Appunti di international relations

Introduction to International Relations

International relations is both a reality, such as economics, politics, the relation of ancient Greek cities, and an academic discipline. It was born in 1919 in the University of Wales after WWI, when war started being seen as a disease to be cured.

The Hall of Uselessness

A university is a place where scholars seek truth, pursue and transmit knowledge for knowledge’s sake - irrespective of the consequences, implications, and utility of the endeavor. So we can define four elements of a university, two necessary and two important:

• A group of scholars
• A good library for the humanities and well-equipped laboratories for the sciences
• Students, which are important but should not be recruited for money’s sake. Leys dreams of a university that delivers no degree just knowledge
• Money

Two things are ruining universities: the strive for democracy and the strive for utilitarianism. According to Leys, universities should not be democratic, because intelligence and knowledge are not. Democracy pertains to politics only. Nor should it be useful and focused on giving professional qualifications.

The State and the System of States

The State

The state remains the primary actor in the international scenery. The number of states has been increasing steadily from WWII onwards. When referring to states, we talk about modern states, based on sovereignty and other two dimensions:

• Internal dimension: Supremacy of the political authority over all other potential authorities and the population in that specific geographical area. The state is the monopolizer of the use of legitimate force (other groups use force, but it is not legitimate).
• External dimension: No authority above the state.

Two additional dimensions:

• Material dimension of sovereignty: Control of a territory (de facto sovereignty).
• Legal dimension: Recognition by other states, international recognition (de iure sovereignty).

A state can sometimes be in control of a territory but not be recognized, or the other way around. Modern states do four things:

• War making: Eliminating or neutralizing rivals outside the territories in which they have interest.
• State making: Eliminating or neutralizing rivals inside the state.
• Protection: Eliminating or neutralizing the enemies of their clients (citizens, other sovereign states).
• Extraction: Acquiring the means to deliver the three things above.

The System of States

Traditionally, the birth of the modern system of states is marked by the Peace of Westphalia (1648) at the end of the Thirty Years' War. It was composed of two treaties (Munster and Osnabrück); it was not only a religious conflict but also hegemonic (Catholic France was fighting with Protestant governors). Those were processes that started in the Middle Ages and gradually simplified the European map. In the medieval era, authority was dispersed among monarchs, emperor, pope... At some point, in a specific territory, one loyalty prevailed, and the territory and its population belonged to the monarch only.

The central principle of the Treaty of Westphalia was “whose realm, his religion” or “cuius regio, eius religio,” meaning the ruler of a territory determines its religion, a principle originally established in the Peace of Augsburg in 1555. This was the founding principle of the European system of states. They were all recognized as equal from a legal point of view, although there were big differences. Another principle implied was that other states could not intervene in the internal affairs of other states. Other two important consequences:

• Secularization of international politics (neutralization of religion as a cause of war).
• War becomes a public matter between states (war is organized only by states), which recognized each other as equal and in a state of anarchy.

Consequences on war:

• War becomes an international institution, so a legitimate instrument of foreign policy (war in form, war needs to be waged in a certain way).
• Different states recognize themselves as just enemies (people who can legitimately decide war), so there is no more just war (not all wars are just).

According to some historians, these two elements allowed moderation and limitation of conflict in Europe. The first crisis of Westphalia was during the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon disrupted the system because he forced big powers into alliances and intervened in domestic affairs of some small states (he put relatives as headsmen). After the Napoleonic Wars, there was the restoration and Westphalia worked again until WWI. It broke again because after the war the League of Nations was created which had the main goal of replacing war with negotiation (end of Westphalia because war is not considered legitimate anymore).

One World, Rival Theories

After 9/11, international relations adjusted its theories to meet the new reality. Walt sketched out three dominant approaches: realism, which focuses on the shifting distribution of power among states; liberalism, which focuses on the rising number of democracies and the turbulence of democratic transitions; and idealism, which focuses on the changes in sovereignty, human rights, justice, and the rising importance of religion in politics.

For example, Bush is a hybrid between realism and liberalism because of intervention in Iraq (realism) motivated by the desire for democracy in the country (liberalism). However, all three theories have a weak point: realism appreciates power, but warns about consequences if states overreach; liberalism appreciates democracy and cooperation but is worried about imposing it and the potential conflicts of a transition; idealism dreams of a universal system of values but recognizes that obtaining it might cause conflict.

Realism

At the core of this theory is the belief that international politics is a ruthless battle among self-interested states. However, it does not praise war nor is it amoral: they actually believe that fighting this battle, also through negotiation, can bring a more peaceful world. It was developed by European immigrants after WWII who fled to the US and thought international organizations and law alone could not prevent war.

