO
In this debate, both sides understand international relations in strategic realist or neo-realist
terms. The primary goal is to use foreign policy and military power to defend national interests
and promote international order. Both arguments understand statecraft as an activity that
involves primarily the use of power. Both sides share the same values, but they differ in their
judgments of the proposed policy and their assessments of the circumstances in which it must
be carried out. One side views expansion as promoting realist values; the other side sees it as
undermining them.
5.4. Reading: Mearsheimer, The False Promise of International

Institutions, 1994
• Key idea 1: cooperation does exist, but it is sometimes difficult to achieve and always
difficult to sustain
Relative-gains considerations and concern about cheating are factors that inhibit
cooperation. States can either think in terms of absolute gains or relative gains.
• Key idea 2: institutions are essentially “arenas for acting out power relationships”
“Rules reflect state calculations of self-interest based primarily on the international
distribution of power. The most powerful states in the system create and shape institutions
so that they can maintain their share of world power, or even increase it.”
32
“NATO was essentially an American tool for managing power in the face of the Soviet
threat.”
• Key idea 3: Because states are concerned about the balance of power, they will be primarily
motivated by relative gains
“While each state wants to maximize its absolute gains, it is more important to make sure
that it does better, or at least not worse that the other state in any agreement”
• Key idea 4: Rivals as well as allies cooperate
“Balance-of-power logic often causes states to form alliances and cooperate against
common enemies”
5.5. Conclusion
Back to the 4 key questions, about neo-realism.
Who? What?
States • War and peace
• Distribution of power
• Stability
• Institutions
How? Why? So what?
• War can be explained by anarchy; only
bipolarity can bring the “absence of war”
• Institutions are created because of the relative
gains they provide to powerful States
33
6. INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY

Main theories in international relations focus on issues of war (why war happens?) and peace,
conflict, and cooperation between States. After WWII, international political economy (IPE)
shifts the attention to how economy shapes international relations, specifically to issues of
wealth and poverty and about who gets what in the international system. IPE looks at the
complex interplay and relationships in the international context between politics and
economics; states and markets (need for a political framework for markets to flourish).
For a long time, economics and politics in international relations were seen as isolated from
each other; as qualitatively different activities being studies with different approaches.
Economic and political spheres were separated. It was “a case of mutual neglect” (Strange,
1970). Sharp distinction between economics and politics increasingly questioned from the
beginning of the 1970’s. Why? Three main reasons (linked to political and economic context):
• Political measures had to be taken to deal with economic crises: the USA, crisis of the
Bretton Woods system, oil crisis in the 1970s
• Decolonization: political proposals designed to improve the economic position of Third
World countries in the international system
• The end of the Cold War underlined the connection between politics and economics: ex-
Soviet countries were reintegrated to the international system, politically and economically
6.1. IPE theory

There are different theoretical approaches needed to analyse the connection between politics
and economics.
Economic liberalism (continuation, development
Mercantilism → p.33
of liberal and neo-liberal theories) → p.34
Marxism (as based on Marx’s ideas) → p.36 Hegemonic stability theory → p.37
6.1.1. Mercantilism
Mercantilism is connected to the establishment of the modern, sovereign state during the XVI
and XVII centuries. According to this theory, economic activity is subordinated to the goal of
building a strong state; the primary goal of a State is to pursue its interests. Economics is seen
as a tool of politics; international economy as an arena of conflict between opposing national
interests.
This economic competition between states is a “zero-sum game”: one State’s gain is another
State’s loss. States must worry about relative economic gain: material wealth accumulated by
one State serves as a basis for military-political power which can be used against other states
(→ affinity between the mercantilist approach and neo-realism). Each state must be worried
about another State’s gain and that it could be used against another States.
34
Economic rivalry between States

Defensive or “benign” mercantilism Aggressive or “malevolent” mercantilism
Focus on national interest (economic relative Attempt to exploit the international economy
gains), but no negative effects on other States → through expansionary policies (ex: European
defence of national interests and economic power colonial power in Africa and Asia)
(which does not necessarily lead to war)
In both ways, economic strength and military-political power are complementary, not
competing goals (positive feedback loop). This is in contrast with the liberal view, in which the
pursuit of economic prosperity is always in contrast with the pursuit of military force. Here, the
goal is to build strong and powerful States (economically and militarily). While liberalism
promotes economic prosperity through free trade and open economic exchange, mercantilism
seeks the pursuit of power through military force and territorial expansion. More national
wealth and more military-political power serve the same end: a stronger, more powerful State.
More recent mercantilist thinking
Focus on the successful ‘developmental’ states in East Asia: Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.
In these cases, economic successes are linked to a strong and controlling state. Economic
success has always been accompanied by a strong, commanding role for the State in promoting
economic development. Example with the Japanese State:
• comprehensive role in the economic development of the country
• protection of strategic industries from outside competition
• support to the development of strategic industries through regulation
To sum up mercantilism
Relationship between economics and politics Main actors/units of analysis
Politics is decisive, as economy is a tool for States
politics and political power
The nature of economic relations Economic goals
• Conflictual relations The power of the State
• Zero-sum game
6.1.2. Economic liberalism

Early economic liberalism as a critique of the comprehensive political control and regulation
of economic affairs dominating European state-building in the XVI and XVII centuries.
Economic liberalism appeared as a rejection of theories and policies which subordinate
economics to politics (mercantilism).
Smith29
Smith is considered as the “Father” of economic liberalism. According to him, markets tend to
expand spontaneously for the satisfaction of human needs – if governments do not interfere.
29
Adam Smith (1723-1790): Scottish economist, philosopher, pioneer of political economy.
35
States must not interfere in which way markets develop. The economic marketplace is the main
source of progress, cooperation, and prosperity. Political interference and State regulation, by
contrast, are uneconomical, retrogressive, and can lead to conflict.
Economic liberalism is “a doctrine and a set of principles for organizing and managing
economic growth, and individual welfare” (Gilpin, 1987: 27). It is based on the notion that if
left to itself, the market economy will operate spontaneously according to its own mechanisms
or “laws”. These laws are inherent in the process of economic production and exchange (→
laissez-faire policy).
Ricardo30 and the law of comparative advantage
Ricardo set the “law of comparative advantage”: free trade will bring benefits to all participants
because free trade makes specialization possible, and specialization increases efficiency and
thus productivity.
“Whether or not one of two regions is absolutely more efficient in the production of every good
than is the other, if each specializes in the product in which it has a comparative advantage
(greatest relative efficiency), trade will be mutually profitable to both regions. In a world
economy based on free trade, all countries will benefit through specialization and global wealth
will increase” (Samuelson).
Economic liberalism theory
Economic liberalism theory is a rejection of the mercantilist view that the State is the central
actor when it comes to economic affairs. The central actor is the individual as a consumer and
as a producer (between the framework of the States). The marketplace is the open area where
individuals come together to exchange good and services in the marketplace, all participants
gain. Individuals are rational in pursuing their own economic interests. This “rational choice
theory” is the starting point for understanding not only market economy but also politics (to
represent each individual’s best interests).
Yet, there is a debate among economic liberals about the extent of the necessity of governments’
political interference. On the one hand, early economic liberals called for laissez-faire (freedom
from any political restrictions). On the other hand, economists such as Keynes31 thought that
on the other hand, economists such as Keynes thought that the market economy is a great benefit
to people, but it also entails potential evils of “risk, uncertainty, and ignorance”. There should
also be some interference of the States in economic relations to avoid inequalities. This can be
remedied through improved political management of the market. This is a more positive view
of the State.
Keynesian ideas caused a major shift in liberal economic doctrine and a significantly reformed
liberal theory in the decades after WWII: considerable degree of State interference and
direction. However, in the 1980’s, there was a turn-back to classical laissez-faire liberalism.
One major reason for this is the belief that economic globalization will bring prosperity to all.
Yet, we shall see how this belief comes with several problematic aspects.
30
Dave Ricardo (1772-1823): British political economist and politician.
31
John M. Keynes (1883-1946): English economist.
36
To sum up economic liberalism

Relationship between economics and politics Main actors/units of analysis
Economics is autonomous • Individuals
• Private firms
The nature of economic relations Economic goals
• Cooperative relations Maximum individual and social well-being
• Positive-sum game
6.1.3. Marxism
The political economy theory of Karl Marx is a fundamental critique of economic liberalism.
The economy is not a positive-sum game with benefits for all. The economy is as a site of
human exploitation and class inequality. Zero-sum game mercantilism applied to relations of
classes instead of relation of States. Politics and economics are closely intertwined: rejection of
the liberal view of an economic sphere operating under its own laws. For mercantilists,
economics is seen as a tool of politics while for Marxists, economics comes first and politics
second.
The capitalist economy is based on two antagonistic social classes: the bourgeoisie (which owns
the means of production) and the proletariat (which owns only its labour power which it must
sell to the bourgeoisie). But labour puts in more work than it gets back in pay: there is a surplus
value appropriated by the bourgeoisie. However, the growth of capitalism is not negative per
se. Capitalism means progress in at least two ways:
• It destroys previous relations of production such as feudalism and is a step forward because
labour is free to sell its labour power and seek out the best possible pay.
• It paves the way for a socialist revolution where the means of production will be placed
under social control for the benefit of the proletariat.
Economic production is the basis for all other human activities. The economic basis consists of
the forces of production and the relations of production. Together, these form a specific mode
of production (capitalism). The bourgeoisie dominates the capitalist economy through control
of the means of production and dominate in the political sphere. In Marxism, economics is the
basis of politics.
Marxism and IPE
• States are not autonomous. They are driven by ruling-class interests. Capitalist States are
primarily driven by the interests of their bourgeoisie.
• Struggles between States, including wars, should be seen in the economic context of
competition between capitalist classes of different States.
• Capitalism is expansive: there is a never-ending search for new markets and more profit
(expansion first as imperialism and colonization then as economic globalization). The
history of IPE is seen as the history of capitalist expansion across the globe.
37
Differences between Marxism and realism

