Prof. Dries Lesage
Academic year 2019-2020 Julia Steegen
INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS THEORY
Table of Content
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................................................3
SYRIAN WAR..........................................................................................................................................................................3
LIBERALISM................................................................................................................................................................................ 8
BASIC CLAIMS........................................................................................................................................................................8
GENEALOGY........................................................................................................................................................................... 8
POST WWII LIBERALISM..................................................................................................................................................9
CURRENTS OF THOUGHT: INTERDEPENDENCE LIBERALISM..................................................................10
REPUBLICAN LIBERALISM.......................................................................................................................................10
NEOLIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM........................................................................................................................11
“THE CRISIS OF LIBERAL INTERNATIONALISM” - DEBATE............................................................................11
THE KANTIAN TRIANGLE..............................................................................................................................................12
RUSSET & O’NEAL, 2001.................................................................................................................................................15
FUKUYAMA.......................................................................................................................................................................... 16
DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY....................................................................................................................................16
BASIC CLAIMS................................................................................................................................................................ 16
KIND OF THEORY......................................................................................................................................................... 17
EXPLANATIONS.............................................................................................................................................................18
CRITICISMS..................................................................................................................................................................... 18
TRANSNATIONALIST THEORY....................................................................................................................................18
NEOLIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM.............................................................................................................................19
AFTER HEGEMONY, 1984.........................................................................................................................................19
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS..........................................................................................................................22
REALISM.................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
CLASSICAL REALISM (THE REALIST TRADITION I)...........................................................................................23
SIX MAIN FEATURES........................................................................................................................................................23
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS.......................................................................................................................................................24
GENEALOGY......................................................................................................................................................................... 24
CURRENTS OF THOUGHT...............................................................................................................................................25
1
,Prof. Dries Lesage
Academic year 2019-2020 Julia Steegen
CLASSICAL REALISM...................................................................................................................................................25
STRUCTURAL REALISM OR NEOREALISM (THE REALIST TRADITION II)...........................................28
NEOCLASSICAL REALISM (THE REALIST TRADITION III)..........................................................................35
THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY TRADITION.............................................................................................................43
KEY FEATURES................................................................................................................................................................... 43
GENEALOGY......................................................................................................................................................................... 43
“THE THREE TRADITIONS” (MARTIN WIGHT).....................................................................................................43
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY............................................................................................................................................45
THE ANARCHICAL SOCIETY.....................................................................................................................................45
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY: PLURALISM............................................................................................................46
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY: SOLIDARISM..........................................................................................................47
WORLD SOCIETY (REVOLUTIONISM)..................................................................................................................47
THE INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY TRADITION..................................................................................49
INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY.................................................................................................................49
REALIST IPE.................................................................................................................................................................... 50
LIBERAL IPE................................................................................................................................................................... 52
MARXIST IPE.................................................................................................................................................................. 53
THE POST-POSITIVIST TRADITION................................................................................................................................70
POST-POSITIVISM............................................................................................................................................................. 70
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................ 71
THE FOUR GREAT DEBATES....................................................................................................................................71
CURRENTS....................................................................................................................................................................... 72
2
,Prof. Dries Lesage
Academic year 2019-2020 Julia Steegen
INTRODUCTION
Theorizing: The Syrian war (2011 - …)
→ complex and intriguing
→ perspective of theories raises some very interesting questions
World politics is made up by human actions.
→ studying theories of international relations makes us better equipped.
SYRIAN WAR
1. Why has UNSC (united nation security council) not stopped the war?
→ UNSC is supposed to watch over war and peace
→ addressing countries at war and eventually military intervention
This has failed with the Syrian war → why?
Russia imposes UNSC intervention (veto)
→ other conflict involved: Libya
Russia (veto) → Syria “proxy” ↔ US allies (Saudi)
Iran
Russia and China green-lighted the UNSC mandate to intervene in Libya for no-flight zone.
Syria “proxy” supportive of Assad
→ why is it important for Russia to have influence in Syria?
