International Relations Theory Past Exam with answers, Exams of International Relations

Download International Relations Theory Past Exam with answers and more Exams International Relations in PDF only on Docsity! King’s College London This paper is part of an examination of the College counting towards the award of a degree. Examinations are governed by the College Regulations under the authority of the Academic Board. BA EXAMINATION 4SSW1006 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY EXAMINATION PERIOD 2 (2021)      TIME ALLOWED:  24 HOURS YOU MUST ANSWER TWO QUESTIONS OUT OF EIGHT. YOU ARE ADVISED TO SPEND ONE HOUR ON EACH QUESTION. YOU HAVE A WORD LIMIT OF 1,000 WORDS PER ANSWER. AS THIS IS AN EXAM, YOU DO NOT NEED TO PROVIDE FULL REFERENCES OR A BIBLIOGRAPHY, HOWEVER YOU MUST REFERENCE DIRECT QUOTES AT THE VERY MINIMUM. FOOTNOTES DO NOT COUNT TOWARDS THE WORD COUNT. YOU MUST SUBMIT BOTH YOUR ANSWERS IN ONE WORD DOCUMENT WITH THE COURSEWORK COVERSHEET AS YOUR FIRST PAGE.    DEADLINE: YOU MUST SUBMIT YOUR ANSWER VIA KEATS BEFORE THE END OF THE 24-HOUR PERIOD SET FOR YOUR EXAM.  See Next Page 4SSW1006 1. Why do we need international institutions to combat Climate Change? 2. What is modernity and why does it matter for IR Theory? 3. Analyse two different theoretical understandings of “hegemony” in IR. 4. How is the work of John Locke a useful tool for IR Theorists? 5. Is International Relations Theory “Western”, and why does this question matter? 6. Critically analyse “Realism” using a gender lens. 7. The domestic analogy for international relations is nonsense! do you agree? 8. Is Liberalism militaristic or pacific? Final Page 1 What is modernity and why does it matter for IR Theory? There has long been a debate regarding the concept of Modernity, its value, importance, as well as its relevance for the field of International Relations. The concept of Modernity had emerged during the Enlightenment period and was mainly characterised by the rejection and the abandonment of ancient values and traditions, with an aim to ‘demystify and secularize, to subject natural forces to rational explanations and the expectation that doing so would promote social welfare and human progress’.1 The three main objectives of modernity include: rationalisation, human progress and the development of the scientific method. Therefore, I will be arguing that modernity proves to be an extremely important concept for the International Relations realm, as its core principles build the foundations for some of the most important theories and schools of thought, such as realism and liberalism. Nonetheless, modernity was subjected to high amounts of criticism among Postmodernists, who essentially argue that the rejection of ancient traditions, exclude the moral, cultural and ethical foundations, which carry importance for humanity. The most defining and significant characteristic of modernity is the process of rationalisation, a transformation in the way of thinking. For instance, according to Kant : ‘ the problem with humanity thus far is that it does not think for itself’ and by subjecting its faith into dogmas and religion people remain in a ‘constant state of immaturity’, thus preventing and inhibiting social welfare and humanity progressing morally.2 The rejection of past traditions, as well as the critical use of logic and reason, has the ability to liberate humanity from social constraints and allow them to enter a new level of development, presenting a myriad of new and unrealised possibilities. Therefore, it is clear how the rationalisation process proves to be useful for International relations, since it provides a framework and a fundament for 1 Richard Devetak, “The Project of Modernity and International Relations Theory - Richard Devetak, 1995,” SAGE Journals,https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03058298950240010401, p.30. 2 Ibid., p.30. 2 the ‘strategic interactions among various actors in the international environment’.10A theory usually follows logical consistency, meaning claims should follow the premises and assumptions should not contradict each other.11 Therefore, without the scientific method, the use of logic and reason it would have been impossible to construct proper theories and explain the relationship between variables in the International system, which reinforces the significance and value of the emergence of the scientific approach. In conclusion, it is notable that Modernity proves to carry value for the study of International relations, as its main principles provide a framework for most theories and concepts. The use of rationalisation provides a base for realist concepts, since the unitary actors are treated as rational individuals .The belief in human progress connects with the ideas of liberalists, who believe in constant change and improvement. Furthermore, the use of scientific method allows for the actual development of theories and relies on factual evidence and logic, rather than traditional or religious beliefs. However, Modernity was prevalent during the Eighteenth century, meaning that its relevance and use in the current state might not be as significant, since the International relations realm has evolved and progressed since then. 10 Branislav L. Slantchev, “Introduction to International Relations Lecture 1: The Scientific Method,” April 5, 2005, http://slantchev.ucsd.edu/courses/ps12/01-scientific-method.pdf. p.3 11 Ibid.,6. 