History of International Relations
LES 1 History of International Relations: Introduction ......................................................................... 2
LES 2 History of International Relations: China and East Asia............................................................... 9
LES 3 History of International Relations: India and Indianization ....................................................... 20
LES 4 History of International Relations: The Muslim caliphates........................................................ 30
LES 5 History of International Relations: Mongol Khanates ............................................................... 39
LES 6 History of International Relations: Africa .................................................................................. 47
LES 7 History of International Relations: European expansion ........................................................... 55
LES 8 History of International Relations: Belgian colonialism ............................................................. 65
LES 9 History of International Relations: International governance in the 19 th .................................. 80
LES 10 History of International Relations: The League of Nations and Its Failure .............................. 88
LES 11 History of International Relations: The UN and decolonization .............................................. 96
1
,Introduction
HIR: Why is it useful for social scientist to study history?
1. Historical legacies (The past has a causal influence on the present by staying present) =
Because the present is laden with the past
o E.g. post-communist societies: ppl still refer to them as post-communist societies
(Ukraine, Poland, Bulgaria…) → communism still has an influence on how these
countries work (not only post as in chronologically) → in terms of institutions and
attitudes: certain attitudes have been inherited from the era of communism
▪ communism led to an attitude of distrust in gov and among people
o e.g. post-colonial societies: a lot of these societies are still influenced by the colonial
phase → in terms of institutions and attitudes
▪ structure of colonial relations between colonised and coloniser from the past
lingers in the present (feelings of superiority/ inferiority continue to be
reproduced = substantive sense of postcolonial not only chronological)
2. The politics of historical memories (past present by way of memories) = because history
serves as a resource for political memories
o Resources in political conflict E.g. Kiev and Russian foreign policy claims: war is still going
on in east Ukraine: countries feel a need to legitimate their use of force, when trying to
legitimate they will often invoke history
▪ Russia argues Kiev used to be the capital of Russia and therefor Russia is
entitled to power in Ukraine
o Not direct causal connection like legacies (1), needs an effort to be remembered (made
politically relevant)
→ Link Political memories (see text Asman)
o Propagated by memory activist (not spontaneous) (ex. Politicians, professors..)
→ have to actively push the memory to reach its audience (= takes effort) in
authoritarian an democratic countries + takes an infrastructure to be successful
o Based on selection and exclusion (deliberately)
o Depends on the efficiency of political pedagogy
o Show a high degree of homogeneity
o Relies on symbols and rites that enhance emotions of empathy and identification
• Memories are extremely unreliable eg two friends at same party may have different memories
the next day → one way to explain these differences: memories are subjective: if we have to
store everything that happened, our memories would fail: impossible to remember everything
o Political memories are ways to remember the past that are shared by members of a
political society (nation, city): however pol societies will never remember all of their
memories, they will always exclude certain memories eg wars that you initiated but lost
(US-Vietnam)
o There are patterns to this selection: heroic moments will be remembered, shameful
moments not → this requires work: memory activist work to present a certain picture
of history
• What about Israel keeping the holocaust 'alive' to justify the state of Israel?
o Israel is very clearly a memory activist at the international level concerning the
holocaust → analysing this memory activist
2
, o It is not wrong of Israel to be a memory activist, it is normal that there is competition
between memory activists
▪ Russia and Ukraine emphasise different historical episodes/narratives
• Who wins the contest depends on the efficiency of political pedagogy
o You need access to institutional resources = You will have to institutionalise your
understanding of the past → as long as alternative view is not included in textbooks at
schools, universities, there is very little change the memory activists will succeed
o Decolonial activist try to change our memory by suggesting to erase traces from our
public sphere → Leopold statues
• When it comes to the influence of the colonial past (history) on the current affairs (future), the
question of the quality of history is less important. There is always selection and exclusion. It is
not the truth that matters but the persuasiveness of political memories
o This is why ultimately memories activism depends not only on historical research but
also on symbols and rites that enhance emotions of empathy and identification
o Eg statutes Leopold 2: symbolic contestation
3. Because history reveals the fundamental contingency of contemporary social and political
arrangements (not causal)
o We did not necessarily have to end up with the kinds of social and political
arrangements that we ended up with: we often assume that it is inevitable that the
world should work as it is → social and political arrangements are natural
o However moral ideas and social arrangements have been different in the past and will
evolve in unpredictable ways
▪ Eg gender equality: through history you will very quickly notice gender equality
is not an idea that occurs naturally. No it is a historical/cultural achievement.
