Conceptos filosoficos y políticos, Esquemas y mapas conceptuales de Historia de Relaciones Internacionales

¡Descarga Conceptos filosoficos y políticos y más Esquemas y mapas conceptuales en PDF de Historia de Relaciones Internacionales solo en Docsity! Part 1. BEFORE THE COMING OF THE DISCIPLINE 1.THOMAS HOBBES. Thomas Hobbes was the first philosopher in the 17th century in doing a systematic system of politics. He’s the most important political philosopher of times and the first of modern times. Similar to Hobbes is Descartes, the first philosopher of modern times. He evolved the theories of Descartes by using theories such as: striking before thoughts, medieval philosophy all was falling apart, no one was believing in that (St. Tomas was only studied in universities but no one actual believe it) so Descartes philosophy was based on part on nothing, forgetting everything in order to obtain certainty. His first stone of its philosophy is “I think, therefore I am” even if someone is mistaken or wrong in the concepts, they are sure of their existence and ability of think. Descartes and Hobbes existed in the same time during the17thcentury. They met in France. Hobbes was worried about previous legitimation of government and thoughts. In the 17thcentury, there was a point where there was no secure way to legitimize the government in Europe. The ways of the past were no longer believed so Hobbes was worried about it, he was looking for a new way of legitimizing political power. For Hobbes discussion and human war is a way to hide the truth in contrary on the present thought, were discussion is good. It was a time of civil war in late 16th–17th century. He said that wars were because of the fact of looking and fighting for the idea of what is good. Ancient political philosophers try too much to look for the best/perfect regime. However, Hobbes said that is impossible to agree on what is the best regime. We are humans so we tend to discuss, neither on who has the religious authority as Europe is divide. The only way on humans to agree on something is avoiding what is bad/evil, just look for the good (not as ideological as only looking for the good, is a simpler to avoid the evil). He based his philosophy on worst evil, worst of what can happen to humans, and built his philosophy on a new base: The stone of philosophy is fear of violence and death, is an instinct no one can deny (worst evil).“Fear of Violent Death”- something that humans can’t avoid. Instincts are stronger than opinions, they are something you can’t ignore or argue against. HOBBES VS LOCKE If we compare him with Aristotle, he and all ancient philosophers think men are social by nature; they are social animals. This is a contradiction with most modern philosophers, who don’t agree that humans aren’t social by nature. This is a product of human will rather than something natural. In the 18th century some philosophers criticized Hobbes saying that socializing is an instinct. CONTRACTUALISM is a way of finding a new legitimation of power and society (we all agree to build society). In this aspect, Hobbes make people aware that we all agree on a society. There is a new way of legitimation of power, based in something called “the State of Nature” that existed time before human society was form. We have social contract (more in an economical way), and that’s why we have Society. Social contract is a method. The reason why people go from state of nature to social contract is due to Hobbes’ states that the State of Nature is a terrible state. Humans live terrified of violence and death. There is no guarantee or authority that others are going to be peaceful and respect us, so he justifies killing. Everyone has the right of anything in nature. Humans are rational so they have to overcome these states, therefore we can agree to make a contract either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler. For him, the state of nature is state of war. The human being understands that we need an agreement to stabilize it, so we create a contract with one sovereign. The problem of agreements without an authority is that nothing guarantees the other will do its part so an authority is needed. Locke criticized it. The state of nature is given to the sovereign. There is one problem: they can do whatever they want. Locke said: “let’s hope the king is a good king” (Sovereignty: the one who has the power to decide, the one who has the last word). Some tips about Locke’s concept of sovereignty: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS- THEORY Two states with different contracts are in a State of Nature between themselves as there is no authority between them. States are in a relationship between themselves in the same kind of relationship as individuals in the state of nature, which means they are in war and fearing the others. They have to calculate and anticipate what others are doing. International politics is a State of Nature, they can conquer or kill other states. This is a long-lasting institution for realist theory. In realist theory, states are the most important.What is important is the sovereign.The State of Nature between states can’t be overcome as it means there are different sovereigns (social contract can’t be made between sovereigns). This analogy between individuals and states (according to Hobbes) has been a common way of thinking of international relations. Kant also bases on the idea that humans are bad. The main arguments against this theory are the idea of what is the point of quitting the State of Nature as individuals if we are going to take part in the State of Nature between states. Hobbes answer to Kant that the State of Nature in individuals is much more terrible than State of Nature in states, is a better situation to humans (individuals’State of Nature is the worse state, it is better be accompanied). necessary.The French Revolution wanted everyone to be the same and not derived by society. (equal citizenship) Their recognition of their inner dignity. Kant is also the father of Democratic Peace Theory. He said that democratic countries are less likely to make wars between themselves. (Freedom- public use of reason, equality, and independence) Kant says that democratic government are more likely to be peaceful than other kinds of governments because people are less likely to want to go to war as it affects them. The solution for obtaining the final state of perpetual peace is that every state or country should be a Republican state (a state that has politics of reason) and they should join a kind of Federation of republics, then perpetual peace will be achieved. Kant is against Hobbes idea of the impossibility of overcoming State of Nature between states as they should enter a kind of Civic State, federation of state that should be democratic too. There are two ways to achieve the Civic State: 1. International organization through commission 2. Internationalorganization through Parliament. Liberalism