Both Marxism and realism agree on the continuous competition and conflict between states.
However, for realists, independent States are in a condition of anarchy and the struggle between
States has taken place for several centuries.
Marxists rejected that view as abstract (no concrete specification of the social forces that sustain
the conflict between States) and unhistorical (history repeating itself, but conflict between
States varies substantially across history). According to realists, Marxist view of the State is
reductionist: the State is seen as a tool in the hands of the ruling classes, with no will of its own.
To sum up Marxist IPE
Marxist international political economy concerns:
• The history of global capitalist expansion
• The struggles between classes and States to which it has given rise around the world
• How a revolutionary transformation of that world may come about
6.1.4. Hegemonic stability theory

Hegemonic stability theory was developed in the 1970s and 1980s by Kindleberger32 in The
World in Depression (1973) and Gilpin33 in The Political Economy in International Relations
(1987). This theory is linked to mercantilist thinking about politics over economics: there is a
need for a strong State to create a functioning liberal international economy, a hegemon.
Hegemon is a dominant military and economic power which is necessary for the creation and
full development of a liberal world market economy. In the absence of such power, liberal rules
cannot be enforced around the world. The dominant power creates an open world economy
based on free trade.
If this hegemonic stability theory is true, we must expect international markets to be dependent
on the existence of a liberal dominant power. In the absence of such a hegemon, an open world
economy will be much more difficult to sustain. There is a risk that economic relations will
deteriorate into nationalistic, self-interested, protectionist competition (ex: the world economic
crisis of the 1930s) People must be open to the extern world economy.
The United States as hegemon
There are two major historical examples of liberal hegemons: Great Britain during the late XIX
and early XX centuries and the USA after World War II.
Before WWII, the USA was already the largest economic power, but it was not willing to take
on the hegemonic responsibility of creating and maintaining a liberal world economic order.
That willingness emerged only after WWII, with the end of American isolationism. The war
32
Charles P. Kindleberger (1910-2003): American economist and economic historian.
33
Robert Gilpin (1930-2018): American political scientist and scholar.
38
elevated the USA to a position of nearly unrivalled world leadership. The USA was thus
“responsible” for creating a liberal world market.
After WWII, the USA set up new institutions of a reformed liberal world economy: the Bretton
Woods System, International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT, then replaced by the World Trade Organization WTO), the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The American interest is
to restore the liberal world economy based on new institutions which it could largely control.
Helping in the rebuilding of Western Europe and Japan also important for American security
reasons during the Cold War (not really altruism).
“After World War II, the United States launched history’s most ambitious era of institution-
building. The UN, IMF, World Bank, NATO, GATT, and other institutions that emerged
provided a more extensive rule-based structure for political and economic relations than
anything seen before. (…) In effect, the United States spun a web of institutions that connected
other states to an emerging American-dominated economic and security order.” (Ikenberry,
2003, p.63)
However, during the late 1950s and early 1960s, the economies of Western Europe and Japan
had been rebuilt. The American economic lead was disappearing and declining. By the 1970s,
the USA started running trade deficits for the first time in the post-war era (crisis of the Bretton
Woods system). American policies were therefore more oriented towards national interests
(adoption of protectionist measures to support its own economy). This was a new era of
increasing protectionism, monetary instability, and economic crisis. With the decline of the
USA, there is no longer a clearly dominant power to sustain the liberal world economy in place.
The power and the necessity of the hegemon
For a liberal economic world order to come into being, the capability of a dominant power is
not enough. There must also be a willingness to take on that task and a commitment to sustain
a liberal order once it has been created. The United States created institutions for political and
economic rules.
The hegemonic power is such a power resource if it can be used across several issue areas:
military force is not only useful in the battlefield but also a lever in other areas of foreign policy.
For instance, the USA employed its military power to provide security to Western Europe
against the soviet threat (American military power as a leverage in trade policies). That gave
the USA influence in Europe on other areas as well, such as trade policies. The dominant State
needs different power resources to perform its role of hegemon, such as raw materials, capital,
markets, … But why is a hegemon required to create and maintain a liberal world economy?
The need for a hegemon is linked to the nature of the goods it provides. Liberal world economy
is a “public good economy”: it provides goods or services which create benefits for everybody.
Public goods are non-excludable: others cannot be denied access to them (air, pavement,
currency system, possibility to trade in a free market, …). A problem that can appear is “free
riding” (ex: making use of the goods without paying for them). That is where the hegemon
comes in: a dominant power is needed to provide those goods and to deal with free riders. The
hegemon would do that because it has a huge stake in the system.
39
6.2. Reading: Gilpin, American Policy in the Post-Reagan Era, 1987

Analysis of the book of Gilpin, American Policy in the Post-Reagan Era (1987).
“The importance of these changes in international affairs, and their implications for America’s
place in the world and for its policies, have not yet been sufficiently appreciated.” The
American system after WWII had two basic components:
• American relationship with Western Europe (Marshall Plan, EEC, NATO, American
troops)
• American ties with Japan (Japanese participation in the IMF, the World Bank, trade partner)
The USA emerged from WWII with a clear vision of the new international order that it wished
to create: a universal economic and political system. A constellation of novel institutions,
including the IMF and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World
Bank), that is, the Bretton Woods system, would administer an open and multilateral world
economy.
After four decades, the economic and political structure created by the United States and its
allies between 1946 and 1950 still stands, having survived numerous severe crises and intense
conflicts of national interests. The trauma of the Vietnam War, the dramatic reversal of
American foreign economic policy by President Richard Nixon in 1971, and periodic clashes
over nuclear strategy and arms control have strained Allied unity.
Although the Common Market represented a violation of the American ideal of a multilateral
world and entailed discrimination against American exports, American policymakers assumed
that the Common Market, with its external tariff and protective Common Agricultural Policy,
was necessary stepping-stone to an eventual multilateral system rather than an end in itself.
6.3. Conclusion
Back to the 4 key questions, about international political economy.
Who? What?
• States • Political economy
• Individuals • War and peace
• Classes • Cooperation and conflict
• Hegemons
How? Why? So what?
• Economic as subordinate to politics International relations can be described and
• Market economy as an autonomous sphere explained through economic power and
of cooperation struggles
• Economy as a site of exploitation
• Hegemons rule world economy
40
7. DEVELOPMENT AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

International political economy has also to do directly with issues of development and
underdevelopment, especially in the Third World. This is the so-called “development debate”
in international relations. It developed particularly from the 1950’s onwards, in correspondence
with the decolonization process.
7.1. Activity: Global Development Explained (video)

Video: World101, Global Development Explained | World101, 18 June 2019,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po0o3Gk9FPQ (last watched on 4 November 2021).
What distinguishes developed from developing countries?
The best or most used measure is to take the size of a country’s economy, its gross domestic
product (GDP). GDP is the total value of all goods and services traded or produced within the
border of a country over a given period (usually 1 year). When it is divided by the number of
people that live in the country, it is called GDP per capita.
What are some important conditions for economic growth that explain why some
countries have higher GDP per capita than other countries?
• Peace and stability
• Quality education
• Access to capital
• Rule of Law
• Equality of opportunity
Why would one country care about helping another country grow economically?
Possible reasons:
• Humanitarianism (it’s the right thing to do)
• Improvement of their own security (reducing security threats)
• To boost their own economy (investment opportunities)
How has the concept of development expanded over time?
Development is no longer just about economy and GDP. There are also new other factors:
• Human’s ability to live their lives the way they want
• Ability to move freely without discrimination
• Access to modern health care and a pollution free environment
• Political equality and freedom to speak one’s own mind
• Since the 2016: UN Sustainable Development Goals
• Human Development Index (HDI)
41
7.2. Development and modernization

Before the 1950s, development was not at the centre of the debate. In 1949, President Truman
came with his Point Four Programme on international aid to provide and help Third World
countries developing.
At the same time, decolonization process was beginning as an introduction of development
research on a larger, international scale. “New” states in Africa and Asia became members of
the United Nations and voiced the need to focus on development. It is important to remember
that the Cold War meant that each side was interested in cultivating closer links with the
developing world to the disadvantage of the other side.
Third World
This term was coined in 1952 by Sauvy34. “Third World” is part of the “three worlds” system
to describe political alliances after WWII. The three worlds referred to:
• First World: Western countries, aligned with the United States (members of NATO, …)
• Secund World: communist countries, aligned with the Soviet Union
• Third World: the rest of the world, neither aligned with the USA nor USSR
In the early 1990s, after the fall of the USSR and the end of the Cold War, “Third World"
referred primarily to economically poor and non-industrialized countries, as well as newly
industrialized countries. “Third World” has become a rather obsolete term. There is currently a
favour for terms such as “developing countries” and “least developed countries” (United
Nations) or “low-income countries” (World Bank).
Modernization theory
The modernization theory is based on economic liberalism and was prominent in the 1950s-
1960s to understand issues of economic and social development and create policies to assist
economic and social transitions in poorer countries. Third World countries should be expected
to follow the same developmental path taken earlier by the developed countries in the West: a
progressive journey from a traditional pre-industrial, agrarian society towards a modern,
industrial, mass-consumption society. Development means overcoming barriers of pre-
industrial production, backward institutions, and parochial value systems.
However, there is a dualism in Third World countries, where the traditional sector is still rooted
in the countryside while emerging modern sector is concentrated in the cities. The two sectors
exist in relative isolation from each other. Traditional sector is used as a “reservoir” of labour
for the modern sector (people moving from traditional to modern society for work). The
difficulty in creating a positive dynamic between modern sector and traditional sector hinders
economic development.
The main goals of this aspect of development are to identify the impediments to modernization
as well as factors that promote modernization, and to reduce the gap between leading Western
societies and less developed countries. This can happen through an open economy, free from
34
Alfred Sauvy (1898-1990): French historian, demographer, and anthropologist.
42
political interference (economic liberalism). The intention was to “export” Western market
economy, institutions, and values to the non-Western world.
The liberal economic development theory
Traditional society → Modernization → Modern society
Essential modernization factors:
• a market economy, free of political interference
• a growing rate of economic investment
• foreign direct investment
However, there was increasing criticism during the 1960s-1970s. While growth rates in the
developed world reached unprecedented highs, many Third World countries had difficulties in
“taking off” economically. There were also further criticisms:
• Focus on the Nation-State as the only unit of analysis
• There is only one single path of development for all countries (from traditional to modern
society)
• Disregard of transnational structures that constrain local and national development
7.3. Neo-Marxist theories on development

