Class notes
IR (International Relations) class notes UvA
- Course
- Institution
- Book
Detailed notes about the classes with definitions and component from the readings.
[Show more]
Connected book
Book Title:
Author(s):
- Edition:
- ISBN:
- Edition:
More summaries for
-
Uitgebreide samenvatting colleges & boeken International Relations
Seller
Follow
cremalkiacremalkia
Reviews received
Content preview
10/05/22Foreign policy analysis, Cold War and post cold war IR, new security studies
Traditions in american foreign policy
(Before the Ukraine war american foreign policy was leaning towards a going back to
isolationism)
Isolationism vs Internationalism:
Isolationism: America on its own, a recurring tendency of American foreign policy
- i.e. post-war periods (ww1, ww2) and not wanting to be involved in European affairs
as it was very costly in terms of money and people; post-Vietnam war: perception of
american decline and isolationist tendency in american foreign policy; Bush senior
post ww2: no need for further american involvement in foreign policy affairs of the
rest of the world; Obama and Trump speculated about “America First” and the
eponymous turn in foreign policy: withdrawing troops from afghanistan and syria,
turning their back to Europe (“Pivot to asia turn” of Obama), Trump criticizing Europe
and being skeptical about NATO. However, since the end of the civil war America has
been too big to fully pursue an isolationist policy/be an isolationist power: it needs
and has to be involved in international world affairs, thus it is important to study the
other option.
Internationalism (and varieties):
● ‘Hamiltonianism’ or ‘Wilsonianism’ (Walter Russell Mead: Special Providence, 2002 -
same author as millennial capitalism)
○ Hamiltonianism: refers to Alexander Hamilton (minister of finance in the late
18th century) CATCH BACK UP FROM THE BOOK - symbol of power politics
in US foreign politics, government state planning, intervention, Hobbesian
contender strategy, “the great colbert”, “protecting your own backyard”
○ Wilsonianism: expansionist, liberal policy, “open door policy”, make the world
safe for democracy, supportive of national self-determination abroad
● Realism or idealism
● Unilateralism or multilateralism
○ Unilateralism: intervention without international consensus. States that want
to participate in US action are free to participate however if states are against
it or want to veto it they will not be stopped, they will continue their foreign
policy (i.e. George W. Bush: after 9/11 intervention in Iraq, creating the
“coalition of the willing”, not waiting for a security council mandate, or an
acceptance by the international community. If states wanted to join in they
could, if they disagreed the US would still continue its action)
○ Multilateralism: embed foreign policy in multilateral structures such as close
cooperation with partners or within the context of international organizations
● Republicans versus Democrats?
○ The ongoing conflict where republicans are for hard power and democrats
soft power politicians
The abandonment of the West
The america-first strategy is a break with a longstanding tradition of creating and maintaining
the concept of “the West”: maintaining unity in the West interpreted as an expansive and
,inclusive conception (almost a lockean heartland - the expansion of a free world to the rest
of the world).
Eurasia as a geopolitical strategy
American thinkers have warned against a strong cooperation between China and Europe, a
huge continental “eurasian” form of cooperation, as it would sideline the United States
(geographically, politically, socioeconomically,...). Since the start of the 20th century thus
there has been this idea of a need for the US to maintain the concept of “the West” in
American foreign policy to avoid this strategic cooperation between China and Europe. Joe
Biden foreign policy is heading towards restoring/reviving the concept of the West again.
+ All of this is the result of a western IR as a discipline, there is no non-western IR
theory and this type of concept and conceptualizations originate in american and
western universities (deeply entrenched in the concept of “the west” themselves)
Joe Biden 1st year in office
● “America first” turns into “foreign policy for the middle classes”: some argue that
Biden is starting a “New New Deal” strategy at home (akin to Roosvelt).
● Balancing act between domestic and foreign policies (with a lot of opposition inside of
the US)
● Trump was not concerned with domestic affairs in China or Russia.
○ Biden suggests he is: he wants to focus on human rights and democracy.
“Biden Doctrine” promoting human rights and democracy abroad, akin to a
wilsonian strategy for the rest of the world
● What about Afghanistan? End to ‘America’s longest war’ (remember Vietnam)
● And how will the Biden-administration respond to autocratic regimes in general, and
China / Russia as Hobbesian challengers in particular?