in international relations- It is important to overcome the State of Nature through these three things: 1. Republic States 2. International federacy/ institutions 3. Commerce This thought is very important for international theory in the XX century. It influences a lot the 14 points of Woodrow Wilson. There are two critics to his theory: - Feasibility of his theory- (Nietzche: the aristocracy and the conditions of a state) - Leo Straus thought: Perpetual peace = Perpetual war. Perpetual peace is somehow a way to have indefinite perpetual war (Westfalian politics). Kant is putting up so many standards that his theory becomes dangerous. We look for such good ends that we put in danger anything. With the perpetual peace we are justifying to do anything. Just in the way that we look for perpetual peace, is in the practise when it comes perpetual wars. For Hegel, the main point of democracy is providing recognition to people. You are understood like someone equal to others. The basic theories of IR are: - Realism - Grotius (Natural Right) - Liberalism Realism: Before Westfalia, or at least even something earlier, we have international institution controlling international relations: The church. But reformation, war, and religions ended with that. When the church ended playing that rule intermediation between states we have this idea that the only way for states to dale with each other is between force. Natural Right: Grotius tried to provide new bases for IR that could be accepted from every religious point of view, and what he found was natural right. Because humans are social, they have some basic features that doesn’t need a main power to make control. Simply because we are social, it’s natural law, for example to respect to others. That put us like a minimum to respect others, the natural law. State should respect this law, the law of the people. For Grotius, there is no option to progress in history because we just have natural right. For Grotius, this natural right can be discovered rationally. Liberalism: Just War Theory provides criteria for discriminating unjust wars. According to St. Thomas, in medieval time Just War Theory was seen as “The good intention of the soberan”. For Machiavelli and Hobbes, preventive wars are this kind of conflicts in which you should participate. War is only war to be started if you have any possibility to win (this though is against Kant theory). RI is about providing reason to justify war. For Grotius, war is not a preventive war. Part2. METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES Nationalism is different from patriotism of xenophobia. Xenophobia, racism or patriotism are natural feelings about being proud or liking your own community and being reluctant about others or at least suspicious. Nationalism is not natural: is a political statement, the political ideology (ideas that provide easy solutions to political problems, the recipe for overcoming the conflict of the world) about the idea that the world is naturally divided in nations (cultural identities) and that in order to achieve peace and harmony in the world political borders should respect the natural division of the world. Others points of view says that the world is not naturally divided in nations because borders between nations aren’t clear. Nationalism is a new way of legitimising political power. There are even some communities that live inside another community, so nationalism is destabilising the world as it is impossible to look for the natural perfect division of the world. Nationalism for Kedourie it is proof of the fail of ideologies, and colonialism is a result of nationalist ideologies spreading. For Kedourie, Kant is the origin of nationalism. It is because that even though his moral idea is so pure, he also provided the idea that we are actors in history and that we can take history in our own hands (Enlightenment idea), and the idea that moral actions are good just because they are moral, regardless the consequences. FIRST GREAT DEBATE:Liberalism vs Realism LIBERALS: 30s- The first Great Debate is realism against idealism (liberalism/ utopianism). On the liberal/idealist side, the main representative is Leonard Wolf, and of the realists, Edward Carr. Both visions have its origins after the WWI, in trying to answer why the war happened and think in a future of cooperation. The vision that gained traction and influenced IR at first was the liberals, based on Wilson’s 14 points. They demonstrate the beginning of IR through idealism. Much more pacifist if International politics were run by experts and scientists who published the work in a public light. They were established with the hope to prevent another war to happen by spreading democratic values and international institutions(to create peace). Though, they consisted on the establishment of an International Institution (must important point, with the purpose of affording guarantees of political interdependence and territorial integrity of nations), colonial and territorial claims should be settled with regard of the principle of self-determination of people (foment Nationalism in the sense of respecting nations). Encourage free trade among nations, the necessity of a transparent diplomacy (agreements must be open to public scrutiny) and reduction of weapons production. Also, society, while he thought that the way to change society was through changing the economy. THE BEHAVIOURAL REVOLUTION: 50’S AND 60’S The new academics differ on how IR should be studied, these new ideas could be summarized under the term “behaviourism” endeavoured which goal was to make social sciences fully scientific in the natural-science meaning of the term. The main task is to collect empirical data about IR, which can be used for measurements, classification, generalization and validation of hypotheses, and the way to do it is through behaviour as it is the only thing that can give certainty about humans, therefore they prefer to ignore values as they can’t be objectively studied. This way, behaviourism is not a new theory but a new method of studying IR. A believe of positivism emplaced in this revolution and the term Unity of Science became common (scientific method could be applied to any kind of field). The two methodological approaches to IR were the traditional and the behavioural.