Dr. Tabakian’s Political Science 7
Modern World Governments – Spring/Fall 2014
Supplemental Power Point Material #6
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
Marxism & Gender Theories Like Feminism
• 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 institutionalism cannot adequately explain international
relations or how to maintain a stable international system in a postCold War world. John J. Mearsheimer asserts that focusing too
much on economic cooperation while neglecting issues relating to
conflict causes the theory to be fundamentally flawed. Collective
security on the other hand deals with how to produce peace by
recognizing that military power is a fact of life in the international
system. It calls for armed states to properly manage their respective
militaries along with allies to maintain proper balances. Advocates of
collective security argue that institutions can states behave
according to three anti-realist norms: states have to renounce using
military force to change the status quo; “responsible” states should
not act according to their narrow self-interest when pursuing
aggressors, but should instead equate their national interest with
that of the international community; and states should have faith that
all parties will follow the first two norms.
COLLECTIVE SECURITY (1)
John J. Mearsheimer lists nine reasons why states may be unwilling to
base their fate on collective security systems that are constructed mainly
to thwart aggressive actions with overwhelming force. First, collective
security system can only work when states are able to differentiate
between aggressor and victim and utilize force against the later. Second,
collective security assumes that all aggression is wrong. Third, states
may be for historical or ideological reasons, overly friendly. Fourth, states
that have shared hostile relations in the past may not be willing to
cooperate. Fifth, states that agree to combat aggression may not be able
to distribute the burden associated with doing so. Sixth, it is difficult to
react quickly in a collective security system. Seventh, states may not be
willing to join a collective security system, as every local conflict can
become an international quagmire. Eighth, forcing states to
instantaneously react to aggression impinges on state sovereignty. Ninth,
responsible states that normally see war as repellent may not be willing
to rescue threatened states.
COLLECTIVE SECURITY (2)
Alexander Wendt lists stages that states may follow to emerge from
a competitive security system to a cooperative system: breakdown
allegiance to identities; examine old ideas and how the state
interacted with other actors; change how other actors define
themselves, their interests and how it maintained old systems of
interaction; foster reciprocal rewards for cooperative actions.
Alexander Wendt believes that any transition to new international
structures requires fervent support of states as they serve as
conduits to a new “post-international” era in politics. The author
claims to be a realist and statist as any new system may coincide
with theories of anarchic interstate politics. However, definitions of
statism do not have to be construed by the dictates of realism about
how 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.
– 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
– Enough members must agree on what constitutes
• 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
• Concept of collective security has broadened in recent
– Failed states – weak control over territory – implications
for their neighbors and the international system
– Domestic politics as international anarchy – need for
THE WANING OF WAR (1)
• In recent years, a strong trend toward fewer wars has
– 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
– Iraq and Sudan and wars like these kill hundreds of
• 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 longterm 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
INTERNATIONAL REGIMES (1)
• Set of rules, norms, and procedures around which the
expectations of actors converge in a certain issue
– Participants have similar ideas about what rules will
govern their mutual participation.
• Regimes can help solve collective goods problems by
• 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 single
handedly influence public policy. Rather, cross-cutting cleavages would
form, as groups would compromise with others to build coalitions that
would succeed in affecting change. One can argue that this rebuts
Marxism’s contention that major capitalism can succeed n directing
public policy. International regimes was seen by liberals as a good way to
challenge realism. These regimes are based on long-standing traditions
of international law. John Ruggie was the first to give credence to
international regimes, followed by Robert O. Keohane and Joseph Nye.
John Ruggie defined regimes as sets of “mutual expectations, rules and
regulations, plans, organizational energies and financial commitments,
which have been accepted by a group of states.” Keohane and Nye
regarded regimes as “governing arrangements that affect relationships of
interdependence.” John Ruggie’s definition is rooted in constructivist
thinking for what is agreed to within a regime represents what the state
desires. Robert O. Keohane and Joseph Nye recognized regimes as a
tool for actors to pursue their interests.
INTERNATIONAL REGIMES (3)
Peter J. Katzenstein, Robert O. Keohane and Stephen D. Krasner
suggest that realism remain vulnerable due to the apparent problematic
nature of its core assumption. They identify four: (1) states are the key
actors in the international system; (2) states are all similar in construction
as they all act on behalf of their self-interest; (3) analysis can always
conclude that states will act according to their self-interest; and (4) the
anarchical international system presents a never ending risk of war and
coercion whenever there a conflict exists between self-interested states.
They list three major liberal challenges to realism’s assertion that states
could be regarded as fused rational actors: neofunctionalism,
bureaucratic politics, and transnational relations and linkage politics, with
all three adhering to how pluralism affects state policies. International
regimes was seen by liberals as a good way to challenge realism. These
regimes are based on long-standing traditions of international law. John
Ruggie was the first to give credence to international regimes, followed
by Robert O. Keohane and Joseph Nye.