5 The domestic analogy for international relations is nonsense! do you agree? The use of the domestic analogy in the field of International relations appears to be quite a controversial topic, which generated a timeless debate regarding the Hobbes’ view of International Politics among scholars. The domestic analogy is the idea that essentially the behaviour of states is similar to the behaviour of individuals, making the assumption that the relationship in the international anarchy between them is alike. Hans Morgenthau argued that the application of the domestic analogy, and the domestic legal experiences of individuals to international politics enhances our understanding and perception. In this essay it will be first argued that the domestic analogy has some use for the field of the International Relations, in explaining the behaviour of states by comparing them to the behaviour of individuals. However, it could then be argued that the domestic analogy is not exempt from flaws, misconceptions and discrepancies, since the main assumption made is that states and individuals share the exact same characteristics, which is not completely accurate, therefore challenging its relevance in International relations. It could be argued that the domestic analogy could be valuable to the International Relations realm, since it provides an explanation for the actions of the states in international anarchy with the perspective of an individual in the state of nature. According to Hobbes, individuals in the state of nature were power-hungry, glory- seeking and driven by fear and the desire to survive. Therefore, without the common higher power to keep order, men are always predisposed to war and conflict due to their desire for self-preservation and security. It is essentially argued that ‘the life of individual men in the state of nature may be read as a description of the condition of states in relation to one another’.12 The states and individuals in the state of nature have a common goal of survival and self-preservation, which leads to 12 Bull, Hedley. "Hobbes and the International Anarchy." Social Research 48.4 (1981): p.721. 6 the security dilemma, wherein actions taken by one state to preserve its security, diminishes and threatens the security of others, resulting in constant mistrust and suspicion. Furthermore, states are considered to be unitary actors, meaning they can only rely on themselves, similarly, individuals in the state of nature act by themselves and cannot be dependent on the help of others. Furthermore, the states in the international system are similar to the individuals in the state of nature due to the absence of a centralised power, meaning both states and individuals live in a condition of anarchy, where there is no overarching authority. In the Leviathan it is argued that according to the Right of Nature ‘each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own Nature ; and consequently, of doing anything, which in his own Judgement and Reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means’ , meaning individuals have the right to anything they can get.13 Since there is no overarching authority, possessing more power than the sovereign, ‘every sovereign hath the same right, in procuring the safety of his people, that any particular man can have in procuring the safety of his own body’. Therefore, both states and individuals have the right to gain and do anything as long as it is for the means of self-preservation and safety. Overall, it is clear how in some ways the domestic analogy provides the foundations for the behaviour of states and the individuals in a state of anarchy, which is especially useful for the realist school of thought. However, the use of the domestic analogy and its relevance has been subjected to criticism and challenged for its inaccuracy when compared to states. First of all, individuals in the state of nature and states could not be accounted as exactly like, since the state holds much more power and authority than a single person, states ‘are not vulnerable to single deadly 13Thomas Hobbes, J C.A Gaskin, and Anthony Simmonds, “Leviathan Part 1,” in Leviathan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), p.189. 7