Implication: if gender equality is not a natural truth, we cannot simply assume
that in the future gender equality will continue to last
▪ Eg Natural slavery: today we say slavery is not good/undesirable, however
worldwide and in certain sectors ppl are still being employed as slaves. Natural
slavery = there used to be the idea that there were different groups in society
and that you were born in the position to be the master of the slave. Now we
know this is not natural, not determined by nature
▪ Ex. Sovereignty: 1 state with its borders and citizens, now = normal but was not
always the case
o It is important to study history in order to know these kinds of systems (gender, slavery,
sovereignty) are contingent = they developed historically and they will continue to
develop + Understand that certain things that are now obvious, were not always that
obvious (why did they develop this way?)
OPM: there is a tension between argument 3 and 1. The fist implies it will be very difficult to change
norms and attitudes. The third implies it is possible to change norms and attitudes → however no
contradiction, that something is possible doesn’t mean it is easy
4. Because history reveals the context-specificity of scholarly knowledge claims = lessons from
history
o History for social scientist: a disposition to identify general laws in social life eg the a
possible law in social life is that if a stranger enters a society they will be met with
hostility by the receiving society
3
, ▪ Eg the balance of power = a presumed law of international relations = if a
country becomes very powerful then other countries will resists its rise, they
will balance its power eg by allying
▪ Eg the democratic peace = a presumed law of international relations
o Studying international history is to reveal the context specificity of these claims
HIR: What?
What do you expect to learn from this class? One concept, one person, one event
• Focus is on much earlier history: early stages of international history
• Non-European history of IR
Assumptions / accusations IR
• IR as a scholarly discipline is “presentist” = focused on the present (20th C and after) → Problem?
We need to know the past in order to understand the present
• IR as a scholarly discipline is “Eurocentric” = most of the theoretical analysis are written from a
Eurocentric perspective → According to many this is a Problem? Two-fold problem
o Problem due to the political nature: in the current world politics we see that western
countries are gradually losing their dominance, 19/20th century the European countries
largely dominated the world with their empires → since beginning 21 Non-western
powers are re-asserting themselves, they are trying to achieve a position of dominance
eg China, SA, Brazil, India, Iran, Russia tried
▪ Actively trying to remember their own history + Foreign policy is shot through
with historical references (= HISTORICAL MEMORY)
Eg. Turkey: tries to re-assert itself by references to the Ottoman Empire in
domestic and foreign
policy (= legitimize actions)
▪ How they did International Politics before the period when European theories
were dominant still lingers in their present politics (= HISTORICAL LEGACY)
Eg. China (centre) did not use (recent past) to think of fellow states as peers
(subordinate: Korea, Vietnam), now it will probably start working from this
hierarchical assumption again
o Problem because we would prematurely identify patterns in history
Eg. Balance of power: when one state becomes very powerful, other states will try to
balance against that state (more powerful themselves or group themselves in alliance)
backed up by European evidence from 17th and 18th C (extremely little) → theory
does not hold up when looking at the global history (less Europe/recent)
➔ Broader study of IR warns us about making hasting conclusions about how International politics
should work/ always works
➔ IP has functioned differently in different periods, places and contexts and that is worth studying
➔ Two reasons for the topics in this course: 1. Non-Western powers are re-asserting themselves and
we need to know their Intern history in order to analyse them. 2. We should not generalise theoretical
insides from European experience (map of world is political)
4
, Comparative international systems
A system:
• Made up of units that act independently of each other
• The behaviour of one unit in the system always depends on the behaviour of all the others
• The units are part of the same environment → this influences what they do
An international system:
• System made up of political entities (polities) – usually called “states”
o Act independently of each other
o Forced to consider the actions of all other entities in the system
o Act on their own, but also together with and in relation to all the others
• Provides an environment which determines what polities do and what they cannot do
The logic of the international system is expressed in:
• Institutions
• Rules
• Norms
!! Different international systems have different institutions, rules and norms !!
→ these differences = subject matter of a comparative study of international systems
Today: rules, norms and institutions of international politics = European rules, norms and institutions
(originated in 16th C + spread as result of colonialism in 19th C)
Only 1 international system (European) → cannot be compared to anything
→ that is why a comparative study of international systems must be a historical study
• There have been many international systems in the past (destroyed by European system)
o These systems had other kinds of institutions, and often followed different other rules
and norms
o These polities and their members acted differently and for different reasons
Institutions, rules and norms
(which characterize the one international system in which we all now live)
This system:
• Basic unit: state (does things)
• State: subject of international politics
• From around the 17th century onward, states have been thought of as “sovereign”
o A state which exercises supreme authority within a given territory
o Determines its own affairs in accordance with its own interests and aspirations (or in
accordance with the interests and aspirations of its ruler) (no higher power)
• Sovereignty = basic institution of the European International system
o Implies # social practices and administrative arrangements
▪ Borders identified and protected (border crossings guarded)
5