(David Eastan) The traditional approach is a holistic one that accepts the complexity of the human world, sees international relations as part of the human world, and tries to understand it in a humanistic way (understanding it from the inside). This approach is very common in the UK and Hedley Bull is the most important representative of it. He says that is a mistake to believe only in the evident as the scientific approach does. He believed in the meaning of behaviours that differentiates scientific behaviour from relevant behaviour, as some will have more meaning than others. Traditionalist, to understand behaviour from the inside, need to enter into the role of state people, attempting to understand the moral dilemmas in their foreign policies, appreciating the basic values involved. To approach IR in that traditional way involves the scholar in understanding the history and practice of diplomacy, the history and role of international law, the political theory of the sovereign state, and so on. Max Weber was an important sociologist and he establishes a difference between verstehen (understand) and esklarung (clarify). The first term is related when studying real life actions with meaning (as traditionalist), this means understanding things that aren’t scientifically measurable. On the other hand, esklarung means when studying the behaviour with statistics, only the superficial. THE SCIENTISM OR BEHAVIOURALISM (POSITIVISTIC APPROACH): It has no place for morality or ethics in the study of IR because that involves values and those can’t be studied objectively. This approach is characteristic of IR departments in the US, and its main representative is Morton Kaplan. They believe that science can only happen if there is a value-free research, separating values from facts. Critics emphasize that they are making a mistake by treating human relations as an external phenomenon in the same category as nature, so that the theorist stands outside the subject, what is impossible as the theorist will never completely divorce from human relations. Leo Strauss says that positivistic approaches don’t understand that objective science can’t fully understand history, as there are some things that can’t be explained without values. The difference between good and bad has always been a key point to understand which is the best regime in ancient political theories, understanding Nazism and the holocaust is impossible without referring to morality. Scientific research has to be always operationalist/instrumentalist. Operationalistsbelieve that there must be a scale to measurethings, and the problem is that social sciences objectives are more complicated, as it’s not easily measured. On the other side, instrumentalists are against realist point of view, saying that reality is metaphysical, and that science is about providing laws that are coherent with the facts (more plausible and not philosophical), not like realist think (realists believe that scientific research can provide the truth about reality through laws). For that reason, science should be fully instrumental, providing laws that explain the facts but don’t say what reality is, as the reality exists independently from our own perception. Some scholars tried to reconcile both approaches by being conscious about IR as a sphere of human relations while also trying to come up with general models that seek to explain the world politics. An example of it is Morgenthau, as in studying moral dilemmas of foreign policy he is a traditionalist but, he also seeks for general “laws of politics” which are supposed to apply universally, so in this case he would appear in the behaviourist camp. Behaviourism- the only thing we can truly measure. 2.PROBLEM OF TWO DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES There are two perspectives, macro and micro. Once in the second great debate scientism won, now everyone was committed to do purely scientific work. But now, the level of analysis has to be established and that is the new problem of social sciences. The first posture, macro means sociology, study the behaviour of societies, analysis based on the whole of the structure of the group. And micro, which refers to social psychology; trying to understand the behaviour of groups from the perspective of individuals, or basic cognitive features. In terms of sociology the perspectives of the debate are called Structure (global, perspective, the structure lying behind everything must be understood); and on the other side, Agency (specific perspective, tempt to put emphasis on individual action, the actors (agents) must be understood). Each perspective focuses on looking for the causes of the behaviour of a society. The same happened in IR, but the Structure is called Systematic Approach and the Agency, Reductionist Approach. In the book Men, the State and War” Kenneth Waltz talks about a clear separation between three types of explanations in IR, the 3 different answers of the question “Why wars happen?”, structure, nature of States and Realism: Human nature. The first one, the Structural realists believe in anarchy, saying that the best way to avoid war is through balance of power. The Structural Idealists believe in the need to create International Institutions. z The Structural perspectives is the most popular research nowadays, because they criticize others perspectives for not looking at the big picture, giving too much importance to smaller details; and because of the inevitability of structure (for example: it doesn’t matter if the unit is democratic or communist, if they relate in a balance of power structure their relation will be stable, as they tend to respondto the structure they are in). From a scientific point of view, it is easier to make science out of structure that works in patterns, rather than of agents. It is criticized for having the tendency of what is called reification that is when a concept is used and treated as an entity. Those who study the structural perspective tend to believe that the structure is a real entity but the reality is that the structure is nothing without its concept. The other perspective is Nature of States, in which States are political unions, being more an Agency point of view. The reasons to go to war originate in the internal policies of countries. Here, the Idealist applies the Democratic Peace Theory. This perspective gave birth to a new discipline called Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA), that studies how some states arrive to decision making at an internal level, which means, finding reasons that are within the political unit. Finally, the Realist Human nature of Individuals, it is an agency perspective, that focuses on the decision makers, something not so common in IR but more frequent for historians. 