It explains USA's behavior after 9/11: when a state is more powerful than its opponent, the former will use that power to expand its influence for security, wealth, or different motives (also explains China's focus on economic and military growth without major confrontations with the US until now). However, it fails to explain why war was fought against a non-state, when there is such a heavy focus on states. Some say the majority of the war was fought against Afghanistan and Iraq. It also fails to explain the failure of the balance of power, because no alliance can fight against the USA. Some say that geographical distance might play a role, others say it’s happening, but not militarily.

Liberalism

Liberalism became important during the ‘70s and after the Cold War and the democratic waves. All liberalists, whose more prominent thinkers are Kant and Wilson, reckon realism fails to see a development in relations between nations. They believe trade, finance, and international organizations will forge closer ties between states that will fade anarchy. Because elected leaders are accountable to the people, they won’t make war and regard each other as legitimate.

Liberalism is so prominent in today’s world that the belief of democracies never fighting each other is the closest to an iron law social sciences ever had and is therefore evoked to explain today’s security problems. It is believed that democracy should be encouraged in order to keep peace. However, despite the noble principles, not always are they true to reality. For example, liberalism preaches that democratic nations are less prone to war: that is true with other democracies, not so much for authoritarian regimes (e.g. Bush administration). Also, transitioning countries with weak democracies are more likely to get into international or civil war. Secondly, countries should enjoy self-determination, and the ones which don’t may take violent actions towards who is seen as the oppressor (e.g. Palestine vs Israel) or a democratic supporter of authoritarian regimes (e.g. Bush with Saudi Arabia). Thirdly, free trade often damages weaker democracies because it usually enriches a part of a state in spite of others (e.g. rural vs coastal China).

Idealism

Idealism develops in the 80s and becomes important after the peaceful ending of the Cold War (before the acceptance that it was going to end up in war). They believe international politics should be guided by ethics and law. Today, a new version of idealism became prominent: constructivism, the idea that reality is created through shared ideas. Constructivists find the realist idea of national interest absurd and claim it’s the driving force behind both realism and liberalism. International change results from the diffusion of a new idea that becomes prominent and shames others who think differently. It explains both progressive and illiberal ideas (e.g. terrorism).

For example, Philpot explains how the idea of Protestantism broke the Middle Age and put fertile ground for the modern age. However, it fails to explain the divergence between the need for dialogue and the fact that many idealist thinkers already know what’s right and wrong.

None of the three theories explains change: realism failed to predict the end of the Cold War and should focus on how self-interested foreign policy can last, liberalists don’t explain democratic transitions but focus only on post-transition situations and should focus on how to oppose powerful interests. Constructivists don’t explain how materially change in ideas happens and should be asked about it.

Politics is Too Important to Be Left to the Politicians

A lot of IR theorists lament the lack of practical use of the discipline, but there is the wrong idea that theory should directly influence policy. Advocates of naturalism (theory-policy nexus) argue that the scientific method should be applied to human affairs; therefore IR should be an empirical science, whose goal is to formulate causal interpretation grounded on observable events and patterns. They believe knowledge is produced to influence reality and that scholars have a privileged epistemological POV (e.g. Laitin, Lake, Tetlock).

Both Hayek and Morgenthau critique this vision of “constructivist realism.” And this for two main reasons:

• IR scholars constantly fail to predict the outcome of a policy (e.g. peaceful ending of Cold War), which usually doesn’t happen in applied sciences. That happens because theories in social sciences are probabilistic and the events that politics faces are unique.
• There is no agreement about what we know and how international politics works; there are many different theories and no scientific validity to them.

However, it can be practically useful in two ways:

• IR is an important tool for self-education of policymakers to widen mental horizons, think outside the box, and familiarize with issues.
• Indirect influence of policymaking (reflexivist approach): being there many theories, it helps policymakers gain different patterns of thinking, analyze values and institutions.

Melian Dialogue

Thucydides was an Athenian general defeated in the battle of Amphipolis, Thrace, 424 BC. He is considered the first true historian, and also a realist thinker, since in his history of the Peloponnesian War there are no divinities, poetry, or magic. The Peloponnesian War was a big conflict started in 431-404BC, the first hegemonic conflict with two main alliances: Athens with the Delian League vs Sparta with the Peloponnesian League.

Historical Context

Before the Peloponnesian War, there were the Persian Wars, in which the Greek cities united against the Persians. But an alliance, in the eye of a realist thinker, is a contingent interest; when it holds no more, they become rivals. Three main causes of war: fear, glory, gain; in the case of the Peloponnesian War the growth of Athens and the fear of Sparta to be subjugated (Sparta won the war).