Most important and radical critique to modernization theory of economic liberals come from
Neo-Marxist theories, with a focus on increasing inequality in world development.
Neo-Marxist view on
World Systems theory → p.42 Dependency theory → p.43
globalization → p.44
World Systems theory

Analysis of the book of Wallerstein35 The capitalist world economy (1979).
At the starting point of this theory is the concept of world-systems, which ties economics and
politics together. World systems describe unified areas characterized by a certain economic and
a certain political structure with the one depending on the other. There are two basic varieties
of world systems in human history:
• “world-empires”: political and economic control is concentrated in a unified centre.
• “world-economies”: actors are tied together economically, but political authority is
decentralized and resides in multiple polities, in a system of States.
The key focus is the analysis of the modern world-economy, characterized by capitalism.
International Process of Different “hierarchical”
Capitalism → → →
division of labour specialization world areas
35
Immanuel M. Wallerstein (1930-2019): American sociologist and economic historian.
43
There are three world areas that

suppose a hierarchy:
• Core countries (blue): more
advanced, market-based,
industrialized, capitalist
countries (Western societies)
on which periphery and semi-
periphery countries depend.
They control global economy
• Semi-peripheral countries (purple): in between that contains economically mixed; a
middle layer between core countries and the lower stratum of peripheral countries.
• Peripheral countries (red): least advanced, dominated by core countries, bottom of the
hierarchy (focus on production of raw materials). They receive a disproportionally small
share of global economy.
At the core of Word-systems analysis is the mechanism of unequal exchange. Economic
surplus is transferred from the periphery to the core. This transfer is further accentuated by the
emergence of strong State machineries in the core and weak State machineries in the periphery.
Core countries can enforce unequal exchange on peripheral ones (→ dominance of the core
over the periphery). Capitalism involves an appropriation of surplus of the whole world-
economy by core areas. However, World systems have dynamic characteristics. It is possible
for periphery countries to rise out of their status and move into semi-periphery or core status.
This can be done through industrialization and stabilization of the government.
Dependency theory
The main goal of this theory is to critique the dependency form that capitalist development is
seen to take in the Third World. It is meant to be an effort to provide the theoretical tools by
which Third World countries can defend themselves against globalizing capitalism.
The starting point of dependency theory is the concept of underdevelopment.
Underdevelopment is not a condition which once characterized all countries, not all countries
experienced this (contradiction with the modernization theory). It is a process within the
framework of the global capitalist system to which Third World countries have been subjected.
Underdevelopment is seen as an intentional by-product of the development of the West (there
are underdeveloped countries because there are developed countries). It is the process by which
capitalist forces expand to subdue and impoverish the Third World. Underdevelopment begins
only with the arrival of global capitalism.
Global capitalism in one single process generates development and wealth (in the industrialized
world) and underdevelopment and poverty (in the Third World). How can development be
brought to the Third World?
Radical dependency theorists More moderate dependency theorists
Third World countries must cut off, or at least less harsh and severe in their critique of the
severely limit, their ties to the capitalist world capitalist world market. Some development in
market. the Third World is possible even given the ties
of external dependence on the capitalist West.
ex: A.G. Frank, S. Amin ex: F.H. Cardoso
44
Dependency theory of underdevelopment can be summarized:

• Underdevelopment is caused by the factors external to the poor countries. Third World
countries are dominated by foreign interests originating in the developed West.
• Underdevelopment is not a phase of “traditional society” experienced by all countries. Both
development and underdevelopment are results of a single process of global capitalist
development.
• Underdevelopment is due to external, primarily economic, forces; these forces result in
crippled and distorted societal structures inside Third World countries.
• To overcome underdevelopment a delinking from external dominance is required.
There was some increasing criticism of dependency theory during the 1970s. For instance, the
“Four Asian Tigers” (South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong) experienced rapid
economic growth combined with world market integration. It was a blow to dependency
theory’s prediction of stagnation and misery and a further support to liberal modernization
theory. During the 1980s, there was a strong revival of economic liberal ideas in development
thinking: Reagan’s presidency (USA) and Thatcher’s administration (UK) both promoted
liberal policies and Third World countries were encouraged to pursue similar policies.
Neo-Marxist view on development and globalization
According to Cox36, economic globalization involves both intensified interdependence and a
qualitative shift towards a global economy. In the process of economic globalization, nation-
states have lost substantive power over the economy. He set a focus on the uneven, hierarchical
nature of economic globalization.
The global economy is characterized by dependence rather than interdependence. Economic
power is increasingly concentrated in the leading industrialized countries such as the USA,
Japan, and Western Europe. Economic globalization will not benefit the impoverished masses
of the Third World and will not improve the living standards of the poor in the highly
industrialized countries. Globalization is a form of capitalism and as such it perpetuates
capitalist class domination and exploitation of poor people around the world.
7.4. Evolution of the development debate

Theories are ‘general’ theories. What about specific problems in many regions and countries,
and particular historical experiences and variations in local conditions? South-Saharan Africa,
South Asia, East Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe have very dissimilar historical
trajectories of development and different local conditions. Development thinking is becoming
increasingly complex with issues and recommendations that cannot always travel from one
region, or even from a sub-region to other places. Moreover, different voices emerge and
participate, such as grassroots organizations, NGOs, peasant movements, political parties,
governments, international institutions, and the development research community, …
36
Robert W. Cox (1926-2018): Canadian scholar of political science and United Nations officer.
45
Development is a mainstream concept

created by the UN system during the
1950s and 1960s. When less developed
countries get economic growth and
modernization, they develop. In recent
years, this mainstream concept has
become more nuanced. Development is
not merely growth, it is also distribution
and welfare, democracy, participation,
freedom, and self-realization.
There are also alternative views on
development: sceptical view of
modernity and industrialization; a
favourable attitude towards traditional
values and practices in pre-industrial
society; anti-materialism; an embrace
of ultra-democratic values.
In the 1980s, for the World Bank and
the IMF “more market and less state”
was the appropriate road to
development. Today, there is an
emphasis on the need for democratic
accountability and the involvement of
civil society in development.
In 1990, the UNDP created the Human
Development Index (HDI), based on
measures of life expectancy at birth,
adult literacy rate, years of schooling
and gross national income per capita.
In 2015 the United Nations created the
Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs): a set of ambitious targets for
reducing poverty, inequality, child
mortality, and for promoting education,
health, and a better environment in
developing countries.
46
7.5. Reading: Wallerstein, The World Capitalist System, 1974

• Key idea 1
“Core and periphery are not comprehensible unless we realize that there is a third
structural position: that of the semi-periphery. [...] the semi-periphery is needed to make a
capitalist world-economy run smoothly”
• Key idea 2
“Why do not the majority who are exploited simply overwhelm the minority who draw
disproportionate benefits? [...] these world-systems have been faced rather rarely by
fundamental system-wide insurrection”
• Key idea 3
“there have been three major mechanisms that have enabled world-systems to retain
relative political stability [...] the concentration of military strength in the hands of the
dominant forces [...] an ideological commitment to the system as a whole [...] a three-
layered structure”
• Key idea 4
“One might make a good case that the world-economy as an economy would function every
bit as well without a semi-periphery. But it would be far less politically stable, for it would
mean a polarized world-system”
7.6. Conclusion
Back to the 4 key questions, about development in international relations.
Who? What?
• States • Modernization
• Developed and developing/underdeveloped • Development and underdevelopment
countries • Dependency
• World-systems • World-economy
• Third World • Globalization
• Interdependence
How? Why? So what?
Dominance of developed countries (core) upon • Describe, explain IR but also develop a
developing countries (periphery) critical view on how economy shapes
international relations
• Focus on inequality
47
8. TRANSNATIONALIST APPROACHES
There is no real transnational theory; it is more like a framework, an approach. We move away
from a purely State-centric point of view; it is a trans-nationalist approach. There is a focus on
non-State actors, new organizational structures, and trans-boundary relationships in the
international scene. Let’s first define some concepts:
• International relations are relations between States as basic units of analysis.
• Transnational relations are relations between or beyond national boundaries (ex:
transboundary) that include non-State actors or interactions between non-State actors and
States, governments.
• “Non-State” or “transnational” actors are all non-State actors (ex: groups, organizations)
involved in relationships across State boundaries that pursue their goals largely
independently from States/governments. Examples: Non-Governmental Organizations
(NGOs), Trans-national Corporations (TNCs), epistemic communities, transnational
terrorist groups, religious movements, …
8.1. Transnationalist approach

