Final Flashcards
(20 cards)
Liberalism
Unlike realism, liberalism seems less coherent, but its features and expressions stem mostly from trust in the reasoning power of individuals.
Goodness in people will come out.
Do things like cooperation, peace, progress.
In Western tradition, this type of argument started during the Enlightenment period.
Liberalism’s key tenets: Focus on society, trust on individuals’ reason, contracts, and progress; policy ideas and quality information as sources/needs for policy action.
Three kinds of liberalism: Republican Liberalism, Commercial Liberalism, and Institutional Liberalism.
The Kantian Triangle: democracy, economic interdependence, and international institutions (organizations), resulting in peace.
Liberalism, Old and New
Liberalism: a theory based on individuals’ reason, whose assumptions include:
- Focus on society (a collection of individuals), rather than the state, as the ultimate source of state behaviour and preference (national interest). E.g. a democratic state representing people’s will (in the Democratic Peace Thesis); trade and foreign direct investment conducted by private firms and individuals seen as a force for peace; such transnational (and trans-governmental) relations (rather than inter-state [government-to-government] relations) as a key dimension of international relations.
Rejecting the realist assumption of the state as a unitary and autonomous actor under competitive international anarchy. - Trust on individuals’ reason.
Truly enlightened people who use their reason will do X, and will not do Y. Y are cause (a) by those who are not enlightened enough (e.g. who cannot understand the material futility of war, or (b) by mistakes, misunderstanding, or accidents, or (c) by the market failure (a sub-optimal collective outcomes resulting from rational individual-level actions.)
For (a) and (b), recall the first- and second-image analyses, also contrast this liberal view to the realist view of individuals seeking power or driven by fear, greed, etc.
If Y = war, in the case of (b), for liberals, international anarchy is a situation where uncertainty and unpredictability prevail (hence misunderstandings among states) even when each state may be an enlightened player. This leads to the proposition that some devices (e.g. international institutions) to reduce uncertainty should help these players to achieve mutual cooperation. - Good things like peace, cooperation, order, and progress can be achieved through the power of reason and through a contract (institutions and law) spontaneously erected (not coerced) by enlightened actors.
- Due to people’s reason: The world has progressed, and will keep progressing; the system can be changed and improved with good policy ideas; people care about their reputations and quality information (they behave not to hurt their reputation).
Three Kinds of Liberalism: Republican, Commercial, and Institutional
Corresponding to Kantian Triangle: Sharing democracy (liberal/republican polities), economic interdependence and international organization/law will result in a pacific union (a security union).
Kant Definitive Articles for Perpetual Peace: 1) The civil constitution of every state should be republican (rule by law, and a war decision, with the consent of the cautious citizens); 2) The law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free states (such a league of peace will expand its membership scope. In addition, Kant points out the spirit of commerce, which is incompatible with war, sooner or later gains the upper hand in every state.
Contemporary version of Republican Liberalism: The Democratic Peace Thesis: Democracies rarely fight against each other although they do fight against non-democracies. Doyle.
Commercial Liberalism sees economic relations as a force for peace (e.g. the more economically interdependent two countries are with each other, the more peaceful they are with each other. Angell, Rosecrance.
Institutional Liberalism sees international institutions and law are force for peace (i.e. international governance through rule of law e.g. the collective security scheme of the League of Nations [and the United Nations]. Cobden.
Neo-liberalism and Neo-liberal Institutionalism
New version, says institutions actually have an impact on peoples’ behaviour.
Deal with causal effects:
Sociological tradition: institutions embody norms, values, rules that we take for granted until some cultural crisis. Lots of institutions, anything that would regulate us.
Then economists came along, institution exist a collective action. Tragedy of commons. All about institution as a tool to solve some concrete problem.
Old liberalism is second image analysis.
Neo-liberal institutionalism: a new version of institutional liberalism.
Neo-liberalism (no institutions involved) and Neo-liberal institutionalism: both a modified structural realism but seeking to explain inter-state cooperation (cooperation under anarchy).
