Riassunto esame Evolution of the international system, Prof. Andreatta Filippo, libro consigliato Classic Works in International Relations, Andreatta

1.COMPLETE - EVOLUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

EVOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (IR).......................................................................... 2

LECTURE 2 (17/09) - Evolution of International Relations (IR)....................................................... 2

1. Snyder, J. (2004) «One World, Rival Theories»........................................................................... 4

2. Andreatta, F. Classic Works in International Relations - The philosophical bases of traditions... 5

THE BALANCE OF POWER..................................................................................................................7

LECTURE 3 (22/09) - THE BALANCE OF POWER.........................................................................7

3. Andreatta, Classic Works, chapp. III............................................................................................ 8

3. Waltz, K. «The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory», Journal of Interdisciplinary History......... 11

HEGEMONIC STABILITY THEORY (HST).......................................................................................... 13

LECTURE 4 (29/09) - Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST)............................................................. 13

4. Andreatta, Classic Works, chap. IX (Gilpin)............................................................................... 14

4. Gilpin, R. «The Theory of Hegemonic War», Journal of Interdisciplinary History.......................15

NEOLIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM....................................................................................................18

LECTURE 5 (01/10) - Neoliberal Institutionalism........................................................................... 18

5. Andreatta, Classic Works, chap. X (Keohane)........................................................................... 19

5. Axelrod - Keohane: «Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions»........21

6. Andreatta, Classic Works, chap. XIV (Russett and O’Neal)....................................................... 22

6. Doyle, M. (1986) «Liberalism and World Politics», American Political Science Review.............23

REPUBLICAN LIBERALISM............................................................................................................... 25

LECTURE 6 (07/10) - Republican Liberalism.................................................................................25

7. Andreatta, Classic Works, chap. I (Angell)................................................................................. 27

7. Gartzke, E. (2007) «The Capitalist Peace», American Journal of Political Science...................29

THE ENGLISH SCHOOL AND CONSTRUCTIVISM (REFLECTIVISM)............................................. 31

LECTURE 7 (13/10) - The English School and Constructivism (Reflectivism)...............................31

8.Andreatta, Classic Works, chapp. XIII (Wendt) and VII (Bull)..................................................... 33

Chapter XIII: Alexander Wendt (social theory of international politics).................................... 33

Chapter VII: Hedley Bull (the anarchical society).....................................................................34

8.Wendt, A. «Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics».......35

1

EVOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (IR)

LECTURE 2 (17/09) - Evolution of International Relations (IR)

In this lecture, the instructor provides a chronological account of the development of International

Relations (IR), as this framework aids memory by helping students recall what ideas preceded and

followed others. The second goal is to move beyond the simple distinction between realism,

liberalism, and reflectivism and explain the differences that exist within these traditions. While many

IR courses discuss the "three debates," the instructor prefers the narrative of four periods, arguing

that the idea of a debate suggests a winner, which is inaccurate since even the first debate remains

ongoing.

A critical factor influencing IR theory is that each period was heavily influenced by a major

international political event. IR thinkers are influenced by contemporary international relations and

seek to solve the problems of their time. This influence explains the differences in the topics covered

across the various periods.

Even though IR scholars may attempt to explain the world generally and pretend to be above

history, they are undeniably influenced by the world they inhabit.

Examples of internal differences include classical realism and neo-realism, which share similarities

but also exhibit differences.

First Period (1919–1948)

The first period conventionally begins in 1919, the year the first chair in international relations was

established in Wales and the first IR course was introduced. As a very young discipline, early thinkers

borrowed extensively from older disciplines, specifically economics, law, and history.

The great influence on this initial thinking was the First World War, which was terribly destructive. In

Western Europe, the First World War was even more destructive than the Second World War,

resulting in more deaths in Italy, France, Britain, and Germany. The idea driving these first thinkers:

→ to avoid another war, giving their approach a strong normative component, which

realists later derogatorily labeled utopian.

Among these figures was United States President Woodrow Wilson, who had previously been a

political science professor at Princeton University.

Classical Liberalism was divided into two strands:

1.​ Commercial liberals (capitalist liberals): Key figures included Norman Angell and Joseph

Schumpeter. They focused on the economic organization of society. They argued that

modern states are more rational, prioritizing welfare over warfare, and expected the world to

become more peaceful as capitalist economies spread. They used material factors, such as

markets, to explain state behavior.

2.​ Idealist liberals: Key figures included Woodrow Wilson and Alfred Zimmern. They focused

on ideas and norms, striving to change prevailing mentalities by introducing new laws or

organizations, such as the League of Nations, formed in 1918. They concentrated on

norms, laws, ethics, and changing mentalities.

