Scarica Summary International Relations by S. Lawson e più Dispense in PDF di Relazioni Internazionali solo su Docsity! International Relations – Stephanie Lawson Chapter 1: Introducing International Relations: normative nature of the discipline, purpose of the study, war and its causes, social relations are also economic and political, domestic and international spheres. IR was born out of a need to address the causes of war and the conditions for peace. An earlier focus was interface warfare, the role of state actors, while now the main focus has shifted even to topics like civil war, a domestic matter which entails an effect in the international sphere. Disruption of the international equilibrium can be triggered by violence, economic factors and related calamities, as well as the impacts of human activity on the planet, like climate change. All of these issues are underpinned by a strong 'normative’ concern from some ethical standpoint. Eras in World Politics: post 9/11, post-Cold War, globalisation, modernity and postmodernity. This period can be defined in various ways: the ‘post 9/11 period’ or the ‘post-Cold War’ period, in any case as a reaction to a war, hot or cold, which constituted a defining moment in world politics. Alternatively, we could call this the era of globalisation, but the term and the concept are highly contested. The economic side of globalisation became commonly connected to the fall of communism in the USSR and the ‘victory’ of capitalism as an economic system, not only in the West but in the Asian-Pacific area. The globalisation process was also fostered by new ways of communication, like the internet, and also of disrupting international relations (ex. Wikileaks, major crisis of information security in the diplomatic world). It also brought forth many cyber attacks, undermining organisation and governance. As far as ‘modernity’ can be concerned as a defining characteristic of our time, it dates back to the 17 th century and the European Enlightenment: it entails the rejection of traditional authority, secularism and a strong normative dimension, especially as far as human rationality and a globalist project are concerned. Obviously, this project does not imply only benefits, but also a number of downsides like the erasure of native cultures, values and lifestyles in favour of homogeneity. On the other hand, some believe that we are living in ‘postmodernity’: the longer-term decline of the West, the fragmentation of the global system and the establishment of multiple centres of authority. The Domain of International Relations: all of these concerns have been around for a long time but are now entering the field of IR, state security is more likely to be disrupted from within, state security has a concept is evolving. IR is a field of academic study, a social science that wants to study the relations between states or more generally interactions between state-based actors across state boundaries, in a scientific way. This broader definition includes non-governmental or non-state actors and organisations as well: the the international system of states and the basis for international order. Some theorists resist the distinction between domestic and international sphere, claiming more importance for non- state actors in the sphere of global politics. States can represent both traditional stances in IR, as well as social values: according to Jackson and Sorensen, the five basic social values that states are expected to uphold are security, freedom, order, welfare and justice. The issue of warfare is central to IR, early limited to interstate warfare and its prevention. The ‘war system’ is defined as the ‘interrelated ways that societies organise themselves to participate in potential or actual wars’, characterised by continuity in time. The current IR agenda includes more topics like global health issues, migration, the gap between global North and South, democratisation and human rights, terrorism, religious fundamentalism, etc… Also, new importance is given to civil wars and internal conflicts, which have a huge impact on IR, especially due to refugee crises and other humanitarian aspects which propel a moral responsibility for the international community. However, this responsibility has been sometimes dubbed as the ‘CNN effect’, so global resonance, public awareness and ‘viral quality’ of some crises which contrasts with the passive attitude of international organisations. Humanitarian intervention has unfortunately become the justification for invasions under the guise of help (see US foreign policy after 2001). Civil wars and internal conflicts are indeed concerned with ‘identity politics’, so the prime role played by religious, ethnic or cultural factors in instigating and maintaining the momentum of conflicts. In other cases, conflicts are provoked by claims to self-determination of minorities or secessions based on superiority claims, linked with identity factors. It is quickly replacing the ‘old’ motivations for war, like ideology or geopolitical goals, but obviously not entirely. The possibility of culture wars on a regional or global scale has been much discussed in relation to Samuel Huntington’s article on the ‘clash of civilisation’ which, in the author’s opinion, is bound to happen now that the great ideologies of the Cold War are long gone. In this clash, we would find the West on one hand and the Confucian- Islamic alliance of forces on the other: however, alarmist and discredited, this view has been reinforced by the shift in global foreign policy following 9/11, an attack carried out in the name of religion. Defining the ‘International’: definition, what’s a nation, what’s a state, non-state actors. The meaning of international has been debated for a long time: does it include non-state actors? Can it be defined as global? Can we call it international studies or world politics? The word itself was coined by Jeremy Bentham in 1780, as a translation for the Latin expression 'ius gentium’, to describe dynamics associated with law as operated between states and not within states, thus creating and implying an inside and an outside, a national and international perspective in which to frame policy. This distinction is becoming increasingly more blurred, since political, social and economic interactions involve much more than state- to-state relations, nowadays. International: nations or states? Nation refers to a people, while a state is a legal institution possessing the legitimate monopoly of coercion and extraction in a given territory. The combination is called a nation-state: the ideal is that a nation should be matched to a state. Mapping the ‘International’: boundaries are a sociopolitical construct. We have 192 countries in the world, but their number has changed, along with the borders, across history. Boundaries are sociopolitical constructs devised by humans to reflect particular sociopolitical interest, needs, purposes and distributions of power at a given point in time. States and their boundaries are ‘culturally and historically particular’ and reflect a social construct rather than a naturally ordained political world. Internationalising the State System: effects of independence, state fragility, Africa and Europe compared. Independence, especially during decolonisation, meant a recognition in the international state system, as well as the globalisation of the concept of modern state. Newly independent countries have been dubbed ‘Third World’ countries, now ‘Global South’, due to their underdevelopment and poverty. If a state is unable to provide basic security, as well as services, it can be dubbed as a ‘failed state’, now more commonly ‘fragile state’, according to the Fragility State Index, which measures the capacity or lack thereof to provide basic sustainable security. State fragility can be linked to