POSC 1000(056) Introduction to Politics

Politics and Governance the Global Level/Conclusions and Exam Advice

Russell Alan Williams

Unit 13: Politics and Governance the Global Level/Conclusions and Exam Advice

Required Reading:Mintz, Chapter 20, pp. 474-499.

Outline:1. Introduction2. Realism and Order in the International

System3. Liberal-Internationalism 4. Conclusions

1) Intro – “International Relations”:Observers of international relations believe “politics” is

only possible when there is government

Suggest two levels of analyses:

Domestic = politics

International = relations amongst states• “Anarchy”: The absence of central authority

– Makes the enforcement of laws etc. difficult– Means “government” not possible????

=International politics must be fundamentally different . . . .

“Global Governance”: Process whereby actors (states, international organizations etc.) compete and cooperate, providing some order in international politics.

Two main views of sources of governance or order• “Realism” – focus on competition and power• “Liberal-Internationalism” – focus on

institutions, laws and values as basis of order

Two camps have irreconcilable view of how the world works

=Study of international politics is highly theoretical and contentious

2) Realism & Order in the International System:

“Realism”: Approach to international politics that emphasizes the role of anarchy

Anarchy means states mainly concerned about security and protecting their own sovereignty

E.g. Peace comes from strength to ensure deterrence, not from international rules

Anarchy makes international affairs violent and dangerous

Key thinkers:Niccolo Machiavelli:

•Wise princes do what is necessary, not what is moralThomas Hobbes:

•Life without government means everyone is at war with everyone else

E.H. Carr: •International institutions do not overcome the “realities” of

anarchy

“Realism”: Key Concepts . . . .

“National Interest”: Goals states pursue in their foreign policy

Realists believe national interest is normally for a state to pursue power and wealth necessary for state survival

“Security Dilemma”: International security is “zero sum”

As one state takes steps to make itself more secure, this makes neighboring states insecure

• Others must respond . . . .Results in a spiral of increasing insecurity

• E.g. Weapons races.

“Realism”: Sources of order in an archaic world?

“International System”: Concept that describes the distribution of power amongst states

Distribution of power can create a system of order• Example: Weak states follow rules set by strong states

– U.S. as World’s “policeman”

“Pole”: A concentration of power in the international system

Either an individually-powerful state or alliance of states that has potential to play dominant role in the systemNumber of poles in system determine basis of order

“Multipolar System”: When there are many powers (or “poles”) in the international system

Examples: -European “Great Powers” of 19th Century

-Current period . . . . ???????

Key impact:

States focus on the “Balance of Power”: • States act to prevent their rivals from gaining

power relative to themselves– E.g. Seek empires, form alliances, fight

wars

“Security dilemma” is high

“Bipolar System” or “Bipolarity”: International system in which there are only two leading powers

Other states tend to fall under the influence of one or the other

Examples: The Cold War (1945-1989)-End of WWII left only two great

powers

Key impact:

Two states inevitably come into conflict – rivalry dominates all other international politics

Can be more stable then multipoloar system• Cold war never led to open conflict

“Unipolar System” or “Unipolarity”: International system dominated by a single great power

Examples: The United States (1989-????) -As survivor of Cold War, US emerged in

dominant position

Key impacts:

System should be more stable – conducive to formation of international rules (rules supported by the strong)

=“Hegemonic System” or “Hegemony”: Unipolar system in which a single superpower uses authority and leadership to forge international consensus supporting some rules

– E.g. United States and free trade

However, all other states have incentives to challenge unipolartiy – could lead to increased conflict

• Or, unipolarity can only be temporary

3) Liberal-Internationalism:“Liberal-Internationalism”: An approach to the study of international politics that assumes that anarchy is mitigated by “International/Global Society”

Supported by:• Economic interdependence = economic benefits of cooperation• Cultural and social connections = shared identity and values• “Civil society” = shared norms

Promote the “rule of law” and peace

Key thinkers:Immanuel Kant:

• Human reason means that a liberal pacification of the world is inevitable

Robert Keohane: • Growing interdependence (globalisation) of states makes conflict

less likely

“Liberal-Internationalism”: Claims . . . .

States are not the only important actors in international politics

Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO’s): Provide some rules and order to international system

• E.g. UN and the legitimacy of military interventions

“International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs)”: International organizations whose members are not states but come from global “civil society”

• E.g. Red Cross, Greenpeace, Amnesty International and many business groups

• Promote new values or “norms” that guide behavior

“Liberal-Internationalism”: Claims . . . .

States are not “unitary” actors

State “preferences” or behavior in international politics is driven by domestic politics

• Demands of groups in society – states are not “rational security calculators”

– “Publics” are interested in prosperity and peace etc.

• Individuals can learn, so world politics can be improved from past mistakes = optimism

“Liberal-Internationalism”: Claims . . . .

Modern world is interdependent - Results in:

Higher awareness of shared problems • E.g. environmental and health problems

Clearer sense of benefits of cooperation• E.g. economic benefits of trade

“Liberal-Internationalism”: Claims . . . .

Level of cooperation has grown – empirical claim

Why?

1) Shared morality – unsanctioned use of force to gain power is increasingly illegitimate

•War is no longer a tool in foreign policy (???)

2) Shared sense of benefits of cooperation – most states are small

•Rule of law favors the weak . . .

3) “International Regimes”: Set of principles, norms, treaties and institutions that regulate international relations in an issue area

• E.g. Trade regime – The World Trade Organization (WTO)

Regimes create expectations of future cooperation which encourages states to avoid rule breaking and cheating

4) “Collective Security”: Principle that all members of the collectivity of states are responsible for the security of those facing aggression. Each pledges to come to the aid of those who are attacked

Key principle of UN “sovereignty regime” – makes war riskier for aggressor states

• Examples: Korea (1950) and Iraq (1991)

5) New forms of political organization E.g. The European Union =

“Postmodern state”: State in which the meaning and practice of sovereignty have been redefined and the tools of governance are shared

• Collective foreign policies• Security no longer based on control of borders

4) Conclusions:

Different views of how the world works create different images of world politics

Realists see “international relations”

Liberal-Internationalists see “international politics”

Also, produces very different views of states’ “Foreign Policy”

Theories provide different guides to the real world of global politics . . .

Realists think each state’s foreign policy will reflect “national interest” given position in international system

E.g. Canada is a “middle power” so Canada has a middle-power-type foreign policy

• Support for rule of law and UN etc.

Liberal-Internationalists think each state’s foreign policies will reflect more complex political processes

E.g. Canada supports rule of law and UN because these reflect Canadian values and political demands

• Peacekeeping, humanitarian intervention, human security etc.

Thinking about global events usually requires that observers adopt one of these views . . . .

For example:

• Why did the U.S. invade Iraq in 2003?

• Why is Canada at war with the Taliban in Afghanistan?

• Why does Canada want free trade with the United States?

Key point: International politics involves “thinking theoretically”

For next time:

Conclusions – Exam adviceEssay feedback