*ALL* key concepts based on the lectures (1-13) from the course (2023) Analyzing International
Relations. INCLUDES the concept’s brief definition and explanation of what it contributes to
International Relations (Total: 23 pages).
*2023* Analyzing International Relations *ALL* Key Concepts from
Lectures 1-13
Exam Breakdown
, Key Concepts
INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM: A combination of incentives and expectations that shape different actors’
(e.g., states, sub-national bodies, IGOs, NGOs) identities and behaviours in international politics.
Regarding international relations, this concept is important as its effects cannot be explained by
simply examining the actors and organisations themselves. Rather it provides ways of understanding
(e.g., anarchy, hierarchy, interdependence and capitalism) how these actors co-exist, structuring
them and their interactions.
INTERNATIONAL ANARCHY: The absence of effective central authority above states (“no government
above governments”, Mearsheimer). Essentially views the world as a ‘billiard ball’ model, where
states act as rational and self-interest unitary actors interacting with each other on the global stage.
In the field of international relations, anarchy is used three-fold: it helps scholars understand why
cooperation is difficult (Waltz); the likelihood of aggression by great powers (Mearsheimer) and
states reliance on identification with one another (Wendt). Firstly, international anarchy makes
cooperation difficult, as it pushes states to feel insecure, relying on self-help (through building
arms/forming alliances) and focusing on the power distribution to survive. This mistrust can lead to
the security dilemma (Jervis), which further perpetuates difficulties in cooperation and
institution-building. Secondly, anarchy creates opportunities for aggression by predator states
seeking to maximise their relative power. Understanding this has the potential to avoid rising
instability and war in periods of rising and falling great powers. Finally, anarchy helps us understand
that cooperation is possible depending on how states identify vis-à-vis each other. It emphasises that
peaceful relations do not require replacing anarchy with a world government, rather focusing on the
processes of interactions between governments. Reassuring strategies, domestic regimes and
international institutions may overcome fear and promote positive identities, with a community of
collective identity based on shared values leading to an openness to civil society. Overall, the concept
of international anarchy helps international relations predict state decisions in situations when faced
with rising powers and insecurity. Understanding it could aid in promoting cooperation and
institution-building in scenarios where mistrust and fear are prevalent.
SECURITY DILEMMA (JERVIS): A situation in which actions by one state (State A) to increase their
defensive security causes reactions from another state (State B), who fearing State A builds its
defences too. This in turn leads to a decrease in State A’s security, as it concludes that State B is a
threat, furthering the spiral as it expands its defences. It arises from the international systems’
uncertainty, lack of trust and the environment of anarchy. Its strengths depended on the
offence-defence balance and transparency (weak is defence dominant with high transparency). In
the field of international relations, the security dilemma helps understand the challenges associated
with maintaining stability in a system where states are rational and self-interested. It further poses a
challenge to the pursuit of international cooperation, within which decentralised cooperation
(without hierarchical authority) is only possible with a weak dilemma. Acknowledging this would aid
scholars and policymakers in addressing the dilemma through transparency, diplomatic initiatives
and confidence-building measures. Additionally the use of reassuring words can promote positive
identification, helping actors overcome fear and leading to a positive spiral.
, RELATIVE GAINS PROBLEM (POWELL): When facing possible cooperation, states may focus on
absolute gains (how much they gain) or relative gains (how does their gain compare to others’).
Under anarchy, relative gains are more important than absolute gains (Waltz). However, states may
focus on absolute gains when many states are involved in cooperation and when the consequences
of cheating are not threatening. Knowledge of this concept helps understand international relations
with regard to how the distribution of cooperation advantages helps impact states’ behaviours. It
highlights the challenges associated with state cooperation and reflects zero-sum thinking.
Understanding this could help scholars and policymakers overcome diplomatic barriers.
DOMESTIC REGIMES (RISSE-KAPPEN): International political systems and structures within countries.
This concept helps us understand the role of identities in international relations. A community of
collective identity based on shared values leads to problem-solving solutions through dialogue and
an openness to civil society. It explains why democracies cooperate differently with each other. While
simple interpretations of anarchy suggest that powerful states will dominate international
cooperation, historical cases show that among democracies, small allies also hold great influence.
INTERNATIONAL HIERARCHY: The distribution of authority placing state/non-state actors in vertical
relations of domination & subordination, where some are expected to rule over others. Conventional
international relations wisdom finds no hierarchy in the international system. The presence/absence
of hierarchy is key to the distinction between domestic (centralised) and international politics
(anarchic) (Waltz). However, new research finds the opposite. Hierarchy helps international relations
understand how differences in coercive power, differences in wealth and market power and social
construction of identity shape the international system. Firstly, states have different roles depending
on their relative power to coerce (powerful lead, weak follow). This means that state action is shaped
by differences in authority. Secondly, states’ access to relative wealth dictates their authority
(wealthy lead, poor follow), regardless of actual interest or preferences (e.g., special role of wealthy
states in the G7, state contributions control the UN). Thirdly, deep structures of organised inequality
developed over time provide advantages to certain actors over others. Racial and gender hierarchies
reinforce distributions of wealth. The dynamics see hierarchy as (1) voluntary contracts between
ruler and ruled bargaining between social order to offset the loss of freedom; and as (2) contested
dominion by subordinate actors with strategies contesting ideas and formal rules that sustain
inequality, while accumulating greater material resources (e.g., New International Economic Order).
REALPOLITIK HIERARCHY: Splits global powers into four categories: (1) dominant powers that use
overwhelming force against all others and are expected to lead/enforce international cooperation
(e.g., the US); (2) great powers that are able to use force effectively beyond their region and are
expected to contribute to international cooperation (e.g., China, France, Russia); (3) middle powers
that are able to use force effectively in their region and are expected to lead regional stability (e.g.,
Brazil, Israel, Japan, Nigeria, Turkey); and small powers that are unable to use force effectively and
are not expected to play a major role internationally. Understanding this has important implications
for international relations as it is applicable to hegemonic stability theory and power transition
theory. The former states that without hegemons to provide leadership, cooperation breaks down.
The latter states that the rise/fall of great powers destabilises the international order, increasing the
risk of war. Understanding this has the potential to prevent the outbreak of serious conflicts.