They share a basic assumption with structural realism: rational states and international anarchy.
For them, game theory (e.g. Prisoner’s Dilemma) is a key conceptual tool (a) to express the varying contexts of international anarchy, and (b) to explain the occurrence of inter-state cooperation under certain conditions.
Same wavelength as Waltz, but liberal because they believe in cooperation.
They do not say cooperation happens every time, just that cooperation could occur.
Old fashioned version was, if you happen to share membership in an institution more likely to cooperate. This version elaborates more. Third image analysis, both seek to explain inter-state cooperation.
Waltz and Mearsheimer say anarchy is flat, wherever you go anarchy is anarchy. Liberals say anarchy fluctuates. Certain conditions for cooperation, otherwise no.
Basic Logic of Neo-liberal Institutionalism
Institutions as a solution for the market failure (the collective action problem, the tragedy of the commons).
Individual rationality resulting in collective irrationality: how can we solve this?
Institutions provide a rich information environment (less uncertainty) about mutual intentions, helping rational states to achieve mutual cooperation by themselves (CC in Prisoner’s Dilemma). Without institutions, DD would prevail, other things being equal.
Assumptions: (a) Applicable only to PD and PD can exist under anarchy; (b) within PD, states pursue absolute gains and fruits of mutual cooperation are evenly distributed.
Logical criticism to above: (a) PD situations may be rare especially in security affairs; (b) within PD, the expected fruits of CC may be uneven, forcing the states not to pursue CC (states seek relative gains instead: Mearsheimer).
Never ever said cooperation can be achieved all the time. Potential.
Anarchy is not flat, or the same. It varies, and these variations can be expressed through games. These potential scenario’s can become a reality even without institutions.
PD comes from Jervis.
Without institution, suspicion prevails. No one knows what the other side is thinking.
Europe is very information rich, because there are so many institutions. That kind of environment, cooperation is more likely to occur.
Realists will say you are under-appreciating the relative gain concern.
Collective Defense vs. Collective Security
Collective defense: like NATO, it is a group alliance against a common enemy.
Collective defense has nothing to do with Neo-liberal institutionalism.
Collective defense you can cooperate against an external enemy. Lot of players, lot of members, but basically an alliance against a threat.
Collective security: like the League of Nations, it is a group mechanism in which an aggressor (a member of the group) is punished; introduced as an anti-thesis of alliance and balance of power after WWI.
Collective security ex. United Nations, Gulf War. Alternative to old-fashioned alliance. Promise to punish aggressors within the group of one emerges.
Mearsheimer’s logic flaws for collective security:
Nothing to do with Neo-liberal institutionalism.
Institutions are a reflection of great power dynamics. Does not effect state behaviour.
For League of Nations Italy, Ethiopia, Nazi Germany, Japan breached the agreement. LoN tried really hard to do stuff their own way, diplomatically.
League of Nations was an experiment, and it was unsuccessful.
Collective security is too idealist.
Neo-Liberalism
Neo-Liberals like Oye accepts Neo-realist assumptions (i.e. the state is the most important actor, operating under international anarchy). Yet, they still argue that international cooperation is possible, under certain condition, as a result of rational and egoistic actions among states. International cooperation can be established with the help of international institutions (Keohane) or without it (Oye).
Neo-Liberal Institutionalism:
An institution is a devise to enrich quality information about other states’ behaviour. Within an institutional framework, uncertainty (unpredictability) is at a lower level than otherwise the case. In a situation like a Prisoner’s Dilemma, with an institution in place, the states involved have a more chance to achieve mutual cooperation that otherwise cannot be materialized due to the fear of being cheated. Mutual fear of being cheated would result in mutual defection, a worse situation than mutual cooperation. Thus, it makes sense for a rational, egoistic state to establish international institutions in Prisoner’s Dilemma-like situations in order to pursue international cooperation/avoid mutual defection. In an institution-rich situation like contemporary Europe, it is no surprise that international cooperation flourishes.
Prisoner’s Dilemma:
Cooperate-Cooperate.
