Summary

Summary of International Relations theorists: key ideas and theory content: POL2 International Conflict, Order, and Justice (2023-24)

0 purchase

Course
POL2: International Conflict, Order, and Justice (POL2)

Institution
Cambridge University (CAM)

This document details the content, and differences between international relations theorists for POL2. First, it summarises each theory. Then, it details their differing positions on matters such as war, ideology and prospects for peace. Next, it details different interpretations of key events: suc...

[Show more]

Preview 3 out of 22 pages

View example

Uploaded on September 6, 2024
Number of pages 22
Written in 2023/2024
Type Summary

international relations
pol2
theories
realism
liberalism
constructivism
neo liberalism
neo realism
international conflict order and justice
international relations theorists
pol2 international conflic

Institution
Cambridge University (CAM)
Education Unknown
Course
POL2: International Conflict, Order, and Justice (POL2)

$20.88

Add to cart

Save

100% satisfaction guarantee
Immediately available after payment
Both online and in PDF
No strings attached

Liberalism Realism – classical, structural, and neoclassical Constructivism

Baylis et al 2019 Resurgence following WW2. Key elements: actors = states, consequential = power, structure = anarchy Wendt and the three cultures of anarchy:
textbook overview - Anarchy is cultural/ideational and not material.
According to Stanley Hoffman, liberalism is about: self- Survival of the state can never be guaranteed due to anarchic state system. - 3 roles = enemy, rival and friend
restraint, moderation, compromise, and peace. Realism is Power must be pursued to ensure survival & leaders act rationally in pursuit - Hobbes’ ‘war of all against all’ is the true self-help system.
troubled peace/state of war. of power: Morgenthau ‘international politics, like all politics, is a struggle for - Lockean culture is rivalry, not enemies.
power’ - Kant culture is friendship – disputes settled without war, and
Can be no law/morality/justice without a common power. Morals and ethics therefore cannot exist in international relation, as you they fight as a team when security is threatened.
4-dimensional definition of liberalism (Doyle 1997): all cannot sacrifice self-interest for morality (NB. Machiavelli argues such
citizens are juridically equal + possess certain basic rights; interests are positively harmful) – NB Walt + Mearsheimer have questioned - Belief that we are cultural beings, actors place meaning on
legislative assembly of state possesses only authority whether US support of Israel has harmed interest in the middle east. practices and objects they construct.
invested from people; right to own property; market-driven The state enables an ethical community to live within it, but this is a dual - For example, issue of legitimacy
system of economic exchange. moral standard, morals cannot exist externally. - I.e. Charli Carpenter 2003 – gender affects who is seen as
Power politics are the product of ideas, which can change The state is the primary unit (since Westphalia) – each individual state innocent.
(Wilsonian idea of ‘progress is possible’) considers itself the highest authority, recognising no other greater authority. - Reject the notion that we can use laws of science on matters of
Not prudent to entrust survival of state to international institutions such as human experience, where people reflect and place meaning on
Identity of the state determines its external behaviour. There the UN. events.
are parallels between individuals and sovereign states. Cooperation is not seen as possible because of relative gains – it makes - Concerned with human consciousness and knowledge, ideas
sense for states to cooperate, but this is undermined by defection (Waltz’s are structural factors which influence how we see the world.
States have certain natural rights = non-interference, bar parable with the stag, hare + five men) - Power is not just getting states to do things, but construction of
‘certain purposes’ where this may need to be compromised identities, interests and meanings.
highlighting importance of coordinated role of Int. Inst. Criticisms posed to liberalism: - Norms evolve, they don’t erupt. There is a life cycle of norms.
- 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya shifted, according to Russia and
Agree that the international system is anarchic. China, to a changed mandate from civilian protection to regime change Finnemore and Sikkink 1998: the three stages of the life cycle
- Liberalism becomes realist when establishing a hegemonic order – 9.11 of norms:
Failure to keep peace perceived in different ways by can be seen as a challenge to the LIO, and Bush mobilised language of - norm emergence – persuasion by norm entrepreneurs who seek
different types of liberals = imperialism, balance of powers, ‘liberalism’ in response, dubbing it ‘freedom’s war’ to convince a critical mass of states. Call attention/create issues
undemocratic regimes. - Liberalism has a tendency to embrace imperialism, no different to the - Norm cascade – more dynamic imitation as norm leaders
expansionist empires of Rome or Athens (but liberals do not recognise this, socialise other states. Pressure for conformity. Desire to
Peace is threatened by the end of US hegemony – criticism seeing expansion as a sign of expanded peace, an objective good) enhance international legitimation/desire of state leaders to
returns to who watches the nightwatchman (Mearsheimer). enhance their self-esteem facilitate norm cascades
He argues liberalism turns realist when unbalanced. Neo-liberals v neo-realists - Norm internalisation – becomes taken for granted and no longer
Cobden – believes trade brings mutual gains to all players, it - Agree system is anarchic; neo-realists argue this places more pressure on a matter of debate.
is seen as a universal value (and doesn’t account for foreign policy + neo-liberals believe. - They are rational + often link to domestic action, then
disproportionate benefits to hegemonic power). Criticism: - neo-realists believe cooperation won’t happen unless made to happen; international.
no consideration that some states dominate trade relations; neo-liberals think cooperation when mutual interests. - Important for legitimacy, especially if there is domestic
some are developing and can be extorted; assumes a - neo-realists think fundamental goal of states when cooperating is to discontent.
harmony of interests (undermined by Great War where prevent others gaining more; neo-liberals think common interests are to - Often try to link to pre-existing norms and require a process of
there was significant interdependence) maximise absolute gains social construction to articulate the new values (Suffragettes)
- Neo-realists think anarchy requires states to obsess over relative
Keohane + Nye – argue for the centrality of other actors + power/security/survival. Neo-liberals think more concerned with economic
interest groups, making IR a ‘cobweb’ of diverse actors and welfare and non-security issues
interactions.

