S2 - Actors, System, & Practices Flashcards
structure
rules (laws, social norms) that may limit your universal choices
agency
how much freedom an actor has to act within the set of rules
structure and agency
You have to make choices between structure and agency. Within the structure, there are only some choices you can make.
Agency is the room of manoeuvre. You can also think of it as context (structure) and the practice (agency).
Structure is fixed, but at a certain times: structure evolves following the choices of the agents over time. With pressure from actors out of the agency, rules may chance.
the international system
realism is dominant
context = anarchy
actors = states
aim = survival
nature = polarity
context of anarchy
no ordering princple
causes of war are structural realism and neorealism
states as actors
Westphalian sovereignty and no perpetual allies, there are only perpetual interests. You can be allies regardless of ideals etc, the only thing that matters is survival.
survival as aim
This can happen through offensive neorealism (expansion; Mearsheimer) and defensive neorealism (protection; Waltz)
nature of polarity
Polarity is about distribution of power at the international level. How many powerful states you have at the international level will define the system.
Multipolarity is very difficult to maintain, because it leads to alliances where different blocks go to war with each other.
Unipolarity could be stable, because no one is able to challenge the only hegemon (hegemon stability theory).
Bipolarity depends; it combines the advantages of both systems. They both have the same things, so balance each other’s capacities to destroy each other.
how many power at internat. level defines system
uni / bi / multi - polarity
Westphalian sovereignty
a principle in international law that each state has exclusive sovereignty over its territory. You cannot intrude a state and claim the state like it is yours. It made sure that we have boundaries and that there is a balance between the states, so that none of them is big enough to get too much power.
state has exclusive sovereignty over its territory –> cannot intrude and claim it
internal sovereignty
the states’ ability to control what’s happening inside of the state
features of sovereign negotiation
government to government
negotiation is an extension of national foreign policy
negotiatiors are representatives of a sovereign
negotiations are about state power, influence and authority
Westphalian negotiation
If state A wants something and needs the help of state B. A has to negotiate with B to achieve this.
In the system before the Westphalian Negotiation, state A could intrude state B to take what they want. Intruding can happen again, when the states do not believe in the idea of balancing the power.
Change in conflict comes when states don’t see the system as restriction / legitimate anymore and they can challenge the system.
Example: Hitler did not consider the existing borders as legitimate, so Germany’s actions challenged the whole existing system by defying the existing laws (as in borders).
Difficult to negotiate with a state that does not want to play by the rules and does not respect international law
bilateral system
inter-state negotiation between state A en state B
global changes
Since WWII and Cold War there has been a shift in the international system. There has been a rise and proliferation of new international and transnational actors: religious groups, social movements, Ios, corporations, NGOs, sub-state actors, rivals to existing states etc.
There also has been a changing scope of issues with more new postmodern concerns. Issues that are way more global than before, like climate / ideology / rise of new technologies.
Interdependence of states, not everyone can be solved the same way anymore (bilateral consultations. There are also permanent negotiation forums and new technologies
So in order to achieve results, sovereignty needs to be limited
new actors / new issues
simple negotiation
State to state
Single issue
Single negotiation
One set of rules
complex negotiation
Many diverse actors
Many diverse and interconnected issue
Iterative negotiations
Many different rules
multilateralism and negotiations
multilateralism is increasing complexity over time, because there are many more actors. Negotiations take longer, because there are more forums that happen multiple times.
it causes a change from simple negotiation to complex negotiation
more actors –> complexity / take longer (more forums)
track 2 negotiations
unofficial negotiations wherein nationals not closely affiliated with the government are deliberately chosen as negotiators. This are the ‘diplomats without diplomats’; professionals, experts, interest groups.
nationals not closely affiliated with government are the negotiators (expert / interest groups)
state diplomacy
formal format = routine negotiations, track 1 negotiations
representatives of national governments = professional diplomats and political leaders
conveying messages = explicit (loud and clear) and implicit
coalitions
result of interdependency
pooling of sovereignties (leverage + costs)
issues with representatives: identity and ideology
State representatives are professionals
State representatives do not identify with
ideology or identity
But new international actors are often about
ideology and identity, like human rights movements / environmental movements
state representatives dont identify with ideology / identity, but new actors are often about those things
decoupling of issues
States want to decouple issues. If you decouple issues, it is easier to negotiate on them issue by issue. This is easier because states are more powerful than movements, so item by item is easier.
New actors want to connect them (linking). Sometimes different issues are all part of the same things, so it is more challenging to the system.
issues with representatives: identifying leaders
States want to retain the Westphalian system (want to identify leaders), but modern international actors often do not (don’t want to have a clear leader).
But figureheads often become representatives. States want a leader to have someone to talk to on behalf of the movement.
issues with representatives
identity and ideology
identifying leaders
