1- Why IR?
3 Ideas:
IR was created to answer the demand for understanding global conflicts:
- unique circumstances after the WWs: such brutal and bloody inter-state war after a century or
near-peace in Europe
- The depth on impact on societies was profound : demand for knowledge and understanding of war,
why it happened and how to prevent it.
- Supply: first Professor of IR – Woodrow Wilson Chair in Aberystwyth.
- The ‘origins of the discipline’ are attributed to the study of IR in Britain and Europe in the inter-war
period.
IR is the result of a long historical process:
Charles Tilly (American political scientist and sociologist): On state formation
Tilly is not from a specific school of thoughts, but his emphasis on the role of conflict and warfare in the
development of states aligns with Realist perspectives on power and security.
“War makes the state, and the state makes wars” Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1992,
published in 1992.
Tilly explores the relationship between warfare, state-making, and the development of the European state
system, arguing that the demands of war necessitated the centralization of authority and the development
of taxation and administrative structures, which in turn shaped the modern nation-state and so the
consolidation of state power
Idea of “Natural Selection”: different systems were in competition for survival in Europe (empires vs. cities,
militaries, social ranks, fights for borders control…), so the survival of only modern state system is the
result of a natural selection.
EX of the surrender of Breda (eighty years’ war Spanish vs. Dutch).
Anthony Giddens (British Sociologist): On state formation
Giddens, with his structuration theory, touches upon themes relevant to Constructivism, especially in
understanding how social structures influence and are influenced by human agency.
In The Nation State and Violence, 1986, Giddens explores how modern nation-states and the
international system evolved together, marking a significant departure from traditional states. He
emphasizes sovereignty's role, both internally (central authority) and externally (recognized borders), and
identifies four major changes: increased surveillance, the rise of capitalist enterprise, industrial
production, and centralized control of violence.
Giddens argues that these changes, alongside reflexive regulation—like respecting diplomatic relations and
international law—were crucial for developing territorially bounded states. He suggests that modern
states and international relations emerged from a revolutionary break with the past, fundamentally
altering state sovereignty and the nature of nations.
1
, But the benefits to certain actors from the way IR is taught.
The ‘lite’ answer: the study of IR exists in a form that may be related to answers 1 and 2, but
undoubtedly benefits some actors (be they ‘elites’ or states, private or public) more than others.
The benefits take the form of (re)creating the world that suits them.
The ‘max’ answer: the study of IR exists because some people, and/or some states, (let’s call them
’actors’) have the power to articulate what is ‘normal’.
This is a form of power, as it also determines the scope of change.
Living in a time of interdependence and globalisation, the sovereign state system is often used to
deny the possibility of change, or to shirk responsibility.
IR theories: Critical theory, post-structuralism, feminist theory, post- colonial theory
2- Is War Unavoidable ?
War and peace questions are essential to the discipline of International Relations.
The study of the origins and causes of war, the remedies designed to prevent its recurrence, the
international institutions, procedures, and practices available.
E.H. Carr The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1939 : The Great War (WW1) provided the catalyst for the creation of a
"science of international politics" whose "teleological aspect” was to prevent a recurrence of this "great
and disastrous war."
COULD WAR BE SUBJECTED TO REGULATIONS?
The initial interest in the aftermath of the First World War was in the amelioration of the condition of war
through deeper understanding of the conditions that made war and its effects.
Utopianism/Idealism and the Wilson’s League of Nations: developing the international institutions that
would render war undesirable or even irrational.
Liberalism: war as a pervasive phenomenon that could be, nonetheless, codified and ameliorated.
Realism: No, war is a feature of human nature. Anarchy as the defining feature of international
relations. Waltz: “International anarchy is the permissive cause of war”
Neo-Realism: War is therefore inevitable and absolutely central. Power and competition in the absence
of a guard dog sometimes means War. War happens because of the failure of the system.
Security Dilemma: armament leads to escalations. But war is a way to rebalance the distribution of
power. For them, war is an instrument of order. They say that we should seek to bipolarity because this
balance the world better. (Global South is allying with other powers to re-equilibrate the balance of power
as the US became too powerful).
2
, Feminism (& critical theories): Christine Sylvester, War as an experience, 2012
Understand war as a Social Phenomenon. The state has been created in violence, and creates violence
itself, mostly against women and minorities.