Even if there is no real theory, transnationalism focuses on an approach. During the second half
of 20th century, there are a growing interdependence in world politics, and a technological
revolution in communication and transportation. There is a significant increase in number of
actors operating beyond the State at different levels (local, regional, global, …). State-centrism
is questioned: States are not the only important actors in world politics.
This approach can be linked to a (neo-)realist approach: non-State actors may be important
players, but only within domestic political processes, within states. They do not count in
determining international relations. However, there is a development of a 'pluralistic’ approach
to world politics, as an alternative to (neo-)realist views on the central role of the States in
international relations: a “mixed-actor” perspective (public and private sectors).
Keohane37 and Nye38 on the transnationalist approach
Analyse of the book Transnational Relations and World Politics (1971)
The State-centric paradigm fails to recognize the importance of non-State actors. “Transnational
interaction” is “the movement of tangible or intangible items across state boundaries when at
least one actor is not an agent of a government” (Keohane and Nye, 1971, p.332).
3 categories of actors identified in the
3 kinds of relationships between these actors
international arena
• Governmental • Inter-state
• Subnational • Trans-governmental (domestic)
• Non-state • Transnational
37
Robert O. Keohane (1941): American academic working in the fields of international relations.
38
Joseph S. Nye Jr. (1937): American political scientist.
48
Burton39 and the “cobweb model”

This “cobweb model” is to be seen as an alternative view on the world, where everyone is
connected to each other. The world as a cobweb made of the numerous commercial, touristic,
financial, or migratory flows that cover the entire planet. When one actor touches one angle of
the cobweb, it is the whole cobweb that moves and that is affected.
The model serves to illustrate the fact that there is no distinction anymore between internal and
external (foreign) politics; there is a multiplication of the actors that are relevant to study in
international politics.
Transnational actors
The significance and impact of non-State, transnational actors increased even more after the
end of the Cold War. Ex:
• NGOs co-writing drafts of international treaties (ex: Amnesty International and the Anti-
Torture Convention)
• Scientists determining how policymakers should interpret a policy issue (such as in the case
of global warming)
• Business lobbies forcing their preferences in international negotiations
• Protestors/activists blocking a WTO conference (Seattle, 1999). Individuals can also be
considered as transnational actors.
• Terrorist networks affecting international security
Non-State actors officially recognized by the To the list of official categories, we can add
UN in its Agenda 2140 (1992) less-formal groups:
• Women • Individuals
• Children and Youth • Migrants
• Farmers • Terrorist groups
• Indigenous peoples • Religious groups
• NGOs • Activists
• Trade Unions • …
• Local Authorities
• Science and Technology
• Business and Industry
8.2. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)

Non-Governmental Organizations are among the most prominent actors of contemporary
international life, especially since the end of the Cold War. NGOs embody “the rise of global
civil society”. They have a normative power, by advancing human rights protection globally,
and by helping to bring about international agreements, through influence. Some also have
39
John W. Burton (1915-2010): Australian public servant and academic.
40
Agenda 21 is a nonbinding action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development. It is a
product of the Rio Earth Summit (1992). It is an action agenda for the UN, other multilateral organizations, and
individual governments around the world that can be executed at local, national, and global levels.
49
economic power (ex: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has over 50 billion dollars in
assets). However, NGOs have also been put into question about their effectiveness (what is the
real outcome?), accountability (not a lot of regulations that NGO’s must follow), and legitimacy
issues (who are NGO really representing?).
NGO is defined by the Economic and Social
Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC)
as “Any such organization that is not
established by a governmental entity or
intergovernmental agreement shall be
considered a non-governmental
organization” (Resolution 1996/31,
ECOSOC). Its basic elements are:
• Not set up by States
• Not governmental
• The goal is not financial profit
• Non-criminal
• Both large and small (size does not
matter)
According to the World Bank there are two
main types of NGOs: operational NGOs
(focus on development projects) and advocacy and lobbying NGOs (focus on promoting
certain causes). Many NGOs, encompass both types at once, though there is often one area they
are more focused on. Among these areas of operation:
• emergency relief
• international health education
• women's rights
• children's rights
• economic development
• environmental advocacy
• disaster preparation
• ...
Impact of NGOs
NGOs have multiple impacts on the world and in international relations and are increasingly
being recognized for their role as political actors in their own right, setting transnational
standards.
• Influence on intergovernmental proceedings (lobbying, pressure, …).
• Persuade governments to change their behaviour.
• Lobbying for international conventions, serving as ‘norm entrepreneurs.
• Influence on the behaviour of transnational corporations.
• They increasingly provide services traditionally undertaken by governments.
• They directly influence the behaviour of individuals.
50
8.2.1. Activity: short videos of NGOs’ campaigns

Video 1: Amnesty International, Death to the Death Penalty, 5 October 2010, https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=kQRc3C8Ov4U (last watched on 18 November 2021).
Video 2: Greenpeace UK, Turtle Journey: the crisis in our oceans, 15 January 2020, https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQB4RAZVMf4 (last watched on 18 November 2021).
Video 3: Save the Children USA, Top 5 Child Rights | Save the Children, 12 November 2019,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STh5aG_lLXA (last watched on 18 November 2021).
What are these campaign videos about?
Big issues that are central → death penalty, species extinction, children rights
Who are targeted/involved actors?
The purpose is addressed to States; to individuals (“join the community”); to other NGOs
What are the goals of these short videos?
To raise awareness; to ask people to engage; …
8.3. Transnational terrorism

Transnationalism is also about understanding to which extend the multiplication of international
actors stabilise or destabilise the whole world; it’s not just about actors, it’s also about
transnational phenomena and their impact. Examples of transnational phenomena: transnational
terrorism, climate change, …
In the past, terrorism was mostly national related to political struggles. It occurred most often
in weak States where democratic politics is weak or absent, and/or incumbent leaders are
considered illegitimate, and/or there is corruption. But more consolidated States have also had
severe problems with terrorism (ex: Britain, India, Spain). Such terrorism is national (for the
terrorist perspective) because the enemy is national and often groups can fight as guerrillas,
getting support from local sympathizers.
Terrorism has also grown largely beyond national boundaries due to globalisation
(transportation, communication, …). Globalisation has brought with it not only opportunities
and progress in human development but also greater risks. Events in one economy can quickly
spiral to others and the same can be said of social, cultural, and political events. In the past
decades, there has been a proliferation of transnational terrorist groups with globalised agendas
whose operations involve many countries or have ramifications that transcend national borders.
How to define transnational terrorism? To date there is very little consensus regarding its
definition. Terrorism can be understood as the unlawful use or threatened use of violence
against civilians, often to achieve political, religious, or social change objectives.
Modern terrorist groups are both products of and challenges to key ideas associated with
globalisation. Some terrorist groups in the past also had transnational goals, but they lacked the
tools of the modern world to widen and deepen their message. Today’s terrorism is seen to
operate across many States, utilising the “globalized” flows of people, weapons, and
51
information to further its cause. The causes of this new type of terrorism reflect the deepening
of human interconnectedness worldwide.
An example: Al-Qaeda
This terrorist group had an initial success because it operated a global technology, mythology,
and ideology. It especially developed the mythology of military success against the United
States in the form of the attacks of 9/11. Al-Qaeda was able to claim responsibility for attacks
all over the world by financially, logistically, and materially assisting smaller groups that
affiliated themselves to the organization. There is therefore a promotion of a global ideology
that linked local causes together via a global image of world politics that focused on Western
oppression. These components enabled it to function and replicate on a global scale.
Responses to transnational terrorism
A new security threat appeared: the risk of attack does not just come from other States (war)
but from mobile criminal groups that move between States and are dispersed globally. As
responses: creation of new criminal offences, broadened legal definitions of terrorism, the
granting of greater powers of detention and arrest, improving funding for State agencies
involved in countering terrorism. This brought a closer cross-border cooperation between
government agencies, in order to prevent the spread of terrorism. This new cooperation attempts
to prevent or disrupt the emergence of ideas that might support terrorist violence through anti-
radicalisation initiatives.
8.4. Reading: Andonova et al., Transnational Climate Governance, 2009

