Summary of the reading materials for the final exam (2023) for Analyzing International Relations.
INCLUDES notes, the puzzle/motivation and core ideas/arguments from (Total: 31 pages):
● Alexander Wendt’s article (1992) “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics”,
pp. 391-425.
● Ayşe Zarakol’s introduction (2017) “Theorising Hierarchies” in Zarakol’s (ed.) “Hierarchies in World Politics”, pp.
1-14.
● Henry Farrell & Abraham L. Newman’s article (2019) “Weaponized Interdependence: How Global Economic
Networks Shape State Coercion”, pp. 42-79
● Nicola Phillips’ article (2017) “Power and inequality in the global political economy”, pp. 429-444.
● Robert D. Putnam’s article (1988) “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games”, pp. 427-460.
● Nicole Deitelhoff and Lisbeth Zimmermann’s article (2020) “Things We Lost in the Fire: How Different Types of
Contestation Affect the Robustness of International Norms”, pp. 51-76.
● Igor Abdalla Medina de Souza’s article (2015) “An offer developing countries could not refuse: How powerful
states created the World Trade Organisation”, pp. 155-181.
● Darren G. Hawkins, David A. Lake, Daniel L. Nielson & Michael J. Tierney’s article (2006) “Delegation under
anarchy: international organizations and principal-agent theory” in the book (2006) “Delegation and Agency in
International Organizations”, pp. 3-38.
● Yf Reykers, John Karlsrud, Malte Brosig, Stephanie C. Hofmann, Cristiana Maglia, & Pernille Rieker’s article (2023)
“Ad hoc coalitions in global governance: short-notice, task- and time-specific cooperation”, pp. 727-745.
● Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni & J.C. Sharman’s article (2021) “Enforcers Beyond Borders: Transnational NGOs and
the Enforcement of International Law”, pp. 131-147.
● Xinyuan Dai & Duu Renn’s article (2016) “China and International Order: The Limits of Integration”, pp. 177-197.
*2023* Analyzing International Relations Notes on Readings
Table of Contents
“Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics” 1
“Theorising Hierarchies” 5
“Weaponized Interdependence: How Global Economic Networks Shape State Coercion” 8
“Power and inequality in the global political economy” 11
“Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games” 14
“Things We Lost in the Fire: How Different Types of Contestation Affect the Robustness of
International Norms” 16
“An offer developing countries could not refuse: how powerful states created the World
Trade Organisation” 21
“Delegation and Agency in International Organizations” 23
Delegation under anarchy: international organizations & principal-agent theory 23
“Ad hoc coalitions in global governance: short-notice, task- and time-specific cooperation”
24
“Enforcers Beyond Borders: Transnational NGOs and the Enforcement of International
Law” 26
“China and International Order: The Limits of Integration” 29
, 1
“Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power
Politics”
Short Summary
Puzzle/motivation:
● The extent to which state action is influenced by “structure” (anarchy & the distribution of power)
vs. “process” (interaction & learning) + institutions.
● Build a bridge between neorealists & neoliberals, by developing a constructivist argument.
● Both traditions take the self-interested state as the starting point.
➔ Neorealists = anarchies are necessary “self-help” systems (both central authority +
collective security are absent).
➔ Liberals = anarchy does constitute states with self-interested identities exogenous to
practise.
● Modern/postmodern constructivists = how knowledgeable practices constitute subjects.
Core ideas/arguments:
● Argues against the neorealist claim that self-help is given by an anarchy structure exogenously to
process.
● Self-help + power politics do NOT follow logically/causally from anarchy.
● Today’s self-help world is due to process, NOT structure.
Anarchy & Power Politics
Anarchy: Conditions of possibility for causing war → human nature/domestic politics of predator
states.
➔ Self-interested conceptions of security are NOT constitutive property of anarchy.
➔ Self-help/competitive power politics may be produced casually by processes of interaction
between states in which anarchy plays a permissive role.
Political structures (Waltz) defined on 3 dimensions:
1. Ordering principles.
2. Principles of differentiation.
3. Distribution of capabilities.
States act differently toward enemies than they do towards friends (e.g., British missiles to the US vs.
Soviet missiles).
Actors acquire identities by participating in collective meanings.
➔ Identities: Relatively stable, role-specific understandings/expectations about self.
◆ Failure of roles makes defining situations/interests difficult = identity confusion.
◆ Institution: Relatively stable set or “structure” of identities/interests. Come to
confront individuals as more/less coercive social facts.
● Institutionalisation = process of internalising new identities/interests.
Standard continuum of security systems:
1. “Competitive” security system = states identify negatively with each other’s security, one’s
gain is another’s loss (“self-help” form of anarchy).
