international relations study notes (ir notes)

8/2/2019 International Relations Study Notes (IR notes)

1/46

1. Home

2. Up

NotesOctober 5, 1998

Suggested Questions for Essay 1

Answer one of the following:

1. Is the balance of power the only reliable basis for order in international relations?

2. Compare and contrast the League of Nations and the United Nations as international

organizations.

3. Did decolonization after WWII undermine or strengthen the structure of the moderninternational society?

4. Why did the 'second Cold War' begin; and why did it end with the collapse of theUSSR?

5. Are liberal theories of international relations necessarily utopian, and is this aproblem?

October 5, 1998

During the pre-Westphalian system, there was no real concept of sovereignty. There'sno real distinction between "domestic" and "international." There was a central authority(the Pope), and a common language, Latin. Therefore, everything is somewhat unified.

Causes for change from Westphalian system

Capitalism

Emergence of a new type of class division, along with newworkings between classes. The kings were "keen" on workingwith the upper capitalist class so that they could get land fromthe feudal lords and the kings could rule over a bigger area.

Bodin - outlined sovereignty: 1) King has absolute authorityover a certain area, and 2) externally the king has no authorityover him.
http://www.garretwilson.com/http://www.garretwilson.com/education/institutions/soas/internationalrelations/index.htmlhttp://www.garretwilson.com/education/institutions/soas/internationalrelations/index.htmlhttp://www.garretwilson.com/


2/46

Changes in thought (the Reformation/Renaissance/Enlightenment)

Splits in the Catholic church that reduced the authority of thePope. Ideas emerge that morals and laws are separate fromthe Church.

Scientific knowledge expands, finding natural laws whichfurther reduce Church authority.

Change in perspective in art. (Ruggie did work on this.) Theperspective may reflect the recognition of the world being splitup into separate defined areas.

Changes in military

Medieval system was based upon the concept of the knights,which ran around with different kinds of weapons.

This sort of thing shifted to large, standing armies. (Give thepeasants guns.)

This brought programs of training and drilling. (Show thepeasants how to shoot.) (Note that castles were no longereffective, and large structures needed to be built to protectlarge areas.)

All of this brought about the idea of states and reduced the authority of Christendom.This culminated in the Thirty Years War.

Thirty Years War - a bunch of conflicts evolving around Catholic vs. Protestants.

Catholics versus Protestants.

Holy Roman Emperor versus France, Sweden, and a fewProtestant Germany.

Netherlands against Spain.

In Munster and Osnabruck, no less than 194 authorities were present. In 1648, thePeace of Westphalia basically made Protestants the winners.

Important things about the Peace of Westphalia

First recognition of sovereignty of states in Germany.

General secularization of international relations, and arecognition of religious diversity.

Formalization of diplomatic protocols, much of which werebrought about during the negotiations of the Peace ofWestphalia.


3/46

Origin of modern international law, again moving away fromthe previous single source of authority, the CatholicChurch. Positive International Law, where states can only beheld to laws which the state agrees to.

This all brought about a new "mechanical system" of independent states, along with asystem of rules for an international society. These are important concepts for thiscourse: again, a system of sovereign states, and a society of states.

The painting of the signing of the Peace of Westphalia, according to the speaker,reflected a new anonymization of the diplomat, no longer, "John Smith," but just arepresentative of a certain state.

Operation of the Westphalian System

Balance of power - sort of like the free market economy. Everything is left to itself, and

provides stability (but not necessarily peace) that guards against hegemony. Thesecondary function is to protect the independence of each state. This second function issecondary, because sometimes states are sacrificed for the balance of power (such asthe partitioning of Poland).

Balance of power just sort of automatically form because of natural interaction betweenstates. It provides a minimum of order on which other organizations (international law,diplomacy, rules of war, etc) can flourish. The balance of power is makes anequilibrium, and it doesn't require any common moral agreement - everyone cooperates(more or less) not because they are the same, but because it is to each state's bestinterest.

Other features of the Westphalian System: positive international law, diplomacy, rules ofwar (fromjus ad bellumtojus in bello, whatever that means.)

We see a balance of power emerging in 1815, when people bind together to stop thehegemonic attempt by France under Napoleon. From this brought a "Concert ofEurope," a sort of club of states coming together to stop future hegemons. Furthermore,we see the Pax Britannica, the British control of the seas. These two mechanismsdescribe the things which bring about the "Hundred Years Peace," the long period in the19th century where there were no major wars, just minor skirmishes. This was also aperiod of economic prosperity.