Cooperate-Defect.
Defect-Cooperate.
Defect-Defect.
Each players preference order: DC > CC > DD > CD.
Since each pursue DC, they will as a group end of reaching DD, which is ranked at the 3rd in the preference rank. The two players could reach CC (potential mutual cooperation), the second best, and avoid DD.
One contemporary version of Institutional Liberalism is Neo-Liberal Institutionalism (Keohane; third image analysis).
In a market-failure-type situation, rational states can erect international institutions (like a contract) to avoid the collective failure and to foster mutual cooperation (here the institution performing an uncertainty-reducing function). A region with thick institutions like Europe has a low level of uncertainty (hence, rich with cooperation).
Compared with realist’s view of institutions as a tool of power an dominance.
Three Methods of Hypothesis Testing in Case Studies
Counterfactual Exercises:
Educated guess.
Basically, ask a “what if” history question.
In a historical case, select potential X and Y. Then, in your imagination, change the value of X and speculate the resulting value of Y. This is your hypothesis. Tests the hypothesis against the empirical information.
Change only the value of X, and them think about what would happen.
Ex. Causes of WWII in Europe.
X: Leaders (Hitler or another leader). Y: the outbreak of war (war happened or no war would have happened).
Your hypothesis: if Germany had another Nazi leader, the war would not have occurred.
Check the history of the German decision-making process toward the war, and speculate if your hypothesis would be supported. In other words, ask “what if Hitler had not been the German leader?”
Method of Congruence:
Choose two competing theories, and generate the two competing hypotheses from them, respectively.
These hypotheses are about state behaviour like arms build up (called policy outcomes).
Choose an adequate case, and test them to see which one is supported by the evidence.
Ex. Defensive and Offensive Realism with a case of mild security dilemma (DR: no arms build-up vs. OR: arms build-up). Check the evidence to see if arms build up happened or not.
Method of Process Tracing (PT):
Similar to method of congruence, but the PT looks at government’s inside-process leading to policy outcome.
Generate two competing hypotheses from theories about this process. And test them.
If theory A is correct what would you expect to see, and if theory B is correct what would you expect to see.
Ex. Owen vs. Layne.
Owen: “no war” decisions are influence by democratic norms and institutions.
Layne: “no war” decisions are influences by strategic calculations.
Democratic Peace Thesis
Democracies rarely right against each other.
Democracies do fight against non-democracies.
X: democracy and democracy. Y: no war.
X: any other combination. Y: war.
Why no war? Because of norms and/or institutions unique to democracies.
Ontology and Epistemology
Grix.
Ontology: Objectivism and its critics (cf. on mental illness).
Ontology is about what’s out there. Have to understand what is happening. Mainstream view is objectivism, so if you are outside of that something is wrong with you. The opposite of this idea is non-objectivism. Either way, if you think it is something you can define you need to gather evidence.
Epistemology: Positivism (hypothesis testing) and its critics (e.g. ethnography, discourse analysis, etc.).
Epistemology is about how to study, how do you know. Method of how to gain the knowledge. Positivism is about the mechanisms of how your theory happens.
Realism and Liberalism (economic) vs. Constructivism (sociology) vs. Critical Theory (humanities). Constructivism is in the middle.
Realism and Liberalism: objectivism and positivism.
Constructivism: no objectivism and positivism.
Critical theory: no objectivism and no positivism.
Objecitivism and positivism is mainstream. More material.
Critical theory cannot do the hypothesis testing, because it is outside. Starting point is believing it, not testing it.
Critical theory people say no to all of it. No such thing as evidence, not supposed to do hypothesis testing.
In the middle is constructivists. They agree with critical theory when it comes to ontology. Ideas do matter, because we interpret. Objectivism is no good. Identity does matter. At the same time, medical science model is still the way to go for methodology. Positivism.
Analogy
Realism and Liberalism: medical science model. The objective environment or reality [e.g. anarchy] outside the observer exists (you cannot wish it away); we can collect data (evidence) from it; and we can test competing hypotheses against the data to find out the true cause of some phenomenon).