Traditionally, climate change was a matter for States to deal with, through intergovernmental
cooperation, such as the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol (1997). Today, the global issue of climate change is
governed by a multitude of actors at different levels of governance: it’s a trans-national issue,
with a hybrid system (mix of public and private sectors). There are different levels of climate
governance and policymaking:
• the international climate change regime (States)
• supranational cooperation on climate at the level of the EU
• governance by subnational actors (cities, regions, provinces)
• governance by private actors (ex: NGOs and corporations)
To sum up, there is an increasing transnational cooperation through networks of subnational
governments, regions, NGOs, corporations, and national governments. These networks possess
authority to steer the behaviour of their constituents to achieve goals related to climate change.
Governance is defined by the “public” nature of its goals. Governance seeks to achieve some
form of public good. Governance as ordered and intentional, it is a purposive act of steering a
society towards a certain behaviour. Governance is regarded as authoritative.
Climate change is an issue area that more than others has led to the emergence and proliferation
of transnational governance:
52
• It is an arena densely populated by advocacy and business organizations whose interests

and activities span borders and scales.
• It is characterized by complexity and the need for policy coordination vertically,
horizontally, and across sectors.
• Intergovernmental regime opened new opportunities and incentives for transnational
governance.
• Evolving political landscape and involvement of nation-States in climate cooperation
provides additional incentives and terrain for the building of transnational governance
networks.
TYPOLOGY OF TRANSNATIONAL CLIMATE GOVERNANCE
governance functions provided by the
types of actors involved
networks
Imagine a spectrum: • Information sharing: this climate network
• at one end of the spectrum, we identify purely establishes goals and targets
public transnational governance networks • Capacity building and implementation:
established by and for public actors. proving tools and labour to build systems that
• In the “middle” of the spectrum we find allow access to renewable energy or to reduce
hybrid transnational governance networks, energy poverty, …
which are collaborations between public and • Rule setting: private actors (such as
private transnational actors. corporations) are actually establishing a
• At the other end of the typology spectrum, we number of standards related to deforestation,
identify private transnational governance certifications (ex: sustainable label), they
networks. This category includes have regulative power that traditionally
transnational networks established and belonged to the State
managed by non-State actors only.
This typology differentiates the forms of transnational governance both in terms of the types of
actors participating and their function. It also allows differentiation in terms of the forms of
governing, that is, the type of steering process that is deployed. This perspective allows us to
analyse emerging forms of transnational governance in the area of global climate change, and
how these transnational governance networks relate to each other and to other institutions in
the climate regime.
8.5. Conclusion
Back to the 4 key questions, about the transnationalist approach.
Who? What?
All non-State/transnational actors that act on the • All issue areas
international scene • Primary examples include security issues
and environmental issues (climate change)
How? Why? So what?
• Networks Explain and understand how actors, relations,
• Trans-boundary character and perspectives evolve in international relations
• Growing interdependence
• Multi-actor
• Multi-level governance
53
9. CONSTRUCTIVISM
The main focus of neo-realism was the distribution of military power, with the State as the basic
unit of analysis (and balance of power between them). In that sense, the approach of neo-realism
is very materialist: it is the distribution of power and the pursuit by each State of their interest.
Constructivism rejects the material and objective side and instead focuses on human awareness
or consciousness and its place in world affairs. For constructivists, the most important aspect
of international relations is social, not material.
Understanding constructivism
Social reality is not objective, or external, to the observer of international affairs. It is not “out
there”, that exists independently (unlike the solar system, for instance). Basically, reality is a
social construction: we construct reality through a mutual understanding between one another.
The study of international relations must focus on the ideas and beliefs that inform the actors
on the international scene as well as the shared understandings between them.
As a key point, constructivists do not argue that “reality” is an illusion. Rather, the reality that
surrounds us is not merely a product of purely objective or material forces, but essentially a
product of our shared perceptions, values, ideas, and understanding.
This way of thinking of reality is encapsulated in this quote: “500 British nuclear weapons are
less threatening to the United States than 5 North Korean nuclear weapons” (Wendt, 1995,
p.73). Americans believe that British would not attack whereas North Korea might attack them;
the USA perceives UK as a friend whereas the relation with North Korea is more complicated.
It is a matter of perception.
It is less the material fact of numbers of nuclear weapons that matters. What matters is how the
actors think about each other, that is their ideas and beliefs. Material facts enter the picture but
are secondary to ideas. This shows a contrast between a materialist view (neorealism) and an
ideational view (constructivism)
9.1. Activity: Theory in Action: Constructivism (video)

Video: Soomo Publishing, Theory in Action: Constructivism, 10 June 2011,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYU9UfkV_XI (last watched on 25 November 2021).
Changing the rules which the world is based on...Who can do that?
• Some people are more listened than others. It is based on an idea of legitimacy and authority:
a shared perception that Barack Obama (example of the speaker) has enough legitimacy and
authority to change the rules
• “If we would decide that the US would not exist anymore, it would not exist anymore”: the
idea behind is not that we could make the USA disappear just by saying that. The idea is
about how actors perceive each other.
• It is like an endless cycle, where we are constantly changing these rules and the way social
life works.
54
• You cannot have international politics unless you have a set of ideas (for example, about
States, authority structures or about legitimate governments).
How much of that belief structure do you need to share before there can be international
relations at all? How much does an idea need to be shared in order of a common
understanding to be created?
All these things that we take for granted just because they are habitual, could be thought in a
different way. It’s all about ideas and beliefs.
9.2. The rise of constructivism

Beginning in the 1980s, constructivism became an increasingly significant approach, especially
in North American international relations studies. The end of the Cold War and the theoretical
discussions between international relations scholars helped set the stage for a constructivist
approach. Constructivism was kind of jumping into that discussion and proposing a different
perspective. Constructivism became especially popular as a critique to neorealist approaches.
After the end of the Cold War, neorealist logic dictated that other States would balance against
the USA; such balancing would lead to the emergence of new great powers in a multipolar
system. But since the end of the Cold War, this has not happened. There was no other system
that could be comparable to the one that was put in place during the Cold War. According to
constructivists, neorealist uncertainty is closely connected to the fact that the theory is too
materialist. Focus needs to be on thoughts and ideas for a better theory about anarchy, and
power balancing.
The deeper roots of constructivism
Origins can be traced back at least to the 18th century writings of Vico41: he enlightened that
History is not some kind of unfolding or evolving process that is external to human affairs. Men
and women make their own history. They also make States, which are historical constructs.
States are artificial creations. Therefore, History does not happen regardless of what men and
women do. There is also an inspiration from Kant: human beings can obtain knowledge about
the world, but it will always be subjective knowledge, in the sense that it is filtered through
human consciousness (contradiction with empiricists).
According to Weber42, the social world is fundamentally different from the natural world of
physical phenomena. Human beings rely on “understanding” of each other’s actions and
assigning “meaning” to them. When these meanings are shared, a social reality is being
constructed. To understand human interaction, we cannot merely describe it in the way we
describe physical phenomena. We need a different kind of interpretative understanding, or
“verstehen”. Constructivists rely on such insights to emphasize the importance of “meaning”
and “understanding”.
41
Giambattista Vico (1668-1744): Italian philosopher, rhetorician, historian, and jurist.
42
Max K. Weber (1864-1920): German sociologist, historian, jurist, and political economist.
55
The bigger picture: constructivism as a social theory

Constructivists were inspired by other social science disciplines, like philosophy and sociology.
It uses the concept of “structuration” by Giddens43: it is a way of analysing the relationships
between structures (rules, norms of behaviour, …) and actors. Structures do not determine what
actors do in any mechanical way. The relationship between structures and actors involves
intersubjective understanding and meaning. Structures do
constrain actors, but actors can also transform structures
by thinking about them and acting on them in new ways.
What does it mean to say that constructivism is a social theory? Social theory is the more general
theory about the social world, about social action, and about the relationship between structures
and actors. Social theory tells us that the social world is not defined by nature, but by human
beings. The social world is not a given. Social world is part of constructed physical identities,
but it is the ideas and beliefs concerning those identities that are most important. Let’s take the
example of a gun: we all know what is a gun, but what does this physical entity represent?
Danger, safety, repression, violence, freedom power, impotency, … The “meaning” of a gun is
dependent on our interpretation. In social theory, the meaning of an object is the one we assign
to it.
According to Tannenwald44, there are four main types of “ideas” (Tannenwald, 2005):
• Ideologies: our ideas, our beliefs of the world, a systemic set of doctrines or beliefs
• Normative (or principled) beliefs: beliefs about right and wrong, values and standard of
behaviour or conduct
• Causal beliefs: beliefs about cause-effect relationships (theories)
• Policy prescriptions: specific programmatic ideas that facilitate policymaking by specifying
how to solve a particular problem
9.3. Constructivist theories of international relations

Constructivism as social theory operates at a high level of abstraction. Constructivist theory of
international relations, by contrast, focus specifically on how a constructivist framework can be
used to better understand or explain the substance of international relations.
Wendt45 and A Social Theory of International Politics (1999)
Wendt challenges the neorealist position about anarchy: whether anarchy leads to self-help or
not cannot be decided a priori (beforehand). It depends on the interaction between States. It is
in these processes of interaction that the identities and interests of States are created. It is the
very interaction with others that create one specific structure of identities and interests rather
than another. “Anarchy is what states make of it” (1992): anarchy is not a given, it is created by
States and by the way they interact with each other.
43
Anthony Giddens (1938): English sociologist.
44
Nina Tannenwald: American scholar of political science.
45
Alexander Wendt (1958): American political scientist.
56
States want to survive and be secure, but what kind of security policy follows from this? For
Wendt, we can only find out (a posteriori) by studying identities and interests as they are shaped
in the interaction between States. If the USA and the USSR decide that they are no longer
enemies, “the Cold War is over” (in terms of how the two blocks perceived each other, this
sentence is true). It is collective meanings that constitute the structures which organize our
actions. Actors acquire identities by participating in such collective meaning.
We need to further study of the discursive interaction between States to discover what specific
“culture of anarchy” has developed between them. We can actually identify three different
cultures of anarchy:
• Hobbesian: States as enemies; “war of all against all” (to kill or to get killed).
• Lockean: States as rivals, but they do not seek to eliminate each other.
• Kantian: States as friends, settle disputes peacefully and support each other in the case of
threat by a third party.
In sum, according to Wendt, anarchy is a social construction. It is not inherently dangerous,
unstable, or scary; instead, it becomes so only when States interpret it as such. Structure has no
existence or causal power apart from process.
Finnemore46 and National Interests in International Society (1996)
Finnemore’s focus is on the norms of international society and the way in which they affect
State identities and interests. State behaviour is defined by identity and interest. Identity and
interests are defined by the norms of behaviour embedded in international society. The norms
of international society are transmitted to States through international organizations. They
shape national policies by “teaching” States what their interests should be.
For instance, the way States have come to accept norms and rules of warfare. The International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was instrumental in promoting humanitarian norms in
warfare. The ICRC succeeded in prescribing what was “appropriate behaviour” for “civilized”
States involved in war. International norms promoted by international organizations (IOs) can
decisively influence national guidelines by pushing States to adopt these norms in their national
policies.
From a constructivist point a view, the key role of IOs is that they “construct the social world
in which cooperation and choice take place. They help define the interests that states, and other
actors come to hold” (Barnett & Finnemore, 2005, p.162). IOs have power:
• control material resources to influence others
• normative resources (ex: the European Union).
• agenda-setting activities of IOs: deciding what are the most urgent issues that must be
tackled during conferences and summits
• “productive” power in relation to their role in constituting the problems that need to be
solved: what kind of problems need to get international attention?
46
Martha Finnemore (1959): American constructivist scholar of international relations.
57
Constructivist approach: the case of Bhutan

