LECTURE 1 - IR as an academic subject
There is an intrinsic relationship between climate change, new technologies and inequality:
They all affect and are affected by one another.
International relations (IR) is a subject within political science that has overlaps with other
disciplines; with comparative politics and political theory. It takes the global outlook from
Public policy and governance and political economy is the sister discipline of IR.
IR is to be understood, in this course, in the broadest sense possible; it includes both state
and non-state actors.
The central themes in IR are:
1. Cooperation and conflict
2. Development and underdevelopment
3. Civil society and transnational politics
4. Integration and fragmentation
IR can be understood as a complex system of interdependencies.
IR as an academic subject has an intimate relation with IR as historic ideas and practical
matters.
Huntington wrote The Clash of Civilisations. He was very much embedded in post-cold-war
research. He is what has come to be termed as an organic intellectual: this is an intellectual
who is a part of the system. They are strategic thinkers and influencers in the political realm.
Cultural Balkanisation refers to a civilisational break-up.
The basic elements of Huntington’s Clash of civilisations are: (1) That in history we had
different clashes and that the nature of these clashes change over time. Once it was the
princes who fought over territory. Then the focus was nation-states (e.g. Germany vs.
France) and after this, the clashes concerned different ideologies (e.g. liberalism vs.
communism). In the post-Cold-War era, the clashes concern civilisation. In this era, the
world has moved out of the Western phase and now there seems to be several coexistent
ighest level of grouping and the broadest level of
civilisations. (2) A civilisation refers to the h
identification (besides that which sets us apart from animals). (3) Of these civilisations there
exists 7 (or 8 depending on the development of the African civilisation). (4) In the world of
civilisations, the fault lines are between civilisations.
The reason why civilisations necessarily will clash are: (1) That the characteristics in of
civilisations are the products of centuries, and that the different mindset of these are rooted
in history. (2) Also, these differences are fundamental. (3) The world has become smaller,
but this has, in turn, increased civilisation consciousness. (4) Globalisation makes people
insecure and religion fills this insecurity (referred to as a gap). This then leads to the revival
of God. (5) The dual role of the West also causes the clash of civilisation. While the West is
1
,on its peak and is an example of universal values, liberal democracy and freedom
everywhere in the world, anti-Western feeling are on the rise. Thus, the US is an example
and an enemy simultaneously. (6) Lastly, cultural differences are harder to neutralise. The
question is no longer on which side you are on, but rather who you are, what you are and
about the skin you are wearing.
Huntington asserts that today we are living in a multipolar and multicivilisational world. There
has been a shift in the balance of power: the Asian civilisation is gaining strength and there
is a demographic explosion in the Islamic world. Thus, there is an emergence of a
civilisational-based-order. He also states that the western idea of universalism is an illusion
and that the West should respect cultural differences. All in all, he recommends that we
should seek to coexist peacefully with a common interest in peace. This should be based on
mutual respect.
Critics have been many against Huntington. These are - among others - the following: (1)
While civilisations are important, states are still the most important actor; states have armies,
civilisations do not. (2) There is power in social-political and social-economic modernisation.
(3) The role of the elite and middle classes i s not trivial. (4) Identities are socially
constructed. (4) There is no clear evidence that these divisions are correct. (5) And lastly,
the idea of the Clash of Civilisations is empirically unsound; there has been no substantial
boost of civilisational clashes in the post-Cold-War era.
However, the Clash of Civilisations seems to have renewed relevance, for instance, in the
rise of Hindu nationalism, the on-going Shia-Sunni conflict in the Middle East, and the ethnic
cleansing of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar. Thus, religion seems to be a source of conflict
in many places.
Senghaas gives primacy to internal conflicts between modernity and traditional forces; the
modern people are the winners while the traditional people are the losers of globalisation. He
also claims that the debate between universalists (that norms of the West are universal and
that we should, therefore, spread them) and cultural-relativists (that every culture should be
respected) is wrong. Instead, historical relativism should be the leading force; the move from
traditionality to modernity is an unstoppable force. Thus, the real clash is social-political and
social-economic.
LECTURE 2 - IR theories (I)
Theories in IR are ideal types. There are sometimes overlaps between them as well.
However, the theories are part of our tool-box.
Why do we need theory? Well, it is a tool-box in the sense that it helps us select and pay
attention to the most important factors, it allows us to observe effectively and structure the
observation.
Power is one, if not the central concept in Political Science.
2
, Dahl once asked: Who governs? And the answer is that nobody governs in the international
system, because there is no world government. This international anarchy is an essential
feature of IR.
If the international anarchy is anarchic, how can we then avoid conflict and war? Perhaps
through the complexity of interdependence, namely globalisation. However, trade wars do
not seem to replace all other wars. This is for two reasons:
1. There and fundamental differences between states; some states are developed,
some developing, others under-developed and some are failed.
2. Some states may rise or decline in terms of power, and this power transition is likely
to increase instability.
There are three aspects of sovereignty:
1. Territorial integrity
2. National self-determination
3. The desire to protect the national population and territory against external threats
All this causes states to seek the increase of national capabilities (especially military
capabilities). But how to regulate this in an international anarchy?
There is indeed a security dilemma. This means that one country looks out for its own
security it might seem to other countries as an act of aggression. While one thinks of their
own measures as defensive they see other’s measures as potentially threatening. This
ultimately leads to an arms race.
Lukes had three dimensions of power (this also relates to IR). These are:
1. The first dimension: This is concrete power or power as a measurement
2. The second dimension: This is the art of non-decision making. This refers to the early
stages of agenda-setting and concerns the power one has to prevent something from
getting on the agenda.
3. The third dimension: This is the power false-consciousness which refers to
indoctrination, fake news and propaganda.
The old Lukes defined power on these terms: A exercises power over B when A affect B’s
manners in contrast to B’s interest. However, there are two obvious mistakes with this.
Firstly, power is more than just what is exercised - rather, power is a capacity. Secondly,
power is not only to affect manners contrary to interest but also to satisfy other’s interests.
Domination is, thus, only one form of power. It is also important to unfold the power of a
hegemony; that is the one who seeks to lead in the international anarchy based on
consensus with the ultimate goal of maintaining peace.
A hegemonic power is able to set the agenda for most of the world.
=> It can exercise this through military capabilities.
=> It must establish a reward system (a complex system of economic cooperation to benefit
all participants)
=> It must also plant ideas into the brains of the world; that cooperation will benefit all.
3