→ access to Mediterranean sea for Russian navy
→ competition need ability to contest US & China
without Assad: west is free to do whatever it wants
→ Showing capabilities
→ Putin would lose credibility → linked to prestige of Russia as a state
Prestige matters for a state: they do not want this to be harmed by losing another pawn.
Kadhafi, Yanukovych (Ukraine): lost allies of Russia
→ Kremlin experiences the shrinking of its empire
→ harder for Russia to make concession
→ more important to keep allies
3
,Prof. Dries Lesage
Academic year 2019-2020 Julia Steegen
→ council, military support, Arms Trade (Syria = good customer)
2015 onwards: Russia enters massively to create tipping point in Assad (many casualties) → leading to almost
victory in Assad.
War starts with local conflict → global powers are dragged in
→ states are afraid to lose their power & ground
→ can harm their global position (for Russia can result in encroaching territory in Russia itself)
→ Putin fears mass protest in Moscow. Kremlin believes protests are fueled by west.
→ Reason Assad has to be protected at any time.
School of realism: topic of competition
→ Putin’s construction of what he thinks is real: fight or perish.
Someone else might wonder why they don’t try to become ‘friends’ with the west.
Geopolitics: sub-discipline that looks at geographic relations to politics
→ global powers wanting access to the seas
→ Russian interest in Black sea, Indian Ocean (through Iran), high seas, buffer zones against potential
attackers.
Rally around the flag = domestic
Realism looks at the international system → shapes strategies and foreign policy
Domestic analysis shows different side
Strategies adapted are very variable
Turkey: supported Syrian rebels → best decision to make?
→ war just escalated?
→ Kurdish forming own country in Northern Syria
2. What do the US, Gulf states and Turkey want?
Anti-Assad rebels fighting against Assad regime: core element
1 → as war dragged on: radical jihadists gained more control over rebellion
2 → when country destabilizes: Kurdish opportunity to create own state
3 → isis: different category than anti-Assad rebels
4
,Prof. Dries Lesage
Academic year 2019-2020 Julia Steegen
Emergence of Daish: opportunity for Assad: “problem lays with Daish and terrorists”
→ then terrorist attacks in Paris
→ focus shift from tackling Assad to tackling Daish
Kurdish issue: strongest militia among Kurds in Syria
= PYD YPG: structurally connected to PKK
Turkey not granting independence → own “fault” for emergence PKK ( → considered as terrorist
organisation by Turkey)
Within NATO: Turkey combating PKK who have helped us combat Daish → why?
→ different perspectives
→ Putin sees leaver to weaken relation between Turkey and Nato
International Relations Theory:
Gulf states active in Syria: balancing act against Iran
Realism: it always comes down to existential interests
→ not much about ideas: everything is real
To what extent is Sunni-Shia conflict determining in conflict
Realists would say not to look at religion too much
Pragmatic perspective: religious divide is not helpful.
→ states instrumentalise religious factor
Iraq: majority = shia. Iran has been stirring up Shia identity to gain influence.
In Syria: Assad and population group have Shia background → relation to Iran.
→ other dimension in Syrian war: sociological (rel.) aspect:
religious divides
overlapping political philosophical divides: secularism & Islamic values on the other side.
→ important struggle
5
,Prof. Dries Lesage
Academic year 2019-2020 Julia Steegen
Assad: more secularist stance
Realism often overlooks complex relationship between religion and interstate politics
3. Could a military intervention against Assad ever work?
If Western countries and Turkey and … want to military intervene their planes would immediately be shot
down
Power balance: protect Assad against intervention
4. Possibility to prevent or make the conflict stop earlier?
If Syria could have developed a neutral statue it might not have become a UN or Turkey puppet.
Lack of great power concert (prof. opinion)
Like concert of Europe: 5 powers meeting several times to find a solution.
→ had an understanding: joint responsibility to work out solution
Need for joint understanding that through diplomacy, stability is possible
Why IR theory?
Overview main theories
→ conceptual framework
→ explanation
→ specific lens, combine theories
How ideas help to construct strategies, cultures, … (constructivism)
liberalism, Marxism, ..