6. International politics is an autonomous sphere. That can be because IP is reached by power. Hans Morgenthau He isn’t a hard-core Machiavelli, he just say that goals as a moral being can't be achieved. Some ideas of Morgen Thau: - Prudence is the ability to understand what’s better for certain circumstances in a realist view. Realism I about thinking depending on the circumstances. - He believes that the is some little opportunity of becoming a little bit less chaotic this world, but we cannot believe that international relation is about national power. - The idea that international politics is an autonomous field: to understand what is happening in IP you should always look to political leaders like their final goal is increase the power. They are able to do everything to increase the power. It always be the final goal. After publishing Morgenthau’s book Politics among nations, US was the dominant country in IR. HETHERODOX REALISM In this theory we have two authors called realist, but they don't really agree with some ideas about realism: ➢ UK: Martin Wight. ➢ France: Raymond Aron. Heterodox Realists: An important heterodox realist in UK is Martin Wright. He was characterized by his pessimism and his view of power. Martin Wright was an aristocrat snob that really didn’t care about the academic world; he didn't published anything so we are able to know his works today thanks to his former students. He was a radical defender of traditionalist approach; He thought that we cannot understand IR without the help of philosophy or history. He was considered a realist because two main ideas: he thought power politics is an important fact to understand IR, and because he was a pessimist in overcoming conflicts in human nature (humans are bad by nature and tend to fight each other). He was a heterodox realist because power politics is not always a key point in International Politics, they aren’t always the dominant feature for IP. There are some periods in which some other elements are important too, and where other elements are involved too, sometimes Power politics is not the main element. And in this respect he thinks that we can develop in IP some kind of basic common culture or basis non-written laws (Example of Diplomacy, which is the culture of gentleness and very soft manners). Of course Power politics are important, but other facts can be relevant too. His point is that Power Politics is important, but cultural factors can be relevant as well. He thinks that we can have some very basic International Society. The hardcore realists think that we live in state of nature among states. Martin is not as radical as these hardcore thinkers; he thinks that with our basic common culture we can develop ways to establish an international society among nations, for example, diplomacy. One condition for having a full developed power politics is that we must have a system of states with independent political unity. Three moments in history that IR considers system of state are: 1. The modern western system of state after Westphalia 2. Chinese system of state in the VII BC to II AC 3. Greeks cities states that had full sovereignty, and independent political unit Martin Wright thought that there are some patterns in International Politics, but we don’t have to think that those patterns work mechanically. For instance, Balance of power follows a pattern but is not produced by mechanism. He also believed that ideas were relevant for International Politics. Our ideas influence International Politics and in some cases they dominated. For example, ideas in the French revolution, Russian revolution and in the reformation (theological questions). Another thing is that we cannot understand the modern IR without understanding the reformation and its ideas. It is important to distinguish between Revolutionary times (ideas, belief are relevant), and Post-revolutionary times (Institutionalize and established power politics). Finally, Martin Wright is the grandfather of the English School of IR which is a mixture of rationalist and ideologist and also they defined themselves as traditionalists. Another Important heterodox is Raymond Aron from France. He was a friend of Sartre, but he wasn’t as famous as Sartre was. First, he was a left wing, but after he changed his mind. He was what is called a Cold War Liberal, a process in which people are normally on the left, but leave this thinking in context of war against communism, and put all their effort to combat communism. In other words, you are in the left wing until communism attacks. Raymond Aron wrote The Opium of the Intellectual, he said that religion is the opium of the people. He wrote the book against communist intellectuals that were justifying themselves. Aron was a historian of sociology, and philosopher of history, but he devoted himself to science. For him, history and IR are very connected; we cannot make IR without history. His main doubt or question was what can be changed in history and what can’t be changed in history, which is one of the most important questions in IR. It is stupid to say that there is no change in history, and that we have some pattern in history that is coming back. And because we have both changes and patterns in history, it is important to ask what can we change and what we cannot. Given some historic facts that happened what due to impersonal processes and what is due to action of some leaders or individual actors. Impersonal process that individual actors cannot control were called process in history, this means that actions will happen with or without individuals involves. Some examples of this process are seemed in: 1. Modernisation on the Industrial Revolution (no one specifically started it) 2. The Inevitability of the process of technology 3. Other fundamental impersonal process is demography. Because individuals or actors cannot do anything to changed it. 4. Also trade 5. Globalization We must distinguish these processes from Drama. Drama is somehow supposed that individuals involves are free. It is a play of free individuals, and that’s why it is dramatic. Drama is contrary to comedy, where people are no longer free, and they seem trapped on their destiny, people just are like they are in comedy. In drama, you are free and not linked to a destiny. For Raymond, there are both: • Process in history (expectable) • Drama in history (unexpected) Example: Napoleon in France and Hitler in Germany. Aron says that if history was all about process, everything will be too evident. Meanwhile, if history was only drama, we wouldn’t be able to understand anything. History in reality is a mixture of drama and process, that is why we can understand some things and some others don’t. He made an analysis of Philosophy of History, where he tried to find how history happens. He divided his analysis in a progressive and pessimistic philosophy of history. • Progressive: The ones that think that we are always walking to a better future. Two examples of this way of thinking are: o Marx, because he was sure of the happy ending of the process in history, as he thought that each country would go through the clash of classes and finally reach their happy ending. o Benjamin Constant, as he thought we were entering a new commercial time in history, and this way we were replacing the military. War and commerce are two ways of getting what you want. Commercial society is peaceful, and military will eventually disappear. • Pessimistic: They thought that catastrophes can always happen. ■ Bipolar world is more equal than multipolar world. In a bipolar world The balance of power is much more effective. Because you have many actors, you tend to this balance of power. MULTIPOLAR WORLD (Westphalian Orden). ■ More distributed power: is making the world easier and safer. ■ More actors to rebalance the state of things. 