the colonial influence of European countries, who divided the Global South according to their iinterests withno account of local socio-political organisations or circumstances. Local elites acquired control, nurturing security forces to repress dissent: they were incapable fo governing large, sparse areas. On the other hand, the ‘decolonisation’ of Western Europe fostered European integration and regionalisation, inspiring attempts at regional integration around the world. Globalising the ‘International’: globalisation good and bad, effects of the state institution, global governance vs. Global government, the UN. The phenomenon of globalisation is transforming political, social and economic relations around the contemporary world, not necessarily in a positive way: it is responsible for economic crises, environmental damage and rising inequality. It also, according to some sociologists, undermined the institution of the state and its centrality, by rendering boundaries meaningless and governments impotent. Global governance is how authority is managed and organised at the local, regional and global level and how those levels interact. It relates to how power operates, how the system changes and who the actors are. Governance is not government: there is no world government, no central authority to rule over all sovereign states; the UN is not that. The UN is an institution in world governance, which contributes to organization and regulation, especially as far as global economic governance is concerned (ex. WTO). British). Colonialism is also linked with racism, the belief in white supremacy and the mission of conversion of indigenous population to Catholicism and Protestantism. This process of ‘civilisation’ went strongly against what Rousseau had stated in its works: progress and civilisation were responsible for the corruption of an originally good- human nature. The most important modern empire was the British one. Consequently, British culture spread around the world and still prevails as a major international language. The idea of an Anglosphere is not too widely diffused, though. Still, European colonialism was a major force in shaping the world and virtually shaped all ‘Western’ models of development, like capitalism and socialism. Nationalism and the Nation-State: nationalism definition, colonial nationalism, pan-ideologies. Nationalism developed out of the emergence of the sovereign state as a central concept and the ideals of the French Revolution, with its emancipatory, independentist ideas. Sovereignty was not embodied by the ruler, but by the nation, the population. Nationalism is to be separated from National Socialism in 1930’s Germany, which was a unique phenomenon in itself, clearly. Nationalism was shaped by Herder’s approach to community, with then became enmeshed with political nationalism. Nationalism also paved the way for colonial independence, but only after 1945: before, it was considered a European concept only. Nationalism in ex-colonies was clearly limited by colonial forces (ex. Uti possidetis) which was used to limit political fragmentation and the legitimacy of secession in colonial states. Nationalism is intertwined with ‘pan-ideologies’, like pan-Africanism, pan-Arabism, Pan-Asianism and pan-Islamism. They were never sufficiently strong to become a reality, since their sentiment was mainly focused on being anti- colonial, but some regional organizations were born out of it (ex. African Union). Empire and Hegemony in the Contemporary International System: the US, imperialism vs hegemony. Are there still empires or are they only part of history? Some historians propose the idea that the US is acting like an empire, both in its actions and its discourse (ex. ‘They don’t do empire, but they do leadership instead, or, in more academic parlance, hegemony’). The US is considered to have hegemonic power due to its military capability, global influence, technological and scientific resources and world-wide alliances. It still lacks effective final authority, so technically it cannot be considered an empire, even though the two concepts come to overlap in some way. However similar the rhetoric, we cannot speak of American Imperialism but only of American Hegemony. Chapter 3: Theorising international relations: different way of interpreting the world, on different basis, based on different conceptions of human nature, inclusion or not of a normative aspect, etc. In the social sciences, theories can be formulated with a more positivist approach, so based on hard data and quantitative methods, or with a more subjective and normative one, especially suitable for ethical and moral debates like war, human rights and the just distribution or resources. In any case, no theory is universal or indisputable. Liberalism: good vision of human nature, peace is possible, democracy, self-determination, Kantian influence, agency for progress. Neoliberalism: theory of interdependence. and Realism: bad human nature, struggle for power, Morgenthau, security dilemma, self-interest and anarchy, centrality of the nation state, no agency. Neorealism: little inclusion of non-state actors. In the beginning of IR, the main problem to solve was the proliferation of warfare and the discovery of the conditions for peace and security: this produced two important theories, respectively liberalism/idealism and realism. Idealism/liberalism has its roots in the tradition of liberal philosophy of the previous centuries (Locke/Rousseau) and is mainly exemplified by the figure of US President Woodrow Wilson, who believed in a peaceful world order and in the possibility of organising collective security into the League of Nations, the predecessor of the UN. His views are mainly referred to as Liberal Internationalism or Liberal Institutionalism, as well as idealism, especially by realists. Peace was strongly associated with the spread of democracy, by realists, and believed that the ‘democratic peace thesis’ would allow for peace, since democracies are not known for going to war against each other. However, if one takes into account the war on non-democracies, especially in the name of ‘democracy promotion, the perception might change consistently. The ‘democratic peace thesis’ was strongly upheld by Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant, who stated that republican states are less prone to go to war against each other because they are accountable to their citizens, who reasonably would not wish for war. On the other hand, in Kant’s opinion, citizens of authoritarian regimes are less prone to go to war because the decision is not theirs to take in the first place. Another key point in liberalism is the principle of self-determination, based on the Kantian principle that humans have the natural capacity for reason to determine their own goals. It translated into a right to self-determination when it became enmeshed with the legitimacy of the nation state and the 'normative nationalist principle’: a state for each nation, a nation for each state. Clearly, as history tells us, it was not immediately conceived to back up the claims of colonised territories. Furthermore, idealists believe that there are possibilities to achieve peace. Idealists believe that through rationality, crushing the human-intrinsic self-interest, international actors could be induced to act towards progress and a better outcome for all. So, progress can be achieved though the conscious and rational building of frameworks, instruments and international institutions to overcome the negative effects of anarchy and contain tendencies for war. As far as economic policy is concerned, there is a considerable emphasis on economic freedoms, free trade and national self-determination, both economic and political, against authoritarianism. Realist international theory has its roots in the writings of