POSC 2200 - Introduction

POSC 2200 - Introduction Russell Alan Williams Department of Political Science

POSC 2200 - Introduction 

Required Reading:  



Globalization of World Politics, Introduction & Chapters 1-5. Thucydides, Melian Dialogue

Outline: 1. 2. 3.

What is International Politics? International Society and World Order Key Contemporary Issues   

4. 5.

The End of the “Cold War” Globalization New Security threats

Theories – Intro: The Melian Dialogue For next time . . .

1) What is “International Politics”? Concept has evolved over time . . . . two meanings:

a) Traditional = “International Relations” (IR)  Relations among states -Focus on great power “diplomacy” and strategy  Little role for other kinds of phenomenon -E.g. Economic “globalisation” b) Contemporary = “global or international politics”  Wider phenomena seen as part of “international politics” -E.g. Newer security concerns – “terrorism” -E.g. People’s daily lives . . . .  Remakes IR - Includes all daily global politics



Includes the study of relations among all actors that participate in international politics:  



 

States International Organizations  “United Nations” (UN) Non Governmental Organizations (NGO’s)  Greenpeace  Al Qaeda “Multinational Corporations” (MNCs)

Requires attention to:  Domestic Politics  Economics  Culture  Geography



However, be sensitive to the way “international relations” is used . . . . 



Some (re: the “old men” of the discipline) mean interstate relations Some (re: “wacky lefties”) mean global politics

Note: Where does our textbook fit?



The study of International Politics is divided into several subfields:      

International Security International Political Economy International Relations International Organization International Law Foreign Policy

2) International Society & World Order 

International politics is as old as civilization, but our modern understandings have been shaped by a particular “modern” period of European history 

The “Westphalian System” – a product of the “Peace of Westphalia” 

Context?



Peace of Westphalia established three key principles governing international politics:

a) Territoriality = States controlled particular geographies

b) “Sovereignty” = Only one “sovereign authority” is recognized as governing that territory, and has supreme legal authority over domestic affairs C) Autonomy = People should have the freedom to make use of the benefits of sovereignty (Closely associated with 20th Century ideas of “Self Determination”)



Westphalia gradually gave rise to the “Nation State” as the key form of political organization . . . . 

E.g. World War I:

Caused by desire for national “self determination”  Resolved by the application of the principle of “self determination” 

Development of the Westphalian System led to a particular kind of “International Society” or system  Three key institutions: 

1)“Diplomacy”: Policies used as instruments to communicate amongst states.  E.g. Economic sanctions and peace negotiations 2)“Balance of Power”: Focus on the distribution of “power” amongst states.  E.g. Diplomacy and alliances used as strategies to manage insecurity by “balancing”  later came “Collective Security” 3) “International Law”: The creation of formal, acknowledged rules of conduct amongst states

3) Key Contemporary Issues: 

Much analysis of international politics focuses on questions about the transition from the Westphalian System, to the “Post-Westphalian” order:  



Territoriality and “Sovereignty” less important? The “Nation-state” and/or the state (generally) are declining forms of political organization . . . despite the fact many “nations” still want one . . . . International “Institutionalization” is creating denser webs of global governance:  “International Organizations (IO’s)”  “International Non-governmental Organizations (INGO’s)”

These concerns are illustrated through the modern focus on key topics like “Post Cold War” interstate relations, “globalization”, and new security threats . . . .

a) The End of the “Cold War” 

The Cold War (1946-1991):  



Period of intense competition (E.g. “balance of power”) Involved ideological conflict over domestic politics (E.g. Not consistent with ideals of Westphalian System) Inhibited the operation of international institutions created after World War II 



E.g. the “United Nations” and “Collective Security”

But “cold” because . . . .”   

Stable “balance of power”? Nuclear weapons? = “MAD Doctrine” New ideas about security?

a) The End of the “Cold War” 

The end of the cold war was a “surprise” for IR scholars – It was not “rational” for the Soviet Union to just “give up” . . . . 



Big debate between modern “Realists” and “Constructivists”

Key Point: Created new political possibilities, unimaginable thirty years ago . . . .

= A period of intensified U.S. “Hegemony”, hyperpower, or “uni-polarity”?

= The “peace dividend”?

= An increased role for “International Organizations”?

= The rise of new powers and the end of American “hegemony”?

b) “Globalisation”: 

A concept with many meanings . . . . Textbook = “A shift in the scale of human relations” in which people are increasingly interrelated regardless of physical distance . . . . =“Deterritorialization”  Heavy emphasis on how technology makes geography less important =“De-Nationalization” of power  States are no longer as powerful as they once were, given their increased inability to control the economy and the flow of ideas. 

Strongly suggestive of a Post-Westphalian era in global politics = Territoriality, “Sovereignty” and Autonomy of states all less important then in the past

b) “Globalization”: Different from: 



“Interdependence”: Described the extent to which actions in one political and economic system (or state) may impact people in another – globalization assumes the movement towards a single system. “Regionalization”: Growing political and economic integration amongst geographically organized states (E.g. The “European Union”)

b) “Globalization”: 

Economic Globalization: Focus on the emergence of a single global economy in which the majority of goods and services we use may be produced in other places.  