Bhutan is a Buddhist kingdom located in the
Himalayas. It has a population of
approximatively 745.000 inhabitants, for 38,394
km². It has a weak economy and a very small
military. It borders China in the north and India
in the south.
Bhutan’s location is geographically sensitive:
the country serves as a buffer State between the
big powers India and China, which perceive each other as rivals rather than friends. The territory
claimed by China and there remains an ongoing border dispute between Bhutan and China:
there have been reports that the Chinese army has made several incursions into Bhutan. India
has also advanced claims over Bhutan. However, it is not territorial claims but claims on
influencing foreign policies: “Bhutan agrees to be guided by the advice of India in regard to its
external relations.” (article 2 of the India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty, 1949).
From a realist point of view, Bhutan is in an unfavourable position as it is hindered by its
geographical location and cannot compete for power with its neighbours.
From a constructivist view, these structural conditions do not necessarily constrain Bhutan’s
ability to pursue its national interests since they are not the only conditions that influence State
behaviour. The meaning given to these structural conditions also matters. For instance, when
Tibet was annexed by China, Bhutan felt threatened. As a result, it closed its border in the north
and turned to India, its neighbour in the south. From that moment onward, Bhutan perceived
China as a potential threat and India as a friend. To date, Bhutan has no official relations with
China. These social relationships represent the ideational structure that originated from the
meaning given to the material structure.
The social relationships are subject to change depending on the ideas, beliefs and actions of
Bhutan, India, and China. For instance, an agreement on the border dispute between China and
Bhutan could change how both countries perceive each other. This change might lead to the
establishment of an official relationship, the nature of which is friendship rather than enmity.
A constructivist approach is well placed to detect and understand these changes since its object
of enquiry focuses on the social relationships between States.
9.4. Critiques of constructivism

Neo-realists argue that constructivists attach too much importance to international norms.
Norms are routinely disregarded if that is in the interest of powerful States. States cannot easily
become friends due to their social interaction. Such a goal may be desirable in principle, but
not realizable in practice since the structure of the international system forces States to behave
as egoists. The major problem that States face in anarchy, the problem of “uncertainty” is not
sufficiently analysed by constructivists.
Constructivists assume that social interaction between States is always sincere and that States
genuinely attempt to express and understand each other’s motives and intentions. What about
58
deception in the relations between many States? Are States really peaceful or do they merely
pretend to be peaceful? According to constructivists, anarchy is a more complex entity. It need
not always lead to self-help, mutual aggression, and the risk of violent conflict. Without
incorporating a focus on ideas and social interaction, it will not be possible to analyse anarchy.
Constructivists do not talk about change: how norms are formed, how identities are shaped, and
how interests are defined. Constructivism does not really tell us about change in international
relations. For constructivists, change is studied through the analysis of social interaction.
Constructivism is similar to (neo-)liberals and international society theories as they focus on
interdependence, and international institutions, progress to create norms and ideas of
cooperation, existence of common interests and common values between States.
9.5. Reading: Adler & Barnett, Security Communities, 1998

Scholars of international relations are uncomfortable evoking the language of “community” to
understand international politics. Especially when considering how international community
might imprint international security. “This volume thinks the unthinkable: that community exists
at the international level, that security politics is profoundly shaped by it, and that those states
dwelling within an international community might develop a specific disposition”.
Concept of security communities developed by Deutch in the 1950s (see Neo-liberalism):
“Whenever states become integrated to the point they have a sense of community, which, in
turn, creates the assurance that they will settle their differences short of war”. This concept is
very useful in post-Cold War era.
Policymakers are pointing to social forces the development of shared understandings,
transnational values, and transaction flows to encourage community-building. Identification of
common values as the wellspring for close security cooperation. They want to marry security
and community values and ideas.
Simply put, the issue is not whether there is such a thing as an international community, but
rather: when does it matter, where does it matter, and how does it matter? The focus is on
pluralistic security communities because it is this form that is theoretically and empirically close
to the developments that are currently unfolding in international politics and international
relations theory.
9.6. Conclusion
Back to the 4 key questions, about constructivism.
Who? What?
All international actors, guided by their • Social aspects of reality
identities, ideas, values • Relations between structures and States
How? Why? So what?
International actors behave according to their To interpret and construct, not to predict
identity, shaped by their values
59
10. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS CRITICAL THEORIES

By “international relations critical theories”, we talk more about an approach on multiple
subjects than about a theoretical framework. Moreover, this subject is broad and it is impossible
to cover it all in one class.
Critical international relations theory is a diverse set of schools of thought and (critical)
approaches in international relations that criticize the positivist assumptions behind most of the
dominant international relations theories (ex: neo-realism). The rise of critical theories in
international relations stems largely from the debate between positivist methodology and post-
positivist methodology (how to look at the world and international relations?).
Positivist methodology Post-positivist methodology
• scientific methodology/approach, knowledge • rejection of positivist scientific methods:
that can be produced is non-relativist (reality knowledge is historical and political in nature
is objective) (never objective)
• the world is made of regularities and patterns • knowledge produced by scholars depends on
that can be observed and explained the context of production → no objective
• knowledge always based on observation of truth because reality always reflect some
the world (// behavioralism) values, … (// constructivism)
Critical theory is based on the rejection of three basic postulates of positivism:

• An objective external reality: knowledge produced in international relations or in social
sciences can be compared to what is produced by natural sciences (biology, physics, …) →
reality is not objective and the use of facts, even in sciences, is subjective.
• The distinction between the subject and the object: no matter what positivists (subjects)
think, they have objective eyes on the objects. → critical thinkers say “no you can’t be
objective from the subject”
• Value-free social science: social sciences have to be produced freely from any sort of
influence, set of values that shapes the mind. → “Theory is always for someone and for
some purposes” (Cox, 1981, pp.126-155) you cannot have an objective truth of the world,
always responding to a set of values
Positivist “problem-solving” knowledge Critical “emancipatory” knowledge
it is conservative in the way that it is biased it questions power relations and identifies
toward the international status quo institutions possibilities for social transformation
and power relations it is not looking at the world as it is, it tries
there is a practical purpose to solve problems liberating our thinking from dominant structures
and the status quo
10.1. Critical theory

Critical theory focuses on power and domination in the world (→ form of neo-Marxist thought,
critique of economy and society as a class struggle). It was originally developed by a group of
German scholars (in sociology, political science, social sciences, …) in the 1920s-1930s: “the
Frankfurt School” (still a social research centre). The aim of the School was to bring together
different strands of Marxist thinking (Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Habermas, …) into one
60
interdisciplinary research centre. Many different kinds of aspects, like communication, to put
into questions and criticize the power structures.
Critical theorists aim to advance knowledge for political purposes: to liberate humanity from
the “oppressive” structures which are controlled by hegemonic powers; and to unmask the
global domination of the rich North over the poor South. This derived directly from Marx’s
thoughts about the concept of hegemonic power controlling the world at the expense of the
global South.
A theory is critical insofar as it as it seeks “to liberate human beings from the circumstances
that enslave them.” (Horkheimer); this is the mindset of international relations critical thinkers.
Critical theory aims to critique society, social structures, and systems of power, and to foster
egalitarian social change.
Critical theory is characterized by positive utopianism, in the sense that it aims at “building a
new world”. Orientation toward progressive change is reminiscent of idealism. Like the inter-
war idealists, critical theorists are trying to bring about the social and political “revolution” that
their ideology proclaims. In that way, critical international relations theory can be understood
as revolutionary in theory and in practice: it seeks to overthrow the existing world political and
economic system. When knowledge is produced, it serves a purpose for people to emancipate
from political and economic system.
10.2. Feminism in international relations