2. But, What is better for peace? Balance or Imbalance? ➢ Balance power. One there is one hegemonic power, the dominant power will always try to expand and increase their domination and power to ensure and last longer. ■ Can be: Bipolar, Multipolar ➢ Imbalance power. Means unipolarism power, there are just a few or one individual actor of power. ■ Post-cold War: 90s was a very peaceful time. Only one superpower. ■ XIXth century: Pax Britain. 3. Changing the amount of power. What is dangerous is the changing of the amount of power, because when we have the distribution of power changing we have countries afraid about other, for example. It is more likely to produce war than a stable power. 2. LIBERALISM Why read a chapter on the liberal tradition in IR? The short answer is that you need to know the liberal tradition to form your own opinion about one of the most keenly debated issues in IR: the pessimistic view of realism versus the optimistic view of liberalism. The previous chapter introduced the realist tradition, with its focus on power and conflict. This chapter is about the sharply contrasting liberal view. How can liberals be optimistic? Why do they see a more peaceful world down the road? The liberal tradition in IR is closely connected with the emergence of the modern liberal state. Liberal philosophers, beginning with John Locke in the seventeenth century, saw great potential for human progress in modern civil society and capitalist economy, both of which could flourish in states which guaranteed individual liberty. Modernity projects a new and better life, free of authoritarian government, and with a much higher level of material welfare. Liberalism is the term used for doctrine in domestic politics commonly. What is Liberalism in domestic policies? Liberal democracies are Regimes that are formed because of traditions of liberalism and democracy. Why tradition of democracy and tradition of liberalism can be conflicted? Both are contradictory and antagonist because of the rights: ■ Democracy: government of people ▪ People is in charge ■ Liberalism: basic individual rights ▪ Mixed government ▪ Basic individual rights ▪ Commerce We live in a regime that try to balance both doctrines: liberalism and democracy: People tend to accept power, but this power has some limitations that are the civil rights. The rules of populism is trying to say that we have forgotten about democracy Is really interesting that liberalism has been so successful in domestic policies, but not in IR. So why cannot international relations behave in a liberal way? The answer is simple: International politics is about power, not about liberalism. But we can say that liberalism in IR is the school that is trying to somehow make IP a little closer to what liberal domestic regimes have. Of course, Realism has been the dominant school, and liberalism has been always the great alternative. Liberalism had a really important time: the idealism with Wilson, etc. After the end of the Cold War, liberalism started to be relevant again, and it had other important moments: Optimism after the Cold War, where finally it could be implemented a liberal world order. And people saw it as the triumph of the Liberalism, they though that we could finally get a liberal world order. IDEAS OF LIBERALISM: How to have a liberal order. 1. Democratic Regimes: To have democratic domestic regimens inside. For example: A. Democratic Peace Theory (Kant): Democracies are hesitant to engage in armed conflict with other identify democracies. B. The liberal ideology of Fukuyama: The idea that domestic democratic regimens are going the make the world better. Fukuyama said that the establishment of liberal orders and democratic regimens is not because they are better in economy or in power, but because they are better ideas so people will accept them. 2. International trade: Interest of nations aren’t conflicted and can be harmonized. The antecedents are Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Bentham, Emmanuel Wallerstein. A. Montesquieu (Dux Comerce Theory: the idea that commerce will make the countries more civilized). 3. International Institutions: A. Abbe St Pierre: monk of the XVIII century who made a project to build an European Institution. Finally, this theory says that in the middle of those three is: PEACE. The ideas of Domestic Liberalism powers can be summarized in some points: First, citizens have very basic individual rights that cannot be violated by any institution; Privet property is one of the basic rights; The market is the biter institution of wealth, rather than the planification of states; And finally, the idea that the people should be in charge if the legislative power. There are some very important concepts of liberalism for international relations: ✓ Society are previous to political units, political units are the result of society, and ✓ Societies are plural. There are many groups with many different interests. This is very relevant because, for example, for realism politics the state is everything and society is not playing anything. There is not such a thing as national interest understood as something uniform, homogeneous. ✓ For liberalism, institutions are there for making peaceful the fact that we have many different interest in many different groups, it has to be peaceful. ✓ Origin of the idea of Democratic Peace Theory: says that we need to represent in the foreign policy the different interests of the different groups, then there is less likely to go to war. ✓ Representation: politics is representing some previews and different interests of societies, and when this happen there is more peace. There is nothing like having ➢ Neo-realists thinks that cooperation is difficult to obtain, and it depends on state power. They will only usecooperation when it can be helpful for them. ➢ Neo-realism accept that institutions can be used for maximazing value (power). ➢ Neo liberalism tend to think that there will be increasinglycooperative behaviour in the world. ➢ The main difference is about: - Absolute gains: you have more the you used to have, you are better than you were before. (LIBERALS). - Relative gains: in comprising to other your situation has changed for better. You are in a better position that you were before, compared to other. (REALISM). Neo-realism thinks that IR is only about relative gains, and finally cooperation is very difficult because finally someone is gaining. Neo-liberalism think that states don’t care about relative gains, only when states look for absolute gains is when cooperation happens. Cooperation only have sense when you are looking for absolute gains. Neo- realists think that states only look for relative gains so for that reason so as eventually one has to lose, so cooperation is hard. Relative gains is about "I will do anything to maintaining my power over you"; but absolute gains is "we are going to work together even if I’m