Critical Theory: religion model: what really exists is a world constructed by languages (discourse by people); you cannot test if the god exists or not; and so-called theories are ideologies (they cannot be compared on some objective basis). The so-called science model to study society is the ideology of the strong, an ideological tool to keep their dominance, which we should expose.
Critical Theory
Against both objectivism and positivism.
Committed to emancipating the weak.
Exposing the dimensions not seen from the perspective of realism and liberalism.
Ex. feminism in war studies: women as rape victims by male soldiers (human security rather than national security); post-colonialism perspective: the discourse of international anarchy (the Westphalian sovereignty state system) is a Western ideology, masking the colonialist history of the West and white supremacism.
Constructivism
In the middle.
On ontology (what exists out there), it sides with critical theory: social construction matters and the objective reality as such is not useful (e.g. norms and identities matter, the same objective conditions are interpreted differently by actors; social relationships).
Ex. anarchy as a social construction and can be friendly or hostile (Wendt); security communities as identity-based phenomena; a taboo (a negative norm) exists against the use of the weapon of mass destruction.
On epistemology (how to know the reality), it sides with realism and liberalism: hypothesis-testing to be employed to judge if state behaviour is indeed driven by norms or by material interests. We can collect data from interviews, government documents, etc. for this purpose (e.g. did country A not use its chemical weapons because of the taboo or because of rational, strategic calculations not to hurt soldiers?)
Anarchy is social construction.
Different impact on you because of how you interpret it.
Consequentialism: realist theory about genocide as a method of population control. But taboo tells us that genocide is bad.
Constructivism: Technical Terms
Ontology focusing on intersubjectivity (social facts). Prisoner’s Dilemma among friends vs. strangers: difference. Different relations/identity have different results.
Even international anarchy (sovereignty) is a social construction reproduced by states.
Norms (taboos, rules, etc.) and identity.
The roles of norm entrepreneurs (Finnemore and Sikkink), epistemic community, and international organizations.
Ex. the international community banning piracy, slave trade, anti-personnel landmines; the rise of security communities.
Critisms from Realism
Rational-materialist perspective.
In so-called norm-governed behaviour, the government is actually not a prisoner of norms: it strategically uses as a rhetorical tool to justify its action that is based on strategic calculations. Constructivists misunderstand the true nature of state behaviour.
Constructivists often assume that there is one norm in a particular moment. But there can be more than one. If so, the government chooses and manipulates the one that is most convenient to its true strategic interest. Here again, it is not a prisoner of norms.
Governments always legitimize their actions.
Constructivists assume that all norms are good norms. How about bad norms? Are all norms good?
Finnemore and Sikkink.
Despite their attempts, constructivists still cannot fully explain why security communities emerge.
The English School (ES)
Focuses on international society (a society of sovereign states), in contrast to the international system (i.e. to structural realism) which started in Europe and later expanded to cover the earth.
International society has a set of rules and norms (established and managed by states), whereas the international system does not (here is ES is close to constructivism, but ES came first).
International system has to do with the concept of Neo-realism. Security dilemma, etc. More mechanical. Players interact for survival.
Balance of power, war, and international law are governing institutions embodying such rules and norms to be followed by great powers in maintaining the minimum order in international society (atomistic views aka no norms of structural realism and Neo-liberal institutionalism on them).
International law is the norms governing our system.
Balance of power in the context of international system happens because of survival.
Bull says no, you have a moral obligation to conduct balance of power. It is a norm, similar to constructivism.
Identity.
International law as a mechanism for international society. International system does not have any such rules and norms.
Liberalism always asks what it is for. Always ask why do things exist. Because they are useful.
Norms does not mean stability or peace.
Sovereignty itself is an identity-based social construction (states mutually recognize each other as legitimate; colonies and other non-state actors are not the members of the international society [see the UN]).
Society of sovereign states (UN).
Sovereignty was invented to combat the religious and ethnic wars.
