Political Science 7 – International Relations - Power Point #5
Dr. Tabakian’s Political Science 7 Modern World Governments – Spring 2013 Supplemental Power Point Material #5
LECTURE HIGHLIGHTS (1)• Liberal Institutionalism• Liberal Challenge to Realism – International Regimes• Social Theories• Collective Security• The Waning Of War• Peace Studies• Democratic Peace Theory• Kant & Peace
LECTURE HIGHLIGHTS (2)• Why Gender Matters• Gender In War & Peace• Women In IR• Constructivism / Rationalism• Constructivism / Feminism• Postmodernism• Marxism & Gender Theories Like Feminism
LIBERAL THEORIES• Realism offers mostly dominance solutions to the collective goods problems of IR.• Alternative theoretical approaches that draw mostly on the reciprocity or identity principles are called liberal theories.• These approaches are generally more optimistic than realism about the prospects for peace.
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISMLiberal institutionalism cannot adequately explain internationalrelations or how to maintain a stable international system in a post-Cold War world. John J. Mearsheimer asserts that focusing toomuch on economic cooperation while neglecting issues relating toconflict causes the theory to be fundamentally flawed. Collectivesecurity on the other hand deals with how to produce peace byrecognizing that military power is a fact of life in the internationalsystem. It calls for armed states to properly manage their respectivemilitaries along with allies to maintain proper balances. Advocates ofcollective security argue that institutions can states behaveaccording to three anti-realist norms: states have to renounce usingmilitary force to change the status quo; “responsible” states shouldnot act according to their narrow self-interest when pursuingaggressors, but should instead equate their national interest withthat of the international community; and states should have faith thatall parties will follow the first two norms.
COLLECTIVE SECURITY (1)John J. Mearsheimer lists nine reasons why states may be unwilling tobase their fate on collective security systems that are constructed mainlyto thwart aggressive actions with overwhelming force. First, collectivesecurity system can only work when states are able to differentiatebetween aggressor and victim and utilize force against the later. Second,collective security assumes that all aggression is wrong. Third, statesmay be for historical or ideological reasons, overly friendly. Fourth, statesthat have shared hostile relations in the past may not be willing tocooperate. Fifth, states that agree to combat aggression may not be ableto distribute the burden associated with doing so. Sixth, it is difficult toreact quickly in a collective security system. Seventh, states may not bewilling to join a collective security system, as every local conflict canbecome an international quagmire. Eighth, forcing states toinstantaneously react to aggression impinges on state sovereignty. Ninth,responsible states that normally see war as repellent may not be willingto rescue threatened states.
COLLECTIVE SECURITY (2)Alexander Wendt lists stages that states may follow to emerge froma competitive security system to a cooperative system: breakdownallegiance to identities; examine old ideas and how the stateinteracted with other actors; change how other actors definethemselves, their interests and how it maintained old systems ofinteraction; foster reciprocal rewards for cooperative actions.Alexander Wendt believes that any transition to new internationalstructures requires fervent support of states as they serve asconduits to a new “post-international” era in politics. The authorclaims to be a realist and statist as any new system may coincidewith theories of anarchic interstate politics. However, definitions ofstatism do not have to be construed by the dictates of realism abouthow best to define a “state”.
COLLECTIVE SECURITY (3)• Concept grows out of liberal institutionalism.• Refers to the formation of a broad alliance of most major actors in an international system for the purpose of jointly opposing aggression by any actor. – Kant – League of Nations – Organization of America States, Arab League, and the African Union
COLLECTIVE SECURITY (4)• Success of collective security depends on two points: – Members must keep their alliance commitments to the group. – Enough members must agree on what constitutes aggression.• Ex: 1990-91 – Iraq’s aggression against Kuwait – All the great powers bore the cost of confronting Iraq• Iraq: World’s collective security system is “creaky” and not always effective, but bypassing it to take military action also holds dangers.• Concept of collective security has broadened in recent years. – Failed states – weak control over territory – implications for their neighbors and the international system – Domestic politics as international anarchy – need for intervention
THE WANING OF WAR (1)• In recent years, a strong trend toward fewer wars has become evident. – For the world as a whole, the current period is one of the least warlike ever, with fewer and smaller wars than in the past. – World wars killed tens of millions and left whole continents in ruin. – Cold War – proxy wars killed millions and the world feared a nuclear war that could have wiped out our species. – Iraq and Sudan and wars like these kill hundreds of thousands. • We fear terrorist attacks, but we do not fear that life on the planet will be destroyed.