The Melian dialogue takes place in 416BC, when Athens was prevailing, in the island of Melos, an ally of Sparta but declared neutral. The Athenians don’t want to speak in front of the population because they think they are too convincing. They also say they’re going to be precise and if something is unclear they’ll stop and discuss it before moving on.

M: they don’t really have the choice to talk because the alternative is slavery or war.

A: theirs are actually facts, not ideas. So they accept the debate.

A: they’re going to be honest and justify their power even though they could not do it; that’s because of the standard of justice which depends on the quality of power. According to Nietzsche, this is the first theory of justice: the strong do what they want and the weak accept it. So for Athens, there is justice when the parts are equal (balance of power). That’s the core of realist thinking.

M: think A. should moderate themselves because in the future M. might spare A. if power is reversed. When M. ask why they can’t be neutral, A. say it makes Athens look weak while hatred shows they are powerful. M. insist, and say this might make other neutral cities turn against them, but A. reply that exactly because the island is weak it’s important and also they get bigger to fight bigger empires.

A. also think it will not be a fair fight because Athens is bigger. But M. say fortune could level the odds.

Also Machiavelli talks about fortune: he too says it plays a role in conflicts. But fortune is like a flooding river: it’s only dangerous when men don’t have dams against it. But for A. fortune means hope, and it is the direct way to disaster. Realist think politics is rational.

M. think they could win because they have the gods and Sparta on their side. A. suggest politics is governed by laws of nature. They say the law says the powerful must subjugate the weak, has always been around and should be followed (noms, law made by men that can be changed vs physis, laws of nature that are immutable). This implies the A. are not evil because they are just applying the law. Their second argument is that justice does not exist in international politics; justice is just what is useful, and they apply it to the Spartan.

They keep going over why Sparta would help the Melians (allies, similarities between populations..) and why not (Spartans are cowards). A. invite M. not to think about the future, hope, and honor. Law of nature says to stand up for the equals, behave with deference to the superiors, and treat the inferiors with moderation.

The Melians will not surrender so the Athenians, so they blocked the city and after some rebellion, killed all the men and sold as slaves all the women.

Conclusion: there is a materialistic vision of politics which dictates states evaluate only power in the international scene, and that in politics you can either subjugate or be subjugated.

Classical Realism (Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Carr, Morgenthau)

The origin of realism is traced back to Thucydides and the Peloponnesian War. Main features:

1. To understand politics it must be approached in a detached and clinical manner to search for the truth. For example, Thucydides writing to report reality not as it should be but as it is without any moral judgement. Machiavelli will tell the effectual truth rather than the imagination of it. The distinction between politics and ethics is the novelty that Machiavelli brings to political science. Before him, writers wrote keeping in mind Catholic ethics.
2. Description of politics are real, not ideal. Realism is named after the distinction between reality and abstract theory. Most realists believe history is cyclical and progress is only temporary. Politics is always about war and competition. The eternal laws governing politics can be inferred but not altered. Some realists deny the possibility of transcending politics and conflict. For example, at the end of the Cold War, many theorists believed in a new order made on international organizations.
3. Pessimistic view of human nature. (Not today’s realists). Classical realists begin their theory from human nature: humans are greedy, evil, and motivated by power; they don’t trust each other, and their nature is unchangeable. For example, Thucydides describes them as ready to act unjustly even in violation of law, Machiavelli wicked and bad, Hobbes moved by competition, distrust, and glory.
4. Irrelevance of legal and ethical considerations (in anarchy), justice and law play a significant role in only two (opposite) cases. Political affairs should be conducted with a careful determination of ends and means, not by noble sentiments. Legalism and moralism are enemies of realism. There are two opposite exceptions: when there is a symmetry of power, and when there is a clear hierarchy (e.g. Hobbes in the Leviathan writes that the notion of right or wrong have no place in anarchy. When there is a state there is law, but states live in anarchy among them).

Balance of power is important internationally because it distributes power equally and it’s the only tool against hegemonic power and anarchy. Its main goal is to preserve the autonomy of every state and limit the power of the hegemonic one, so it’s primarily a defense action. A state should ally with the weaker side. Thus, diplomatic arrangement and military alliances should not be guided by cultural identification, ideology, or principles of justice but to maintain equilibrium among states.

Summing up, the realist school can be said to depict humans as dangerous who resort to violence to preserve their interests and who live in a state of nature in insecurity and conflict. States create internal order through the monopoly of violence but cannot eradicate anarchy internationally. In these political conditions states are driven to pursue their interests and act according to the principle of the balance of power.

Machiavelli and the Prince: A prince should keep his word but not when it’s against his best interest.