→ potential for ecclesiastic combination of theories
→ apply theories to complex reality
Relevance of theories might vary over time and space: differences between middle east and Europe
→ suggests relativity of theories
Theories help us understand leaders and opinions and actions
→ not necessarily support them
6
,Prof. Dries Lesage
Academic year 2019-2020 Julia Steegen
Better assess what is potentially possible
7
,Prof. Dries Lesage
Academic year 2019-2020 Julia Steegen
LIBERALISM
1. LIBERALISM I
BASIC CLAIMS
Human reason: people are able to shape their destiny and international relations.
→ power of reason liberates humans from a life under yoke of a foundational human nature and the restraints
of revealed truth.
→ we can understand and shape nature and society without depending on the assistance of a higher being.
→ humans capable of shaping their destiny, international relations and moulding negative ramifications of the
absence of a world government
→ can be traced back to philosopher John Locke.
Possibility of historical progress: it is possible and desirable to reform international relations → ‘possible’ does
not imply easy. Liberals cultivate linear conceptions of history → human reason and processes of social
learning render progress possible.
→ We are not doomed to live in a state of perpetual conflict but can choose political strategies to avoid it.
State-society linkages (Kant: Perpetual Peace (1795) → ‘democracies are more peaceful’): liberal theorists
focus on state-society linkages and claim the existence of a close connection between on the one hand
domestic institutions and politics and on the other hand international politics. These two spheres of political
and social action do not exist separately and should not be analysed separately.
Even since Kant published Perpetual Peace many liberal theorists have been convinced that there is a causal
link between domestic regime form and the probability of war. Kant claimed that ‘republican’ (i.e. democratic)
states are more peaceful, at least vis a vis one another.
Economic interdependence → peace: liberals argue that free trade is preferable to mercantilism ( = a policy
that is designed to maximize the exports and minimize the imports for an economy ), because trade produces
wealth without war. This is the basis of the liberal tradition and also where the liberal tradition and the
international political economy partly overlap.
Belief in international law and institutions: liberals mention the positive effect of processes of institutionalizing
international relations. This can be done in different ways: the ever-denser network of international
organizations (International Telegraph Union, League of Nations: it was believed that global international
organization could prevent war better than the alternatives, including traditional balance of power politics),
importance of international agreements (regimes) or ‘negotiated orders’, the option of legalizing international
politics, etc. In general, liberals believe anarchy can be moulded.
GENEALOGY
Predecessors: in the early 20th century, liberal minded thinkers introduced early liberal key arguments, e.g.:
Angell: war does not benefit anybody and should therefore be avoided, Dickinson: key concept international
anarchy. The discipline International Relations was conceived of and founded by liberal thinkers.
8
,Prof. Dries Lesage
Academic year 2019-2020 Julia Steegen
Immanuel Kant.
Liberal economists, activists UK (18th-19th century): create wealth by trade instead of war.
World war I & ‘utopian liberalism’: the 20th century was not kind to liberalism, market by WWI, WWII and 45
years of the Cold war. Liberal thinkers were prominent in diagnosing prime causes of WWI and designing a
political programme to address these issues of inter-war years → they put a significant mark on the dominant
foreign policies of the day:
1. League of Nations & liberal institutionalism: President Woodrow Wilson (14-point plan leading to the
foundation of the LoN).
2. International law should be made public
3. Several specialized institutes and university chairs were created designed for research and teaching
related to international affairs: University chairs (Aberystwyth, Geneva) and institutes → value of
knowledge was cherished: if we understand international affairs better, we will be better able to
avoid war.
4. Traditional national security institutions were complemented by a collective security system under
the auspices of the LoN.
→ It was a reaction against balance of power politics, secret treaties and war.
But: ‘The Twenty Years’ Crisis. 1919-1939 (E.H. Carr): the liberal programme failed fatally in terms of reaching
stated objectives, that is avoiding conflict and war. The seemingly bright future of post-World War I soon
turned into what has been referred to as the 20 years’ crisis and subsequently WWII. The emergence of
communism, fascism and Nazism proved to be very hard soil for liberal ideas and strategies to grow in.
Nevertheless, they managed to build new theories and achieve a significant share in the research agenda of IR.