Thucydides, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau and Kautilya, which all have a common core: a constant struggle for power and security as a result of the anarchic nature of the international political environment. The pursuit of security by each and every state from one another builds a conflictual relationship, which cannot be resolved by a central, superior authority, because it doesn’t exist. As opposed to idealists, realists like E.H. Carr consider themselves to be more ‘in touch’ with reality, since they considered the power factor in politics that idealists seemed to neglect. The rise of realism in the IR international panorama corresponds with the interwar years first and then with the first Cold War, as well as with the shift of the epicentre of international politics from Europe to the US. To back this up, we can consider one of the most influential IR books of the period, written by the American Hans Morgenthau, called ‘Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace’. In a few words, Morgenthau lists the six main pillars of realism, among which we find that power is what drives international politics, even if masked behind ideology, religion, or a socioeconomic perspective. The struggle for power, according to Morgenthau, is embedded in human nature and, as Hobbes said, can be contained only via an absolute authority who rules over everyone: since there is not such authority in international politics, the constant struggle for power is bound to continue forever. Morality and justice are not even considered, at least in a normative way, but are in fact concealed under a ‘normative ideology’ that justifies the struggle for power without showing. This reflection in the international system was then taken up by neorealists. Idealism/Liberalism was fiercely attacked by realists, who were then criticised for not foreseeing the role of non- state actors in international politics, thus rejecting pluralism in favour of the centrality of the nation-state. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, neoliberal pluralists, proposed the theory of interdependence in 1977, highlighting the linkages among actors in the international system and the sensitivity to each other’s decision, which proved a lack of self-sufficiency. Neoliberal realists believed that non-state actors and processes played a crucial role in international politics. As a response, neorealists like Kenneth Waltz, provided a new paradigm based on three images: individuals, states and the international system. The latter is based on anarchy, within which war is bound to happen: Waltz explained the possibilities for war via game theory, in terms of balances and capabilities of the various actors. In fact, freedom of action is strongly limited by other players’ choices. These levels of analysis strictly separate the domestic from the international, without underplaying the role of anarchy and its effects on international politics: in fact, self-interest and self-preservation are bound to create an environment in which every state is in it for itself. How can a state protect itself? The solution is by creating a strong military complex and arsenal, improving it constantly in case some other state provokes insecurity or war. This linearly leads to what is referred to as ‘security dilemma’: structure is stronger than individual agency. In general, realism is associated with crude ‘realpolitik’, a conception that glorifies military power and the state institution, disdaining any progress in the international order and undermining any concrete impact of reason and morality. Marxism and Critical Theory: core-periphery model, hegemony and Gramsci, Frankfurt School, contemporary critical theory. Marxist perspectives and post-Marxist perspectives, also called critical theory, have challenged both realism and liberalism. The main point is the strong normative concern with the exploitative nature of capitalism, which is mainly addressed in Marx and Engels’ ‘Manifesto of the Communist Party’. The ideology was furtively enriched by Vladimir Lenin’s perspective concerning the ‘core-periphery’ model: imperialist international economic models are bound to create disparity and inequality between the rich/core countries and the poor/peripheral ones. The ‘core-periphery’ model was then expanded in what is now known as ‘world-system theory’, which sees the world system as a social system with boundaries, structures, members groups, rules of legitimisation and coherence’, held together by force and self-interest. World order studies also take from the writings of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist who proposed the theory of hegemony or 'naturalisation of power’: he believed that power works best with consent, but that consent can be elicited through the hegemony of the ruling class, which sets the standard for moral and political behaviour. Subordination is then seen as natural because people have been convinced that it is, though naturalisation. On the same page, the ‘Frankfurt School’ (1923) was concerned with cultural and social factors rather than economic and political ones. In fact, critical theorists like Habermas concerned themselves with the idea of enlightenment and emancipation both from direct coercion and from self-imposed constraints (hegemony). Contemporary critical theorists like Linklater propose four achievements of critical theory: the rejection of positivism and objective reality; the rejection of the immutable nature of an unequal world; the expansion of Marxist critical theory to include gender and race as forms of exclusions and oppression; the challenging of the moral significance of boundaries. English School Theory and Constructivism: The English School developed in the 1970’s, as a new current of idealism/liberalism, which focused on the interaction between states in order to conduct their relations with the common interest of everyone in mind. The most prominent work by neoliberalists is ‘The Anarchical Society’ by Hedley Bull, which suggests that even with anarchy in place, a normative dimension and a common aim for the international society can produce the conditions for peace and security. The English School focused on both pluralism and solidarism. Pluralism consists in the role of cultural differences in politics: in fact, states have to fully agree only on a limited number of issues – sovereignty, non-interference, common coexistence – while other different approaches within the state can be neglected. On the other hand, solidarism is the basis for collective security: it envisages a collective will developing among states enabling them to engage in purposeful action when needed, for example as far as enforcement of rules is concerned (basis for UN charter, even though the UNSC favours some countries over others). The newest members of the English School also insist of the reconceptualisation of sovereignty as ‘responsibility to protect’, emphasising solidarism. Constructivism, another branch of neoliberalism and neoidealism, has been prominent since the 1990’s: its main core point is the 'social construction or reality’, based on perception, conscience and what can be linked to Gramsci’s idea of hegemony. The process of habitualisation leads us to accept as fixed systems and structures which can change – hardly without any struggle – if we change the collective conscience that surrounds them. Since reality is socially constructed, or a product of human agency, it can change thanks to the same human agency, action and interaction. Obviously, the ideational level and the material one interact in complex ways, without erasing one another out of existence. At the ideational level, meaning is created: something like a gun can have quite a different meaning if brandished by an enemy or an ally. The same stands for military capacity: if