Causes of World War I

Basically three reasons set forth:


4/46

The 19th century saw a lot of capable rulers that could workwith each other and work with the system, and after they weregone the system couldn't cope with it.

Structure changed which upset the balance of power. Thisincluded technological changes, feelings of nationalism, and

capitalism.

The balance of power engenders militarism and alliances,which can cause the balance of power to fall upon itself. Forthis reason, a little incident at the start of World War I can startthe entire process.

Was balance of power the cause of WWI?

Since the balance of power was so effective in the 19th century, what happened to it inthe 20 century?

Just recently we've had and are having conflicts in the Balkans; why hasn't thisescalated into something like WWI?

October 12, 1998

Liberal Theories

Questions: What exactly is a liberal order? Was the inter-war order truly a liberal order?

Three main goals of a liberal society: peace, prosperity, and justice. Different liberals

start with different aspects, trying to achieve the same goal: having an internationalsystem that extends what democratic societies have done domestically.

Justice: Realists think that politics is an amoral power play. Personal morals and state"morals" are not necessarily the same. Liberals have two objections to this:

States have consciouses and recognize certain moral values.They can share these values and have certain norms that canbe incorporated in certain organizations. States don't live in amoral vacuum. Point: states share moral values.

Critical Position- A sort of Kantian idea that, although stateslive in a moral vacuum, there are certain waysstates shouldbehave and they should be forced to do so. Thisis referred to as cosmopolitanism. Point: there are certainmoral values that shouldbe shared.

Institutions:


5/46

1930's - David Mitrany - Classical functionalismthat died out and came back in the1960's. - Institutions are created to fulfill needs. Societies create these institutions. Inthe 20th century, we need some sort of transnational regulation. All sorts of institutionsbuild up and then spill over into bigger, connected institutions like the EU.

Rightness of Democracy: Realists say that states can balance each other by trying tomeet their needs. Liberalists say that states are different and democracies are morepeaceful. Since democracies are ruled by the people, the people themselves are lesslikely to vote for war since they are the people actually losing things. These ideas comefrom Immanuel Kant's Perpetual Peace. Michael Doyle has updated this concept bydiscovering that democracies don't really go to war with each other, but they are stillaggressive towards non-democracies.

Free Market: The concept that everyone gains from free trade. Some countries aregood at producing different things and trade will allow states to maximize efficiency; thisconnects states economically so that they are very unlikely to go to war with each other.

Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations

Was the League too liberal, or was it not liberal enough?

Intentions of the Allied and Associated Powers

The Allied powers gave two main reasons for WWI: 1) balance of power politicspromotes military buildup and wars, and 2) the balance of power creates an inflexiblesystem of secret diplomacy, making a tendency for little conflicts to erupt into a biggerconflict. (Remember that all these were debates within the victories powers, i.e. the US

and the UK.)

These liberals had mainly two "prescriptions":

Constraints on the use of force by states - Arms control, therule of law that control the use of force and back them up withinstitutions

New way of conducting foreign policy - A more flexible systemthan the old balance of power, to provide a way to discuss,debate, and resolve disputes; and give ultimate control of the

decisions to the people (i.e. no secret diplomacy).

Wilson brought anti-imperialistic ideas to the table:

Self-determination - people should be able to control their rulers and decide who shouldrule of them. One big argument was would the UK and French be able to keep theirempires. They basically said that self-determination is only proper if the people could"prove" that they were able to do so.


6/46

The fate of Germany - Should we punish the Germans (the French idea)? The Frenchwanted the kaiser (the ex-ruler of Germany) and put him on trial (they didn't get this).The French demanded a war guilt statement in the treaty, which they got. Theydemanded reparations, which they also received. (This reflected the French idea thatGermans should be crippled so that they could never do the same things again.

What kind of economic system - Rebuild the old economic system and just "tinker" withit so that it never gets to extremes? They tried to reestablish the old systems andstabilize currencies. (Remember that the idea was that free trade brings aboutprosperity.) The gold standard was used to try to do this. (The problem is that in the19th century the gold standard was propped up by Great Britain.) They also wantedsystems for international welfare to keep revolutions from happening.

The League Covenant

Article 1: Membership - the defeated states and the Soviet Union weren't allowed to join.

