02-04-2019: IR Lecture 1 (15:00-18:00)
What is IR?
The fact that the entire population of the world is living in independent states. Together, these states
form an international state-system (book definition).
Central (recurrent) themes
- Conflict and cooperation
- Development and underdevelopment
- Civil society and transnational politics
- Integration and fragmentation
- Globalization as (the emergence) and development of) complex interdependence
IR: Practice vs. Academic
There is a distinction between international relations in practice, and IR as an academic discipline.
Everyone has an opinion on international relations. This is mostly biased. This is different from the
scientific approach, where you try to find law-like processes taking place in the international realm.
These two circles overlap in a certain extent.
Three sections/three parts
1) IR as an academic discipline (Lecture 1-3)
2) Rise and Decline of the West (Lecture 3-7)
a. From city-state to nation-state
b. Industrialization and hegemony
c. From Eurocentric World Politics to Global Politics
3) Conflict and Cooperation in the International Relations of the 20 th and early 21st century
(Lecture 8)
Clash of Civilizations
Who was Samuel Huntington
Wrote the clash of civilizations: remaking of world order.
He was a University Professor at Harvard. He was working on the changing security environment and
American national interests. That makes him an organic intellectual: He was in the overlap region
between biased and objective. An organic intellectual is someone who is working academia, and is
organically related to existing power relations. He is not only working for academia, but also highly
involved in actual politics.
Huntington criticizes the modernization theory by stating that political order is needed for
modernization. Political order in this sense is stability. Stability can be under democratic rule, but also
under authoritarian rule.
,Huntington: The Hypothesis
Reacting to the dangerous end of history thesis of Fukuyama. In 2001, 9/11 happened. This renewed
interest in the work of Huntington with the clash of civilizations. The thesis of Huntington is not only
well-received in the West, but also in Asia. Asian prof: in the post-Cold War period, there have been
different mindsets, cultures, identities, etc.: but one common thing: the common march to
modernity. There is a distinction between modernization and Westernization. The West regards itself
superior: but the common march is modernity.
Basic elements Huntington thesis
For the first time after the cold War, International politics leaves it Western phase: we used to have
the clash of Princes (pre-modern period). After that, it became a clash among nations/peoples with
the rise of nationalism: French vs. Germans, etc.(1800). After 1917, it became a clash of Ideologies
(capitalism vs. communism). Then, after the Cold War, we entered a phase of Clash of Civilizations.
But why did the civilizations take the lead? After the end of the Cold War, there were some
dangerous misconceptions:
- One World: Euphoria and Harmony
- 184 states, more or less: sheer chaos?!
The most fundamental aspect of the new world is the clash of civilizations. A civilization is a cultural
entity, and this can be at different levels: villages, regions, nations, supernational regions, all with
different cultures (Amsterdam identity, Dutch identity, European identity, etc.). However, the biggest
identity one can have, other than being a member of human kind, is being a member of civilization. A
civilization is the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity
people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species.
There are seven or eight civilizations:
1) Western civilization (Western-Europe and Northern-America and Australia)
2) Confusion/Chinese civilization
3) Japanese civilization
4) Islamic civilization
5) Hindu civilization
6) Orthodox/Slavic civilization
7) Latin-American civilization. This is a civilization because of authoritarian decisions, it doesn’t
have the kind of influx from Protestantism, and there is a cultural mix with elements from
before the European discovery.
8) African civilization, but according to Huntington, Africa doesn’t qualify as a civilization,
because it is a mix of other civilizations.
Fault lines between civilizations are the geographic dividing lines. In these fault lines, we have
potentially the greatest conflicts. He argues Turkey is a casing point: on the one hand Islamic, but the
Turkish elite is looking at the Western world. Another example is Mexico: between Western- and
Latino civilization. Another example: Ukraine – on the one hand orthodox, on the other hand the
Western civilization.
,Reasons Huntington why civilizations are important
Unlike nations/ideologies, civilizations are long-standing. Civilizations are the product of centuries.
There are differences among civilizations in history, religion, etc. and these are all fundamental. They
point at different mind-sets (God, men, women, individual, family, community, etc.). These
differences are grounded in the civilizations. Secondly, the rise of globalization and the clash of
civilization is a product of one another. This means the world is getting smaller: a smaller world
results in an increase of civilizational consciousness: we can observe the differences between
civilizations. For example: American investments are welcomed, while Chinese investments are less
welcomed. Huntington would argue this is because they are from a different civilization there is
less trust.
Religion is getting a large role in the clash of civilizations. More and more people live in cities
(urbanization). In the process they lose their local identities. Community relations are breaking up,
and globalization is making people insecure. Religion is filling this gap.
There is a dual role of the West: one the one hand, the West is the pinnacle of modernity, but at the
same time, the West is THE enemy from the other people.
Cultural differences are much more difficult to neutralize. Civilizations are like skins, ideologies are
like sweaters.
,Recommendations Huntington
Global politics is multipolar and multi-civilizational for the first time in history. There is also a shift in
the balance of power among civilizations: the Asiatic civilizations gain strength, and there is a
demographic explosion in the Islamic world (more younger people, not enough work); therefore he
argues that the Islamic civilization is perhaps the most dangerous. He expects the emergence of a
‘civilization-based world order’. We should get rid of the Western illusion of universalism. But how
can we prevent a ‘Global War of civilizations’? Not only by accepting other civilizations and their
differences, but also finding your civilization’s own identity.
