Lecture 2

Question 1

What is the international system?

Answer 1

o Many types of actors, but they don’t float freely
 States, sub-national bodies, intergovernmental organizations, IOs, firms, transnational networks
 They co-exist within a larger system that structures them and their interactions in particular ways
o A set of incentives and expectations that shape identities and behaviours of actors in international politics

Question 2

Why study the international system?

Answer 2

 It has effects that cannot be explained by simply examining actors and organizations themselves
 There are multiple concepts of the int. system

Question 3

4 concepts of international system

Answer 3

 Anarchy, hierarchy, interdependence and capitalism
 What do the parts have in common and what distinguishes them?
 What are the dynamics of the int. system according to the concept?

Question 4

Definition anarchy

Answer 4

 Definition = absence of effective central authority
 Mearsheimer 2001 = there is no government above governments
 Nota bene anarchy=/= chaos, so anarchy and order may co-exist

Question 5

Defintion international anarchy

Answer 5

Absence of effective central authority above states and other actors
 Mearsheimer 2001 = there is no government above governments
 Nota bene anarchy=/= chaos, so anarchy and order may co-exist

Question 6

International anarchy and the police

Answer 6

 Billiard ball model of IR
 There is no higher authority to implement certain rules and laws
 There is no global police force that makes state complies
 If a state tries to play police, it is not the same as a police
 Peacekeeping is also not a power above us

Question 7

Interpretation 1, anarchy makes cooperation difficult

Answer 7

Waltz 1979
Anarchy -> states are insecure -> all rely on self-help to survive
States cannot rely on int. rule and institutions
Two options = build arms and/or form alliances

Question 8

Primary goal of state is security according to international anarchy

Answer 8

 Fear and mistrust -> security dilemma -> cooperation and institution building are difficult
 Key variable: distribution of power among states
* States focus on relative power (power compared to others)
* The number of great powers (polarity) determines int. alliances and risk of war
Tends to ignore small states
Unsure if this only applies to interpretation 1

Question 9

Security dilemma

Answer 9

 Robert Jervis 1978 – cooperation under security dilemma
 Even when a state has defensive intentions (no plans to attack)
 Anarchy -> insecurity -> defensive actions -> more fear and mistrust -> difficult cooperation

Question 10

Relative gains problem

Answer 10

 Robert powell 1991 – absolute and relative gains in int. relations theory
 When facing possible cooperation, states may focus on
* Absolute gains – how much do I gain?
* Relative gains – how does my gain compare to other’s gain
 Under anarchy, “relative gain is more important than absolute gain” K. Waltz 1959 Man, the state and war
Anarchy -> focus on relative gains -> cooperation is unlikely

Question 11

Distributions of power (polarity)

Answer 11

Unipolar system, bipolar system and multipolar system

Question 12

Unipolar system

Answer 12

1 great power
* Maximum certainty, clear leadership, easy domination
* Very rare, because states will build arms and alliances to balance against any major power

Question 13

Bipolar system

Answer 13

2 great powers, each having alliances with smaller powers
* High certainty, competition for leadership, domination within alliance

Question 14

Multipolar system

Answer 14

3-5 great powers, shifting alliances with each other and small powers
* Low certainty, risk of leadership vacuum, less risk of domination

Question 15

Interpretation 2 - anarchy invites agression great powers

Answer 15

 John Mearsheimer 2001 The tragedy of Great power politics
* Argued Ukraine should keep its nuclear weapons from soviet union
 Anarchy -> opportunities for aggression by ‘’predator’ states
 All states seek to maximize relative power
 International politics is dominated by the ambitions of great powers, regional hegemons
 Rise and fall of great powers -> instability, likelihood of major war

Question 15

Critical questions

Answer 15

• Does less certainty produce instability or stability in the system?
• What happens when great powers rise and fall?

Question 15

Bambi and Godzilla example

Answer 15

 “In the anarchic world of int. politics, it is better to be Godzilla than Bambi” – John Mearsheimer 2006

Question 15

Mexico example

Answer 15

 “Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United states” – Porfirio Diaz, president of Mexico 1876- 1880, 1884-1911

Question 15

Interpretation 3 it depends on identities

Answer 15

 Alexander Wendt 1992 anarchy is what states make of it
 Int. anarchy does not automatically produce self-help and insecurity, both competitive and cooperative relations are possible
 Relations under anarchy depend upon how states identify vis-à-vis each other
* Negative identities (other is unlike us) -> competitive relations and conflict
* Positive identities (other is like us) -> cooperative relations and community
 Identities are shaped by processes of interaction (how governments talk and act, values they express)
 Significance: major, if this argument is correct, you can achieve world peace without changing anarchy
* Peaceful and cooperative relations do not require replacing anarchy with world government

Question 15

Reassurance may overcome fear

Answer 15

 Janice Gross Stein 1991 reassurance in international conflict management
 Logic = if 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 including self restraint and de escalation to make other less fearful and allow focus on shared interests, works best if reciprocated

Question 16

Identities in international politics

Answer 16

 Thomas Risse-Kappen 1995 cooperation among democracies: the European influence on U.S. foreign policy
 Simple interpretations of anarchy suggest that powerful states will dominate int. cooperation, push around smaller states
 Historical cases show that among democracies, small allies have great influence
 Explanation = a community of collective identity based on shared values
* Problem solving through dialogue
* Openness to civil society

Question 17

Aliens, anarchy and cooperation

Answer 17

o “I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world”
 Reagan, speech at UN 1987
o Coronavirus as aliens
 Outside universal threat to humanity
o Arrival film
 Cool movie I guess
 2 intersecting anarchies
* Relations between humans and aliens
* Relations between states
 Which interpretation best fits the film?
 What parts of his film fit waltz or mearsheimer’s interpretation?
 Which part fits wendt’s interpretation?
 Wendt and the film arrival?????