stronger". WHY the EU started? The EU started because they didn’t want a new world war.The agenda of France in foreign policy has always trying to divide politically Germany. The reunification of Germany was a big threat to France. The EU is first thought as a way to end the rivalry between this two countries (that came from the 1870 Franco-Prussian war). France needed the coal and steel from Germany. France is the biggest importer of primary goods, they don’t have coal nor steel, so France needed Germany exporting to them energy resources. The creation of the CECA is the first step. It will be a way of having the resources of Germany to guarantee that it wouldn't threat the world peace after the IIWW. And Germany had no other option. In this aspect, France saw a golden opportunity in having Germany controlled and taking its resources. The failure of France is that Germany became powerful (France thought that because it had nuclear weapon they had more power, but there was no situation they could use it). Finally, Germany became economically powerful, and nowadays is called the reluctant leader. Neo- liberalists think there is a vacuum in IR that should be replaced by institutions. The typical studies of neo-liberals are how to make institutions work, understand why they fail. Cooperation fails because: 1. A big problem for them is how to enforce members to obey the decisions of institution. There is the problem of bargaining (informal negotiations), that makes institutions lack credibility. Institutions should take decisions in a legal aspect and some of them are taken in negotiations aside the institutions. 2. Another problem is defection, what is the idea that some agreements are sign but then not respected. Neo-liberals want to try to understand a way in which state members respect the agreements signed. 3. Another problem is the free riding. A free rider is the one that takes the benefitswhiteout paying the prices. For who thinks that states are value maximazers, free riding is the best option. NEO liberalism is very concern about those problems. The think that the way of making the world better place is through international institutions. On the other side, others think that international institutions is the way of perpetuating inequality and the hegemony of the UE: Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye. Neo-liberalists tend to think that hegemony stability is good for the world, as therefor there is some country forcing another to follow agreements. They created something called interdependence: Institutions are creating on the one side stability, and on the other interdependence. But they’ve been criticized of being the defenders and first advocates of the role of the US in the world. Interdependence is not being able to survive alone. Is good for IR as it creates the conditions for peace. Is against national sovereign, so it's against democracy. For populist is against democracy in a way as your agenda depends on others, because countries aren’t totally free to make their own agenda. Neo - neo synthesis Realism and liberalism are beingstruggling with each other, and finally in the neo-neo debate they get to an agreement. They finally get to join because realists has accept the requirement of positivitics scientific approach. Characteristics in common: 1. Rationalist: Both try to make a science of IR, studying actors that behave rationally. The discussion between liberalism and realist have always been about the method: Realists accuse liberals to make non relevant science, and Liberals accuse realist of not having philosophy. The neo-neo debate is the first time both share a methodological approach. 2. Materialist: They are both looking for Interests (even if it is value). 3. Status Quo maintainers: Both accept how the world is. 4. CONSTRUCTIVISM In IR we can talk about four main IR theory contemporary schools: realism, liberalism, constructivism and Marxism. Constructivism is basically a reaction against rationalist approach, materialist and status quo maintainers. This IR theory has been very influenced by the sociology of the 70s and before. Constructivism is examined both as a meta-theory about the nature of the social world and as a substantial theory of IR. The focus of social constructivism is on human awareness or consciousness and its place in world affairs. Constructivist rejects such a one-sided material focus. They argue that the most important aspect of international relations is social, not material. They also say that this social reality is not objective, or external to the observer of international affairs. The social and political world is not a physical entity or material object that is outside human consciousness. The international system is not something that exists on its own. It exists only as an intersubjective awareness or a common understanding among people. This international system is constituted by ideas, not by material forces. It is a human invention, not a material kind. It is a set of ideas, a body of thought, a system of norms, which has been arranged by certain people at a particular time and place. With this idea of this international system, if the thoughts and ideas that enter into the existence of international relations change, then also the system itself will also change. Suddenly in the world of IR becomes, change become possible in a big way because people and states can start thinking about each other in ways and create new norms that may be radically different from the old ones. The antecedents that have influenced the constructivism are: 1. PHILOSOPHY: post structuralism and post modernism (its main ideas are: radical relativistic philosophy which doesn’t believe in any certain knowledge • Nature: universal and necessary • Culture/conventional: particular or contingent To understand postmodernism first we need to know what the history of western philosophy says: the project of philosophy is nature, and that we cannot rely on looking for the truth, just rely on the nature of things because this is the only thing that is true. The history of western philosophy is trying to look for the truth understanding the nature of things. Pre-philosophical society don’t make the distinction between nature and culture. The content of culture is conventional in the post-modern philosophy. Because sometimes with convention we contradict each other, we need to look the answer in nature. Post-modernism rejects western distinctions between nature and convention, they say natural factors don’t exist. Distinction between nature and culture is a lie, it Is not true. Postmodernism say that all those things are wrong and that we have been doing objective science. We don’t have any kind of natural knowledge. conflict between states. They also agree that because classes cut across state borders class’s conflict is not confined to states, it actually expands around the world. Marxism sustains that when Bourgeoisie Revolution ends, proletarians