Today, after the Frankfurt School, we can recognize critical theory in many fields, including
for instance feminist theory, critical race theory, gender theory, and media theory. The focus on
feminist theory in international relations is an example of a critical approach which focuses on
social and economic inequalities faced by women, against domination and power structures.
Feminism refers to the broad body of work of scholars who have sought to bring gender
concerns into the academic study of international politics and who have used feminist theory to
better understand global politics and international relations. Critical thinkers have used
feminism to reach a sort of a broader understanding of the world. Feminist theory has pursued
two main goals, developed in the next points:
• To challenge the lack of women’s presence in traditional international relations theory and
practice, and to highlight the problem of women invisibility.
• To deconstruct the concept of gender, men and women as both socially constructed
identities and as a powerful organizing logic (powerful domination)
Challenge the lack of women’s presence in international relations
Women’s absence is visible both in women’s marginalisation from decision-making structures
and in the assumption that the reality of women’s day-to-day lives is not impacted by or
important to international relations. Feminist thinkers want to make women visible by revealing
that women were and are routinely exposed to gendered violence (explicitly saying that women
are exposed to violence).
61
About gendered violence, the UNiTE Campaign (initiative of the United Nations to end
violence against women in the world) estimates that:
• Up to 7 out of 10 women will experience violence at some point in their lives.
• Approximately 600 million women live in countries where domestic violence is not yet
considered a crime.
• Violence against women takes place globally and is not specific to any particular political
or economic system (particularly explored by feminist thinkers to see if it is a global
phenomenon or just happening in some kind of societies).
In her book The political economy of violence against women (2012), True47 gives a huge
contribution to feminism. She identifies the links between violence against women in the private
sphere and the kinds of violence women experience in public, in an increasingly globalised
workplace and in times of war.
She starts with a sort of paradox: legislation around the world aims at decreasing violence
against women but has not managed to substantially reduce the problem (increase of the
normative side has not really made the situation better). So, what causes violence against
women to occur in the first place? She uses a historical approach, from the origins of domestic
violence to war crimes targeting women. Violence against women arises from economic
inequality, poverty, and the gendered division of household labour. In that sense, violence
against women in terms of social and economic processes occurs at the local, regional, and
global levels.
In looking at violence against women in such a way, it is possible to see a continuum of
gendered violence that does not reflect neat and distinct categories of peace and stability. She
says that many societies are thought of as predominantly peaceful or stable despite high levels
of violence against a particular portion of the population (women, minorities, …). It also
presents a very different image of violence and individual insecurity to that viewed through the
security agendas of States, which is characteristic of traditional international relations
viewpoints. When international relations theorists think about security, they think about State
and general security, not individual-focused.
Feminism highlights women’s absence from decision-making and institutional structures. For
instance, in 2015, the World Bank estimated that globally women made up just 22.9% of
national parliaments (lack of women in high decision-making). One of the core assumptions
challenged by feminism is the exclusionary focus on “high” politics: men are predominantly in
charge of State institutions, governance, dominating power and decision-making structures.
When we look at this, this is a gendered exclusion as women contribute in essential ways to
global politics even though they are more likely to populate those areas not considered high
politics (more on domestic and private level). Women automatically excluded from some
spheres. It is only focusing on men. As an example, when we look at the pictures of various
international summits, women are underrepresented. High politics is more likely to be a men
area.
47
Jacqui True: Australian political scientist, expert in gender studies and professor of international relations.
62
Deconstruct the concept of gender

What feminist thinkers criticize is that because there is a constructed identities based on gender,
it creates roles and perpetuates normative ideas of what men and women should do. There is a
distinction between “sex” as biological and “gender” as socially constructed. Not all gender
considerations rest on the analysis of women; gender relates to expectations and identities
attached to both men and women. Gender is the socially constructed assumptions that are
assigned to either male or female bodies.
These socially and politically produced gender identities shape global interactions, and
international relations as theory and practice, which also produce such gendered identities.
These gender identities also relate to power. Socially constructed gender identities determine
the distributions of power, which impact where women are in global politics. Feminist thinkers
aim at the deconstruction of gender identities to reduce the distributions of power.
Focusing on gender means recognising and then challenging assumptions about masculine and
feminine gender roles that dictate what both women and men should or can do in global politics
and what counts as important in considerations of international relations. These assumptions in
turn shape the process of global politics and the impacts these have on both men and women’s
lives.
In her book Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics
(1990), Enloe48 focus on the many different roles that women play in international politics (as
plantation sector workers, diplomatic wives, sex workers on military bases, …). Her goal was
to encourage international relations scholars to see the spaces that women inhabit in global
politics and demonstrate that women are essential actors in the international system. For
instance, a military base is a complicated microworld dependent on diverse women:
• women who live on the base
• women who work on the base but go home at night
• women who live outside the fence/base but are integral to what goes on inside the fence and
to what military men and women do when they leave the base for recreation
• women who may live far from a base but who are in almost daily contact with men on the
base via the internet.
Cynthia Enloe asks the question “where are the women?”, “what roles do they play?”. There is
a focus on deconstructing the distinctions between what is considered international and what is
considered personal, showing how global politics impacts on and is shaped by the daily
activities of men and women, and in turn how these activities rest on gendered identities. The
book emphasizes how, when looking at international politics from the perspective of women,
one is forced to reconsider their personal assumptions regarding what international politics is
“all about”.
Feminism has exposed gender violence and women’s marginalisation in global politics. At the
same time, it also challenges gendered constructions of women identities as inherently peaceful,
48
Cynthia H. Enloe (1938): American feminist writer, theorist, and professor.
63
as in need of protection or as victims. These constructions are further evidence of gender

inequality and also contribute to the exclusion of women from traditional international relations
perspectives. If women are assumed to be victims rather than actors or as peaceful rather than
aggressive or as only existing in the domestic or private realm, then their experiences and
perspectives on global politics are more easily ignored and justified as marginal.
10.2.1.Activity: Feminism and International Relations (video)

Video: OpenLearn from the Open University, International Relations – Feminism and
International Relations (4/7), 3 October 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
ajAWGztPUiU (last watched on 3 December 2021).
Main points of the video:
• Feminist analysis starts from the significance of gender
• The world is organized according to gender categories, such as masculinity and femininity
• These categories operate in terms of a hierarchy, and they institutionalize and perpetuate
certain kinds of inequalities
• Gender as a hierarchical relational category
• Interest in feminist perspectives arose in international relations relatively late (around the
late 1980s)
• First manifestation: recognition that gender mattered to certain core areas of international
relations, like diplomacy, war, peace, global economic relations
• Try to understand how gender may matter in relation to these practices (ex: practices of war
have always been gendered)
• Gendered relations of power are important to all these areas
• Through the 1990s and 2000s feminists work more on economic globalization, international
political economy
• Relationship between feminism and realism
10.3. Reading: Tickner, Gendering World Politics: Issues and Approaches

in the Post-Cold War Era, 2001
Analyse of the part “Casualties of War: Challenging the Myth of Protection” in the chapter
Gendered Dimensions on War, Peace, and Security. The feminist view (critical approach of the
author) of conflicts in international relations is characterized by the next points.
Women as victims (direct and indirect)
• Women constitute a small part of the military
• Women and children among the worst sufferers of wars
• As mothers, family providers, and care givers, women are particularly penalised by
economic sanctions
• Women and children compose 75% of the world refugee population and they are put-aside
in refugee camps.
64
Rape during wartime

• Rape as a war strategy (during ethnic conflicts for instance)
• Sexual services to fighters (ex: North Uganda, Korea)
• Massive and organized prostitution
Unequal gender relations that sustain military activities
• War is a cultural construction that depends on myths of protection; it is not inevitable, as
realists suggest
• Gender inequalities are upholding the legitimacy of war and the impossibility of peace
• A deeper look into these gendered constructions can help to understand not only some of
the causes of war but how certain ways of thinking about security have been legitimized at
the expense of others, both in the discipline of international relations and in political practice
10.4. Conclusion
Back to the 4 key questions, about international relations critical theories.
Who? What?
• All individuals • Knowledge (biased)
• Marginalized individuals • Emancipation
• Women
• Less powerful individuals
How? Why? So what?
Question traditional assumptions by adopting a There is a need to improve understanding of
critical approach international relations
65
11. CONCLUSION OF THE COURSE: ANALYSING THE WORLD

Theories of international relations allow us to understand and try to make sense of the world
around us through various lenses, each of which represents a different theoretical perspective.
They are ways to simplify a complicated world. Theories are like maps. Each map is made for
a certain purpose and what is included in the map is based on what is necessary to direct the
map’s user, as a metaphor of an explanation on certain phenomenon.
International relations theories open up questions about the world we live in, our understanding
of human nature and what it is possible to know. While getting to the real-life case studies of
world events is very important, embarking on the study of international relations without an
understanding of theory is like setting off on a journey without a map. Theories give us clarity
and direction; they help us to defend our own arguments and better understand those of others.
Each different theory of international relations puts different things on its map, such as States,
organizations, people, economics, history, ideas, class, gender, … based on what its theorists
believe to be important. In practice, international relations theories can be seen as an analytical
toolkit as they provide multiple methods and tools for students (and people in general) to use
to answer questions.
11.1. The great theories and debates in international relations

Throughout this course, we have addressed various important theories, elements, and debates
that have appeared in the discipline of international relations:
• idealism and liberalism VS realism: around the 1920s-1950s, how theories were looking at
wars, the interwar period and the breakout of WWII
• neoliberalism VS neorealism: around the 1950s-1960s
• since the 1970s-1980s, questioning the unit of analysis/premises of international relations:
- transnationalist approach (focus on non-State actors, State is not the only important
actor in international relations)
- International Political Economy (how economics shape politics)
- Marxist and neo-Marxist theories
- constructivism (international system built by shared values)
- critical theories (on knowledge and the production of it)
• methodological debates:
- traditional approach VS behaviouralism (around the 1940s-1960s
- positivism VS post-positivism (since the 1970s-1980s)
11.1.1.Idealism and liberalism

