04 Theories of IR

Realism¶

This theory says that every country just cares about survival; everything a state does is for its security

Realists say that rules are made by people in power to maintain their power China says why should we follow rules the west made

Feminists say that if there are more women, then the state would be softer; realists say that doesn't matter

Some realists believe that a most unstable world is a uni-polar world, and that the most stable is a bipolar world

Alliances occur due to interests and convenience, not exactly due to trust; there are no points for loyalty

Classical Realism¶

says that wars occur due to the dark side of human nature - desire for power

Hans J. Morgenthau

Eg: hitler

it also says that we can predict the possibility of war from the nature of individuals in the govt

Structural Realism¶

says that classical realism is not scientifically sound; states act in response to what is thrown at them; human nature doesn’t matter

Wars happen between states due to systemic anarchy: lack of a central authority (mostly during civil wars)

autocratic countries do their own thing but at the same time, they're more nervous that people will rise up, because

1. not democractic
2. common people die serving a country that isn't even democratic

We can predict how leaders would behave, as they are responsible for their own state's survival. Therefore, they will act very rational, as they wouldn't be in that position if they weren't rational

Defensive structural realism¶

Kenneth Waltz

just maximize defense

just as much power you need to protect yourself from other self-seeking states

Eg: Israel's iron dome

Offensive structural realism¶

John Mearsheimer (longer name so defense and offense)

maximize power (resources, military defense and offense), as much as you can

Countries can be defensive and/or offensive at different times Eg: China was defensive realist during 1962 for the land dispute with India, but now it is on the offensive in the South China Sea

Liberalism¶

Democratic Peace Theory¶

theory under liberalism

says that democratic countries do not fight wars

Newly-established democracies are more unstable and are hence more prone to fight wars

But it contradicts the working of the US; US has been waging wars

The main reason for conflict is due to lack of trust

According to liberalists, security dilemma is due to absolute gains as well as relative gains

Points Against Realism¶

According to liberalists, realism can only explain conflicts but cannot explain peace

Moreover, realism fails to explain why many of the treaties bw US and soviet was signed during the cold war

Neo-liberalism¶

mix of realism and liberalism

States are rational, and in an international anarchical system, but believe that the world is more peace-loving than realists

Constructivism¶

there is no reality other than what we give to it; it’s ideas that matter

how countries view each other

Power resides where people believe it resides

Power resides where men believe it resides Varys - Game of Thrones

A state’s identity is what threatens us

anarchy isn’t exactly objective reality, but it is the meaning people give it

they don’t think that anarchy is a factor for international relations

value thingy - an example is paradox of value example

better theory to explain change in relations

they say that nuclear weapons provide a prestigue, identity and status for countries, as it’s a small club

they say that countries fight for ideology, not just power; US govt went after the communists within US also

US and UK¶

US doesn’t think of UK’s military improvement as a threat; so clearly constuctivism is a good theory

Constructivist’s view of Hiroshima Bombing¶

because japanese were demonised in the minds of the US people through propaganda

however, US didn’t use atomic bomb in germany during ww2 cuz they were hitler and the germans are europeans; despite hitler using chemical and biological weapons in concentration camps (like the japanese) and other horrible stuff

So constructivists say that this difference in perception is the reason the bombing took place

Marxism¶

everything occurs only for economic reasons, but disguised by the haves as other stuff (like nationalism, religion, patriotism) etc…

says that wars occur because have-nots are fooled by haves

game of thrones - the seven - lannisters didn’t care about religion

it says that the economy is a driving force/defining feature of the world (just like how structural realism considers systemic anarchy) that determines state behavior

projected a better, prosperous and equal world

explains why US came to Saudi for oil

says that radicalization occurs if people aren’t doing so well economically

Classes¶

• capital class (haves) (bourgeoisie)
• working class (have-nots) (proletariats)

marxists say that middle class is just fake; they just pretend to care for the working class, but hope to eventually be a part of the capital class

History¶

every epoch(era) includes the haves exploiting the have-nots for their own benefit

1. primitive communism (hunter gatherers)
2. slavery
3. feudalism
4. capitalism
5. socialism
6. communism

Marxism vs Communism¶

Communism is just marxism, but they also believed there should not be a state, as they believed that the State just represents the haves.

• social classes disappear
• everyone owns the means of production
• state belongs to the people and does not reflect the interests of the rich/haves

communists believed in revolution/wars, as the haves wouldn’t just let the have-nots

therefore, this threat was the reason why the US made sure that it did not spread

communism failed because we all care about personal glory and invidual gain; we don’t really care about if others get money or not eg: universal basic income is highly argued against

Explanation for Conflicts¶

marxists say that conflicts are due to the class divide bw the haves and have nots

in GBR, there was no revolution because the wealth that came from colonisation by GBR helped get money and better standard of living of the working class

marxists say that due to colonisation, the class conflict becomes global

• Colonizers become the haves
• colonized become the have-nots

Explanation for World Wars¶

despite the motive being ‘fighting for the country’, the soldiers are just fighting for the sake of the haves

marxists say that soldiers join the armies just for survival - to make a living

Why is marxism better?¶

While other theories explain at a macroscopic level, marxism explains in microscopic level (soldiers)

Why isn’t it liked?¶

because he says that religion and others stuff matter a lot to the people, but they are just an illusion; this triggered the whole world

also, Marx has ignored the fact that there a lot of people who are genuinely religious, nationalist, etc… which seems pretty ignorant on his part

Examples of war from the Marxist Perspective¶

western countries trying to exploit the have-nots from the other countries

capitalists disallow trade unions in order to maximize profits

US-Guatemala¶

United Fruit Banana

(view slides)

the decision to overthrow the Guatemala govt was purely to maintain the profits of the company, rather than just pure anti-communism

Guatemala has never recovered from that

US-Iran¶

Iran cut off oil supply for UK, and the US overthrew that leader. The new leader was actually a previous Shah who was very corrupt.

2^nd Gulf War¶

reasons

1. Iraq wasn’t supposed to have weapons of mass destruction
2. oil

random definition: despot means autocrat

Halliburton was an oil services and eng company it went from 22^nd -> 7^th largest military contractor in just a few years

Another aspect of Marxism¶

hegemony - kinda like domination

In Marxist philosophy, cultural hegemony is the dominance of a culturally diverse society by the ruling class who manipulate the culture of that society—the beliefs and explanations, perceptions, values, and mores—so that the worldview of the ruling class becomes the accepted cultural norm Wikipedia

Critical Theory¶

states that all theories are just projection of theorists’ values

it’s not objective; it’s subjective

it says that there is no such thing as a grand theory

Miscellaneous Points¶

Security Dilemma¶

Let's just say a country has conflicts with another country.

If the defensive structural realist country beefs up its security, then the offensive structural realist country will feel threatened; therefore, it will also improve its offense in response

According to realists, this is due to focus on relative gains

How did EU become possible¶

1. realization
2. wars are too expensive
3. benefits of scale and trade
4. trust brought about through
   1. laws
   2. treaties
5. common enemy against the soviets
6. begins with the ECSC

Game theory¶

(i did not really understand properly)

cooperation occurs as it is better than individual effort

but then one individual just goes against the others and takes everything

ECSC¶

European Coal & Steel Community

Why coal & steel?¶

because they were the most important resources at the time, and for which conflicts (like hitler’s occupations) were waged

Why would nuclear cooperation make sense¶

1. countries will not longer fear each other
2. Share information to avoid accidental action
3. keep the other one in check

Track to track diplomacy¶

cricket matches

POK¶

Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir

Escalation Order¶

the order of responses based on the circumstance

Comments