Huntington and his critics
There is a recent literature who talks about the civilization state: not arguing that civilizations cover a
large number of states, but looking at the individual states.
Civilizations do not have armies, so we should go back to the real world where the state is the most
important actor.
The power of economic and socio-political modernization. Huntington overestimates cultural/religion
identities, while underestimating the power of economic and socio-political identities.
The role of elites and middle classes, there is no clash at all (Look for example at Saudi Arabia and US,
there is a good relation)
Identities are socially constructed/deconstructed (differences between primordial -knowing every
individual member- and an imagined community –everything other than knowing every individual-).
Civilizational division of the world is incorrect (depends on how you look at civilizations/identities)
Superiority/supremacy of Western civilization? There is no question of supremacy actually
Thought provoking idea, but empirically unsound! If it is true what he is saying that there is a
substantial increase of civilizational conflict, then we should see it in the data. There is a slight
increase in civilizational clash, but also a slight increase in non-civilizational conflicts; based on the
data, this is not enough evidence to say this. After 2001, we have the start of the World on Terror.
This is revamping the idea of the Clash of Civilization (Bush: Clash FOR civilization). Critique: is this a
clash of religious nature or a clash of geopolitics? Is it a clash of the Islam vs. the rest, or is it a clash
within Islam(ic) civilization between different subgroups?
,04-04-2019: Lecture 2 – Theories
Power
Power in IR, International power
All the political scientist should know Dahl: Who Governs. In terms of domestic polities, there is a
clear answer: the government. When applied to international governance: nobody. There is no single
world government possible. Box 2.6 JSM important (Freud vs. Einstein). Einstein: Federal structure
in global level is possible; Freud: doubts that humans have the capacity to overcome their irrational
attachments to national and religious groups. Nationality, according to Freud, is so important that
world government is not possible (nationality thinking about one’s own above others).
So, the essential characteristic of international relations is anarchy. But, how can we guarantee
stability and security in a world ruled by anarchy? How can we avoid conflict and war? A possible
answer: we live in a world of globalization; there are no borders for capital the empire of capital!
Instead of the usual combination between state formation and market integration, we see market
integration world-wide, without concomitant state formation! Will people rather invest instead of
going to war?;
How can we reorganize the jungle (of independent sovereign states) into a zoo?
For a number of reasons, globalizations can’t do the job, because the international state system is
based on power and sovereignty. This is because they want to maintain their territorial integrity,
want to maintain their national self-determination, and want to keep their people safe from the
threats from others (real or imaginary).
Are trade wars the new wars making real wars (military) obsolete?
Answer: No, because we are living in a world where not all states are equal (economic, political,
military, difference between highly developed democratic/authoritarian rule, failed states, etc.).
States have to keep their military materials in shape to react to disturbances.
A second reason is that some states may rise to the occasion, while other states are decreasing in
power. So, there is a rise and demise of states in the international system: the power transition
theory. Example: US and China. In this transition, we always see a specific warfare occurring. Mostly,
the ‘losing’ side of power is the cause of this (in this case: US). All about security and power.
Security-Dilemma (John Herz)
If you want to protect everything from others, then one option is to increase military capabilities.
This can be seen as a defense, but according to the security dilemma, it is most of the times seen as
an act of aggression, rather than defense. So, this leads to other repercussions.
, It is a structural notion in which the self-help attempts of states to look after their security needs…
tend, regardless of intention, to lead to rising insecurity for others as each interprets its own
measures as defensive and measures of others as potentially threatening.
Lukes
There is a clear importance of the second face of power: agenda-setting, with emphasizing on non-
decision making. In the EU, we’re reluctant to hand over sovereignty to supernational institutions.
When it comes to social affairs, we talk about nationalities. In Maastricht, the currency (one of the
most important pieces of national identity) was unified.
Definition power (Old Lukes)
“A exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B’s interests”. According to
Lukes, there are some mistakes in its definition:
1) Power is a capacity, not necessarily the exercise of that capacity
2) You can be powerful by satisfying and advancing others’ interests
3) Power as domination is only one form of power
4) The importance of hegemony (consensus) is more important now.
A state becoming primus interpares is the most important one in equal relationships.
International relations is not only about exercising power, but it is also trying to create consensus on
the base of finding commonalities.
Origin of the discipline
IR as a scientific way of looking at the world starts at 1800. Disagree because you can actually state
that IR as an academic discipline is starting after WW I. But, before something can pop up as a
science, you’ll need a number of conditions:
- Problem and problem consciousness:
o There need to be a problem at stake. Most often it is not the case that there is
consciousness of this problem: this consciousness may sometimes may decades.
- Intensity and interdependence
o The world gets smaller, but at the same time
- Industrial revolution and warfare
o Now possible to produce weapons on a mass-production scale. So, Industrial
revolution and warfare create something really new. War is just an extension of
international politics.
- Narrow and broad definitions of IR
o Initial idea: a kind of peace study (narrow way of looking at IR: more international
politics). Only after WW II, the large increase in states create a new topic, bit for bit
putting aside the old topic. The new topic is most of all development and
underdevelopment.