INCLUDES notes, the puzzle/motivation and core ideas/arguments from (Total: 31 pages):
● Alexander Wendt’s article (1992) “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics”,
pp. 391-425.
● Ayşe Zarakol’s introduction (2017) “Theorising Hierarchies” in Zarakol’s (ed.) “Hierarchies in World Politics”, pp.
1-14.
● Henry Farrell & Abraham L. Newman’s article (2019) “Weaponized Interdependence: How Global Economic
Networks Shape State Coercion”, pp. 42-79
● Nicola Phillips’ article (2017) “Power and inequality in the global political economy”, pp. 429-444.
● Robert D. Putnam’s article (1988) “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games”, pp. 427-460.
● Nicole Deitelhoff and Lisbeth Zimmermann’s article (2020) “Things We Lost in the Fire: How Different Types of
Contestation Affect the Robustness of International Norms”, pp. 51-76.
● Igor Abdalla Medina de Souza’s article (2015) “An offer developing countries could not refuse: How powerful
states created the World Trade Organisation”, pp. 155-181.
● Darren G. Hawkins, David A. Lake, Daniel L. Nielson & Michael J. Tierney’s article (2006) “Delegation under
anarchy: international organizations and principal-agent theory” in the book (2006) “Delegation and Agency in
International Organizations”, pp. 3-38.
● Yf Reykers, John Karlsrud, Malte Brosig, Stephanie C. Hofmann, Cristiana Maglia, & Pernille Rieker’s article (2023)
“Ad hoc coalitions in global governance: short-notice, task- and time-specific cooperation”, pp. 727-745.
● Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni & J.C. Sharman’s article (2021) “Enforcers Beyond Borders: Transnational NGOs and
the Enforcement of International Law”, pp. 131-147.
● Xinyuan Dai & Duu Renn’s article (2016) “China and International Order: The Limits of Integration”, pp. 177-197.
*2023* Analyzing International Relations Notes on Readings
Table of Contents
“Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics” 1
“Theorising Hierarchies” 5
“Weaponized Interdependence: How Global Economic Networks Shape State Coercion” 8
“Power and inequality in the global political economy” 11
“Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games” 14
“Things We Lost in the Fire: How Different Types of Contestation Affect the Robustness of
International Norms” 16
“An offer developing countries could not refuse: how powerful states created the World
Trade Organisation” 21
“Delegation and Agency in International Organizations” 23
Delegation under anarchy: international organizations & principal-agent theory 23
“Ad hoc coalitions in global governance: short-notice, task- and time-specific cooperation”
24
“Enforcers Beyond Borders: Transnational NGOs and the Enforcement of International
Law” 26
“China and International Order: The Limits of Integration” 29
, 1
“Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power
Politics”
Short Summary
Puzzle/motivation:
● The extent to which state action is influenced by “structure” (anarchy & the distribution of power)
vs. “process” (interaction & learning) + institutions.
● Build a bridge between neorealists & neoliberals, by developing a constructivist argument.
● Both traditions take the self-interested state as the starting point.
➔ Neorealists = anarchies are necessary “self-help” systems (both central authority +
collective security are absent).
➔ Liberals = anarchy does constitute states with self-interested identities exogenous to
practise.
● Modern/postmodern constructivists = how knowledgeable practices constitute subjects.
Core ideas/arguments:
● Argues against the neorealist claim that self-help is given by an anarchy structure exogenously to
process.
● Self-help + power politics do NOT follow logically/causally from anarchy.
● Today’s self-help world is due to process, NOT structure.
Anarchy & Power Politics
Anarchy: Conditions of possibility for causing war → human nature/domestic politics of predator
states.
➔ Self-interested conceptions of security are NOT constitutive property of anarchy.
➔ Self-help/competitive power politics may be produced casually by processes of interaction
between states in which anarchy plays a permissive role.
Political structures (Waltz) defined on 3 dimensions:
1. Ordering principles.
2. Principles of differentiation.
3. Distribution of capabilities.
States act differently toward enemies than they do towards friends (e.g., British missiles to the US vs.
Soviet missiles).
Actors acquire identities by participating in collective meanings.
➔ Identities: Relatively stable, role-specific understandings/expectations about self.
◆ Failure of roles makes defining situations/interests difficult = identity confusion.
◆ Institution: Relatively stable set or “structure” of identities/interests. Come to
confront individuals as more/less coercive social facts.
● Institutionalisation = process of internalising new identities/interests.
Standard continuum of security systems:
1. “Competitive” security system = states identify negatively with each other’s security, one’s
gain is another’s loss (“self-help” form of anarchy).