THE WANING OF WAR (2)• Events in the post-Cold War era continue this long- term trend toward smaller wars.• Today’s most serious conflicts consist mainly of skirmishing rather than all-out battles.• In 2006, wars in Darfur (Sudan), Iraq, and Afghanistan all worsened, a brief Israeli-Lebanese war left lasting wounds, and Sri Lanka resumed a civil war…but progress continued elsewhere. – Congo, Uganda, Nepal
THE WANING OF WAR (3)An estimated 300,000 child soldiers arecurrently fighting in armed conflicts ragingin more than 30 countries around theworld. From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe,from the Congo to Colombia, children asyoung as seven years old are forced tofight in wars about which they have littleunderstanding. Yet, the individual statesand the international community arestarting to awaken to the issue, and anumber of organizations are seeking toaddress the use of young boys and girlsin war, and the failure of national publicpolicy to prevent it. This video examineswomen, children and war in Sudan.
INTERNATIONAL REGIMES (1)• Set of rules, norms, and procedures around which the expectations of actors converge in a certain issue area. – Participants have similar ideas about what rules will govern their mutual participation.• Regimes can help solve collective goods problems by increasing transparency.• Conception of regime.• Enforcement and survival of regimes. – Role of permanent institutions such as the UN, NATO, and the IMF.• Culmination of liberal institutionalism to date is the European Union (EU).
INTERNATIONAL REGIMES (2)Robert Dahl argued that pluralism insured that groups could not singlehandedly influence public policy. Rather, cross-cutting cleavages wouldform, as groups would compromise with others to build coalitions thatwould succeed in affecting change. One can argue that this rebutsMarxism’s contention that major capitalism can succeed n directingpublic policy. International regimes was seen by liberals as a good way tochallenge realism. These regimes are based on long-standing traditionsof international law. John Ruggie was the first to give credence tointernational regimes, followed by Robert O. Keohane and Joseph Nye.John Ruggie defined regimes as sets of “mutual expectations, rules andregulations, plans, organizational energies and financial commitments,which have been accepted by a group of states.” Keohane and Nyeregarded regimes as “governing arrangements that affect relationships ofinterdependence.” John Ruggie’s definition is rooted in constructivistthinking for what is agreed to within a regime represents what the statedesires. Robert O. Keohane and Joseph Nye recognized regimes as atool for actors to pursue their interests.
INTERNATIONAL REGIMES (3)Peter J. Katzenstein, Robert O. Keohane and Stephen D. Krasnersuggest that realism remain vulnerable due to the apparent problematicnature of its core assumption. They identify four: (1) states are the keyactors in the international system; (2) states are all similar in constructionas they all act on behalf of their self-interest; (3) analysis can alwaysconclude that states will act according to their self-interest; and (4) theanarchical international system presents a never ending risk of war andcoercion whenever there a conflict exists between self-interested states.They list three major liberal challenges to realism’s assertion that statescould be regarded as fused rational actors: neofunctionalism,bureaucratic politics, and transnational relations and linkage politics, withall three adhering to how pluralism affects state policies. Internationalregimes was seen by liberals as a good way to challenge realism. Theseregimes are based on long-standing traditions of international law. JohnRuggie was the first to give credence to international regimes, followedby Robert O. Keohane and Joseph Nye.
INTERNATIONAL REGIMES (4)John Ruggie defined regimes as sets of “mutualexpectations, rules and regulations, plans, organizationalenergies and financial commitments, which have beenaccepted by a group of states.” Keohane and Nye regardedregimes as “governing arrangements that affectrelationships of interdependence.” John Ruggie’s definitionis rooted in constructivist thinking for what is agreed towithin a regime represents what the state desires. Keohaneand Nye recognized regimes as a tool for actors to pursuetheir interests.
PEACE STUDIES (1)• Challenges fundamental concepts behind realism and neoliberalism.• Seeks to shift the focus of IR away from the interstate level of analysis and toward a broad conception of social relations at the individual, domestic, and global levels of analysis.• Connects war and peace with individual responsibility, economic inequality, gender relations, cross-cultural understanding, and other aspects of social relationships. – Social revolution – Transnational communities
PEACE STUDIES (3)• Role of militarism – Glorification of war, military force, and violence through TV, films, books, political speeches, toys, games, sports, and other avenues. – Structuring society around war• Conceptualization of peace – Positive peace – Structural violence• Peace movements – Pacifism/nonviolence – Gandhi
DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY (1)Christopher Lane has shown that democracies have not fought each othernot out of respect for other democracies, but that the threat of a third partyhelped to unite democratic states. Democratic peace theory is unfoundedfor if it were valid then the United States would not have helped overthrowthe democratically elected Juan Bosch of the Dominican Republic bysending 23,000 troops whose mere presence helped to topple hisgovernment. Henry Kissinger would validate this action under the tenetsof democratic peace theory by arguing that the Dominican Republic is a“wayward” democracy that may be in danger of tilting toward communismor authoritarian rule. Waltz claims that democracies may currently live atpeace with other democracies, but even if all states became democraticthat the international system would remain anarchic. Michael Doyle,James Lee Ray and Bruce Russett argue that democracies are inherentlymore peaceful than autocratic states. They argue that democracies mayfight as often as other states, but rarely if ever fight one another.
DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY (2)Michael Doyle has argued that the existence of modern democraciesover the last 200 years demonstrates that the democratic peace theoryhas proven successful. Realists have countered these assertionsthrough claims that liberal democracies were either not next to oneanother or shared a mutual threat that encouraged them to look pastdifferences. Another reason provided is that external forces may forcea state to become democratic if it wished to get along with otherdemocracies. This suggests that power relations have alwaysremained a viable factor for non-democratic states may desire goodrelations with strong democracies like the United States. Nationaliststruggles are welcomed as precursors to the solidification process oftolerant and democratic societies. Nationalisms serve to establishunique identities in a world of ever increasing democratichomogenization. It is a process that the United States has been aparty as were emerging democracies in Western Europe in thenineteenth century.
DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY (3)• IR scholars have linked democracy with a kind of foreign policy fundamentally different from that of authoritarianism. – Theory: Democracies are more peaceful than authoritarian regimes. • Not true: Democracies fight as many wars as do authoritarian states. – Democratic Peace: • What is true about democracies is that although they fight wars against authoritarian states, democracies almost never fight each other.• Trend is toward democratization in most of the world’s regions.
KANT & PEACE (1)• What explains this positive trend toward peace?• Kant gave 3 answers over 200 years ago: 1. States could develop the organizations and rules to facilitate cooperation, specifically by forming a world federation resembling today’s United Nations (reciprocity). 2. Peace depends on the internal character of governments- specifically that republics, with a legislative branch that can hold the monarch in check, will be more peaceful than autocrats (identity principle). 3. Trade promotes peace, relies on the presumption that trade increases wealth, cooperation, and global well- being -- all making conflict less likely in the long term because governments will not want to disrupt any process that adds to the wealth of their state.
KANT & PEACE (2)• Kant argued that states could join a worldwide federation and respect its principles. – Remain autonomous – But forego certain short-term individual gains• Kant: International cooperation more rational option than going to war. – To realists, war is a rational option; to liberal theorists, war is an irrational deviation that results from defective reasoning and that harms the interests of warring states.
KANT & PEACE (3)• Neoliberal approach differs from earlier liberal approaches in that it concedes to realism several important assumptions: – States are unitary actors rationally pursuing their self-interests, but they say states cooperate because it is in their self-interest. – Mutual gains better than cheating or taking advantage of each other. – State that neorealists’ pessimism is unjustified. States cooperate MOST of the time. – Positive reciprocity
WHY GENDER MATTERS• Feminist scholarship seeks to uncover hidden assumptions about gender in how we study a subject. – Core assumptions of realism reflect the ways in which males tend to interact and to see the world. – Complex critique – Beyond a basic agreement that gender is important, there is no such thing as a “feminist approach” to IR • Difference feminism: gender differences important and fixed • Liberal feminism: gender differences are trivial • Postmodern feminism: gender differences important but arbitrary and flexible
GENDER IN WAR & PEACE• Difference feminists find plenty of evidence to support the idea of war as a masculine pursuit. – Males usually the primary, and often only, combatants in warfare. – Testosterone.• Both biologically and anthropologically, no firm evidence connects women’s care giving functions with any particular kinds of behavior such as reconciliation or nonviolence.• Idea of women as peacemakers has a long history.• Gender gap.
WOMEN IN IR (1)• Liberal feminists are skeptical of difference feminists’ critiques of realism. – They believe that when women are allowed to participate in IR, they play the game basically the same way men do, with similar results.
WOMEN IN IR (2)• Liberal feminism focuses on the integration of women into the primarily male-dominated areas of foreign policymaking and the military. – Evidence: Female state leaders do not appear to be any more peaceful, or any less committed to state sovereignty and territorial integrity than are male leaders. – In U.S. difficult to compare voting records of men and women on foreign policy: too few women • Women have never chaired the key foreign policy committees – Women as soldiers• In sum, liberal feminists reject the argument that women bring uniquely feminine assets or liabilities to foreign and military affairs.
