•
ma r IR
1µm
om
mn
,Lecture 1
Huntington wrote “The clash of Civilizations and General info about the course
remaking of world order” which was important IR at UvA is a broad perspective on political science
s
depending on the theories and thoughts of other courses
he was a professor at Harvard University traditional focus on interstate relations and transnational politics
exaple of typical american organic intellectual globelisation as complex interdependence
organically integrated into existing power Part 1: 6 hc, examen 1 + 2
“Rise and decline of the West”
in bridging academia and politics creates impact Part 2: 6 hc, examen 3 + 4
balkanisation = break-up of multinational empires “Conflicts in IR of the 20th and early 21th century”
huntington talked about cultural balkanisation Exam 1: 20 multiple choice questions about hc 1 t/m 6, 20%
Exam 2: 2 open knowledge questions about hc 1 t/m 6, 30%
“latinos are a threat to american identity like Exam 3: 20 multiple choice questions about hc 7 t/m 12, 20%
muslims are to european identit” (?) Exam 4: 2 open knowledge questions about hc 7 t/m 12, 30%
clash of civilizations more insightfull also repair exam with 30 mc questions of 30% at the end of june
Literature and the material covered by the lectures
clash of princes, nations, ideologie and civilizations
“after the collapse of cummunism the international politics moves out of its western phase
and becomes post colonial, the world will now be based on co-existing civilizations”
post-cold war period has some dangerous misconceptions
not chaos, states are organized
:
civilization = highest cultural grouping and the broadest level of cultural identity people have
world is parted in 7 (maybe 8) different civilizations
western, slavic orthodox, islamic, buddist, hindu, latin american, sinic, japanese (and african)
africa is not ready to qualify as civilization because it is still a mix of others
due to colonialism it is not yet devolped its own
latin american is a civilisation because strong autoritarian, no impact from
protastanism and cultural mix of traditions from becore european expansion
gives indication of core element of civilizations is religion
long standing differences between civilizations are fundamental for distinction
due to globeisation there is an increase in civilization awareness
differences are witnessed in the close circle of people, ut can clash faster
people are seperated from their identities and that mekes them insecure religion wills the gap
dual role of the west = west is at its peak but not acceopted as universal civilization
only solution is to accept common road to modernity but not the claim on uiversalism
cultural differences are much more difficult to neutralise (skins not sweaters)
global politics is multipolar and multi-civilisational for the first time in history
huntington says we should find a balance in power among civilization
there is a shift in balance of power among civilisation
asiatic gain strenth, demographic explosion in islamic world
emergence of civilisation-based world order where western civilization is not universal
only way to prevent global war of civilizations is through coexistance of these different
mindsets, accepting eachother and the differences
state is the most important actor is a critique on huntington
state has armies etc. way more influence then civilisation
power of economic and socio-political modernisation is way bigger then civilisation-determinism
he also disregards the role of elites and middle classes
identities are socially constructed and so can be deconstructed which goes against his argument
his civilizationsal decision of the world is also thought to be incorrect
Huntington’s whole idea is thought provoking but empirically unsound
but after bush’s war on terroism clash of civilisations became relevant again
hindu nationalism in india, assaoul of uygur muslims in china, isreali-palestinian conflict, etc.
Lecture 2
theory is an essential part of IR but doesnt mean we can accept everything
relevant criteria to distinguish good theory from bad theory
1. coherence: free of internal contradictions
2. clarity of exposition: theory should be formulated cleary
3. unbiased: theory should not be based on purely subjective valuations
, 4. scope: theory should be relevant to large number of important issues
5. depth: theory should explain as much as possible about phenomenalib gen
power in IR is not about who governs (dahl) nobody is the supernational power
essential characteristic of international relations is anarchy
but how can we then realize peace and stability?
many point to globalisation as the answer: the stateless market
thought is that states are so dependent on each other that war and conflict is bad
not necessarily positive relation between globalisation and peace
state power and sovereignty: state power and sovereignty
i
national self-determination
protection own population / territory against external threats
increasing material capabilities causes security dilemma (John H. Herz)
“self help attempts of state tends to lead to rising insecurity for others”
interprets its own measures as defensive and of others as potentially threatening
how can we garuantee stability in jungle of sovereign states?
through lukes dimensions of power input, agenda-setting and false-consciousness
“when A exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B’s interests”
but new looks corrects himself on two accounts
power is a capacity, not necessarily the exercise of that capacity
: can be powerfull by satisfying and advancing others’ interests
so power of domination is only one form of power, stresses importance of hegemony
possible to build some kind of stability based on leadership of mutual consensus
leadership based on military and economic capabilities and the power of ideology
neorealism, neoliberalism and social constructivism
IR as an institutionalized academic discipline starts after world war 1
but “modern IR is closely tied to the start of the global transformation” which is around 1800
there is a difference between a problem and problem consciousness
so the problem of the international system was there but consciousness only appeared after WW1
intensity and interdependence increase during 19th century
industrial revolution makes huge production possible which leads to productional warfare
until WW1 it was believed that war is continuation of policy with other means
but afterward its believed no policy objective can legitimize such destruction
this idea brought people together so IR was developed to support it
IR started with a lot of reflection and peace studies but became more broad over time
1st phase: idealism and utopian liberalism (1919-1939)
2nd phase: realism (1939-1960)
3rd phase: behaviourism (1960-1970)
4th phase: post behavourism (1970-present)
neorealism, neoliberalism and social constructivism
there are debates in the development of IR as an academic discipline
utopian liberalism vs classical realism, traditional approaches vs behaviourism, neorealism/
neoliberalism vs neomarxism, established traditions vs post-positivist approaches
idealists / utopial liberals realists idealists / utopial liberals realists
11111#
human beings are neither undemocratic governments, natural antagonism among
in the end, human beings good or bad, they are both. nationalism, militarism, states, strive for hegemony
view of human beings causes of war
are good by nature better count with worse expansionism and secret (or domination), power
case scenarios diplomacy imbalances
respect for public
History as endless international law, creation of
history is progress and striving for (and
recurrence; human beings international organisations,
view of history manmade, i.e. influenced by political recipes maintaining) balance of
have no influence/impact democratisation, education,
human action (voluntarism) power among states
whatsoever (determinism) furthering pubic awareness
integration + cooperation; (integration by large mercantilism, protectionism
concept of international
finalite politique world society (society of impossible; state of nature + liberal / free trade or free trade, depending on
economic relations
states) anarchy) national interest
foreign policy dependent on foreign policy dependent on
primarily individuals, interaction between
primarily (nation)states and domestic structures (e.g. the position in the
level of analysis nations and international domestic and foreign
international state system democratic or international system rather
organisations relations
nondemocratic) than on domestic (f)actors
“positive-sum”. fundamental “zero-sum-game”.
perception of international harmony of interests, intractable conflicts of grotius, locke, kant, voltaire, machiavelli, hobbes,
historical tradition
relations common purpose; conflict interests; conflict and war wilson rousseau, hegel, (stalin?)
and war not inevitable inevitable