These classical liberals were challenged by classical realists, notably E.H. Carr, who published The

Twenty Years’ Crisis in 1939. Carr critiqued the utopians and promoted a more pessimistic, realistic

view. Realism achieved dominance after the Second World War.

N.B. A foundational text was Hans Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations (1948), which historically

shaped IR studies globally. 2

Second Period (Cold War, 1948–late 1970s)

This period was influenced by negative historical events, including the Cold War, the Vietnam War,

nuclear deterrence, and the arrival of the atomic bomb. Realist dominance emerged, particularly in the

United States, as scholars sought to understand the Soviet Union and nuclear weapons.

Key tenets of Morgenthau’s classical realism included the belief that politics is governed by

objective laws rooted in human nature; that national interest is central as every nation

maximizes power; and that politics must be separate from morality, as survival may require

immoral actions.

Other scholars, such as Raymond Aron, emphasized the role of ideology in shaping state behavior,

suggesting that homogeneous systems (shared ideologies) are more stable, while heterogeneous

systems (conflicting ideologies) are prone to war.

→ A crucial concept was the security dilemma, which explains that even measures intended

purely for defense can be perceived as threats by others, potentially leading to arms races or

preemptive wars without any party being inherently "evil".

Liberals focused on middle-range theories, such such as European integration, with figures like

Quincy Wright, Ernie Haas, and Stanley Hoffman.

N.B. The English School emerged as an exception to the American dominance, emphasizing history,

law, and a humanistic approach rather than purely scientific methods.

Third Period (Neorealism & Neoliberalism, 1970s–1989)

The third period saw the rise of more structural theories. Neoliberals experienced a revival due to

improvements in international cooperation, European integration, and economic growth: they

emphasized institutions and trade, differing from classical liberals by discarding idealistic norms.

They employed the analogy that the world resembles a cobweb of interdependent actors and

institutions that constrain states.

Neorealists focused on the systemic nature of anarchy and the resulting need for self-help. The key

neorealist was Kenneth Waltz, who introduced structural realism. Realists used the analogy of the

world as a billiard ball model, where states interact externally under systemic pressures. Within

realism, offensive realists (e.g., John Mearsheimer) argued states strive for maximum power, while

defensive/neoclassical realists argued states primarily seek security, considering excessive power

potentially counterproductive.

Fourth Period (Post–Cold War, 1989–Present)

The end of the Cold War led to debates focused on whether the collapse was due to materialist

explanations (such as Reagan’s overspending) or agency-driven explanations (such as

Gorbachev’s policy shifts).

This period saw the emergence of new post-positivist theories. These Reflectivist approaches focus

on an inside-out perspective, arguing that meaning, ideas, and identities shape outcomes, rather

than just material factors.

Specific new theories included:

●​ Constructivism: Focuses on how ideas and norms shape international relations.

●​ Critical theory: Provides Marxist-inspired critiques of capitalism and power structures.

●​ Postmodernism: Challenges objective, universal theories, emphasizing subjectivity and

political bias.

●​ Feminist approaches: Highlight the gendered dimensions of conflict.

●​ Postcolonial theories: Examine the legacies of empire, neo-colonial institutions, and global

inequality. 3

1. Snyder, J. (2004) «One World, Rival Theories»

Dr. Jack Snyder is currently designated as the Robert and Renee Belfer professor of international

relations at Columbia University. His professional expertise centers on the study of international

relations, which is supposed to illuminate how the world operates.

He notes that even though the world is radically changing, classic theories still offer significant insight.

Dr. Snyder asserts that familiar theories regarding how the world works continue to dominate

academic debate, requiring academia to adjust existing theories to meet new realities. His scholarly

work explores three dominant approaches in the field, initially surveyed by Stephen M. Walt, including

1)​ realism

2)​ liberalism

3)​ an updated form of idealism known as constructivism.

He contends that these intellectual constructs influence both policy analysis and public discourse,

explaining for example:

- how realism focuses on the shifting distribution of power among states,

- liberalism highlights the rising number of democracies and the turbulence of democratic transitions,

- idealism illuminates changing norms of sovereignty, human rights, and international justice.

Dr. Snyder emphasizes that, properly understood, the policy implications of these theories are subtle

and multifaceted.

Beyond the university setting, Dr. Snyder actively engages in the promotion of practical foreign policy

analysis, noting that theories of international relations provide the conceptual framework to ask

difficult questions of those who believe changing the world is simple.

→ He was included in a group of scholars who established the Coalition for a Realistic

Foreign Policy. This organization advocates for a more modest and prudent approach to

foreign policy, arguing that "the move toward empire must be halted immediately".

This involvement illustrates how international relations theory can cut through often ephemeral

political labels to reach underlying assumptions.

His published research includes the article "One World, Rival Theories". This research aligns with the

liberal observation that:

Countries transitioning to democracy are more prone to engaging in international and

civil wars when they possess weak political institutions.