,Spread of capitalism and interdependence undermining -Neo-realists think neo-liberals overstate importance of international
state autonomy. Waltz criticises this position, arguing institutions + do not mitigate constraints of anarchy. Neo-liberals claim
degree of international interdependence far lower than they facilitate cooperation.
constituent national interdependence.
Neo-liberals then started to concede that actors will Mearsheimer’s critique of the LIO
cooperate for shared mutual advantage, neo-realists dispute - Trump campaigns against the LIO (comments on NATO)
this is about relative gains.
- Neoliberalism claims commitment to scientific enquiry, not
ideology.
- Neoliberalism disagree that commerce creates peace
(Keohane)

Ikenberry depicts liberalism in three stages: 1.0 (19thC
enlightenment); 2.0 post-war order of 1945 where america
accepts more burdens; crisis of 3.0, US power falling and
other states no longer want a US led international order. The
war on terror depicted state sovereignty as ‘conditional’.
Liberalism 3.0 requires a move away from the sovereignty-
based order towards one of global institutions governing the
world. This is unrealistic (recognised by Ikenberry!)

Liberal institutionalism (Neo-liberals)
- Originates from functional integration scholarship in the
40s and 50s. Independent states should pool their resources
together + surrender some sovereignty to integrated
communities, promoting economic growth + responding to
regional problems. (I.e. EU)
- Keohane and Nye are 3rd generation liberal institutionalists
from 1970s.
- Complex interdependence has four characteristics:
increased linkage between states/non-state actors; new
agenda of international issues with no distinction between
high/low politics; multiple channels for interaction among
actors across national borders; decline of efficacy of warfare
as a tool of statecraft.
- Share many assumptions of neo-realists (i.e. Waltz)
- Issues to resolve extend beyond trade/development, i.e.
terrorism; nuclear weapon proliferation; drug trafficking;
AIDs
- Keohane argues 9/11 resulted in broad coalition against
terrorism. He supports this multilateralism, critical of Bush
doctrine’s pre-emptive attack
- Focus on multilateralism apparent in Obama’s G20 address
in response to GFC.

Core assumptions of liberal institutionalism:

, - States are key actors, but not the only ones
- States are rational and seek to maximise their interests in
all issue-areas
- States seek to maximise absolute gains through
cooperation
- Greatest obstacle = cheating
- States shift loyalty and resources to institutions if mutually
beneficial.

- Fundamentally disagree that the cold war victory was only a
success for America (Keohane; Ikenberry)

Criticisms posed to realism:
- Growth of international humanitarian law
- Explains why the US didn’t ‘force’ USSR to concede to LIO
after its momentary unipolar moment post 1945
- Argument that institutions have grown + are more important

Consequential/what There are three strands: Balance of power – (a process of seeking equilibrium against a power
matters 1. Individuals can be irrational which may threaten their existence) – the cold war alliance systems of the
2. Importance of institutions – laws, cooperation Warsaw Pact and NATO provide a prominent example of BOP
3. People will not choose war.
The number of players and their relative power
After Hegemony (Keohane 1984) – benefit of institutions is Dominant powers will seek to pre-emptively deal with rising powers (Levy)
production of info + dissemination.
- Interdependence increases cooperation, discord + states Seek regional hegemony (Mearsheimer)
converge
- Bases his understanding on states being ‘rational egoists’ But what is power? Morgenthau argues power = ‘man’s control over the
→ but they require information minds and actions of other men’
- Acknowledges the US is declining, and questions how - It is a relational concept, it doesn’t exist in a vacuum
cooperation can happen without a leader - It is a relative concept, relating to power of other states.
- Often states don’t cooperate even when it is the rational - Waltz argues we should focus on capabilities (latent power) to rank states.
thing to do. But resource strength doesn’t guarantee military success (Ukraine)
- This leads to the prisoners dilemma, always betray
because it guarantees reduced sentence
- Your best choice therefore is dependent on what others do
+ there will always be concern of freeriding.
- Prominent issue in climate change – to shift to renewables
provides UK with 2% benefit, but 100% cost.
- But if you keep playing the game, betrayal becomes more
costly. The bigger the long-term cost the smaller the short-
term benefit. A rational individual should therefore
cooperate.
- Reputation therefore matters → undermined by China +
human rights
- BUT states can exist without cooperation

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 immykearney. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $20.88. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

65539 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 15 years now

Start selling