Questioning the scientific, positivist approach: Subjectivity and relationality.
War is productive of new social relations, new politics, new discourses. It is crucial to be attentive to
hierarchies, to differences and relations of power, both material and discursive.
War as corporeal, and never merely instrumental
Ex: the white militarised men saving the Afghan women is a very problematic image: reenforce this bias
image of a fetishized, passive, and defenceless oriental woman against this image of a powerful protective
and knowledgeable white oriental man: re-enforce gender cliché and keep us this patriarchal mechanism
of social group and narrative of the world.
Transformation of war
- Un-balanced of the war distribution: more towards undeveloped/developing countries than the
West
- Vision of war changed: the way of doing war changed too. Technology (drone), make war cleaner?
But only on one side then.
Do not perceived war inside or outside Europe the same way (Bosnian war was not considered as a
European war: Muslims)
- Private compagnies: how to prosecute them? Technically they cannot be at war regarding to the
international system as they are not a state.
- Diversification of war: economic war?
3- How difficult is it for states to cooperate?
The class outline key debates and concepts in International Relations (IR), focusing on security, cooperation,
and the evolution of liberal theories. These points encapsulate the shift from traditional realist concerns of
state survival towards a liberal focus on cooperation, institutionalism, and the pacifying effect of
democratic governance on international relations.
The realists view security as zero-sum, highlighting the security dilemma in an anarchical international
system. They would argue that cooperation is impossible due to the global state of anarchy of the
international scene. The states cannot trust each other and have to act in a selfish way to assure their own
security.
Liberals’ theories, in contrast, propose positive-sum outcomes through international cooperation (gain
security together: Natto, UN Security Council…). They think that states are interested in more than just
security (eco, health, climate…), and that they make decisions rationally according to their interests and
the info they have at their disposal.
Could be criticised as idealist: hold on the idea that states could achieve to agree on common rules of
cooperation.
3
, Liberal Theories on Cooperation: Highlight the role of institutions in fostering state cooperation, as
discussed by Keohane (1984) and Moravcsik (1997), who focus on the rationality of cooperation for mutual
gain.
Collective Security Theory: Suggests peace and security are collectively achieved, advocating for an
overwhelming power coalition to deter aggression, as outlined by Claude (1956). Peace is maintained when
states collectively deter or respond to aggression, irrespective of the aggressor's identity, aiming for
security as a collective good rather than individual states seeking it through power accumulation. In
practice, challenges like mobilizing a unified response and determining aggression culpability complicate its
application.
Security Communities: (Constructivism) According to Deutsch (1957) and Adler & Barnett (1998), these are
groups of states with assured peace among members, peaceful resolution of disputes, highlighting a shift
from deterrence to trust and cooperation among members, illustrating a move beyond traditional security
mechanisms.
Democratic Peace Theory (DPT): Supported by Doyle (1986) and Levy (1988), it argues that democracies
are less likely to go to war with each other, suggesting a "separate peace" among liberal states.
Examples of Cooperation events :
- The Palme Commission: officially known as the Independent Commission on Disarmament and
Security Issues, was led by Olof Palme, the then Prime Minister of Sweden, in 1980. It aimed to
address and propose practical solutions for reducing international tensions and the risk of nuclear
war during the Cold War era. The Commission's work focused on encouraging disarmament,
enhancing security cooperation, and promoting the concept of "common security," which posits
that nations can achieve security together through cooperation rather than through confrontation
or military competition.
- The Détente: The term is often used to refer to a period of general easing of geopolitical tensions
between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War. Détente began in 1969 as a
core element of the foreign policy of United States President Richard Nixon. The détente between
the United States and the Soviet Union led to several key outcomes, including arms control
agreements like the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) treaties, which aimed to prevent the
escalation of the nuclear arms race. It also facilitated increased diplomatic and economic
exchanges, and the easing of tensions allowed for more global cooperation on various fronts, such
as space exploration. However, détente was periodically strained by geopolitical events and
ultimately gave way to renewed tensions in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
But does it really work?
League of Nations failure: Japan 1935, Italy 1931, Hitler, even the US refused to join the alliance.
4