Makes us vulnerable to the choices of others . . . . States find it increasingly difficult to intervene in the economy for broader social purposes  E.g. Taxing corporations

b) “Globalization”: 

Political Globalization: Focus on the increasing role of “International Organizations” and “International Nongovernmental Organizations” in making policy decisions for us . . . . “Asymmetrical Globalization”: The spread of globalization is uneven, it empowers some, and marginalizes others 

E.g. Activists complain “Multinational Corporations” (MNC’s) have better access to international decision-making

=Double democratic deficit?

b) “Globalization”: 

Social and Cultural Globalization: What does our citizenship mean (?) and what obligations do we have to people outside of our own “sovereign state”? 



“Human Security”  Increasing emphasis on our responsibility to protect global populations from harm Global inequality

b) “Globalization”: 

In the study of international politics, “globalization” is often seen as a kind of seismic shift in which the basic nature of international society has changed . . . .

C) New security threats: 

Traditionally, the study of international security focused on the threat of attacks by other states’ military forces. 



These threats were managed through the acquisition of military capabilities and diplomatic strategies.

However, much of the focus in the modern study of security emphasizes different kind of threats 

Threats from non-state actors  



E.g. “Terrorism” E.g. Threats posed by “Failed States” and intra-state conflict

No traditional security threats relating to globalization 



E.g. Health pandemics E.g. Environmental crisis

C) New security threats: 

These threats seem to require different kinds of strategies . . . Strategies that may not “fit” well in the Westphalian focus on “diplomacy” and the “balance of power”.

3) Theories: 

Much analysis of IR is “journalistic” = very descriptive, an endless list of events . . . = PROBLEM! 

What do we learn from description? E.g. Does it help us predict future events?



To advance knowledge we need theories  Make sense of what is described  Identify common causes of events & patterns of behavior



Science: IR involves search for variables



Theories explain relationships amongst variables = PROBLEM! 

Unlike other fields IR has competing theories . . . 



E.g. Economics or “natural sciences”

Why? a) Complexity? The text thinks so . . . b) Failure to agree on core concepts? c) Pig-headedness of those who support stupid theories, but can’t admit they’re wrong, ever . . . .

The “Melian Dialogue” – Thucydides and the Peloponnesian War: Historical context:  War between “Sparta” and “Athens”  Causes? (according to Thucydides)  Nature of war – stalemate and growing Athenian economic problems Context of Melian Dialogue?  Athens needs $$$$ = Attacks neutral Melos

The “Melian Dialogue” – Thucydides and the Peloponnesian War: Historical context:  War between “Sparta” and “Athens”  Causes? (according to Thucydides)  Nature of war – stalemate and growing Athenian economic problems Context of Melian Dialogue?  Athens needs $$$$ = Attacks neutral Melos

The “Melian Dialogue” – Thucydides and the Peloponnesian War: 

Melians: 



Athenians: 



Argue that international law and morality should stop Athens = Refuse to surrender

Argue that “might is right” - power is its own morality  For Athens attack is necessary  The Melians would do the same . . . if they weren’t so wimpy . . . .

Result? What happens after the Dialogue?

Major theories all see different things in this story (?) A) “Realism”: Approach emphasizing the pursuit of power as both key goal of states and the source of conflict 

War caused by threat of the rising power of Athens relative to Sparta . . . .



Attack on Melos necessary to survival of Athens = It was the morally right thing to do . . . ?



Athenians destroy Melos = there were no international morals or laws . . . .

Modern relevance?

Major theories all see different things in this story (?)

B) “Liberalism”: Approach emphasizing possibility of cooperation and rules 

There were rules! 



Athens eventually lost the war and suffered same fate as Melos - should have been nicer . . . . Should have been careful not to offend other states

Rules in the interest of both Athens and Melos

Modern relevance?

Major theories all see different things in this story (?) C) “Marxism” (or Radicalism): Approach emphasizing economics, and economic exploitation 

War caused by economic imperialism . . .  “Military Industrial Complex”

Modern relevance?

Major theories all see different things in this story (?) D) “Constructivism”: Approach emphasizing values, ideas or “norms” in international politics  Athens acted “inappropriately” - outside of norms =Rogue state D) “Poststructuralism”: Approach that questions the basis of the “facts” we use to develop our theories.  Thucydides “made it all up” anyway - what lessons can we learn from his “story” outside of the messages he was trying to convince us off? =Danger of basing today’s policy on “tall tales” More on these theories over the next few weeks . . .

5) For Next Time . . . Unit Two: Theoretical Approaches 

January 12, 14 & 16: “Realism and Liberalism”

Required Reading:  



Globalization of World Politics, Chapters 6, 7 and 8. Realism: John Mearsheimer, Anarchy and the Struggle for Power, (Excerpt available from the instructor.) Liberalism: Michael Doyle, “Liberalism and World Politics”, American Political Science Review, 80 (4), pp. 1151-69. (Available through e-journals, or as an excerpt available from the instructor).