INTERNATIONAL REGIMES (4)
John Ruggie defined regimes as sets of “mutual
expectations, rules and regulations, plans, organizational
energies and financial commitments, which have been
accepted by a group of states.” Keohane and Nye regarded
regimes as “governing arrangements that affect
relationships of interdependence.” John Ruggie’s definition
is rooted in constructivist thinking for what is agreed to
within a regime represents what the state desires. Keohane
and Nye recognized regimes as a tool for actors to pursue
PEACE STUDIES (1)
• Challenges fundamental concepts behind realism and
• 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
– 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
DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY
Christopher Lane has shown that democracies have not fought each other
not out of respect for other democracies, but that the threat of a third party
helped to unite democratic states. Democratic peace theory is unfounded
for if it were valid then the United States would not have helped overthrow
the democratically elected Juan Bosch of the Dominican Republic by
sending 23,000 troops whose mere presence helped to topple his
government. Henry Kissinger would validate this action under the tenets
of democratic peace theory by arguing that the Dominican Republic is a
“wayward” democracy that may be in danger of tilting toward communism
or authoritarian rule. Waltz claims that democracies may currently live at
peace with other democracies, but even if all states became democratic
that the international system would remain anarchic. Michael Doyle,
James Lee Ray and Bruce Russett argue that democracies are inherently
more peaceful than autocratic states. They argue that democracies may
fight as often as other states, but rarely if ever fight one another.
DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY
Michael Doyle has argued that the existence of modern democracies
over the last 200 years demonstrates that the democratic peace theory
has proven successful. Realists have countered these assertions
through claims that liberal democracies were either not next to one
another or shared a mutual threat that encouraged them to look past
differences. Another reason provided is that external forces may force
a state to become democratic if it wished to get along with other
democracies. This suggests that power relations have always
remained a viable factor for non-democratic states may desire good
relations with strong democracies like the United States. Nationalist
struggles are welcomed as precursors to the solidification process of
tolerant and democratic societies. Nationalisms serve to establish
unique identities in a world of ever increasing democratic
homogenization. It is a process that the United States has been a
party as were emerging democracies in Western Europe in the
DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY
• IR scholars have linked democracy with a kind of
foreign policy fundamentally different from that of
– Theory: Democracies are more peaceful than
• Not true: Democracies fight as many wars as do
– 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
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
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 wellbeing -- 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
– 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
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
combatants in warfare.
• Both biologically and anthropologically, no firm
evidence connects women’s care giving functions with
any particular kinds of behavior such as reconciliation
• 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
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
– 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
– Women as soldiers
• In sum, liberal feminists reject the argument that women
bring uniquely feminine assets or liabilities to foreign and
• 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.
Constructivists are prone to emphasize the impact of ideas instead of
material factors like power or trade as realism and liberalism focus
upon. Constructivists would argue that the interests and identities of
states are determined according to its history and that prevailing
discourses have helped shape its society’s beliefs and interests, in time
establishing accepted norm of behavior. They are prone to argue that
states do not necessarily strive only to survive, but that their behavior in
the international system can also be explained by those norms that are
adhered. Constructivists describe rationalist assumptions about
economics as actors with clear-cut interests that they have to satisfy by
acquiring 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 by
referencing humanities and the sociological environment from which
actors emerge. Rationalism and constructivism offer two distinct
arguments that have yet to be resolved.
Rationalism and constructivism both recognize beliefs or knowledge as
fundamental. The authors use game-theoretic rationalists and constructivist
research as examples. Game-theoretic rationalists acknowledge that actors
who share common knowledge about the game allow all sides to engage in
collective bargaining. Constructivist research on the other hand focuses on
how the identity of actors developed and how all sides came to accept the
rules of the game. Rationalists see their method of persuasion as using
acquired information to tailor incentives to bargain in a way that affects how
the other side determines its interests. Constructivists focus on the
progress of social processes that in turn determine normative beliefs by
appealing to identities, moral obligations and appealing to norms that strive
for new standards of appropriate behavior. Critical theorists believe that
“how we think and talk about the world, largely shapes practice.”
John J. Mearsheimer states that critical theorists desire a world where
states are guided by “norms of trust and sharing”. This theory challenges
realist assumption that structural factors are the primary determinants of
state behavior. It instead proposes that ideas and discourse are what
helps shape the world, but does recognize that structural factors can
have a minor role in influencing the outcome. Neorealists and
neoliberals share a commitment to rationalism. Neorealism’s description
of self-help has allowed the discipline to explain the competitive nature
of the security dilemma and the reason why collective action fails to
maintain stability. The origin of self-help is not a written law of
international relations, but rather one that is developed from classical
realism’s assertion that human beings are naturally competitive for
power. Neorealists argue that states are not competitive for power, but
rather for preserving their security in order to ensure their survival.
Liberals concede that the international system is anarchic, yet argue that
it is possible to produce institutional processes that encourage
cooperative behavior, thus moving states away from a self-help system.