an ally is acquiring more cannons, it is not a problem. If an enemy is, the perception changes deeply. Moreover, this perception is influenced by the identity of states which, like all systems and things according to constructivism, can change in time (see Japan and Germany after the war and now). A contemporary example is the rise of China: some perceive it as a peaceful rise, other as a thirst for hegemony and economic domination. attempt: it was not ratified by the US Senate and also suffered from lack of commitment to the system of collective security from most member states. From ‘Peace in our Time’ to the Return of Total War: Versailles, Wall Street Crash, Japan militarisation, WWII. The Treaty of Versailles created more problems than it solved: it created a great amount of weak, buffer-intended states in Eastern Europe, which then fell apart at the first German invasion; set up impossible conditions for German payment of war liabilities. Furthermore, the collapse of the New York Stock Exchange precipitated Europe into a deep economic crisis that led to public discontent all over it. However, up until the end of the twenties, Europe and the world seemed peaceful enough. The situation changed when Germany started rearming itself in the search of its ‘living space’. The Munich agreement basically legitimised German aspirations and was accused of being a weak attempt at appeasement towards a clearly militaristic Germany. In Asia, we get to analyse the same process happening with Japan: in fact, during the Meiji restoration, the country underwent a deep renovation of its economic, political and social order to leave feudalism and isolationism behind. Furthermore, it started expanding in the region, for example in Korea, Taiwan and China. It even went to war with Russia over Manchuria, which they conquered and turned into a puppet state. Militarism, public discontent and an economic crisis sowed the seeds for nationalism and populism, which then led to the Second World War, which started with the invasion of Poland in 1939. Moreover, casualties shifted considerably from the military to the civilians, due to the Holocaust, which targeted minorities of every kind, but especially Jews. The Changing Structure of World Politics, 1945-1989: decolonisation, UN, NATO/Warsaw, Cold War in Asia (Mao/Korea/Vietnam), Vietnam and Somalia Syndromes, western interferences, Iran Contra affair, NAM, fall of the USSR. One of the most important shifts in the second post-war period was the demand for independence and decolonisation from the colonies. Some of them had gained independence in the past, especially British colonies and Spanish and Portuguese ones in Latin America, but the process jumpstarted in Asia and Africa: the number of sovereign nation states doubled by the 1980’s. We assist to the globalisation of the sovereign nation state, which was adopted even in countries that had never been colonised, like Thailand. The UN was founded in 1948, to construct a new peaceful world order and advocate for human rights. NATO was established in 1949 during the Berlin Blockade Crisis, as a military alliance to prevent and deter further aggressive behaviour from the USSR and its allies, which responded in 1955 with the Warsaw Pact. The Cold War was global in impact and effects: many wars were fought in the Third World, following Cold War dynamics, like in Korea and Vietnam and even Afghanistan, in the name of communism or anti-communism. Even if the US and USSR had been allies in the WWII, the ideological differences ran too deep to be ignored: the US adopted the policy of 'containment’ under the advice of George Kennan, a diplomat, and then intensified it with the ‘Truman Doctrine’, to include the protection to free peoples threatened by subversion, which basically became a foreign policy instrument aimed at anti-communism. In fact, the US propped up right-ring authoritarian regimes and supported them only because they declared themselves anti-communist. The US also provided Europe with the Marshall Plan, both to tilt their allegiance and to increase its own markets, and the IMF and the IBRD were established to manage the stream of capital. In Asia, the Cold War became even more complicated with the victory of the communists of Mao Zedong against the nationalists, western-allied of Chiang Kai-Shek, who retreated to Taiwan as government in exile. From 1950 to 1953 the Korean War shook Asia, as the Vietnam War did a decade or so later. If Korea ended with a stalemate, Vietnam was a harsh loss for the Americans, whose high number of casualties led the US to commit less troops to fighting abroad (Vietnam Syndrome). This position was revolutionised only after the Gulf War of 1991, hailed as a success, and the attack on US troops in Somalia in 1993, during a UN mission: the ‘Somalia Syndrome’ was created to dub the American unwillingness to send troops for UN missions in conflict-ridden places from then on, leaving the spots uncovered for massacres to happen (genocides of Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur) and for al-Qaeda to emerge. The Obama administration adopted a more cautious approach to the Middle East, during the Syrian and Libyan Crises, and it was considered almost too soft. Generally, Western countries interfered with the political development of Third World countries in order to strengthen their geostrategic alliances: in Congo, the assassination of first elected PM Lumumba was orchestrated by the US and by Belgium, propping up the military dictatorship of Mobutu Sese Seko only because it was anti- communist. At his death, the country was devastated by a six-year long civil war. Not only they assassinated elected leaders, but they closely surveilled and manipulated European democracies and non-democracies alike, notably Italian elections in the post-war period to establish the rule of the Christian Democracy. The most important cases of interference happened in Iran, Indonesia, Brazil, Chile and Nicaragua. The 'Iran-Contra’ affair during the Reagan administration involved a secret deal with Iran, when it was at war with Iraq, which the US was already sponsoring and the challenging of funds to a right-wing rebel organisation aimed at overturning the government of Nicaragua: both actions were prohibited under US law. As far as the Third World is concerned, it mainly referred to those countries who decided not to align with either the US or the USSR. Most of them became members of the NAM, Non-Aligned Movement, after the Bandung conference of 1955. Obviously, that didn't mean they didn't have any ties with the major blocs, but that they preferred to deal with the common problems of newly decolonised countries without their influence. The main aim of the NAM was the fight of foreign occupation and domination over the inalienable right to self determination and independence. Funny enough, a good number of them are repressive states with kleptocratic governments with indescribable human rights records: these characteristics led to the pro-democracy rebellions in North Africa called the ‘Arab Spring’ in 2010. Why and how did the Cold War end? Fortunately, it ended without nuclear warfare, which would have assured mutual assured destruction (MAD) and that deterred both parties from using their nuclear weapons. The USSR collapsed onto itself after reforms and an unstable economic condition partially attributable to war-costs and output stagnation. Gorbachev’s glasnost and perestroika reforms contributed to providing the fall with momentum: it climaxed in 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, of the Bulgarian and Romanian communist governments and the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. From the End of History to a New World Order: Fukuyama’s The End of History, Democratic Peace thesis, war on non-democracies. Some enthusiasts of