Idealism
At the early days of international relations, there was idealism (or utopian liberalism). The
emphasis on international relations as a discipline really started because of WWI. It was really
a way to study why such dramatic and catastrophic war could break out and what were the
conditions and causes of such war, in order to understand the world better for the future. The
66
primary concern of this approach was that conditions which had led to the outbreak of WWI
and the devastation which followed should not be allowed to occur in the future. Study of
international relations had the potential to contribute to the prevention of war and the
establishment of peace. In the context of WWI aftermath, the aim of the international relations
discipline was underpinned by the assumption that a greater understanding of the nature of
relations between States would lead to prevention of war in the future.
“Wilsonian idealism”: make the world safe for democracy. Creation of the League of Nations
in 1920 (real first international institution) to achieve international peace and security, as
democratic and liberal values could be shared and spread throughout the world.
Liberalism
Liberal thinkers were really looking in the past, with ancient authors, about liberal State and
theories. Liberalism is connected with the idea of modernity and the emergence of the modern
liberal State. Early liberal thinkers saw great potential for human progress in modern civil
society and capitalist market economy.
The focus was set on individual liberty: ensuring and defending the right of an individual person
to life, liberty and property is the highest goal of government; the wellbeing of the individual
is the fundamental building block of a just political system. Importance of international
institutions to promote cooperation between States (mostly for early liberal thinkers).
Conclusion
Who? What?
• States International relations are about war and peace,
• Individuals and civil societies in the with a focus on peace
framework of States
How? Why? So what?
• Anarchy is what civil societies want States Advice, normative dimension on international
to do about it relations
• Two main trends of liberalism: institutional
and republican
• Focus on institutions and on democracy
11.1.2.Realism
With the collapse of the League of Nations, the break out of WWII, … how could we explain
the presence of war? Thinkers needed to provide a more specific and precise explanation on
international relations. They needed of a more “realist” account of international politics. The
focus was set on States’ power, self-interest and survival (inspiration from early thinkers like
Machiavelli). International relations are necessarily conflictual; international conflicts are
ultimately resolved by war. International politics is a struggle for power: realists see peace as
an in-between condition.
Who? What?
States International relations are about war and peace,
with a focus on war
67
How? Why? So what?

• War can be explained by the international Realism pictures the world as it is in “reality”,
system of anarchy not as it “should” be.
• Focus on national security and state survival
11.1.3.Neoliberalism VS neorealism
This debate developed after WWII, during the Cold-War period.
Neoliberalism Neorealism
• Rejection of utopian liberalism (idealism) • Focus on relative gains
• Focus on interdependence • Focus on the structure of the international
• Rise of international institutions as source of system, which is anarchic (no power or
cooperation between States (good for authority over the States that can force States
everyone) to adhere to particular set of rules or codes of
• Creation of absolute gains, focus on behaviours) and (military) capabilities of
collective interests States differentiate them
• States care, are concerned more about their
own survival and gains
International relations are managed through balances of power. It is the power differentials
between States that explain international relations.
11.1.4.International Political Economy

Focus on how economics shapes international relations; attention to issues of domination,
wealth and poverty, economic power, … and to who gets what in the international system.
Different IPE theories:
• Mercantilism: economy is subordinated to building a strong State.
• Economic liberalism: market is the main source of progress, cooperation, and prosperity.
There should be as little intervention of the State as possible
• Marxism: economy as a site of human exploitation and class inequality, idea of domination.
• Hegemonic stability theory: a dominant power (a hegemon) is necessary for the creation
and full development of a liberal world market economy (ex: role of the USA after Cold
War in order to rebuild the world economic system)
Who? What?
• States • Political economy
• Individuals • War and peace
• Classes • Cooperation and conflict
• Hegemons
How? Why? So what?
• Economic as subordinate to politics International relations can be described and
• Market economy as an autonomous sphere explained through economic power and
of cooperation struggles
• Economy as a site of exploitation
• Hegemons rule world economy
68
11.1.5.Methodological debates
Traditional approach VS behaviouralist approach
First generations of international relations scholars were trained as historians or academic
lawyers, humanistic and historical approach (mostly realist and liberal thinkers). The
behaviouralist approach transforms social sciences in the 1950s-1960s. It said that if we look at
the world, there are some patterns of behaviour that are reproduced over time, so we can build
theories based on these objective observations (data, …). It is an innovative, methodological
approach to the study of international relations, more “scientific” than the traditional approach.
Behaviouralism aims at applying empirical and quantitative methods in social sciences, and,
therefore, also in international relations.
Positivist approach VS post-positivist approach
Positivism Post-positivism
• Behaviouralism, apply a scientific method to • Rejection of scientific positivist methods
the study of social and political world • Knowledge is always biased, as it is
• International world seen as having patterns politically and socially constructed
and regularities that can be objectively • We cannot achieve an objective knowledge
observed and explained (with correct of the world because such knowledge does
methodology) not exist
• An international phenomena can be studied
in an objective manner
11.1.6.Transnationalist approach
From around the second half of the 20th century, global politics was characterized by growing
interdependence between societies, the spread of transnationalism and the appearance of new
global issues within the economic, cultural, and technical realm. There was a new focus on the
role of non-State actors, on multi-level and new organizational structures and on trans-boundary
interactions in the international scene. There was also a focus on transnational phenomena like
terrorism, climate change crisis, … With such approach, we should leave this State-centric
approach; there are other actors and levels of governance.
Who? What?
All non-State/transnational actors that act on the • All issue areas
international scene • Primary examples include security issues
and environmental issues (climate change)
How? Why? So what?
• Networks Explain and understand how actors, relations,
• Trans-boundary character and perspectives evolve in international relations
• Growing interdependence
• Multi-actor
• Multi-level governance
69
11.1.7.Constructivism
There is an importance of values and shared interests between individuals who interact on the
global stage. Reality is not objective, it is constructed by bias. Alexander Wendt wrote on
relationship between individuals and structures (such as the State): structures not only constrain
individuals but also construct their identities and interests. “Anarchy is what states make of it”.
Anarchy does not necessarily lead to war of competition. The essence of international relations
exists in the interactions between people. International anarchy as defining principle of
international system. But if anarchy is what we make of it, then different States can perceive
anarchy differently and the qualities of anarchy can even change over time.
Who? What?
All international actors, guided by their • Social aspects of reality
identities, ideas, values • Relations between structures and States
How? Why? So what?
International actors behave according to their To interpret and construct, not to predict
identity, shaped by their values
11.1.8.Critical approaches
The various critical approaches are a wide spectrum of theories that have been established in
response to mainstream approaches in the field, mainly liberalism and realism. Critical theorists
share one particular trait: they oppose commonly held assumptions in the field of international
relations that have been central since its establishment.
They call for new approaches that are better suited to understand, as well as question, the world
we find ourselves in. Critical theories are valuable because they identify positions that have
typically been ignored or overlooked within international relations, particularly women and
those from the Global South. They create new knowledges and new approaches to overturn the
dominant structures.
Who? What?
• All individuals • Knowledge (biased)
• Marginalized individuals • Emancipation
• Women
• Less powerful individuals
How? Why? So what?
Question traditional assumptions by adopting a There is a need to improve understanding of
critical approach international relations
11.2. To sum up international relations

Just remember that the discipline of international relations is a way of thinking about the world.
It can be a useful exercise for other fields as well. International relations is inspired by
philosophy and as such opens some general useful and interesting debates such as “what is
power?”, “why does war/peace happen?”, “can the world be changed?”, …
70

SynthÃ Se IR 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SynthÃ Se IR 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SynthÃ Se IR 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPOL1312 – International Relations

Synthesis of the course

2. Idealism and liberalism ....................................................................................................... 8

5.2. Offensive realism ....................................................................................................... 31

6. International political economy ........................................................................................ 34

7. Development and international relations .......................................................................... 41

8. Transnationalist approaches .............................................................................................. 48

10. International relations critical theories .......................................................................... 60

11. Conclusion of the course: Analysing the world ............................................................ 66

1. INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

United Colors of Benetton, UNHATE CAMPAIGN, 2011

1.2. Historical sketch and overview of main concepts and debates

Dispersed medieval authority Centralized modern authority

Pope Emperor Government

Main features of the State

2. IDEALISM AND LIBERALISM

2.2. Activity: League of Nations in the 1920s: Introduction (video)

Was the League of Nations a utopian project?

2.3. Liberal theory and thinking in international relations

2.3.1. Institutional liberalism

2.3.2. Republican liberalism

2.5. Reading: Bull, The Anarchical Society, 1977

3.1. Activity: Theory in Action: Realism (video)

• You cannot trust anyone

3.2. Realist theory

3.3. Classical realism

Hobbes20 and Leviathan (1651)

3.4. Neo-realism: Hans Morgenthau

Back to the 4 key questions, about realism

4.2. Neo-liberal theory

4.3. Neo-realist critique and “strong” neo-liberalism

4.4. Structural liberalism

4.5. Reading: Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation, 1984

5.1. Neo-realist theory: Kenneth Waltz

5.1.2. Waltz’s theory

5.2. Offensive realism

5.3. Neo-realism after the Cold War

In favour of expansion in Eastern Europe Against expansion in Eastern Europe

5.4. Reading: Mearsheimer, The False Promise of International

6. INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY

6.1. IPE theory

Economic rivalry between States

6.1.2. Economic liberalism

To sum up economic liberalism

Differences between Marxism and realism

6.1.4. Hegemonic stability theory

6.2. Reading: Gilpin, American Policy in the Post-Reagan Era, 1987

7. DEVELOPMENT AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

7.1. Activity: Global Development Explained (video)

7.2. Development and modernization

7.3. Neo-Marxist theories on development

World Systems theory

There are three world areas that

Dependency theory of underdevelopment can be summarized:

7.4. Evolution of the development debate

Development is a mainstream concept

7.5. Reading: Wallerstein, The World Capitalist System, 1974

8.1. Transnationalist approach

Burton39 and the “cobweb model”