lect 2 - international anarchy - 5-11

Question 1

many types of actors in world politics

Answer 1

• individual leaders of states
• states + substate bureaucracies + sub-national units
  *funny bc its people and organizations within the states that actually decide/act
• IGOs (regional and functional)
• NGOs
• Multi-national corporations/businesses/firms
• social movements
• transnational networks (advocacy networks, terrorist networks)

actors interact within a larger system that shapes them and their interactions in particular ways

we need to understand the actors, but also the stage, the system in which actors exists
!actors shape the international system and are shaped by it

Question 2

international system - definition + why study it

Answer 2

= set of incentives and expectations that shape the identities and the behaviours of actors in international politics

(actors interact within a larger system that shapes them and their interactions in particular ways)

why study it?

• it has effects that can’t be explained by examining the actors and organizations themselves

there are multiple concepts/understandings of the international system, each with its own implications for dynamics of world politics -> we discuss 4 understandings/lenses of the international system

Question 3

4 concepts/faces of the international system

Answer 3

1. anarchy
2. hierarchy
3. interdependence
4. capitalism

steps:

1. think about each face separately
2. compare various conceptions of each face
3. think about how the various faces connect and interact

= different sides of the same pyramid, of the same international system

Question 4

anarchy + international anarchy

Answer 4

= the absence of effective central authority

= the absence of effective central authority above states and other actors
- Mearsheimer: there is no government above governments (same thing as the definition above)

• NO supranational authority
• NO effective international norms and rules
• yes: diff states
• what about the UN? it is a club of states, no central authority above the states, can only enforce rules when its members want to
• what about the EU? it is somewhere in between, the exception to the rule? if you look at the system trhough anarchy you will focus on states

!anarchy is not the same as chaos, anarchy and order may co-exist

Question 5

the implications of international anarchy

Answer 5

3 diff interpretations of the same concept

1. anarchy makes cooperation difficult
2. anarchy invites aggression by great powers
3. effect of anarchy depends on identities

all agree there is anarchy, disagreement on what it means for international politics

Question 6

interpretation 1 - anarchy makes cooperation difficult

Answer 6

Kenneth Waltz 1979 Theory of international politics

international system / anarchy as self-help system

anarchy -> states are insecure -> all rely on self-help to survive (we can’t call a central authority to help, no global 911, we can ask another state to help but thats diff) = states have to look out for their own security

• states can’t rely on international rules and institutions
• two options: build arms and/or form alliances
  = both are self-help

self-help pressures -> all states seek security -> domestic policy and regime type don’t matter in international politics
- at the end of the day self-help incentives are most important: all states will act accordingly

e.g. Vietnam and US cooperate bc anarchy pressures: they both fear China

states are fearful and mistrustful

fear and mistrust -> security dilemma -> cooperation and institution-building are difficult

key variable = distribution of power among states

• states focus on their relative power (power compared to others)
  e.g. Ukraine large army, but compared to Russia small, compared to Moldova large
• the nr of great powers (polarity) determines the international alliances and risk of war

Question 7

security dilemma

(interpretation 1: anarchy makes cooperation difficult)

Answer 7

= key concept
Robert Jervis (1978)

cooperation is difficult when states have defensive intentions (no plans to attack others)
- cooperation is difficult even when states have defensive intentions

• there is no 911 to call, so even if he is friendly, just to be sure we’ll make sure i can protect myself

anarchy -> insecurity -> defensive actions -> more fear and mistrust -> difficulty of cooperation

circle:
A feels insecure, builds defenses
B fears A’s defenses, builds its own defenses
A concludes B is a threat, expands its defenses
B concludes it was right to fear A, expands its defenses
A feels insecure
>……
= negative spiral of distrust

dilemma bc it starts in a friendly situation, they are not aggresive to each other, bc states know they can’t get help, they act in ways that are for them defensive, however that appears offensive to others

Question 8

relative gains problem (interpretation 1: anarchy makes cooperation difficult)

Answer 8

Robert Powell (1991) + Waltz

when facing possible cooperation, states can focus on:

• absolute gains = how much do I gain?
• relative gains = how does my gain compare to other’s gain?

under anarchy states are more likely to focus on relative gains (when cooperating, states think about how much it will help them relative to how much it helps others)

anarchy -> focus on relative gains -> cooperation is unlikely

will state A and state B favor cooperation
before cooperation A = 2, B =4
after possible cooperation A=4, B=6

• if states think in absolute terms, they will cooperate: both are better off
• if states think in relative gains, state B will say no, bc after cooperation it will only be 1.5x stronger than A, before cooperation it was 2x

Question 9

polarity and its implications

Answer 9

polarity = the distribution of power among states

how many great powers are there in the system

unipolar system = 1 great power

• global domination, clear expectation of global leadership, maximum certainty about the future
• very rare bc states often build arms and alliances to balance a great power

bipolar = 2 great powers, each has alliances with smaller powers

• domination within alliances, competition for global leadership, high certainty about the future

multipolar system = 3-5 great powers, shifting alliances with each other and small powers

• less risk of domination, possible global leadership vacuum, low certainty about the future

critical Q = what happens to int’l cooperation and the risk of war as great powers rise and fall?

Question 10

interpretation 2: anarchy invites aggression by great powers

Answer 10

Mearsheimer 2001: the tragedy of great power politics

all states want to maximize their relative power because they are afraid -> some states become stronger than others

anarchy -> opportunities for aggression by predator states
- assumes that there are predator states out there, looking for any opportunity to attack other states

therefore, all states seek to maximize their relative power (so that predators won’t see them as prey)

international politics is dominated by great powers pursuing regional hegemony (powers that want to dominate)
- to understand the international system, we only need to look at great powers and their attempt to dominate their neighbors, rather than all states (not all states are powerful)

rise and fall of great powers -> instability, likelihood of major war

(Mearsheimer expects regional hegemony, bc oceans get in the way of global hegemony)

Question 11

Bambi vs Godzilla

interpretation 2: anarchy invites aggression by great power

Answer 11

Mearsheimer: in the anarchic world of international politics, it is better to be Godzilla than Bambi

there are godzilla’s looking for bambi’s to eat

in power terms it is better to be China than to be Taiwan, better to be Russia than to be Ukraine

!in interpretation cooperation is hard, Mearsheimers view more depressing

president of Mexico: Diaz = “Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States”
- Mexico as bambi, US as godzilla, pre 1848 Mexico was way bigger, godzilla took a bite of bambi

Question 12

interpretation 3: effect of anarchy depends on identities

Answer 12

Alexander Wendt (1992): anarchy is what states make of it

international anarchy doesn’t automatically produce self-help and insecurity -> both competitive and cooperative relations are possible

relations under anarchy depend upon how states identify vis a vis each other:

• negative identity relationship (the other is not like we are) -> competitive relations and conflict
• positive identity relationship (the other is like we are) -> cooperative relations and community

to understand how actors act, you need to understand how they see each other, if they have positive or negative relationships

identities are shaped by processes of interaction (how govs talk and act, values they express)

significance: peaceful and cooperative relations don’t require replacing anarchy with world government

Question 13

identities in international politics

interpretation 3: effect of anarchy depends on identities

Answer 13

identities are understandings of the Self in relation to an Other - how we are similar, how we are different

• they change over time
• are based on human action and interpretation

international institutions can promote dev. of positive identities

e.g. after WW2, joint construction of European community enabled France and Germany to replace negative identification with positive identification -> no more fear of attack, deepening of European cooperation
-> building institutions, expressing similar values -> building of a positive identity

Question 13

reassurance may overcome fear

interpretation 3: effect of anarchy depends on identities

Answer 13

Janice Gross Stein (1991)

logic = i fear feeds the security dilemma, which makes cooperation difficult, then reassuring words and actions can promote positive identification and cooperation

strategy = use words and actions (incl. self-restraint and de-escalation) to make Other less fearful and allow focus on shared interests
- works best if reciprocated

example:
Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev used actions (policy reforms) and language (‘Common European home’) to convince US and Western Europe that Soviet Union was less ‘Other’ so could be trusted -> end of cold war