the victory of capitalism and liberalism against communism, like Francis Fukuyama, imagined a world that has reached the natural conclusion and realisation that communism could not serve them well and that liberal democracy, best accompanied with capitalism, was the way to go. Another liberal idea that was really popular after the fall of the USSR was the ‘democratic peace’ thesis: the higher the number of democracies, who won’t go to war with each other, the less likely for a new war to start again. As we’ve already said, that doesn't exclude democracies from going to war with non-democracies, as we can see from the Gulf War (1991, US started), NATO's war against Serbia in Kosovo, invasion of Afghanistan (2001, US started the ‘war on terror’), invasion of Iraq (2003, war on terror), intervention in Libya (2011). If immediately after the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait the mood was euphoric, the role of collective security of the UN was not as pragmatic as idealist would have liked. Identity Politics and the ‘Clash of Civilization’: clash of civilization, Islam versus West, ethnic conflict. The idea of the Clash of Civilization was proposed by Samuel Huntington in 1993: in a few words, to replace the great source of conflict and cultural divide left by the capitalist/communist division, a new ‘clash of civilization’ between different civilisations of humankind would occur (Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and African). According to Huntington, this was a possibility because civilization are deeply rooted in history, language, culture, tradition and religion, hard to change; religions are filling the vacuum left by economic ideologies; cultural differences are less mutable and less easily compromised; economic regionalism reinforces civilisational consciousness. Huntington specifically focused on the Islam versus West scenario, which was strengthened by the events of 9/11 and the war on terror. What is important about Huntington’s theory is not the stereotypical implication of Islamic terrorism as a danger, but the impact of ethnicity as a cause of conflict, see the Balkans, Northern Ireland, etc… Some countries even went as far as ‘ethnic cleansing’, especially in Serbia against the Muslim Bosnians. Ethnic conflicts generate political and social uncertainty, not only in the Balkans but in Asia and the Pacific. Culture, Democracy and Human Rights in the Post-Cold War World: universal values, Asian values, China. The culturalist perspective supports the thesis that the universalist thrust of liberal ideals about the new world order is ethnocentric, since it doesn't take into account historical and cultural differences of other places. Asian values came under scrutiny in the 1980’s and 1990’s due to the exceptional economic growth of East and Southeast Asia: ‘capitalism with strong Confucian values’ was praised, and then blamed from the 1997 financial crisis. This specific ‘Asian culture’ gave rise to a set of political values including the promotion of consensus politics, respect for political authority and a sense of community before self, especially in Singapore and Malaysia, where they were imposed as an alternative to Western values and then used to justify political oppression and a constraint of opposition, by means of surveillance. When taken to the extreme, these values led to the atrocities in Myanmar, North Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and China, as well as abuses of human rights: however, some claim that cultural differences impede the same perception of individual human rights of the West. The Asian values rhetoric is bound to make a revival, due to China’s increasing power in the global sphere, which would allow it to promote a new version of Asian values as a means of soft power. Chapter Five: Security and Insecurity in the Contemporary World: traditional and alternative approaches to security and insecurity, practical examples like the war on terror and NATO interventions, humanitarian interventions and R2P. The traditional conception of security in IR revolves around the state and its survival, which is based on securing the state from anything that threatens its integrity, usually via the military. New approaches, such as the constructivist one, propose alternative ways of analysing the security dilemma, listing the structure of the modern state itself as a cause of political insecurity. Also, the chapter takes into consideration the ‘human security’ dilemma, which raises the question of humanitarian intervention and responsibility to protect. Lastly, a mention of terror wars and environmental security. Conventional Approaches to Security: Realists (political instrument, security dilemma) and Liberals (collective security regimes, UN and LON, mature anarchy, democracy peace thesis and institutionalisation of democracy). Realism is the main current that deals with the security dilemma, built upon the assumptions on human nature and the theory of power politics in an anarchic world. War is considered to be intrinsic to the international system and, according to scholars such as Clausewitz, it can be referred to as a real political instrument, a means which can direct policy. The term ‘security dilemma’ was coined by John H. Herz and refers to the environment and situation in which all members, concerned about the threat of others, strive to attain security and gather more power, then causing the counterparts to do the same. The process goes on and on, since no one can feel entirely secure, and power politics then leads to dynamics of power accumulation. The decision to accumulate power is influence by the perception of other states and the assessment of their material military capabilities, both offensive and defensive. According to a more liberal approach, the military buildup can be contained temporarily, if not avoided, via collective security regimes. Some believe that the period we are living one, characterised by the US hegemony after the collapse of the USSR, can be defined as ‘mature anarchy’, thanks to the creation of ‘security communities’ like the EU. In general, the liberal perspective builds on the concept of international cooperation, requiring the exercise of 'political will’ to establish a new world order in which peace and security can be attained. In particular, liberal institutionalists believe that such an effort can be achieved via the creation of a stable network of international institutions underpinned by strong norms and rules: this could lead to mature, or better, managed anarchy. An historical example of this approach is represented by the creation of the League of Nations in the 1920’s, though unsuccessful, and the more successful one of the UN, whose UNSC has enabled it to act more decisively, despite the veto power held by China, US, UK, France and Russia. Clearly, this constrains the possibility of action, but it was the only possible solution. UN-sponsored activities have experienced different degrees of success, even if most of them have not been meant to solve conflicts or participate in them, but rather peacekeeping ‘internal’ conflict situations. The definition of ‘internal conflict' can be considered too strict, sometimes, especially if we take into consideration the international consequences of an internal conflict on the international community, from refugee flows to the participation of other states as supporters of the different parties, as well as environmental and bio security issues. As far as NATO is concerned, it was born as a Cold War institution and then evolved into the main actor in post-Cold- War security order, especially in Eastern Europe and in the Balkans. Other similar organisations include the African Union, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the ASEAN Regional Forum, the EU and the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe. Those