INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY

NATIONAL UNVIRSITY

SAMIH SALAH M.A international Relations ASSESSMENTS

• Seminar = 10% • Writing Assignments = 20% • Mid Exam = 20% • Final Exam = 50% ACTORS IN INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM INTRODUCING THE SUBJECT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY

• As international relations has grown in complexity, the family of theories that IR offers has grown in number, which presents a challenge for newcomers to IR theory. However, this introduction should give you the confidence to get started. To kick off, this section will briefly introduce IR theory via a three-part spectrum of traditional theories, middle ground theories and critical theories. As you read further into the book, you should expect this simple three-part picture to dissolve somewhat – though it is a useful device to come back to should you get confused. • Theories are constantly emerging and competing with one another. This can be disorientating. As soon as you think you have found your feet with one theoretical approach, others appear. This section will therefore serve as both a primer and a warning that complexity is to be expected ahead! Even though this book presents IR theory in a particularly simple and basic way, complexity remains. IR theory requires your full attention and you should buckle down and expect turbulence on your journey. • Further, liberals have faith in the idea that the permanent cessation of war is an attainable goal. Putting liberal ideas into practice, US President Woodrow Wilson addressed his ‘Fourteen Points’ to the US Congress in January 1918 during the final year of the First World War. The last of his ‘points’ – ideas for a rebuilt world beyond the war – was the setting up of a general association of nations: this became the League of Nations. Dating back to 1920, the League of Nations was created largely for the purpose of overseeing affairs

INTRODUCING THE SUBJECT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY

• between states and implementing, as well as maintaining, international peace. However, when the League collapsed due to the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, its failure was difficult for liberals to comprehend, as events seemed to contradict their theories. Therefore, despite the efforts of figures such as Kant and Wilson, liberalism failed to retain a strong hold and a new theory emerged to explain the continuing presence of war. That theory became known as realism.

ENGLISH SCHOOL

• The thinking of the English school is often viewed as a middle ground between liberal and realist theories. Its theory involves the idea of a society of states existing at the international level. , one of the core figures of the English school, agreed with traditional theories that the international system was anarchic. However, he insisted this does not mean the absence of norms (expected behaviours), thus claiming a societal aspect to international politics. In this sense, states form an ‘Anarchical Society’ where a type of order does exist, based on shared norms and behaviors CONSTRUCTIVISM

• Constructivism is another theory commonly viewed as a middle ground, but this time between mainstream theories and the critical theories that we will explore later. It also has some familial links with the English school. Unlike scholars from other perspectives, constructivists highlight the importance of values and of shared interests between individuals who interact on the global stage. , a prominent constructivist, described the relationship between agents (individuals) and structures (such as the state) as one in which structures not only constrain agents but also construct their identities and interests. His phrase ‘anarchy is what states make of it sums this up well. Another way to explain this, and to explain the core of constructivism, is that the essence of international relations exists in the interactions between people. After all, states do not interact; it is agents of those states, such as politicians and diplomats, who interact SEMINARS

• Game Theory. • Realism in contemporary politics. Student presentation. • Postmodernism. • Constructivism • International relations debate INTRODUCTION AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

• Explain the major theories of International relations • Describes the major similarities and differences between the major IR theory. • Identify the leading authors in the IR field and the theories they are associated with. • Understand the historical evolution of IR theory over time. • Apply theoretical frameworks to understanding practical international relations issues. • Access the behavior of actors in international politics in light of Ir theories

THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

International relations theory is the study of international relations (IR) from a theoretical perspective. It attempts to provide a conceptual framework upon which international relations can be analyzed. In this part of the course Instructor aims to distinguish between International relation science and other sub-fields. STRUCTURAL FRAMEWORK OF (IR) (INTERNATIONAL ORDER)

• International Order.

System International

Means a group of units that Existing ,occurring ,or carried on have relation with each other between two or more nations and that act as bases and have common characteristic that lead to relationships between these units. Ole holsti : describes international relations theories as acting like pairs of colored sunglasses that allow the wearer to see only salient events relevant to the theory. e.g., an adherent of realism may completely disregard an event that a constructivist might pounce upon as crucial, and vice versa. PARTIAL ANALYSIS IN IR

Partial Theory In IR focusing on the state, the individual, and decision makers)

System Decision making The game theory theory theory WHY PARTIAL AND MACRO ?

• First: a comprehensive analysis is consider Macro theories such as (the international system). (Macro analysis) • Second: Partial analysis (focusing on the state, the individual, and decision makers) GAME THEORY

Game theory

Cooperative non-cooperative games

A game game is non-cooperative if players cannot form is cooperative if the alliances or if all agreements need to be self- players are able to enforcing form binding commitments externally enforced Zero-sum non-zero-sum

Zero-sum games are a special case of constant-sum games in which in non-zero-sum games, a gain by one player choices by players can neither does not necessarily increase nor decrease the available correspond with a loss resources. In zero-sum games, the by another. total benefit to all players in the game, for every combination of strategies, always adds to zero (more informally, a player benefits only at the equal expense of others) SYSTEM THEORY

• systems theories of international relations (IR) focus on the structure of the international system to explain the behavior and interactions of the system’s units.