will become the new class and this will be the end of history because proletarian will take the power and there won’t be any other class to exploit. This will be what it’s called the Single-Class society. For Marxism, this is the end of history. MAIN INFLUENCES OF MARX: 1. HEGEL: He had many disciplines: Left- Wing Hegelians, that sustain that the promise of history was the total negation of everything conducive to restricting freedom and reason, and the Right- Wing Hegelians, that were more conservative and followed the master in believing that the dialectic of history had come to an end. Feuerbach was the most important on the Left-Wing Hegelians. He was studying religion as the product of human mind. He understood that religion was all a product and not a revelation. He agreed that it was created because of some human interest. Religion was defined by Marx as the “opium of the people”. For Hegel, history is a conflict that is dialectic, while Marx sustained that is about dialectic materialism, and in this process, classes are the main actors in human history. Marx agreed that social revolution happened when two different classes followed contrary principles. For him, social classes must fight each other when there where contrary ideas. But actually, the best way to better the condition of the working class was not to fight the way Marx said, but by using the tools that liberal democracy is providing us. Everything that is relying the come on to revolution is the worst way. In this aspect, capitalism is a system in which human are selling their labour as a good. Capitalism is a market of labour. 2. DAVID RICARDO: He was a classical economist and all of his studies lead to the capital. He made studies about the relationship between the benefits and the salaries and he is considered one of the most influencer actors, invoked by families of very different economic thoughts, from the neoclassic to the Marxism. 3. Utopian socialism;SAINT SIMON: Every kind of society is guided by some ideas about society, and we only have to change the ideas we have about society to change it. He tried to create a social sociology. For him, the most important and the main point is to change ideas. There is a distinction between superstructure (culture, institution, religion, morals) and infrastructure (that is the relationship of people to the means of production). For Marx, history is about the changing of the way of production, so given culture, institution, realism and morals is a way of giving infrastructure. However, Saint Simon agrees that you have to change superstructure to change the infrastructure. For him the best way to change history is by changing infrastructure. Ideology is anything that is directing you main to other things that are not infrastructure. Ideologies produce false consciousness and this caused not been able to think about the real thing that is hidden behind the superstructure. For Marx, everything is a product of economy. 4. MATERIALISM: it holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness are results of material interactions. Part 4. SOME KEY ISSUES FOR A POST-COLD WAR WORLD International politics is understood to be the special branch of politics that is lacking in the hierarchical authority; there is no world government that is above sovereign states. But, there are still common interest, rules, institutions, and organizations which are created and shared by states and which help to shape the relations of states. By Hedley Bulls, the international social condition is a worldwide social order of independent states. He made an important distinction between international system and an international society. The more international relations constitute a society and the less international relations merely compose a system, is an indication of the extent to which world politics forms a distinctive human organization with its own norms and values: ➢ SYSTEM OF STATES: is formed when two or more states have sufficient contact between them, and have sufficient impact on one another decisions. ➢ SOCIETY OF STATES: exists when a group of states, conscious of certain common interest and common values, they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another and share in the working of common institutions. Other important distinction between realist, rationalism and revolutionaries, three different ways of looking at the relations of the states: ➢ REALISM: views states as power agencies that pursue their own interest, it conceives of IR solely as instrumental relations. (the realist view of machiavellism). ➢ RATIONALISM: views states as legal organizations that operate in accordance with international law and diplomatic practice. Conceives of IR rules-governed activities based on the mutually recognized authority of sovereign states. (Grotius). ➢ REVOLUTIONISM: the importance of states and places the emphasis on human beings, humans are seen to compose a primordial “world community” or “community of humankind” which is the more fundamental than the society of states (Kant). M. Wight says, IR can only be adequately understood through all of them together, if properly carried out. International Society approach should be an exploration of the conversation and dialogue between these 3 different theoretical perspectives. Hedley Bulls distinction: ➢ INTERNATIONAL ORDER: a pattern on disposition of the international activity that sustains the basis goals of the society of states. ➢ INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE: the moral rules which confer rights and duties upon states and nations (self-determination, non-intervention…). These two values given a special emphasis by John Vincent: states sovereignty and human rights, on the one hand, states are supposed to respect each other´s independence that is the value of state sovereignty and non-intervention. On the other hand, IR involve not only states but also human beings. In circumstances in which human rights and non-intervention, in such circumstances, how sovereignty rights and human rights are balanced? Traditional international society approach presents two mains answers: ➢ PLURALIST: stressing the importance of state sovereignty, rights and duties of the international society and conferred upon sovereign states. Principles of respect the sovereignty and non-intervention always come first. ➢ SOLIDARIST: stressing the importance of individuals, as the ultimate members of international society. Human rights take precedence over the rights of sovereign states. In summary, traditional international society approach views world politics as human world. Some contemporary English school theorists, have moved away from the traditional approach of Wright and Bull: ➢ KENNETH WALTZ: emphasizes international structure. For him, international structure was the underpinning power relations of sovereign states. ➢ BARRY BUZAN: seeks to develop a more sophisticated analysis of the structure of international