constitute a network of international institutions, which enhances the prospects of international peace and security in the 21st century. democracy and civilising the Arab world has a clear Eurocentric and taste, since it followed the same narrative put forward by white colonisers during Imperialism. The discussion of terrorism has been connected with Islamic groups in various countries worldwide, even though these types of attacks are not the most prominent, these ones being attacks aimed at a domestic regime or other targets within the terrorists’ own country. Most victims of Islamic terrorist attacks are in fact other Muslim, even though the issue seems to resonate more with Europe and the US, whose terrorist activities are mainly carried out by insiders and not Muslim fundamentalist. An account of the causes of Islamic terrorism would entail a whole array of complex issues like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the political economy of the Middle East oil industry, control of water resources, the politics of Islamic groups versus the state in pro-US regimes in the Arab world and more. Most of all, material deprivation of already oppressed groups creates a sense on injustice either against governing authorities or an international hegemonic power that is perceived to be partially responsible. Another key type of terrorism is almost uniquely American, represented by a paranoid ‘lone wolf’. Environmental Security and the Green Agenda: why is the environment securitized. The environment itself has become ‘securitized’ due to the threat presented by climate change and its possibly catastrophic consequences in the near future and has been accompanied by the emergence of systematic thinking in the form of green theory. Environmental security is a major factor in maintaining other types of human security stable, be it food or water or just simply human survival in an unwelcoming environment. The Paris Climate Conference of 2015 created the first starting point, the first legally binding agreement that would aim at limiting global warming, although most countries are not respecting its provisions, putting national and global security at risk. Chapter Six: Global Governance and World Order: institutions of global governance, rapid decolonisation and its influence, transnational and non state actors, cosmopolitan ethics, West/non-West and Global North and South. The idea of order in IR has always been connected with the entity of the sovereign state. However, the term ‘global governance’ includes the states and other non-state or transnational actors in the field of 'global civil society’. Another important tendency is the trend towards regionalisation, which could strengthen or weaken the world order due to weaknesses such as ethnic conflict, identity politics and political fragmentation. Global Governance and the United Nations: what is the UN, UNSC, other agencies; UN and state sovereignty. If the League of Nations was more of less a trial, the UN has been built as an organ of global governance, as well as an emblem of statehood: in fact, decolonised countries obtained their UN membership and their independence almost simultaneously. The UN encompasses 193 countries, the last one being South Sudan in 2011, and 2 permanent observers: Palestine and the Holy See. As far as the collective security system is concerned, the main organ is the UNSC, made up of 5 permanent members (China, US, France, UK, Russia) and 15 rotating non permanent members: this is seen as anachronistic by people who want to reform the UNSC structure to make it less reflective of the winners of the WWII. Commitment to the UN and its agencies has never been smooth: the US threatened to withdraw several times and both the US, and the UK withdrew from UNESCO, in the 1980’s, only to rejoin later on. The primary concerns of the UN, international peace and security, as well as other normative and practical ones, are represented in UN agencies, programmes and funds like UNESCO, UNICEF, WHO, etc… What is tricky to grasp about UN influence and impact on state sovereignty is the moral duty that states have towards their citizens. If we refer to Hobbesian theory, the state-sovereign receives absolute authority, by signing the social contract, in exchange for the self-preservation of citizens. If this self-preservation, sometimes equated with security and peace, is lacking, then the state is not fulfilling its moral duty and other states can be impacted by the consequences, for example the disruption of the world order or a refugee crisis. This clearly blurs the line between the domestic sphere and the international one, where the consequences of national instability can be felt. Since non-intervention is the norm, every intervention must be justified and considered an exception. Global Civil Society and Social Movements: what is civil society, what are the members of global civil society, bad examples of civil society, what is a social movement, cosmopolitan politics and social movements, local/international impact, antiglobalisation movement. Humanitarian goals are pursued by a number of non-state actors, NGOs and social movements in the international sphere, which make up the ‘global civil society’. The term ‘civil society’ appeared first in Hobbes’ works, but the meaning that we associate it with now has been drawn up by Hegel: namely that civil society is the intermediate realm between the family and the formal institutions of the state. If the civil society transcends the activities of the state, the global civil society transcends states themselves. The ideal of a civil society became popular during the late Cold War, especially in Poland with the rise of Solidarity. It now includes many NGOs, or organs founded not by state actors or dependent on them, like Amnesty International and Greenpeace, which portray an ‘activist version’ of global civil society as a way for individuals to engage in negotiating a social contract with spheres of authority. UN recognised with a consultative status only NGOs which have a recognisable and democratically accountable executive, non-profit, do not advocate violence, are not established by intergovernmental agreement, and which support all principles and aims of the UN, especially non intervention. However, in a broader sense, civil society also includes any private company or association, charities and pressure groups, as well as criminal organisations or black markets: it includes all types of non-state groups, to be realistic. Social movements are engaged in various ways for various purposes, challenging formal politics in established political parties, governments and certain international regimes to make collective claims, against political, economic and social interests: these include the environmental movement, the human rights movements, the gay rights movement, the indigenous rights movement and many more. However, not all social movements are progressive: Islamic fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, the white supremacy movement, and neonazis are definitely not progressive. The rise of global social movements and NGOs is a signal of the emergence of cosmopolitan politics, which transcend local or national spaces. Some movements are born locally, with a state-oriented perspective, like the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia in 2010, but then give away to international consequences, as in the case of the Arab Spring, the call for democratic reforms over North Africa and the Middle East, and the collapse of previously solid regimes in the span of a few months. These movements were clearly state-oriented, yet they are part of a broader strive towards democratisation supported by various civil society groups. Another type of social movement is an amorphous collection of groups