Articles 2-7: Organizational Structure:

Assembly (all members)

League Council (executive body) - This was supposed to bewhere the great powers got together and governed things. Sortof an institutionalized version of the Concert of Europe.

Permanent Secretariat

Permanent Court of International Justice (1921)

Agencies: e.g. International Labor Organization

Articles 8-17: Preservation of Peace - as opposed to the balance of power system,where hegemons were resisted, this collective security resisted power by the otherstates binding together against those who use force without the "permission" or theinternational community. There wouldn't be a need for alliances, because all stateswould be protected against agression - therefore, you could have disarmament.

Disarmament (8)

Collective Security (10-11)

Pacific Settlement of Disputes (12-17)

Articles 18-21: Legal Status of Covenant

Article 22: Mandates System (Classes A, B, & C) - In Europe, states were broken up toform others (such as Poland), but non-European imperialist possessions and colonieswere divided up into three classes which sort of decided where they were on the scale


7/46

of ability of self-determination (classes A, B, and C). German was made to payreparations, demilitarized, and the Rhineland was turned into a demilitarized zone.

Article 23: Social Welfare

"Universal peace can be established only if it is based on social justice."

Articles 24-25: League's Relation to Other Institutions

Problems:

The great powers did not properly back up the system. Germany was not included atfirst, and the Soviet Union wasn't ever included. The US didn't ratify the treaty andaccept the League of Nations. For these reasons, the League's decisions couldn't bebacked up and it was therefore delegitimacized. So collective security was flawed fromthe beginning.

The economic order wasn't fixed, either. Great Britain was weakened and the US didn'thold up currencies. The US economy collapsed. Everyone tried to cling onto stablecurrencies, set up trade barriers, etc. and the global economy went down. The failure ofthe US to keep up the economy was, according to the lecturer, was more important thanits withdrawal from world politics.

Should the old order have been kept, and just modified, or should everything have beendone away with and a new order created?

October 19, 1998

E. H. Carr's work blames liberalism for WWI. He is utopian; he thinks that all IR thoughtshould have some goal in mind. However, the thinks that liberalism was too utopian - hethinks that IR thought should also be realistic. Carr thinks that 19th century liberalharmony was kept together by British hegemony. Towards the end of the 19th century,there became a competition of interests instead of a harmony of interests. He sees theprocedures after WWI as an attempt to reconstruct the pre-WWI harmony of interestsbased on economic free trade. Polani (The Great Transformation) also commented onthe League of Nations.

Morgenthau, a German immigrant in the US, constructed a framework for looking at the

balance of power. His six principals:

Politics is governed by objective laws, grounded in humannature.

States pursue the national interest, defined as power.

The struggle for power (geography; natural resources;industrial capacity; military preparedness; population size and


8/46

distribution; national character and moral; and the quality of itsdiplomacy and government) is universal in time and space.

Tension between morality and successful political action. Inthis point, he is very much like Machiavelli, where states havea different set of morals. But he doesn't think they are

completely immoral. His ethic of responsibilitysays that theyare responsible for their citizens. He also thinks that statesmenshould be prudent, and should, after establishing security intheir state, should help secure international security.

Universal moral principles are just cloaks for particularinterests.

Centrality of politics in analyzing international relations. Thissays that relative gains are more important than absolutegains. International relations is not about efficient behavior andhelping the entire world, but about who wins and who gets

what.

Morgenthau tries to give objective scientific principles about international relations, theendpoint of which says that the only system that will work is a balance of power. Hesent a message to the US to work for the well-being of the US without worrying as muchabout whether the policies are moral.

The policy of containment and the origins of the ColdWar

Classical Position - The USSR's expansionism and ideological commitment to establisha worldwide revolution caused the Cold War.

Revisionist Position - The USSR was exhausted at the end of WWII and their actions ofSoviet-controlled Eastern Europe was justified to provide a buffer. Plus, the US had theatomic bomb and the USSR did not.

Counter-Revisionist Position - The structure of the system produced the Cold War.There was a power vacuum in Eastern Europe:

The location of power had moved away from the center of

Europe to states that before were on the periphery, e.g. USand USSR.

Decolonization started to occur.

The distribution of power begins to become moreconcentrated, bringing about a "bipolar" system.


9/46

1945 George Kennan (minister of the US Embassy in Moscow, seen by the US as theirexpert on the USSR) gives diplomatic advice on how US foreign policy shouldimplement Morgenthau's principals. Between 1947-1950 on, "containment" started totake on a different meaning.