• Systems Approach can be regarded as a useful approach to the study of International Politics. It can be used for an overall view of the relations among nations. It can be used for both macroscopic as well as microscopic studies of regional sub-systems which form parts of the international system. The concept of system can be used for achieving the objective of theory-building in international politics.

• The emergence of Systems Approach to the study of International Politics can be described as one of the most significant developments of the 20th century. Immediately after its birth, Systems Approach captured the interest of a large number of modern political scientists. They began using it as a convenient tool for a large scale macro-cosmic analysis of the political phenomena in the world. • Ever since its introduction in the late 1950’s, Systems Approach has been regularly used by a large number of Political scientists for analyzing relations among nations.

MEANING AND NATURE:

• systems Approach seeks to analyze international relations as a system of interactions which are interdependent and interrelated. It studies international relations as a system of behavior of international actors. Each nation acts and reacts in the international environment and its behavior is characterized by regularities. WHAT IS A SYSTEM?

• For an understanding of the main features of the Systems Approach in international relations, let us be clear about the concept of system. • A system consists of a known set of actors and entities or a known set of variables (political machinery, attitudes, interests and political activities) which set parameters to the study. • A system exists when visible regularities characterize the relationship of variables to each other. International Politics involves describable regularities in the interactions among nations and as such it can be explained and analyzed as International System. System is a set of interrelated and inters— dependent interactions among actors. WHAT IS INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM?

• Morton Kaplan conceives of international system as “an analytical entity for explaining the behavior of international actors and the regulative, integrative and disintegrative consequences of their policies.” • Karl Deutsch holds, “International System consists of clusters of settlements, modes of transport, centers of cultures, areas of language, divisions of class and caste, barriers between markets, sharp regional differences in wealth and interdependence.” International system is the set of interrelated and interdependent interactions among international actors-national and supra-national actors. ASSUMPTIONS OF SYSTEMS APPROACH:

• International Relations as International System: • International relations can be analyzed as a set of relations among international actors i.e. as an international system.

WRITING ASSIGNMENT

• U.S and Sudan Relations in the light of System theories. • Abstract • The study aims to shed a light of system theory on the relation of U.S and Sudan. The units consist primarily of states United states in one hand and Sudanese government on other hand. • Introduction : The mean study argumentation , concepts , Variables . • Conclusion • Recommendation • References

SYSTEM THEORY

• Morton Kaplan Morton Kaplan conceives of international system as “an analytical entity for explaining the behavior of international actors and the regulative, integrative and disintegrative consequences of their policies.” Karl Deutsch holds, “International System consists of clusters of settlements, modes of transport, centers of cultures, areas of language, divisions of class and caste, barriers between markets, sharp regional differences in wealth and interdependence.” International system is the set of interrelated and interdependent interactions among international actors-national and supra-national actors.

KAPLAN ASSUMPTIONS

• International Relations as International System: • International relations can be analyzed as a set of relations among international actors i.e. as an international system KAPLAN ASSUMPTIONS

• International System is not International Political System: • When the concept of ‘system’ is used in the context of International Politics it is, taken to mean International System and not International Political System. It cannot be described as International Political System because it does not allocate authoritative values. Basic international units or actors are sovereign states and as such no international actor or agency can authoritatively implement values/decisions over them. Hence, it cannot be described as International Political System.

DECISION MAKING THEORY

• The theory is closer to being one of the theories that explain the foreign policy of the state than it is a theory in international relations that is considered competent to analyze the political conduct of the state. DECISION MAKING THEORY

• Decision-making theory basically has as its underlying principle, people- significance. It suggests that people matter in international affairs.. As such, I like to view it as a direct opposite of structural-functionalism theory which stresses the importance of institutions. There is no general definition of decision-making theory. However, in an attempt at the definition of decision-making theory, I view it as the use of cognitive approaches based on rational or analogical reasoning to act upon a pressing issue of concern.