Question 14

Identities depend (in part) on domestic regime – democracies cooperate differently with each other

interpretation 3: effect of anarchy depends on identities

Answer 14

Thomas Risse-Kappen (1995)

simple interpretations of anarchy suggest that powerful states will dominate international cooperation, push around smaller states

historical cases show that among democracies, small allies have great influence
-> liberal capital states sees other liberal capital sates as us
-> one party communist regimes see other one party communist regimes as us

recognizing yourself in anothers system -> positive identification

explanation: a community of collective identity based on shared values

• problem-solving through dialogue
• openness to civil society

Question 15

anarchy is what states make of it

Answer 15

both cooperation and conflict are possible in anarchy depending on how actors identify

relations under anarchy depend upon how states identify vis a vis each other:

• negative identity relationship (the other is not like we are) -> competitive relations and conflict
• positive identity relationship (the other is like we are) -> cooperative relations and community

violence and peace are both possible in anarchy

= more subtler argument

Question 16

all interpretations agree

Answer 16

to understand the international system, we need to look at anarchy

Question 17

aliens, anarchy and cooperation

Answer 17

“I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.”
- U.S. President Ronald Reagan, speech at the UN, 1987

aliens would overcome anarchy = hypothesis Reagan

aliens as outside, universal threat to humanity

Question 18

coronavirus as aliens?

Answer 18

outside, universal threat to humanity - it threatens everybody

Waltz + Maersheimer: and what happened? states continued to be competitive (face masks, vaccine, ventilators) -> shows power of anarchy
- even with existential threat to humanity, states continued to compete with eachoter, as expected under anarchy

Question 19

film: arrival

Answer 19

alien spacecraft with 7-legged Heptapods arrive at 12 locations on earth, humans try to communicate
central character = uni prof

2 intersecting anarchies:

1. relations between humans and aliens
2. relations between states

which interpretation of anarchy best fits/explains the film?

what part of this film fits Waltz or Mearsheimer interpretation?
- military is feared, hops into competitive relationship

what parts of the film fit Wendts’ interpretation?
- linguist is sent in -> try to achieve positive identity relationship
-> linguist says something can be seen as tool or weapon -> negative relationship, military wants to prepare for violence

Question 20

Wendt of the inevitability of conflict

Answer 20

“Consider two actors–ego and alter–encountering each other for the first time. Each wants to survive and has certain materials capabilities, but neither actor has biological or domestic imperative for power, glory, or conquest…., and there is no history of security or insecurity between the two. What should they do? Realists would probably argue that each should act on the basis of worst-case assumptions about the other’s intentions, justifying such an attitude as prudent in view of the possibility of death from making a mistake. Such a possibility always exist, even in civil society; however, society would be impossible if people made decisions purely on the basis of worst-case possibilities. Instead, most decisions are and should be made on the basis of probabilities, and these are produced by interaction, by what actors do….” – Wendt 1992: 404

Question 21

Wendt on contact with aliens

Answer 21

“Would we assume, a priori, that we were about to be attacked if we are ever contacted by members of an alien civilization? I think not. We would be highly alert, of course, but whether we placed our military forces on alert or launched an attack would depend on how we interpreted the import of their first gesture for our security–if only to avoid making an immediate enemy out of what may be a dangerous adversary. The possibility of error, in other words, does not force us to act on the assumption that the aliens are threatening: action depends on the probabilities we assign, and these are in key part a function of what the aliens do; prior to their gesture, we have no systemic basis for assigning probabilities. If their first gesture is to appear with a thousand spaceships and destroy New York, we will define the situation as threatening and respond accordingly. But if they appear with one spaceship, saying what seems to be “we come in peace,” we will feel “reassured” and will probably respond with a gesture intended to reassure them, even if this gesture is not necessarily interpreted by them as such.” – Wendt 1992: 405

under anarchy whether you see the other as a threat depends on their actions and their language/communication