CONSTRUCTIVISM• An approach that focuses on the nature of norms, identity, and social interaction.• Can provide powerful insights into the world of IR.• Focus: How actors define their national interests, threats to those interests, and their relationships to one another.• Constructivism puts IR in the context of broader social relations.
CONSTRUCTIVISM / RATIONALISM (1)Constructivists are prone to emphasize the impact of ideas instead ofmaterial factors like power or trade as realism and liberalism focusupon. Constructivists would argue that the interests and identities ofstates are determined according to its history and that prevailingdiscourses have helped shape its society’s beliefs and interests, in timeestablishing accepted norm of behavior. They are prone to argue thatstates do not necessarily strive only to survive, but that their behavior inthe international system can also be explained by those norms that areadhered. Constructivists describe rationalist assumptions abouteconomics as actors with clear-cut interests that they have to satisfy byacquiring scarce resources pursued by their rational peers.Constructivist theorists examine the process by which actors see reality,including how they come to identify their interests. They do this byreferencing humanities and the sociological environment from whichactors emerge. Rationalism and constructivism offer two distinctarguments that have yet to be resolved.
CONSTRUCTIVISM / RATIONALISM (2)Rationalism and constructivism both recognize beliefs or knowledge asfundamental. The authors use game-theoretic rationalists and constructivistresearch as examples. Game-theoretic rationalists acknowledge that actorswho share common knowledge about the game allow all sides to engage incollective bargaining. Constructivist research on the other hand focuses onhow the identity of actors developed and how all sides came to accept therules of the game. Rationalists see their method of persuasion as usingacquired information to tailor incentives to bargain in a way that affects howthe other side determines its interests. Constructivists focus on theprogress of social processes that in turn determine normative beliefs byappealing to identities, moral obligations and appealing to norms that strivefor new standards of appropriate behavior. Critical theorists believe that“how we think and talk about the world, largely shapes practice.”
CONSTRUCTIVISM / RATIONALISM (3)John J. Mearsheimer states that critical theorists desire a world wherestates are guided by “norms of trust and sharing”. This theory challengesrealist assumption that structural factors are the primary determinants ofstate behavior. It instead proposes that ideas and discourse are whathelps shape the world, but does recognize that structural factors canhave a minor role in influencing the outcome. Neorealists andneoliberals share a commitment to rationalism. Neorealism’s descriptionof self-help has allowed the discipline to explain the competitive natureof the security dilemma and the reason why collective action fails tomaintain stability. The origin of self-help is not a written law ofinternational relations, but rather one that is developed from classicalrealism’s assertion that human beings are naturally competitive forpower. Neorealists argue that states are not competitive for power, butrather for preserving their security in order to ensure their survival.Liberals concede that the international system is anarchic, yet argue thatit is possible to produce institutional processes that encouragecooperative behavior, thus moving states away from a self-help system.
CONSTRUCTIVISM / FEMINISM (1)Constructivists make the case that the school of International Relationsis a study dominated by Anglo and Euro-centric male policymakerswho are deeply rooted in masculine ideas. It has been argued thatstate policies may influence men and women differently. States aresaid to be dependent on women’s ability to reproduce additionaloffspring and that the state takes on the male role of regulating theiractivities in order to ensure social procreation. Anne Tickner haspromoted a “non-gendered global security system” that is comprised oftwo components. The first is a discipline that thinks in multi-dimensional terms. The second component requires InternationalRelations to consider how insecurities have been cultured according togender as well as how they affect both men and women. Spike V.Peterson has argued that for this to be successful that it is necessaryto universalize claims in a way that is understandable across variouscultures and that they are gender neutral.
CONSTRUCTIVISM / FEMINISM (2)Cynthia Enloe has argued that, “…gender made the world go round”and made her point by asking, “where are the women?” whiledemonstrating “how much power it takes to maintain the internationalpolitical system in its present form”. Anne Tickner has made referenceto Kenneth Waltz’s “Man, The State and War” that the internationalsystem is anarchic as there is no higher power than the state. Shemade has stated her opposition to the conception that competition isinherent within all of humankind, instead making students aware thatthe result may be the lack of feminine participation. Christine Sylvesterprefers post-modern feminism as a good means for students to betterunderstand the claims made by feminists about how males came todefine international relations for so long. She asserts that post-modernfeminism allows us to question how identities have come to be so thatstudents may be able to apply new definitions.
DIFFERENCE FEMINISM VERSUS LIBERAL FEMINISM?• Are the two totally at odds? – Difference feminists argue that realism reflects a masculine perception of social relations and they believe that women’s unique abilities will transform the entire system. – Liberal feminists think that women can be just as realist as men and they believe that female participation in foreign policy and the military will enhance state capabilities.• How can these two positions be reconciled?