society. For him, international structure is sustained by a member of primary institutions of international society. An empire may be defined as a hierarchical system between an imperial government and its various dependencies, in which sovereignty is held exclusively by that government and is exercised as supremacy on dominion over its dependencies. Wight´s theory of empire was never fully developed, he provided some leads to follow up in the analysis of empire, it’s important to differentiate world society and world empire: ➢ WORLD SOCIETY: refers to the universal community of humankind as Bull defines it. ➢ WORLD EMPIRE: governed by one imperial sovereign to which the population of the world is ultimately subject. As defenders of human rights and humankind, sovereign states have an increasingly place acknowledge and up-holding world society. World society is seen to be manifested in various international organizations with a humanitarian purpose, particularly the protection of human rights. The UN Charter and its related declarations and connections, layers of cosmopolitan norms and Council of Europe, which stablished a European Court of Human Rights. Since the end of the Cold War, the International Criminal Court, has been stablished whose enacting Rome statute (3 permanent members of UN Security Council have refused, to belong parties of the Rome statute, EEUU, Russia and China). STATECRAFT AND RESPONSIBILITY: International society approach lead to the study the normative choices in foreign policy with which responsible states people are confronted. 3 distinctive dimensions of responsibility to Wight: ➢ Devotion to one´s own nation and the well-being of the citizens. ➢ Respect for the legitimate interests and rights of other states and for international law. ➢ Respect for human rights. NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY: States people are responsible for the well-being of their citizens, national security foundational value is duty-bound to protect. Always nations and citizens, avoiding unnecessary risks collaborating with other countries (these normative considerations are characteristic of a system of autonomous states). Political community is morally and legally superior to any international associations, states with no international obligations. INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY: States people have foreign obligations deriving from their states membership of international society, which involves rights and duties as defined by international law. Thus, interstate standard for emanating foreign policies gives rise to Grotian precepts: ➢ Other states have international rights and legitimate interest which deserve respect. ➢ Act in good faith. These normative considerations are characteristic of a pluralist society of states based on International law. States are not isolated or autonomous political entities, responsible only for their people, but also states are related to each other they have obligations to each other states and other international society. HUMANITARIAN RESPONSIBILITY: States people primarily are human beings and they have a fundamental obligation to respect human rights not only in their own country but in all countries around the world. Respecting human rights, people justice… are characteristic of Solidarist world society, before one can be a citizen of a state and a member of its government, one must be a human being. HUMANITARIAN RESPONSIBILITY AND WAR: Human responsibility is by reference to intervention and war, human rights became recognized in IR after II WW. Authorities committed during war, UN Charter makes room not only for sovereignty but also for main rights (the preamble). UN purposes is promoting and encouraging respect human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction. Protection of human rights, means international military intervention, not among UN Charter justifications… justifications of war has come to be known as responsibility to protect doctrine. CRITIQUES OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY: ➢ REALISTS: international norms as determinants of state policy and behaviour are weak and non-existent. They believe that states are bond only by their own national interest. ➢ LIBERAL: international society tradition downplays domestic politics and cannot account for progressive change in international politics. The lack of interest of international society in the role of domestic politics in IR. ➢ IPE: it fails to give an account by their own national interest. International society is the neglect of economics and the social-class aspect of IR. Part 5. FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS • Sub discipline of IR born in the 70s. • FPA is the middle ground between domestic policy and IR because it is decided by some governments that depend on their own people, on their media. • Básicamente durante la Guerra fría los actores, de ambos dos bloques eran racionales, sus actuaciones podían ser previstas. El problema llega cuando cae la URSS y nadie o ninguna teoría lo había previsto. Por lo que impulsan el FPA, centrándose así no solo en el continente, sino también en el contenido. • Link between IR and domestic policy.it substituted in some war structuralism. • End of Cold War! idea that previous theories of IR weren´t enough, or weren´t approached appropriately, because they weren´t able to predict a massive change as the fall of the USSR was: the fall of the Eastern bloc wasn´t expected, nobody knew it would happen at that moment. • This is a failure of social sciences because they weren´t able to predict it. • The structural analysis isn´t enough because it only focuses on the general and tries to explain the following behavior looking at the structure of the world/ global affairs. • FPA would try to unpack the black box of the State, caring about the actors and not only the general. Therefore, they should also focus in decision makers: sthg very relevant. Structural theorizing is very interesting for stable moments such as the Cold War (it was a bipolar war balanced so it was easy to predict and explain their movements by the structure). So, when things aren´t easy to predict, decision making is needed. • They would look to the very complex forces that determine each decision. I.e.: if we look to the US FP, we see that it depends in so many actors, that structuralism isn´t enough. We have to analyze each actor and see their influence. • Try to take IR theory towards the middle range theorizing: no universal theory of IR would be able to explain the different issues, and even less the unpredicted ones. • If we now study the actors, that are based in decision making we cannot study it as a science, because we have no patterns or laws because each cabinet, group of decision makers, has its own dynamics, have different ways to work. • We attack because we don´t know how others are going to act. The more predictable the world is, the more peaceful it is.