POST WWII LIBERALISM
An early indication of the liberal comeback is provided by David Mitrany in 1943 with his book a working peace
system. Politics constitutes one of the core axes on which every possible international theory hinges and
Mitrany’s book illustrates what happens when politics is replaced by functionalism and technocratic rule (=an
ideological system of governance in which decision-makers are selected on the basis of their expertise in a
given area of responsibility, particularly with regard to scientific or technical knowledge).
→ most extreme version of this desire in his book is when he proposes the transfer of functions of politics to a
High Authority, commissioned to decision-making based on functional or technical rationales.
Integration theories: he makes a plea to move from divisive politics (i.e. international politics, conflict and war)
to integrative non-political technical problem-solving, thereby allowing the value of peace to trump the value
of democracy (in the sense of political participation). This has largely been the strategy followed by
governments creating international organizations (cf. the term functional UN agencies).
Behaviorist turn & quantitative studies on interdependence.
US-led world order (multilateralism, liberal market economy): though colonial wars and the cold war
characterized the period, there were also instances of hope and reintroduction of part of the liberal political
programme: the LoN had been replaced by the UN, and in contrast to the inter-war years, the US promoted
multilateral solutions to international problems, particularly in their relations with Europe and less so with
Asia. Furthermore, the process of European integration was launched during the 1950s and promised to be
one of the several instances of global processes of regional integration. Liberal analysts also pointed out that
the security dilemma somehow could be moulded and complemented by the creation of security communities.
9
, Prof. Dries Lesage
Academic year 2019-2020 Julia Steegen
During the last three decades of the 20th century, the liberal tradition was thoroughly reinvigorated and
started to flourish in terms of novel theoretical reflections on transnational relations, patterns of
interdependence, international institutions, logics of democratic peace, regional integration and global
governance.
Neoliberal institutionalism, regime theory (theory within international relations derived from the liberal
tradition that argues that international institutions or regimes affect the behavior of states or other
international actors. It assumes that cooperation is possible in the anarchic system of states, as regimes are, by
definition, instances of international cooperation).
CURRENTS OF THOUGHT: INTERDEPENDENCE LIBERALISM
Dates back to the 19th century and continued to a play an important role in liberal thinking during the 20th
century.
Theorists believe that processes of modernization produce an increasingly modern world and that states in this
modern world increasingly depend on each other.
The liberal focus is often on economic interdependence and considers the ever-more interwoven global
markets to be a feature supporting their argument.
Interdependence liberals emphasize the importance of both state actors and transnational actors. They tend
to focus on non-military aspects of world politics, including global warfare politics.
Increases in interdependence make states more sensitive towards each other, thereby increasing the costs of
conflict, in turn making the conflict less tempting or beneficial → positive effects of economic
interdependence.
New versions of interdependence liberalism began to be formulated in the early 1970s and developed further
during the 1970s and early 1980s.
Keohane and Nye (1977): power politics versus complex interdependence: they pioneered the new trend by
thoroughly criticizing the state-centric model (key characteristic of realism and English school) of international
relations for neglecting the growing importance of transgovernmental and transnational actors in world
politics.
Subsequently, they published power and interdependence in which they attempted to synthesize realism and
liberalism to ‘explore the conditions under which each model will be most likely to produce accurate
predictions and satisfactory explanations … one model cannot explain all situations’. While they recognized
that realism was a useful model in situations in which states were engaged in intensive military competition,
they argued that these situations were increasingly the exception rather than the norm. In order to synthesize
the insights of realism and liberalism, they outlined the basic assumptions and ramifications of two extreme
positions: the ideal types of pure power politics and complex interdependence. having established the
endpoints on the continuum they argued that many bilateral relationships (e.g. France and Germany or Japan
and Russia) fall between these two extremes. They labelled the centre of the continuum the realm of
‘interdependence’.
REPUBLICAN LIBERALISM
Kant - perpetual peace (1795): this strand of liberal thought originates from this. Kant speculates on the nature
of relations among the kind of states he calls ‘republican states’. 3 claims:
Domestic polity/institutions matter: domestic governance structures and domestic political cultures
have an impact on the nature of international relations. More specifically, republican or democratic
10