DECISION-MAKING MODELS

• According to Joe Holtsi (2001), decision- making models are of three types – bureaucratic-organisational model, small group politics (also referred to as groupthink) and individual leaders DECISION-MAKING MODELS

• In bureaucratic-organisation politics, traditional models called for a clear distinction between politics and decision-making; administration, implementation and a presentation of that distinction. The focal point of decision-making in a bureaucratic organization is the political character of bureaucracies and certain aspects of organisational behaviour. Bureaucracies which are often seen as complex organisations, are made up of individuals and units having different values, interests and perceptions that are always in conflict. DECISION-MAKING MODELS

• These differing qualities arise from parochial self-interests and perceptions about division of labour. Values, experiences and standard procedures of an organization either shape or distort the implementation of certain decisions. Hence, organizational decision-making has a political undertone – dominated by bargaining for resources, roles and missions, and by compromise rather than analysis. Assertion has been put forward by some analysts that, the only way to reduce some of the nonrational aspects of bureaucratic behaviour are crises. This way, decisions reach the hierarchy (where a higher quality of intelligence exists) faster. In the American system for example, the president ultimately decides and selects players that will be crucial in shaping ultimate decisions. For instance, the advice of the Attorney-General, Robert Kennedy, not to bomb or invade Cuba in 1962, was preferred by President Kennedy above all others. Allison’s study of the Cuban Missile crisis casts doubt on the efficacy of traditional realist conceptions of the unitary rational actor.

REALISM CLASSICAL &

WHAT’S REALISM?

Realism is possibly the oldest of all approaches and schools of thought related to the field of International Relations. Realism explains international relations in terms of “power”. Therefore, usually the realist approach is named as Realpolitik or power politics. The Realist school is based on the views of Niccole Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes on human nature, that is, they are pessimists on human nature and believe that each person will use others to reach his/her goals, that is, people are in fact selfish. Power in this context, can be understood as “the ability to make another actor do what it would not have normally done.” So, the main idea behind Realism is that “actors in the international system are as powerful as their ability to affect others more than these others affect them.”

WHAT’S REALISM?

In the 20th century, the most important Classical Realist thinker was Hans J. Morgenthau who believed men and women have “will to power”, and that international politics isn’t any different from domestic politics in that respect. Morgenthau wrote in his 1965 book Scientific Man Versus Politics that “Politics is a struggle for power over men, and whatever its ultimate aim may be, power is its immediate goal and the modes of acquiring, maintaining, and demonstrating it determine the technique of political action.” Morgenthau also believes that there is an animus dominandi, a human lust/craving for power, which dictates a search for both relative advantage over others and a secure political space in which a person can enjoy his life free from outside political pressures. The animus dominandi eventually brings men and women into conflict with each other and that creates the framework for power politics which is at the heart of all Realist thinking. So, Morgenthau argues just like Machiavelli that there should be different sets of moralities, one for the private sphere, and the other for the public sphere. Political ethics can be used to do some things that cannot be accepted nor forgiven by private, personal, social ethics.

WHAT’S REALISM?

• the methods of natural, quantitative sciences to sociaDuring the 1950s and 1960s, social sciences were transformed by what is known as the Behaviouralist Revolution. Behaviouralism is an approach in political science which aims to provide an objective, quantified approach to explaining and predicting political behaviour, taking its model from natural sciences, trying to apply it in social scineces

REALISM ASSUMPTIONS

Human beings are selfish, interest-maximising creatures; human nature is not positive. International relations are basically and necessarily conflictual and international conflicts are generally resolved by war. National survival and each state’s security are above and beyond all other matters. And, finally, Unlike domestic political life, there cannot be progress in international politics, because there are no superior agencies that regulate the international system.

WHAT’S CLASSICAL REALISM? NEOREALISM / STRUCTURAL REALISM

WHAT’S NEO-REALISM

• is the creator, the major advocate, and the leader of the next and newest stage of Realism which is called Neorealism. The idea of Neorealism is based on Strategic Realism of Schelling.

TYPES OF NEW REALISM

• Neorealism has two major branches which can be labelled as and .

WHAT’S OFFENSIVE REALISM WHAT’S OFFENSIVE REALISM? WHAT’S OFFENSIVE REALSIM? DIFFERENT BETWEEN NEW AND CLASSICAL REALISM?

The main difference between the Neorealists and the Classical, Neoclassical, and Strategic Realists is that the Classical Realists think of power, as Morgenthau does, as an end, as a goal to be reached. However, Neorealist see power as a means, as something to use to reach their goal, and their main goal is the survival of the state.

NEOREALISM IS BUILT MAIN ASSUMPTIONS. THESE ASSUMPTIONS ARE:

States are rational actors. They generally come up with reliable strategies which maximise their expectations for survival. The main goal of any state is survival. States aim to maintain their territorial integrity and the autonomy of their domestic political system. These two always come before other goals. All states own some offensive military capability. Each state can harm its neighbours to a degree, and surely this capability changes from state to state and in time.

NEOREALISM ASSUMPTIONS

A state can never be certain about the intentions of other states. One can never know if a state in the system wants to change, alter, the existing balance of power and hence is a revisionist state or whether they are happy with the current balance of power, hence is a status quo state. Intentions are only in the minds of decision-makers, and even if we can understand a state’s position at present, we cannot be sure of its future position; so, one can never be sure about the intentions of any state at any given time.