which constitute the anti-globalisation movement or rather the anti-corporate globalisation movement: it could be defined as a ‘movement of movements’, encompassing a great range of issues, even though the main target remains ‘global capitalism’ and the increasing and unaccountable influence of large multinational corporations, which begs the question of the relationship between states and markets. Regionalisation and World Order: what is regionalisation, the EU, other examples of regionalisation and multilateral cooperation in the world. Many discussions about current world governance revolve around the phenomena of globalisation and regionalisation: regionalisation is an integrative process occurring at the supranational level, characterised by significant coordinated economic interactions with accompanying social consequences. Regionalisation also propels a significant security dimension, in the terms of producing greater security and stability in relations between neighbouring states. This phenomenon was foreseen in the UN Charter, Chapter VII, even if only for collective security actions. The EU is the most advances example of regional integration, but its continuing evolutions is not following a clear path: on the one hand, it could evolve into a federal state with its own constitution and army, due to too much absorbed sovereignty; or it could evolve into a sort of neo-Medieval empire, encompassing a lot of different cultures with a poly centric governance. It has been taken as a model by similar institutions in Asia, like the ASEAN; in Central and South America, like MERCOSUR or NAFTA; in Africa, with the AU and the OAU; and in the Middle East, like the League of Arab States or the Arab Maghreb Union. The extent to which the EU model could be implemented elsewhere is highly debated, due to the many downsides that come with it. In any case, the interregionalism and multilateralism is become more and more a way of dealing with diplomacy, political, social and cultural matters within different world regions. Fragmentation and World Disorder: identity politics and ethnic conflict, colonisation and its influence on ethnic divisions, other factors implied in secessions, failing states, weak states and state capacity. Some associated the fall of the USSR and the consequent fall of the bipolar order with a new era of ‘world disorder’, based on identity politics and ethnic conflict. However, neither of them are a new phenomenon and its roots are deep into colonisation: in fact, when dividing up colonised territories, settles did not think much about possible arrangements that would avoid grouping rivalling ethnicities, religions and cultures into the same area. Then, when those same territories obtained independence, the same issue presented itself in a different way: new elites did not want to split up their new territories and so they didn't, creating unstable regions all over Africa, Asia and the Middle East. A notable exception is the partition of the Indian subcontinent between India and Pakistan and the following secession of East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, according to ethnicities and religious affinities: however, it was not a bloodless division. It was plagued by violence, rapes, atrocities like ethnic cleansing and forced transfer of populations. However, it must be highlighted that ethnic differences are not what drive conflict: instead, it is the perception of privilege of other groups and their perceived oppression, as far as opportunities, socioeconomic conditions and resources are concerned. Deprivation and respect then drive revolts, which gain new momentum when ethnicity is brought into them. Not all ethnic conflicts are born with the intent of creating a new national state: in fact, in that case, we would be talking about ‘ethnonationalism’. Furthermore, not every member of an ethnicity must be a supporter of the ideas of a limited group. Secessionist movements are sometimes seen as fragmenting the state system from below, posing a threat to the world order: a former secretary-general of the UN said that there would be no limit to fragmentation, if every ethnic, religious or linguistic group asked for a state. Instead, his proposal was to focus more on human rights within states to sedate secessionist sentiments: by doing so, he declared that self-determination is not an absolute right, but it is limited to the extent that self-determination does not disturb the international legal order. Failing states are also a threat to the international order: the notion of failure ranges from a chronic inability to sustain a reasonable secure social, political and economic environment for the citizens of the state to those very few cases of genuinely collapses states, where there is no effective control of the central apparatus. We can also talk about ‘weak states’, or states that face serious problems with domestically generated threats to the security of the government rather than to the state itself. According to the ‘World Development Report: The State in a Changing World’ published by the World Bank, states must possess ‘state capacity’, or the capacity to function as states, so to provide a reasonable quality of life to its citizens for the good of the community. Clearly, the weakest states are more prone to violence, civil war and unresolved conflicts. The West/Non-West Divide: what is the West, what is Western civilisation, why are these labels misleading. The West/non-West debate has been associated with the division, and consequent distribution of resources, between Global North and Global South. ‘West’ is an ambiguous term and it is often associated with different meanings: during the Cold War period, it indicated the US and NATO members, as opposed to the Eastern Bloc, including the USSR and the Warsaw Pact members, while the rest belonged to the Third World, later non-aligned movement. However, later, the West was also interpreted as comprising the US, NATO members, the Eastern countries that joined NATO or the EU, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (Anglo-American component/ the Anglosphere/English as a global language), and weirdly enough Japan. Moreover, the term ‘Western civilization’ is even trickier to define: it could be referring to all that the West has achieved, and others did not, thus claiming ‘civilisation’ as a societal attribute that granted and entitled ‘Westerners’ with superiority and a moral duty to 'civilise’ other communities. Arguably, certain foreign policy measures still reflect this kind of thought, including the measures to promote democracy carried out by the US. Chapter Seven: International Political Economy: ideologies, the divide between global north and south, the crises in world capitalism, the organs of global governance. growth and prosperity. In fact, the countries that enacted SAPs have experiences less growth than the others: for that, the IMF has decided to opt for Comprehensive Development Frameworks (CDF), still somewhat influenced by neoliberalism and its problems. Even though some African countries have progressed, like Botswana, South Africa and Ghana, the development seems to be due to democracy for than neoliberal actions. Crises in the Global Financial System: various crises, how and when and how it was dealt with. Capitalist world economy has been subject to periodic crises, the most recent one is the GFC of 2008. We note a recession when there are two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. The Great Depression started in 1929 with the Wall Street Crash and started its recovery only in the aftermath of WWII, where the US established itself as a hegemonic economic power. In the 1970’s, the Oil Shock created by the embargo imposed by OPEC to allies of the Israeli caused high inflation and rising interest rates. A great crisis was avoided in