This turbulence is explained, in part, by emerging democracies often having nascent political

institutions unable to constructively channel popular demands or credibly enforce compromises

among competing groups. Furthermore, in these settings:

→ democratic accountability functions imperfectly, allowing nationalist politicians to hijack

public debate.

His work contributes to the discussion that theories must act as a powerful check on each other to

prevent misguided policies, stressing the importance of using the insights of realism, liberalism, and

idealism as safeguards against the "irrational exuberance" of others.

For instance, liberals should consider whether emerging democratic institutions can fend off powerful

opposing interests, or how international institutions can effectively bind a hegemonic power that is

inclined to operate unilaterally. 4

International relations theory, through the three main approaches Dr. Snyder analyzes, acts like a

set of three lenses, each providing a distinct filter for viewing a complicated international picture.

1)​ Realism provides a pragmatic appreciation of power but cautions against overreach;

2)​ Liberalism highlights the potential for cooperation among mature democracies but warns of

democracies' tendency to crusade against tyrannies and the risk of violent ethnic turmoil in

emerging democracies;

3)​ Idealism stresses that stable political order requires a consensus on values, though forging

this consensus may necessitate ideological struggle and potential conflict.

2. Andreatta, F. Classic Works in International Relations - The philosophical bases of traditions

Two great philosophical questions origins of Western political thinking:

1)​ whether human nature, in political life, is intrinsically good, bad or neutral

2)​ whether it is possible to achieve sustainable progress in social affairs.

REALISTS

Realists: a pessimistic vision both of human nature and of the course of history, subscribing to

Thomas Hobbes’ view of violence.

Conflict and fear are inescapable traits of social life and there is no real progress in politics and

generally trace their own intellectual origins to such classics as Thucydides or Machiavelli

​ → they maintain that there is no world government capable of imposing order like in domestic

politics, there is always the possibility of a war.

Realists = states are the primary organizations for the “legitimate use of physical force”.

There can be and there has been technological and scientific advancement but in political

relations it is possible to apply today the same basic rules that functioned, for example, in ancient

Greece or in the Italian Rinascimento.

LIBERALISM

The liberal school is the rival of the realist one. They have an optimistic view of John Locke and other

Enlightenment thinkers.

For liberals, Security doesn’t always dominate decision making

→ when the threat of war is not imminent, states pursue economic welfare and

interdependence and a variety of other goals at least as much as military power

Liberals with an institutionalist approach focus on international institutions as means to improve the

chances for collaboration. 5

The main point of contention between these two traditions is not about the empirical prevalence of

conflict or cooperation, but about the significance of these outcomes and in particular which one is

normal and which one is exceptional

​ → realist, conflict is one of the natural consequences of political intercourse

→ liberals, some conflicts are unnecessary and counterproductive

1) Realists believe that order can be achieved by imposing it or by mutual deterrence in a situation of

balance of power.

2) Liberal theories concentrate on conflict, as cooperation is considered the default mode of

international politics (they generally believe that it is particular types of states that provoke conflicts).

These alternative approaches criticize some of the key assumptions of the main traditions, and in

particular the notion that international outcomes are the result of the interaction between states

rationally pursuing their material interests.

The four periods of international relations’ theory

The introduction also outlines four historical periods in the evolution of IR as an academic

discipline:

First Period (1919-1948): Influenced by the two World Wars, this period saw the discipline emerge

with the "heroic task" of finding the conditions for peace, though its initial theoretical sophistication

was limited. It eventually saw the predominance of realism, exemplified by Angell’s Great Illusion

(liberal), Carr’s The Twenty-Years’ Crisis (realist critique of utopianism), and Morgenthau’s Politics

Among Nations (classical realist).

Second Period (1949-1978): Spanning the first three decades of the Cold War, it was heavily

influenced by realist views, alongside a methodological debate between "traditionalist" and "scientific"

approaches. This period includes works by Schelling, Aron, Allison, and Bull.

Third Period (1979-1991): Characterized by increasing theoretical sophistication, notably the

emergence of Neorealism (focusing on systemic constraints rather than human nature) and

Neoliberalism (emphasizing institutions and economic factors). Works include Waltz’s Theory of

International Politics, Gilpin’s War and Change in World Politics, Liska’s Ways of Peace and War, and

Keohane’s After Hegemony.

Fourth Period (1992-Present): Beginning with the end of the Cold War, this period saw the

emergence of post-positivist theories stressing ideational variables. It is represented by Wendt’s

Social Theory of International Politics (constructivism), Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations (cultural

identity), Russett and Oneal’s Triangulating Peace (democratic peace), and Kalyvas’s The Logic of

Violence in Civil War (intra-state conflicts). 6

Fin