"The Long Telegram" - Said that fundamentally, the USSR was not an ideologicalcountry, and the US should not be that worried about it. It is hostile to the US becauseits leadership needs an enemy to be able to give an excuse of keeping its hold over itscitizens, but don't be afraid of this. Communism in itself is not a threat to the US.

n 1947, he wrote an article signed, "Mr. X," which says:

"We are great and strong, but we are not great enough orstrong enough to conquer and hold in subjugation by ourselvesall ... hostile or irresponsible forces." The US should not try totransform the world to be like the US, but should try to

manipulate the balance of power. The main power centers arethe USA, Great Britain, USSR, Germany and Central Europe,and Japan. If anyone were to dominate any three of them, theywould be dangerous, so try to make each of them independentand be able to defend themselves. This therefore explains theactions of the US of rebuilding right after WWII.

Stategic goal: Prevent Soviet domination of these powercenters so as to protect US national security and way of life.

The US policy changes:

1947 "Truman Doctrine" - "It must be the policy of the US to support free people whoare resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure." Thisstarts to broaden the US' interests from a very specific region to the entire world. This isbecause of fear of the "domino" effect and because the Cold War is beginning tobecome an ideological situation.

1950 National Security Committee (NSC)-68 - This policy says that increasedexpenditures can keep going and going, in a Keynes-like economic situation. "A defeatof free institutions anywhere is a defeat everywhere." No possibility is seen foraccommodation; the USSR's hostility to the US is seen as purely ideological. "Perimeterdefense strategy."

Sidenote:

The golden rule: answer the question

Essay Structure:


10/46

Introduction: What does the question mean? What could count as an answer? What isthe plan of the argument?

Literature: What are the main theories? How do they differ? How could they beassessed?

Argument: Logical structure, use of empirical evidence, make a case for a position.

Conclusion: Summarize the argument, state the answer to the question, justify theanswer on the basis of the argument.

October 26, 1998

Two Traditions

Realism Liberalism

"Logic of anarchy" "Logic of Cooperation"

Power vs. morality Justice vs. order

Balance and stability Cooperation and peace

Anarchic states-system International society

Towards a Realist-Liberal Synthesis?

Cooperation under anarchy

The "utopian anarchy"

Institutionalizing the balance of power

The "anarchical society"

Hedley Bull says that this idea of anarchy doesn't present as much of a problem as theRealist would like to say it does, but there is a bigger problem of difference.

Pluralist vs. Solidarist

Pluralist agree to just put up with others' differences.

Solidarist think that the states should form institutions based upon shared culture.

Bull's Theory


11/46

Core Concepts

International System (mechanistic/anarchic) - Two or morestates in a setting where each has to take account of theother's behavior.

International Society (international order) - They care to someextent about the other states, so they interact, not out ofnecessity, but according to certain rules and for certain goals.The issues of states are served. This is what Bull thinks existnow.

World Society (world order) - (Cosmopolitan Society) - Auniversal community of mankind, where problems such asenvironmental issues and human rights are dealt with.

Components of International Society

Common interests and common values. As long as the stateshave certain things in common, they can get together andmake rules and institutions to realize their common interests.

Acceptance of common rules

Participation in common institutions

Conceptions of Justice

Individual or human justice (solidarism) - Before justice, wemust have some sort of order, and not just any order.Therefore, we shouldn't push the idea of justice too farbecause we don't necessarily have the order to back it up.

International or interstate justice (international order)

Cosmopolitan or world justice (world order)

Bull's History of Modern International

SocietyThe History of Modern International Society

Medieval Christendom Modern International Society

Common values (Christian) Common interest (toleration)


12/46

No membership ruleSovereign statehood (i.e. only states possess

sovereignty)

Primacy of natural law Positive (volitional) law

Inchoate (ill-defined) and universalist rules ofcoexistence

Equal sovereignty and nonintervention

No defined set of institutions

Five key common institutions:

Balance of power

Diplomacy

International law

Rules of war

Great power system

Main Stages in the Expansion of International Society

1648-late 19th Century: European international society

late 19th Century-1945: A society of "civilized states"

since 1945: The "revolt against the West"

Key themes of the "Revolt against the West"

Equal sovereignty

Decolonization and self-determination

The norm of racial equality

Economic justice

Cultural liberation

A society of "quasi-states"

"Civilized state:" Must have a government, capacity for diplomatic relations with otherstates (and equal sovereignty), obedience to the rules and norms of international law.

