The Changing Global Order
Week 1: Theories of International Relations
Introduction of the United Nations Security Council
The Security Council is one of the principle organs of the United Nations, it originated at October 24 th
1945, after the Second World War when the UN was founded. The main aim of the UN was to
maintain international peace and security/save succeeding generations from the scorch of war. The
Security Council is primary responsible for that. The Security Council is a special organ in
international law because
1. It can impose binding obligations on states
2. It can authorize states to use (military) force (article 2(4)) > states may only use force for self
defense and when authorized by the UNSC
The Council ensures the maintenance of peace and it can impose binding obligations whenever it
decides that there’s a threat to peace (firefighter). In 1945 the concept of peace referred to the
absence of war (between two states), but in the post-Cold war period the concept has become much
broader; (internal) civil conflicts and situations of gross Human Rights violations (Roman Genocide
1994) could also forma threat to peace. The Security Council broadened its working space again after
9/11 when it determined that (international) terrorism also contribute a threat to peace, which is
rather a phenomenon than a specific situation.
On September 28th in 2001, the council adopted resolution 1373 which was very different from other
resolutions because it was legislative. Normally when a threat to peace is detected, the council
implements concrete measures; cease fire, imposing sanctions, enforcement measure, establish ad
hoc tribunals, authorize the use of force. The resolution after 1373 after 9/11 was very general in
scope (not for concrete threats) binding the criminalization of terrorism in all states, less firefighter
to undertake specific acts for a situation, but more general obligations; broadening mandate.
Mainstream Theories of International Relations
Realism: individuals (or groups) are rational actors and are assumed to maximize their own power
(poses security challenge if another one is stronger). Hans Morgenthau is a famous author of classical
realism; human nature drives conflict, states are the focus of analysis (politics) where power is in
interest, also of political leaders.
Realism in international relations
1. States are the unit of analysis
2. States aim to increase their power (military, security threat, interest in relative gains > if
another state is more powerful, you could be defeated in the future)
3. States behave in a rational way
In neorealism, human nature is not necessarily the driving force for conflict, but the structure of the
international systems and the units/states are seen as interacting with each other. This structure
encourages and discourages certain actions. Core assumptions of neorealism:
1. The international system is anarchial (no central authority)
2. The international system is characterized by interaction between its units/states
3. Within the structure of the international system, the distribution of capabilities/power can
very (over time, between states)
,In contrast to realism, the structure of the international system largely determines the state behavior
and rational calculations about the own position in the system determines the state’s interests and
strategies. Variations of state behavior are therefore due because of variations in characteristics of
the international system. Cooperation is unlikely, but alliances aren’t; in attempt to balance the
power of other entities (this will likely cause counter-alliances). States or coalitions may face a
security dilemma where they prefer to disarm, but are feared of the other because there’s no central
authority (cold war).
Changes in capabilities will also change relations between states. The world system is dominated by
hegemonic power (geo-political/culturally dominant). There’s fear of the hegemon. Regional
integration can be seen as an attempt to balance power (no cooperation, but integration: EU, NATO,
focus on economy)
(Neo)realist thinking in international relations states that cooperation and establishment of
international institutions is unlikely to happen because they could contain their own actions; states
only want international rules and institutions if they are consistent with their own interests.
International institutions likely reflect the preferences and power of the most influential states in the
system.
The anarchical global political system largely contributes to the self-help system where states mainly
act to ensure their survival, defensive realism (Kenneth Walls). Other states, great powers, aim to
maximize their power to dominate the international system, offensive realism. Neorealists are
sometimes seen as pessimists who see the world is very conflictual, but they aimed to understand
state behavior the prevent violence and war (Kenneth Walls).
There might be more factors than relative gains from states that co-determine the actions to increase
power, such as institutions, norms, identities.
Liberalism
Political liberalism focuses on individual liberty, political freedom and equality. Republican
liberalism states that democracies are more peaceful than non-democracies. The Democratic Peace
Theory assumes that two democracies will not fight each other. Sociological liberalism emphasizes
that the transnational contacts and coalitions affect national attitudes, interests and behavior.
In neo-classical economics, the firm or individual is the unit of analysis in liberalism. The economy
should be as free as possible from political interference; fee markets that lead to general welfare;
only in times of market failure, recessions, the government would interfere. Comparative advantage
in liberal economics mean that every state focuses on the production of certain goods or services
that it can product the best and cheapest; if all do so, it’s beneficial for all. Economic entity patents in
commercial liberalism allow for peaceful relations between states. Economic liberalism is very
influential in most parts of the world (critics after the financial crisis).
In neoliberalism, as in neorealism, the global system is anarchic, but states aren’t seen as the unit of
analysis acting as cohesive entities, but rather as being constituted by a range of different actors like
interior politics and international institutions. Cooperation is also possible between states as
multinational corporations and transnational interest groups are seen as a crucial factor in state
activities and behavior. Regimes, implicit or explicit norms, rules and decision-making procedures
around which actor’s expectations converge in a given area of international relations (Stephen
Krasner). In neoliberalism, international institutions are seen as much more important than they are
in realism (Robert Keohane, Lisa Martin: The Promise of Institutionalist Theory, 1995).
, According to neoliberal institutionalism, institutions effect the self-interest of states. Cooperation
between states is possible (partially because of regimes) and the effects of reciprocity. Institutions
can play an important role in peaceful and sustainable long term cooperation (monitor behavior,
sanction).
Rational institutionalists, like Robert Keohane, believe that some of the realist assumptions are
relevant and useful. Neoliberalism believers that international institutions will not only reflect the
interests of the most powerful actors in the system. International institutions crucially influence the
behavior of states in the global system.
Luckily, interdependence between states doesn’t create dependence and fear of gaining less relative
gains, but it adds to the prospects for stability and peace; interdependence within the EU for
resources for example.
The Constructivist Theory of International Relations
Constructivism in international relations is based on many different approaches, but generally, it can
be seen as a rection to (neo)liberalism. Most constructivist approaches state that reality is a social
construct that’s created. It influences how we see things, give meaning and focuses on ideas, norm,
identities, values and processes of learning rather than material. So it’s more about how states view
each other, rather than the structure of the international system. Perception is important: friend or
enemy? Other, or self?
Institutions also shape actor behavior; states will be socialized by them. The development of shared
norms and values matter (in EU: human rights e.g.). In constructivism, actors aren’t viewed as utility
maximizing or rational, but ideational. The spread of norms and values, changing identities and
socialization will mainly affect actor behavior and interaction.
Alexander Wendt wrote an influential article about social constructivism in 1992 called “Anarchy is
What States Make of it, The Social Construction of Power Politics” where neoliberalism is criticized
and where states act based on perception of each other and not opportunities of the global system.
The focus of analysis is on supported values and norms and not materialistic.
Constructivist argued about the ending of Cold War to be caused by a change identity and thinking
rather than strategic or military reasons.
Week 2: The Changing World: Rising Powers and
International Institutions
Power Politics
Since the end of the Cold War, a multipolar world has been re-emerging (less stable than uni- or
bipolar). A popular distinction is West vs. Rest. Fareed Zakaria argued that due to the rise of the
West, a post-American world is emerging where the US and Europe compete with China and other
emergent powers over economic interest which will spark new political and security issues. This leads
to a new debate on geo-economics about access to resources and energy (vital economic interest,
not only territory). This geo-economics explain why conflicts between states happen over economic
issues.
The tensions about the Sankaku and Diaoyu Islands have led to major diplomatic fall-out between
China and Japan, resembling manifestations of a resource struggle (travel and trade restrictions).