More on English School
World Society: individuals are part of this world society. Cosmopolitan society.
International system non-organic way vs international society more organic way.
Pluralists: prioritize state sovereignty.
Solidarists: a challenger to pluralist way. In certain cases we do have a responsibility to intervene on other states sovereignty, ex. genocide. Human security. External power could intervene. If your government allows that type of situation, you are no longer entitles to call yourself sovereign. Responsibility of outside powers to protect the victims.
Hedley Bull: The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (1977)
Anarchy.
Waltz was right, but anarchical society not system.
Uniquely European way of organizing.
Part 1 THE NATURE OF ORDER IN WORLD POLITICS
First part is about order: Situation where your minimal condition, survival, minimum level of social order exists. More important than justice or money making. Take for granted social order, because that is how we function in the first place. Order comes first, then justice and welfare. We take for granted.
Part 2 ORDER IN THE CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
Second part is all mechanisms: Balance of power, obligations. Hegemony would lead to abuse of power. International law. Law of war emerge then became developed around the 19th century. Just war: self defense, collective, or punishment. Diplomacy. Custom that you exchange ambassadors between two sovereign states. Persona non grata. Diplomacy even with enemy.
Part 3 ALTERNATIVE PATH TO WORLD ORDER
Third part is war and international order: We do have international war, normally you declare war. Normally sign document of peace treaty. No enforcer for international laws. Rule of engagement, what is just and how to fight. Decline of these systems. Ex. Russia war on Ukraine.
Wohlforth vs. Nau Causal Diagrams
Wohlforth’s Realism account:
The Cold War ended with the 1990 withdrawal of Soviet forces from Central Europe (implying that it started in 1945 when the Soviets occupied Central Europe after defeating Nazi Germany).
Wohlforth demonstrated that previous studies had misestimated the role of ideas in the case; the causal mechanisms they attributed to ideas were in fact endogenous to changing economic incentives. Endogenous here means the causal arrows, that is Z, is not an independent variable but a dependent variable according to Wohlforth (Classical Constructivism sees Z as an independent variable).
Nau’s Constructivist account:
The Cold War ended when the US-Soviet ideological conflict ended with the Soviet defeat. By implication, the Cold War started with the 1947 Truman Doctrine.
Reagan as a visionary: for the rise of the US economy; and for tough ideological/moral stance against the Soviet Union competition (most important than the rise of the US economy). Thanks to Reagan, the West revived its confidence in democratic ideals whereas the Soviet Union lost further confidence in communist ideas.
Nau says that détente was merely a communication channel and the information revolution was caused by Reagan’s economic program. In these ways, détente and the information revolution were intervening variables.
The decisions by Gorbachev were more likely consequences of deeper forces [i.e. Regan and a visionary], not the precursors and drivers that actually followed [i.e. criticizing Classical Constructivism account].
Authors
Angell: Commercial Liberalism. Because of economic interaction war has become more expensive. The commerce and industry of a people no longer depends upon the expansion of its political frontiers [i.e. conquering no longer pays]; military power is socially and economically futile, and war, even when victorious, can no longer achieve those aims [i.e. wealth-gaining aims] for which people strive. The warlike nations represent the decaying human elements.
Cobden: Institutional Liberalism. Great powers should have agreement of arbitration, without any enforcement mechanism. Voluntarily sign them, if there is any problem we work through them. No enforcement because that would cause war. Speech in the UK House of Commons. Proposes an arbitration treaty among great powers with no enforcement military attached.
Wilson: Proposes that all nations avoid entangling alliances which would draw them into competition of power, catch them in a net of intrigue and selfish rivalry, and disturb their own affairs with influences intruded from without. There is no entangling alliance in a concert of power. When all unite to act in the same sense and with the same purpose all act in the common interest and are free to live their own lives under a common protection [collective security system ex. League of Nations, Wilson’s idealistic legacy is called Wilsonianism in US foreign policy].