November 2, 1998

From Cold War to Detente


13/46

Understanding Foreign Policy Changes: Three Models

(from Graham Allison, Essence of Decision)

Rational Actor Model

The state is seen as a rational actor, like a person. It is fully aware of its interests andhow to try to achieve them. Foreign policy can change with changes in balances ofpower or in the makeup of the system itself. Allison doesn't find this adequate to definethe Cuban Missle Crisis.

Organizational Politics Model

Policy is the output of large organizations and bureaucracies. Each of thesedepartments have their own area of speciality. It's the structure of their "standardoperating procedures" that determines foreign policy; therefore, change is usually veryslow and incremental. We look at these standard operating procedures and see howchanges affect the overall foreign policy. Allison thinks this is an improvement, but itdoesn't go far enough; it doesn't say anything about conflict between departments

Governmental (Bureaucratic) Politics Model

Policy is the outcome of bargaining gamesbetween actors within the domestic politicalsystem. "Where you stand depends on where you sit." Instead of looking at standardoperating procedures, we look at the interaction among the departments themselvesand the other political actors. The outcome is different than any one of the organizationsinvolved intended. Government actions are therefore political resultants:

Who plays in the bargaining game?

What determines each player's position?

What determines each player's impact on the result?

What is the game's structure? How are results produced?

Therefore, this is what IR would call a pluralist model, including NGO's, transnationalcompanies, etc.

Conventional Approaches to the Cold War

The traditional realist approach is geopolitical. Although the players sometimes makeidealistic claims, they usually go back to protecting their national interests. Sometimes,for example, the USSR abandons other communist countries. There are certain rulesthat the great powers are continually learning - learning how to be superpowers.Fundamentally, they are playing power politics and trying to maximize their power. The


14/46

neo-liberal approach, on the other hand, sees detente as a shift towardsinterdependence.

Probably the biggest debate in America is the neo-realist vs. neo-liberal debate(personified by Waltz and Keohane, respectively). The neo-neo debate brings

economics into the discussion. Taken from Baldwin's book, there are six points aboutwhat's at stake in the debate:

Anarchy vs. Interdependence.

How good are the prospects for international cooperation? Thisis probably the biggest difference between neo-realists andneo-liberalists. The neo-liberals believe that states understandreciprocity and will work together when there is a non-zero-sum relationship.

Relative gains vs. absolute gains.

Maximizing behavior; military security or economic welfare? Capabilities and Intentions: The role of domestic structure. (i.e.

neo-liberalists are more pluralistic than neo-realists)

The functionality of international regimes and institutions.

This is significantly different between the old realist/liberalist debate, that is, adescription of how things are vs. how liberalists want things to be with enoughinstitutions. In the neo-neo debate, neo-liberalists try to be realistic.

Marxist Approach

Fred Halliday sees two fundamentally different ideological systems, and four stages ofthe cold war:

The first cold war (1945-1953), which includes military buildupand arms races, propaganda campaigns, etc.

The period of oscillatory antagonism(1953-1963). Levels oftension go up and down, driven by "shocks" to the system,such as the death of Stalin.

Detente (1969-1979). Temporary rapprochement but without

addressing the major issues of cold war conflict. The second cold war (1979-1989). A reassertion of six main

features of the cold war system, ending with the defeat of theUSSR.

Cold War History


15/46

Eisenhower, Dulles, and "Asymmetrical Retaliation."

The core notion is how to maintain economic control while maintaining control aroundthe world, and they see nuclear weapons as a cheap way to do this. Whenever theUSSR "steps over the line," the US will come back with nuclear attacks. This is referred

to as the "New Look." It's an attempt to keep the economic system under control.

Kennedy and the "Flexible Response"

Kennedy says that the US will respond in a similar way - when the US does something,the US will respond in like manner, not necessarily using nuclear weapons.

Kissinger's ideas about detente: Linkage: There are multiple ways in which statescommunicate, so there are multiple issues that a society must address in its own right.You can change things by manipulating other things. There is less of a scene for militaryaction.

The Role of China

Try to strengthen China so that you foster differences between communist countries,resulting in a tripolarity instead of a bipolarity. The USSR's rapprochement is therefore areaction to differences with China and the US' new relations with China.

November 16, 1998

Hegemons and International Regimes

International Regime - principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures, aboutwhich acts or expectations converge. The institutionalized framework in which theinternational economy takes place. This is used by neo-realists and especially by neo-liberalists.