CONSTRUCTIVISM / FEMINISM
Constructivists make the case that the school of International Relations
is a study dominated by Anglo and Euro-centric male policymakers
who are deeply rooted in masculine ideas. It has been argued that
state policies may influence men and women differently. States are
said to be dependent on women’s ability to reproduce additional
offspring and that the state takes on the male role of regulating their
activities in order to ensure social procreation. Anne Tickner has
promoted a “non-gendered global security system” that is comprised of
two components. The first is a discipline that thinks in multidimensional terms. The second component requires International
Relations to consider how insecurities have been cultured according to
gender as well as how they affect both men and women. Spike V.
Peterson has argued that for this to be successful that it is necessary
to universalize claims in a way that is understandable across various
cultures and that they are gender neutral.
CONSTRUCTIVISM / FEMINISM
Cynthia Enloe has argued that, “…gender made the world go round”
and made her point by asking, “where are the women?” while
demonstrating “how much power it takes to maintain the international
political system in its present form”. Anne Tickner has made reference
to Kenneth Waltz’s “Man, The State and War” that the international
system is anarchic as there is no higher power than the state. She
made has stated her opposition to the conception that competition is
inherent within all of humankind, instead making students aware that
the result may be the lack of feminine participation. Christine Sylvester
prefers post-modern feminism as a good means for students to better
understand the claims made by feminists about how males came to
define international relations for so long. She asserts that post-modern
feminism allows us to question how identities have come to be so that
students may be able to apply new definitions.
DIFFERENCE FEMINISM VERSUS
• 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?
• 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
– Realism and liberalism ignore all the sexual aspects
• Impact of feminist theory
THE MASCULINITY OF REALISM
• Difference feminism provides a perspective from which to reexamine
– 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
– 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
• 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
– Postmodernism itself is difficult to present in a
simple or categorical way.
constructions as states, the international system, and
the associated stories and arguments with which
realists portray the nature of international relations.
Sociological work encompasses three areas: conventional, critical, and
postmodern. Conventional constructivists claim that sociological
perspectives provide tools that may either challenge or supplement
rationalism’s assertions. Critical constructivists want to know how
actors and systems coexist and believe that social scientific knowledge
can be based on empirical research. They do not like to create norms
or laws, instead remaining pluralistic, or desiring a mix of competing
research methods. Postmodernists are unwilling to recognize any
foundation from which knowledge may be based. Postmodernists are
therefore self-relegated to discovering how power relations affect
history or how society claims to profess knowledge. Conventional and
critical constructivists were heavily influenced by new innovative ideas
in the humanities promoting shared norms and values while at the
same time epistemologically different from postmodernist theory. It is
suggested that students may find that rationalism within the national
security field and constructivism have established greater linkages
than in the International Political Economy field.
MARXISM APPROACH TO IR (1)
Orthodox Marxism identified capitalism as the primary cause for
international conflict as capitalist states fought one another in an effort
to increase profits. In their eyes, capitalist states battled socialist states
for the later served to discredit the hypocrisy of capitalism. Neo-Marxist
dependency theory asserted that the world system was created by
capitalism in an effort to control the means of production by allowing
rich states to profit off of the raw resources of poor states, namely
labor and resources. As Marxism succumbed to its failings,
deconstructivist theorists devised a systematic approach to discredit
the trend of devising general or universal theories like realism and
idealism. They instead focused on fundamental seeds of culture like
language and discourse and how it shaped overall social outcomes
both within a given society and worldwide.
MARXISM APPROACH TO IR (2)
Marxists claim that the degree of capitalist influence has a direct
affect to political and economic outcomes in both the domestic and
international realms. It is focused on structural or institutional
arguments instead of being actor centered. Marxism also contends
that states were the creation of major capitalists. Enriching the states
so that it becomes ever more powerful allows those in control,
capitalists, to utilize its power so to further expand markets, thereby
increasing profit, all while increasing the degree of exploitation.
Structural Marxism sought to understand why states would introduce
social security and recognize labor unions by arguing that capitalist
states would enact policies that sought to further strengthen loyalty to
the system being forever expanded. Early Marxists believed that
capitalism would dissolve before assuming global penetration. The
school took on a new theoretical approach following the fall of
communist spheres. Their assumption was that capitalism had to first
achieve dominance, mature for a long time and then collapse due to
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
• Class struggle.
• V.I. Lenin and his theory of imperialism
– His idea still shapes a major approach to NorthSouth relations.
– Globalization of class relations.
• Mao Zedong.
• Leon Trotsky.
• State of Marxist theory today.
EXAMPLE OF A CLOSED STATE
America currently identifies Iraq, Iran and North
Korea as rogue states for reasons that include
their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction,
including nuclear weaponry. This pursuit is not
solely for defense, but offensive capability that may
rattle international stability. What makes nationstates like North Korea even more dangerous is
that they are “closed states”. President Kim Jon Il
continues his policy of preventing his people
access to international opinion. This in turn fosters
increased suspicion for interdependent cleavages
are not allowed to form between North Korea and
the rest of the world. Enjoy this Discovery video
about North Korea. It identifies how children are
indoctrinated from a very early age to accept their
leader, President Kim Jon Il as their savior, or even