Doyle: Republican Liberalism. The contemporary classic for the democratic peace thesis. Brought up Machiavelli, republican setup is the best for war. A foundational work of the Democratic Peace Thesis. Liberal Pacifism (Schumpeter), Liberal Imperialism (Machiavelli), and Liberal Internationalism (most important of the three for Doyle: Kant liberal peace bonded by democracy and economic ties).
Keohane and Nye: Neo-institutionalism. This complex interdependence zone, like US and Canada, logical realism does not work. Yet power is still exercised. A contemporary classic, complex interdependence: a zone where the logic of realism does not hold: transnational relations, no hierarchy of issues, and no use of military means. Two political (power) processes in complete interdependence: linkage strategies and agenda setting. International cooperation can be established with the help of international institutions.
Mueller: We don’t want to see huge causalities. Slavery or any other institutions we used to think as normal are all gone, so maybe the same will happen with war. There are signs that, at least in the development world, war has begun to succumb to obsolescence. Like dueling and slavery, war does not appear to be one of life’s necessities, it is not an unpleasant fact of existence that is somehow required by human nature or by the grand scheme of things. Once can live without it, quite well in fact.
Rosecrance: Commercial Liberalism. Trade. Denser. Foreign something. Investments are deeper, more difficult to destroy. Look at post-WWII Germany and Japan. The age of independent, self-sufficient state will be at an end. Among such states, the method of international development sustained by trade and exchange will begin to take precedence over the traditional method of territorial expansion and war.
Mearsheimer: False promises of international institutions. Institutions have minimal influence on state behaviour. Collective security (LoN). Collective security doesn’t really answer the realist question of how states let go of the fear and trust each other.
Spindler: Neo-institutionalist theory, based on structural realism but focuses on international institutions. Old study of institutionalism, traditional, simply describes these institutions. Senate, house of commons, court, etc.
Layne: Democratic Peace Thesis does not predict the actions of states better than realism. Uses process-tracing to focus on near-misses, where democracies could have gone to war with each other but didn’t, he determines national interest was prioritized over respect for democratic nations. Prioritizing strategic concerns of military capacity. One state was able to overpower the other state. So realism is more accurate than the DPT.
Owen: Democratic Peace Thesis explains the behaviour of states. Liberal ideas cause liberal democracies to not engage in war with each other. Different perceptions of democracy.
Finnemore and Sikkink: Constructivism. State identities are constructed within the social environment of international and domestic politics. Realism does not consider this, identity would be based on where your parents are from. Norm entrepreneurs is one way norms come into existence. It refers to the purposed efforts of individuals and groups to change social understandings. People who dislike existing norms and rules in politics often band together and try to change them. One consistent complaint of constructivism is that its research focus is on norms considered ‘good’, such as human rights, protecting the environment, and promoting democracy.
Tickner: Critical Theory point of view of women in war. Realists offer a partial representation of human behaviour associated with hegemonic masculinity. Feminist theories/perspectives on national security fill the gap from realism’s static representation. Women have defined security as the absence of violence whether it be military, economic, or sexual.
Wohlforth: Realist perspective on the Cold War. Core realist tenant regarding the accommodation of changing power relations. The Cold War began with the failure to remove the Soviet Union from Europe. It ended when they left. The cause of the Cold War was the rising threat of the Soviet Union, and the fear this caused the West. Ultimately, the Soviet Union failed to change the status quo of American hegemony. The economic costs are the reason the Cold War became unsustainable for the Soviet Union.
Nau: Ideologies. The Cold War began because of competing ideologies, i.e. capitalism and communism. So it ended when the Soviet Union collapsed and there was a wave of political and commercial liberalization across Europe and other parts of the world. Changing identities caused capitalism to win. It was decisive shift in ideology that ended the Cold War.
Dunne: English School. An account of international relations that combines theory and history, morality and power, agency and structure. International society. System, society, and world society. System as an arena where there was interaction between communities but no shared rules or institutions. Society is much closer, small circles (society) or multiple society circles, then outside is a huge circle (system), interacting does not necessarily lead to bonding. Interested in what systems tell us about the history of international society.