POSTMODERN FEMINISM• Line of criticism directed at realism that combines feminism and postmodernism.• Seeks to deconstruct realism with the specific aim of uncovering the pervasive hidden influences of gender in IR while showing how arbitrary the construction of gender roles is.• Archetypes: Just warrior and beautiful soul – Power and potency: State capability and male virility – Realism and liberalism ignore all the sexual aspects of weaponry• Impact of feminist theory
THE MASCULINITY OF REALISM• Difference feminism provides a perspective from which to reexamine realism. – For example, difference feminists have argued that realism emphasizes autonomy and separation because men find separation easier to deal with than interconnection. • Psychological view – Caretaker in early years generally female: Girls form gender identity around their similarity with the caretaker (environment in which they live) and boys perceive their difference from the caretaker. – Boys develop social relations based on individual autonomy, but girls’ relations are based on connection. – Women held to fear abandonment; men more likely to fear intimacy. – Boys dissolve friendships more readily than girls. – Empirical evidence is mixed.• An international system based on feminine principles might giver greater importance to the interdependence of states than to their autonomy.
POSTMODERNISM (1)• A broad approach to scholarship that pays special attention to texts and to discourses – how people talk and write about their subjects.• Central idea: There is no single, objective reality but a multiplicity of experiences and perspectives that defy easy categorization. – Postmodernism itself is difficult to present in a simple or categorical way.• Postmodernists seek to “deconstruct” such constructions as states, the international system, and the associated stories and arguments with which realists portray the nature of international relations. – Deconstruction – Subtext
POSTMODERNISM (2)Sociological work encompasses three areas: conventional, critical, andpostmodern. Conventional constructivists claim that sociologicalperspectives provide tools that may either challenge or supplementrationalism’s assertions. Critical constructivists want to know howactors and systems coexist and believe that social scientific knowledgecan be based on empirical research. They do not like to create normsor laws, instead remaining pluralistic, or desiring a mix of competingresearch methods. Postmodernists are unwilling to recognize anyfoundation from which knowledge may be based. Postmodernists aretherefore self-relegated to discovering how power relations affecthistory or how society claims to profess knowledge. Conventional andcritical constructivists were heavily influenced by new innovative ideasin the humanities promoting shared norms and values while at thesame time epistemologically different from postmodernist theory. It issuggested that students may find that rationalism within the nationalsecurity field and constructivism have established greater linkagesthan in the International Political Economy field.
MARXISM APPROACH TO IR (1)Orthodox Marxism identified capitalism as the primary cause forinternational conflict as capitalist states fought one another in an effortto increase profits. In their eyes, capitalist states battled socialist statesfor the later served to discredit the hypocrisy of capitalism. Neo-Marxistdependency theory asserted that the world system was created bycapitalism in an effort to control the means of production by allowingrich states to profit off of the raw resources of poor states, namelylabor and resources. As Marxism succumbed to its failings,deconstructivist theorists devised a systematic approach to discreditthe trend of devising general or universal theories like realism andidealism. They instead focused on fundamental seeds of culture likelanguage and discourse and how it shaped overall social outcomesboth within a given society and worldwide.
MARXISM APPROACH TO IR (2)Marxists claim that the degree of capitalist influence has a directaffect to political and economic outcomes in both the domestic andinternational realms. It is focused on structural or institutionalarguments instead of being actor centered. Marxism also contendsthat states were the creation of major capitalists. Enriching the statesso that it becomes ever more powerful allows those in control,capitalists, to utilize its power so to further expand markets, therebyincreasing profit, all while increasing the degree of exploitation.Structural Marxism sought to understand why states would introducesocial security and recognize labor unions by arguing that capitaliststates would enact policies that sought to further strengthen loyalty tothe system being forever expanded. Early Marxists believed thatcapitalism would dissolve before assuming global penetration. Theschool took on a new theoretical approach following the fall ofcommunist spheres. Their assumption was that capitalism had to firstachieve dominance, mature for a long time and then collapse due toits hypocrisy.
MARXISM APPROACH TO IR (3)• Holds that IR and domestic politics arise from unequal relationships between economic classes.• Branch of socialism, a theory that holds that the more powerful classes oppress and exploit the less powerful by denying them their fair share of the surplus they create.• Class struggle.• V.I. Lenin and his theory of imperialism – His idea still shapes a major approach to North- South relations. – Globalization of class relations.• Mao Zedong.• Leon Trotsky.• State of Marxist theory today.