Lecture 2 Flashcards
What is the international system?
o Many types of actors, but they don’t float freely
States, sub-national bodies, intergovernmental organizations, IOs, firms, transnational networks
They co-exist within a larger system that structures them and their interactions in particular ways
o A set of incentives and expectations that shape identities and behaviours of actors in international politics
Why study the international system?
It has effects that cannot be explained by simply examining actors and organizations themselves
There are multiple concepts of the int. system
4 concepts of international system
Anarchy, hierarchy, interdependence and capitalism
What do the parts have in common and what distinguishes them?
What are the dynamics of the int. system according to the concept?
Definition anarchy
Definition = absence of effective central authority
Mearsheimer 2001 = there is no government above governments
Nota bene anarchy=/= chaos, so anarchy and order may co-exist
Defintion international anarchy
Absence of effective central authority above states and other actors
Mearsheimer 2001 = there is no government above governments
Nota bene anarchy=/= chaos, so anarchy and order may co-exist
International anarchy and the police
Billiard ball model of IR
There is no higher authority to implement certain rules and laws
There is no global police force that makes state complies
If a state tries to play police, it is not the same as a police
Peacekeeping is also not a power above us
Interpretation 1, anarchy makes cooperation difficult
Waltz 1979
Anarchy -> states are insecure -> all rely on self-help to survive
States cannot rely on int. rule and institutions
Two options = build arms and/or form alliances
Primary goal of state is security according to international anarchy
Fear and mistrust -> security dilemma -> cooperation and institution building are difficult
Key variable: distribution of power among states
* States focus on relative power (power compared to others)
* The number of great powers (polarity) determines int. alliances and risk of war
Tends to ignore small states
Unsure if this only applies to interpretation 1
Security dilemma
Robert Jervis 1978 – cooperation under security dilemma
Even when a state has defensive intentions (no plans to attack)
Anarchy -> insecurity -> defensive actions -> more fear and mistrust -> difficult cooperation
Relative gains problem
Robert powell 1991 – absolute and relative gains in int. relations theory
When facing possible cooperation, states may focus on
* Absolute gains – how much do I gain?
* Relative gains – how does my gain compare to other’s gain
Under anarchy, “relative gain is more important than absolute gain” K. Waltz 1959 Man, the state and war
Anarchy -> focus on relative gains -> cooperation is unlikely
Distributions of power (polarity)
Unipolar system, bipolar system and multipolar system
Unipolar system
1 great power
* Maximum certainty, clear leadership, easy domination
* Very rare, because states will build arms and alliances to balance against any major power
Bipolar system
2 great powers, each having alliances with smaller powers
* High certainty, competition for leadership, domination within alliance
Multipolar system
3-5 great powers, shifting alliances with each other and small powers
* Low certainty, risk of leadership vacuum, less risk of domination
Interpretation 2 - anarchy invites agression great powers
John Mearsheimer 2001 The tragedy of Great power politics
* Argued Ukraine should keep its nuclear weapons from soviet union
Anarchy -> opportunities for aggression by ‘’predator’ states
All states seek to maximize relative power
International politics is dominated by the ambitions of great powers, regional hegemons
Rise and fall of great powers -> instability, likelihood of major war
Critical questions
- Does less certainty produce instability or stability in the system?
- What happens when great powers rise and fall?
Bambi and Godzilla example
“In the anarchic world of int. politics, it is better to be Godzilla than Bambi” – John Mearsheimer 2006
Mexico example
“Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United states” – Porfirio Diaz, president of Mexico 1876- 1880, 1884-1911
Interpretation 3 it depends on identities
Alexander Wendt 1992 anarchy is what states make of it
Int. anarchy does not automatically produce self-help and insecurity, both competitive and cooperative relations are possible
Relations under anarchy depend upon how states identify vis-à-vis each other
* Negative identities (other is unlike us) -> competitive relations and conflict
* Positive identities (other is like us) -> cooperative relations and community
Identities are shaped by processes of interaction (how governments talk and act, values they express)
Significance: major, if this argument is correct, you can achieve world peace without changing anarchy
* Peaceful and cooperative relations do not require replacing anarchy with world government
Reassurance may overcome fear
Janice Gross Stein 1991 reassurance in international conflict management
Logic = if fear feeds the security dilemma, which makes cooperation difficult, then reassuring words and actions can promote positive identification and cooperation
Strategy = use words and actions including self restraint and de escalation to make other less fearful and allow focus on shared interests, works best if reciprocated
Identities in international politics
Thomas Risse-Kappen 1995 cooperation among democracies: the European influence on U.S. foreign policy
Simple interpretations of anarchy suggest that powerful states will dominate int. cooperation, push around smaller states
Historical cases show that among democracies, small allies have great influence
Explanation = a community of collective identity based on shared values
* Problem solving through dialogue
* Openness to civil society
Aliens, anarchy and cooperation
o “I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world”
Reagan, speech at UN 1987
o Coronavirus as aliens
Outside universal threat to humanity
o Arrival film
Cool movie I guess
2 intersecting anarchies
* Relations between humans and aliens
* Relations between states
Which interpretation best fits the film?
What parts of his film fit waltz or mearsheimer’s interpretation?
Which part fits wendt’s interpretation?
Wendt and the film arrival?????