Mexico in the 1980’s, whose debt was mainly concentrated in the US. The next great crisis happened in Asia in the late 1990’, when the Thai baht stopped being pegged to the USD and regional currency markets plummeted, leading Japan into a deep recession. However, it is interesting to notice how fast the Asian economies jumped back, predicting an ‘Asian-Pacific Century’. The last big financial crisis up to date is the GFC of 2008, stated from the subprime mortgage market in the US, which caused the explosion of the housing bubble, a ‘credit crunch’ which led to a rise in unemployment and a general economic contraction. In Iceland, three major banks failed and in 2010, the Eurozone counties were hit by a sovereign debt crisis, especially in Southern Europe, leading to massive public spending cuts. Of the euro debt crisis, the Greek one is the most peculiar: the state received three bailouts, so debts to repay international debts, and the economy plummeted under austerity measures imposed by aid packages. Chapter Eight: International Relations in a Globalising World: what is globalisation, what has been its effect on politics, economics and the structure of the state. The discipline of IR was based around the centrality of the sovereign state system, which is now being questioned and discussed due to the impact of globalisation in the contemporary period. However, some believe that rather than a post-statist system, we are living in the transformation of the state to adapt to a more globalised system. The concept of globalisation: what is globalisation, what are the main phenomena connected with it. Globalisation refers to the beginnings of an explicit recognition in the contemporary period of the growing significance of the world-wide connectedness of social events and relationships. It identifies an array of phenomenon associated with it: compression of time and space, interconnectivity of human connections, increased trade and exchange of all things, emergence of a global consciousness, etc… It is thought to be producing a singular, homogenised version of modernity based on Western values; to foster the spread of them, as in the case of liberalism and democracy; to reduce political and national boundaries; to strongly affect trade under a unified capitalistic economic system. The phenomenon of globalisation entails the loss of significance of the nation-state in favour of international institutions and actors, especially in the economic sphere. Globalisation in historical perspective, according to Holton’s periods First phase: - Formalisation of international relations, more bilateral and multilateral treaties, - Creation of international humanitarian regimes and associations, - Beginning of international exhibitions, - Foundation of the International Committee of the Red Cross, - More legal conventions and agencies concerned with international relations. Second phase: - Establishment of world time, - Increase in the number and speed of global forms of communication and transport, - Development of international competitions like the Olympics, - Inclusion of non-European societies (Japan) in the ‘international society’, - WWI, - Institutionalisation of gold standard for international monetary exchange. Third phase: - Establishment of the League of Nations and then the UN, - Decline of Britain in favour of the US, - Globalisation of the Cold War, - Decolonisation - Attention to the concept of ‘humanity’ after the Holocaust and the nuclear bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, - Beginning of global icons at the commercial level, ex. McDonald's. Final phase: - Expansion of global communications, especially via electronic technology, - Growing influence of global financial institutions like World Bank and IMF, - Electronic stock exchange, foreign direct investment from the West, more power to MNCs, - End of the Cold War, more fluid global system, - Increase in the number of global institutions and the rise of a global civil society, - Introduction of the World Wide Web, - Global issues like the environment start to mater globally, - Increase in transcontinental migration. Globalisation vs The State: what is antipolitical neoliberalism, role of the state. According to some scholars, the state and the national government are losing control over: to some, the idea of national control is profoundly outdated, and it calls for a form of ‘anti-political’ neoliberalism. However, this idea has been criticized by both the right and the left, since it would call for the reduction of democratic political life only to the management of the economic system and market institutions. The state has not only this function, but rather an array of them which cannot be substituted by ‘antipolitics’: for one, the redistributive schemes implemented by national governments to fight inequalities, in the face of the hypothesis of an economic universalism devoid of a normative aspect. This rhetoric has been discussed by IR scholars, who criticize the ambitions of antipolitics as too economically focused and unrealistically devoid of political initiative. Some other perceive that the contrast between nation-state power in the past and the more ‘globalized’ reality should not be so sharp, since the nation-state did not have that much power to begin with. Others focus on the role of states like the US or in general the 'strong states’ who could use ‘economic globalization’ as a soft power to steer the world in their favor – which they are already doing. Culture and Globalization What is culture? It is frequently made up of language, religion, ethnicity and all other customs pertaining to a particular community of people who hold them dear. Global culture is to be understood as part of a universalizing and homogenizing trend that is set to transcend or even cancel out local cultures in favor of a single, homogenous culture that sprang up from global capitalism, highly influenced by the West. Globalisation, the State and Normative Issues. We have two schools of thought: cosmopolitans and communitarians. Cosmopolitans criticise the influence of the doctrine of the sovereign state, especially non-intervention and the lack of action in face of gross human rights violations. They defend the idea that ‘morality’ is not linked to culture and that human rights and other particular goods are to be intended as universal. The focus a lot on the term ‘humanity’ and the cosmopolitan morality that transcends all boundaries. There is a strong focus on redistributive justice in the name of global egalitarianism, referred to the possibility of achieving for everyone, given the same means and resources. Communitarians defend boundaries as an essential aspect of human existence, especially if they reflect cultural divisions and provide a framework for community living, identity and values. Communitarian morality is context- bound, linked to the culture or community values of a certain area in a certain period of time, as in cultural relativism. The debate between the two factions mainly refers to issues of responsibility that include both the local and the global, as in environmental challenges and asylum seekers, to name a couple. Rethinking Political Community The relevance of the political community in the global age is questioned, in favour of the concept of ‘cosmopolitan democracy’, so the widespread acceptance and endorsement of principles of democratic rule, which should transcend the national arena to be applied to the international one, to create a consolidate system of international democratic power management. This does not involve the creation of a world government, which would be extremely costly and inefficient, but to reshape states to coexist into the international arena. This approach is highly criticised in favour of an enhancing of state capacities to deal with new global challenges.