○ Biden stated at a NATO conference a year ago that “America is back”, which
meant a comeback of a full-blown American participation in NATO and the
restart of negotiations about the nuclear deal with Iran and the participation of
the US in the Paris climate agreements
● The war in Ukraine: re-uniting the West as a side-effect? Possibly, after the war the
unity of the west will likely rapidly decline again
Decision-making theories: looking at the foreign politics of sovereign states
● Rational actor model / State as a unitary actor
○ The international state system is the starting point: it demandes state
responses in a constant action-reaction pattern, the state responses are
independent from political affiliation (left/right; liberal/conservative).
○ National interest-oriented foreign policy
○ The state is a unitary actor with a general interest
○ Assumption of rational choice: states act based on input from national actors
but more importantly act in reaction to other states’ actions and they have all
the relevant information to make the most necessary (=rational) decisions.
Moreover, most foreign policy is about standard operating procedures (SOPs,
such as creating documents in embassies)
● Bureaucratic politics model
○ Critique of the rational actor model
, ○ The state is not a unitary actor: it needs to be unpacked and looked inside of
it to proper understand it
○ Group thinking (due to different backgrounds, beliefs, characters and
positions of people in power) may obstruct the best possible decision/choice
in foreign policy
● Cognitive processes / Constructivist turn
○ Another critique of RAM
○ The cognitive constraints of decision-making: focus on looking at the
personalities of people, characteristics of political leaders and foreign politics
leader
○ Related to the constructivist turn and the found importance of ideas, norms,
values, and traditions in foreign policy (i.e. Chinese foreign policy and the age
of humiliation caused by foreign policy intervention, this brought the proactive
foreign policy of today - this is called “strategic culture”,
● Theory of the military industrial complex
○ Elite theory
○ Soft or bounded rationalism
○ “Rationalism/Rational choices are always for someone and for some social
purpose”:
■ There is no general interest on the basis of rational deliberations,
there is always a more specific
group-based/class-based/interest-based approach,
■ Unpack the state: the state is not the symbol of national unity or
general interest
○ Alliance in politics between the military/defense ministry/army, chiefs of
staff/defense industry and the state. “The defense establishment”
■ 2 industrial sectors profit from war/as a side effect of war: oil industry
and the defense industry (huge extra spending by all governments)
■ The industry has shifted towards an enormous constant production of
armaments
■ Conjunction of the defense establishment (pentagon) and the arms
industry
■ Unwarranted influence by the MIC: potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power. Risk of a rising elite based on defense, defense staff
and the arms industry.
■ Endangers liberties and democratic processes (cfr. Eisenhower
farewell address)
■ And now, for example, the US MIC has been pushing the EU to
increase its military spending so that the US can sell their products
● Comparative politics approach and IPE (international political economy approach)
and foreign policy
○ “Pre-theory” of foreign policy: it is not just trying to explain foreign policy from
a theoretical perspective, but it also construct and typologize foreign policies
to then try and build on this typology a theoretical infrastructure/reflections
, Comparing foreign policy
Sets of variables Urgency and Instrument
Immediacy
- Characteristics of the - Crisis - Persuasive
decision-maker Crisis brings restraints diplomacy
- Past of the leader in a rebel or and lack of i.e. Trade-market access,
revolutionary movement or information, thus development assistance
lack thereof decisions are less programs
- Leaders who have done optimal
military service but seen no - Coercive diplomacy
combat are more likely to i.e. economic sanctions,
initiate and escalate military - Non-crisis
conflict Decisions in this
- Older leaders are more likely stages are closer to
to initiate military conflict - Military intervention
rational decision Instrument of hard power
- Leaders with troubled making
childhoods have high-risk
- Integration
profiles as leaders
For example in international
- Weak/strong states and organizations or the EU as an
weak/strong powers instrument to realize national
- Regime type interest, combining national
- Autocratic regimes, Hybrid sovereignty and state
regimes or full-blown preferences
consolidated democracies has
a link to the foreign policy of a
country
- National identity
- “Security culture”, identity and
its relation to the foreign policy
of a state
- Geographic location
- Economic development
Object of Comparison
Issue Geographic focus Objective
Trade Global Security
Defence Bigger international players try to
Arms control have a global/international impact Welfare
Conflict resolution Regional
Peacekeeping Smaller countries will most likely Status
Environment focus at the regional level
Migration Subregional
Smaller countries sometimes
Energy
work at the subregional level
Development
What is missing is a clear historical perspective on the creation of foreign policy: at best, all
of these amount to a snapshot of a specific moment in foreign policy
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller cremalkiacremalkia. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $4.88. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
77254 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now