Lecture 9 Flashcards
What is the state in International Relations?
- Long been regarded as most significant actor in World stage; basic unit of global politics
- Started at Treaty of Westphalia (global system of states)
- Four features:
1. a defined territory
2. a permanent population (who is a citizen or who isn’t)
3. an effective government
4. the capacity to enter into relations with other states
What are the challenges of globalisation to the state?
- State borders increasingly permeable (e.g. migration); state borders are more porous
- Economic globalisation, supraterritoriality (MNCs); international business, capital flows, etc.
What are the responses to deal with challenges of globalisation to the state?
Regional cooperation and integration (UN, EU, NATO, WTO)
- Realism: International organisations are intermediate level between states and global politics; states still most important
- Liberalist: Very important and replace the state to a certain extent
The ‘return’ of the national state (populism, Brexit)
Explain the principle of the decline of the state (1990s) and the return of the state (2010s)
Decline: globalisation and transformation of the state in the ‘West’; ‘failed states’ in the Global South; interventionism
Return: regulatory state (US; EU) vs. globalisation and IO’s; - the ‘protective’ state (welfare, security, identity);
- rise of the ‘strong’ state and state-capitalism (Russia; China)
What is regionalism according to Heywood, and what is Gerritsen his opinion of this?
- process through which geographical regions become significant political and/or economic units
- These units serve as the basis for cooperation and, possibly identity.
- Regionalism has two faces: a sub-national (within countries) and ‘transnational’ (between countries).
- In both cases regionalism is the successor to the nation-state and an alternative to globalisation.
Gerritsen: believes that regionalism is not an alternative or successor to nation-state; it only exists because of the nation-state
- Regionalism is not an alternative to globalisation; but rather a response
What is regionalism according to Breslin, and what is Gerritsen his opinion of this?
Since the 1980s, there has been an upsurge in the number of regional projects being negotiated and enacted around the world… regionalism has become a truly global issue… (but) the European case has occupied a particularly important position – not least in the development of different theoretical explanations… rather than just a European one…’
Gerritsen:
- Rise of populism/return of the state are all responses to this rise/upsurge in number of regional organisations
- Euroscepticism, Brexit, The Trump presidency
- More trust in national state than there is in international organisations
What is Gerritsen his idea of regionalism?
Regionalism is not a fixed concept. Means different things to people in different contexts and times.
We only have International organisations because states want them.
- States expect (im)material gains as the main driver of regional cooperation and integration (neo-liberal institutionalism and Constructivism)
- The state is not the historical norm (young phenomena); ‘supra’ and ‘sub-state’ regionalism has a long history: Empires
- Regions should be defined flexibly, as dynamic concepts, changing over time; combining geographical, cultural, political classifications.
- Regions are politically and socially constructed, mostly, not always with geographical demarcations, serving a variety of purposes: economic links (trade), military security, cultural and ideological (Council of Europe)
- Regionalism can be institutionalized (International Organizations) and non-institutionalized (common identity, culture – e.g. Scandinavia)
When you study regions, why should we study the EU?
- EU is far going and deepest cooperation and integration of regions
- Most advanced example of regionalism; but not a benchmark (not as attractive to others)
- EU theory is not part of IR; members are different from mainstream IR (many people want to leave, but it is very hard; BREXIT - shows how strong EU is)
- EU military dwarf because of NATO
- EU is important actor, but less after economic crisis
What is the nature of the international system?
- Anarchy
- To tame anarchy we need International Organisations
What is the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the EU?
- European Council: pivotal role in ambitions, directions, strategy, decisions (nationally pre-conditioned)
- European Commission and the High Representative (Frederica Mogherini, from November 2014); face of EU but not foreign minister because member states do not allow this
- European parliament: budget and international treaties
What are the major theories of European integration and CFSP? How can we explain why the EU does not have military integration?
- Neo-functionalism: spill-over effect, cooperation in one realm spreads to others (if you work together in terms of trade, you probably also need a forceful foreign policy to show weight); but there is no military force so EU cannot force its policies on big powers. (but fails to explain foreign policy and security integration)
- Inter-governmentalism (gives answer): European integration and how it develops depends on what states want. So there is no integration, because the states do not want military integration.
Why do states not want military integration within the EU?
- Foreign policy/security is core business of any state
- If state gives up this sovereignty, it gives up the core of its own existence
But: not legitimate answer because we have NATO. So states do not trust EU but they do trust NATO.
What type of actor is the EU, according to CFSP?
- EU is a relevant actor
- But also a special actor: very different because it does not have traditional instruments that states have for International Relations.
Why is the EU an important actor?
- Big toolkit
- EU can be effective, in fields of international relations where force is not required (straight policies, crisis prevention, state building)
- Coordination/consultation reflex
Why is the EU divided:
- Member states had diverging priorities and capabilities
- Policy failures and limitations in crisis situations