The role of hegemonic states are probably what differentiates realists and liberals.Gilpen says that hegemons create regimes, and its dominance over other states in thesystem creates compliance. Susan Strange says that one of the main things a hegemondoes uses propaganda, etc. to make the other states think that it is in their interests tosustain the regimes.

Realists think that when a hegemon declines, its regime declines with it, just like thefree trade of Great Britain in the 19th century. Liberals don't agree with this.Keohane's After Hegemony said that 1) states get into a "habit" of obeying theseregimes and see its benefits of predictability and stability, and 2) states recognize thefunctionality of these regimes, such as GATT to maximize gains.

Marxist Theories


16/46

Classical Marxism

IR should be considered as a product of capitalist/socialist relations as a whole. Thereare three core propositions to this (in a very short, crude, explanation)

Class relations - This relates to positions of people in terms ofmethod of production. The people who do the work (the directproducers) don't have ownership of the means ofproduction. Expropriationis kicking the peasants off the land,depriving them of the ownership of the land, and give them nochoice but to sell their labor.

Separation between the political and the economical - Oncethe peasants have been expropriated, the capitalists don't haveto have political control over the peasants because they extractfunds from them because they don't have any land.

Commodification of social relations - all social relations areactually relations between people, but there is adepersonalization and we think of our social world in animpersonal, abstract way. Marxism had to show that what isgoing on here is actually a direct exploitation among people.

Lenin's Theory of Imperialism

As capitalism continue, you build up large amounts of wealth which can no longer beinvested domestically. Internationally, however, they don't control things politically, sothey control these other countries in order to use them economically. They use their

powers to control the other state(s) so that they can invest their capital there. Hisexplanation of WWI, then, is that capitalism had reached its limits in extracting surplusfrom colonies, so there was a competition.

Core-Periphery Model

However, after decolonization this dependency seemed to continue. To explain this, thecore-periphery model says that there are core countries that exploit periphery countriesby an unequal relationship. The core continually extracts the surplus of the production ofthe periphery.

The core can coerce the periphery through military force. Comprador class - elite groups in the periphery states that

impose control from the core because they are enjoying theeffects of the core.

Semiperiphery states usually have authoritarian governmentsso as to control their citizens in behalf of the core. The providean illusion of stability and development.


17/46

"Neo-Gramscian" Theories (Cox)

These other theories don't provide for change. Cox says that we need to bring back innotions of the hegemon and of class. In 1945 we see a neo-liberal economic order withan internationalization of production, with multinational corporations, etc. This is similar

to Keohane's argument of a regime staying around after the decline of a hegemon.

Inter-Systemic Conflict (Halliday)

Socio-economic heterogeneity of capitalism and communism.Two different socio-economic systems.

Socio-economic/political composition of states determinesforeign policy decisions.

Each system contains a universalizing dynamic. Each systemtries to globalize itself. Capitalism tries to grow so it has places

in which to invest. Socialism sees a worldwide revolution toemancipate classes.

Multiple dimensions of inter-systemic conflict (inter-state, inter-social-economic, inter-ideological)

Heterogeneity of international relations

So the Cold War was the result of two completely separate ideologies dedicated to thecomplete domination over the other. In Halliday's view, detente would never work, andthis theory gives us an insight into the end of the Cold War.

Halliday introduces the idea of a "Second Cold War," which included a renewal ofmilitary buildup, the emergence of the highlight of an ideological difference (such ashuman rights), a stalling of negotiations (such as SALT 2), reassertion of domesticcontrols (such as the Republicans reasserting Cold War things), and other policies(such as Kissinger's linkage) joining the entire Cold War ideology.

End of the Cold War

Realists say that Reagan scared the USSR into dissolving itself, liberalists say that theUSSR learned to be different, and Marxists would say that the US was successful inupholding its capitalist order.

November 23, 1998

Paradigms and Traditions in IR Theory


18/46

Inter-Paradigm Debate The 3 Traditions (Wight)

Realism

"Billiard ball model"

State-centric

Realism

"Hobbesianism" or "Machiavellianism"

State of War

Pluralism

"Cobweb model"

Transnationalism

Rationalism

Grotius/Locke

International Society

Structuralism

"Octopus model"

Capitalist world economy

Revolutionism

Kant/Marx

international relations study notes (ir notes)

Documents