International Relations 101: Understanding World Politics, Actors, and Security - Prof. Io, Study notes of World Politics

Download International Relations 101: Understanding World Politics, Actors, and Security - Prof. Io and more Study notes World Politics in PDF only on Docsity! PSCI Test 1 Study Guide Ch. 1 Political Science>International Relations>Security Studies> Strategic Studies International Relations  Difference between PSCI and IR: the former studies the domestic environment of the state, the latter focuses on the state’s external environment and links between the domestic and international  Def: the relationships among the world’s governments. A particular field of inquiry within the discipline of Political Science that seeks to examine international issues, actors, structures, and processes. Focuses on the states external environment, as well as the link between domestic and international. The study of the implementation of a states foreign and security policy. Looks at the international political structures and processes along with economic and social processes. o Security Studies: subfield of IR that deals with the identification of and response to existential threats facing individual and political communities  Strategic Studies: constitutes a subfield of Sec. Studies that focuses exclusively on the threat and use of forces in world affairs, as well as policies that seek to ameliorate threats stemming from the potential use of forces in and effort to achieve international security and stability.  World Politics: Characterized by a struggle for power because the global community lacks a world government  International Politics: Deals with the relations between nations, NOT states, and it deals with political affairs and NOT economic social or environmental issues  Anarchy: in IR implies the absence of a superior political authority above the state (not chaos and disaster)  Nation: groups of people who share common historical experiences, common customs and traditions, common values and norms, and a common language  A State: has 1) existence of a clearly defined territory 2) Existence of a permanent population living within this territory 3) Existence of a government that exercises effective control over the ppl living within this territory 4) Recognition by other states  (States may include more than 1 nation within its boundaries, and a nation may exist within the boundaries of more than 1 state)  Actors in IR: include o States- the most dominant actors o International Govt Orgs (IGOs) - ex: UN, EU, NATO, OAS, NAFTA, AU o Sub-State actors  International Non-Govt Orgs (NGOs) – ex: Red Cross, Green Peace  Groups – Terrorists  Individuals o Multinational Corps – ex: BP, Shell, Mercedes Benz  Why study World Politics? It helps us o Relate the worlds future to our own o Identify connections between international issues and the politics of individual states o Find patterns in complexity of current events  Theory vs. Practice o No separation between T and P, theory is generated from previous practice, theory guides future practice o Theorists = Scholars and academics  Scholar = university prof or prof academic who teaches/does research. They produce new knowledge through research and theorizing o Practitioners = Policy, aka diplomats, analysts, people who work in sectors of the govt that influence how states interact. They deal with the implantation of theory  The Policy-Theory Relationship o 1. To what extent do policymakers and practitioners define and approach problems in similar ways? Do they speak the same language? Do they frame questions in the same terms and apply the same importance to the same aspects of debates? o 2. How balanced is the relationship between theorists and practitioners? Are policymakers taking more information and direction from epistemic sources or is it the other way around? Do theorists look to issues of implementation to influence their academic work more than practitioners look to theorists? o 3. What relationship does theory have to power? o 4. Do academics focus too much on the actions of politicians? Should we always be looking at what politicians or policymakers are doing to frame research questions or aspects of scholarly debate? o 5. How can we effectively translate academic ideas into the world of policy and practice?  3 general dilemmas of IR theory o Should IR as a discipline focus more eon historical perspectives of the IR system or the contemporary aspect? (Currently focused on contemporary) o How do IT theorist distinguish themselves from historians? o Because of the relationship between the academy and the practitioner, to what extent can we maintain academic independence? Ch. 2 Realist  Tend to view security as a derivative of power (a state w enough power to reach a dominant position in the international system would acquire security as a result). But the power-security dilemma show power as the route to security is self-defeating  Policy-relevant theories may have explicit purposes that stem from the value preferences of the theorist, such as reducing the likelihood of war  Normative theory deals precisely with values and value preferences The 4 perspectives of IR  These 4 perspectives are NOT mutually exclusive in all respects.  Each perspective represents a commonality among diverse theoretical approaches Realism  State-centric  Based on 4 assumptions o States are the principle/most important actors o The state is a unitary actor, aka has 1 policy at any given time on any particular issue o The state is a rational actor o National security tops the agenda Pluralism  Multi-centric  Based on 4 assumptions o States are not the most important actors o States are not unitary actors o States are not rational actors o The agenda of int politics is extensive, economic, social, environmental issues matter too Globalism  Idea-centric  Based on 4 assumptions o Emphasis on the structure of the global system which conditions the behavior of actors o Classes are recognized as additional actors o International relations should be viewed from a historical perspective o Focus on the mechanisms of domination (how some actors impose on others) (by which some states, classes, or elites manage to benefit this capitalist system at the expense of others) o The primacy of economic factors Constructivism  Global-centric o Anarchy is what states make of it o Interests are dependant on the internal and collective identities of actors o Actors behave based on how they construct their identities o These identities are based on the values, norms, and beliefs of individual states and collective entities, and are therefore constantly changing o States that share history, cultural norms, and political beliefs are less likely to perceive each other as security threats than states that don’t o Constructivist theories are better used to explain significant changes in a states foreign policy and world image  Soft power: based on the idea that states can influence other states just by being who they are Levels of analysis problem  Levels represent different angles from where one can observe an object or a situation • Most important levels of analysis are: 1. International system: the largest conglomerate of interacting or interdependent units (states and nations) that does not have system level above it * International subsystems: groups of units (states and nations) within the international system that can be distinguished by the particular nature of intensity of their interactions with or interdependence on each other (regional systems) 2. Global level: interaction among all various international actors (states, nations, IGOs, NGOS, groups) *Sub-units: organized groups of individuals within units that are able to affect the behavior of the unit * Foreign policy level: between the systematic and sub-unit levels of analysis and refers to how foreign policy decisions are made 3. Individuals: constitute the bottom line of analysis in social sciences Exemplifying the Level of Analysis Problem • Individual: Hitler and WWII (war caused by Hitler) • Sub-unit: groups and organizations within Germany like the Nazi Party, identified with Hitler’s ideas (war caused by Nazis) • Unit: war caused by Germany • Systematic: primary cause of the war was the anarchic structure of The international system