Structures in International Politics – 2nd lecture

This lecture is kinda far away in my mind, it being one and an half week since I attended it, but hey, it’s my loss.

Starting point
Terminology
Like all scientific studies, the study of international relations uses various forms of special terminology. Most central of the terms, is perhaps actors (previously “participants”). The actors are parts of the structure of international relations, most often referring to entities like states, supranational organizations, transnational corporations, and non-governmental organizations. These parts are interrelated, and combine into a whole, known as the international system. In some theoretical schools, the systems have specific defining principles. As an example, the Realist school sees anarchy as a central principle of the international system. This international system has a structure; i.e., it’s built in a certain way. This structure is independent of the individual actors, although the actors are part of the structure. It is also an important determinant in the nature of actors’ actions. Finally, we have relations, a term that refers to the relationship(s) between the actors.
Different levels of analysis
The basis for analysis or explanations of phenomena (e.g. war) can be found on many levels. Primarily in the study of international relations is the system level, where we look at several states, and the relations between these. One step down we find the dyad level, where explanations to phenomena are sought for in the relations between two states. Further down, we have the nation level, where, obviously, causes of incidents are searched for in one single state. Next, we have the group level. Here explanations are found in particular groups inside countries. Finally, there’s the individual level, where explanations are found in individuals. To give examples of all these levels, let’s take World War II. To begin from the bottom, we can try to explain WWII by pointing at Hitler and his effect on German society prior to the war. On the group level, we can do the same with the Nazi Party. On a nation level, we can point to aggressive German nationalism as the cause for the war. On dyad level, the relationship between France and Germany, or Germany and Poland, can be used as explanations. Finally, we have the system level, where we examine the entire international system of the interwar years, and find the explanations there, rather than at lower levels.

How structures affect actors and vice versa
Structures are characteristics about the system, characteristics that to a larger or lesser extent influence the actions and interactions of actors. As an example, international law affects how a state conducts its affairs with other states. On the other hand, we find that interaction between the actors in time will have a shaping effect on international structures. An example here, can be how states involve themselves in changing international law, and how international law is in many ways dictated by precedence.

International Relations vs. International Politics
Although I’ve up until now used the terms “International Relations” and “International Politics” rather synonymous, there is a slight difference. IR refers to the study of interaction between different actors, such as states, IGOs (International Governmental Organizations), and INGOs (International Non-Governmental Organizations), on the international arena. Whereas IP refers to the study of relations between “politically organized groupings which occupy distinctive territories” — aka. states. In other words, IP is the study of relations between governments, and is a somewhat old (read: traditional) way of looking at the international system.
In this blog, I’ll mainly use IR.

The State: Defining traits
A state, in the formal definition of the concept, has a permanent population. It occupies a defined territory, ruled by a central authority, or a government, independent of any other similar authorities. Some also operate with the requirement that states must have a monopoly on violence within its borders, but this one is disputed, because of e.g. the strictly formal nature of the criteria. Many states, such as Turkey, doesn’t have a real monopoly on violence within its borders, but to disqualify Turkey as a state because of this, is neither useful nor realistic.

Different relations and actors in the international society
Intra-state relations (IP)
This category includes relations (i) between states (e.g. Norway and the US), (ii) between states and IGOs (e.g. Norway and NATO), and (iii) between IGOs (e.g. NATO and the UN).
Transnational relations (IR)
International relations where at least one of the actors isn’t a state or an IGO, i.e. are INGOs — be it corporations, idealistic organizations, or religious organizations.
How important these two categories of relations are relative to each other, is the topic of a still ongoing discussion between different theoretical schools in the studies of IR.

International political structure
The political structure in world related to governing, is dominated by sovereign, independent states, and there is no international parallel central governing authority of the sphere of national states. This has the following effects:
1. Anarchy vs. hierarchy: The international society is often defined as “anarchic”, but there are different definitions of anarchy. The first definition is absence of a superior authority. Second, there’s lack of laws, norms, etc., or a lack of respect for these. Finally, there’s a definition referring to lawlessness, or chaos. Of these three, the first one is generally regarded as true for the international society. The question, however, is how much the latter two definitions also apply. This is widely discussed, and the different theoretical schools have different views on this.
2. States are the most important actors in the international system.
3. Power is unequally distributed between the various actors.

Implications of the international political structure
(Realist perspective)
(i) IP is primarily a self-help system, where a state can’t rely on anyone but itself. (ii) Relations between states are best characterized as a struggle for power. (iii) Power becomes both a means and a goal in it self, in what ultimately is a struggle for survival. (iv) In the state of nature (see Thomas Hobbes), security and political survival becomes the primary goals of states. This goal is reached through armament and alliances, which in turn creates a security dilemma: When neighboring state B arms itself, state A becomes insecure, and arms itself, too. This leads to an arms race; a vicious circle of fear and armament — like the one some claims gave the basis for WWI.
Furthermore, the combination of the principle of sovereginty and the lack of a world government creates an international system where states cannot be forced into cooperation, not even in situations where it would have been in their collective interest to cooperate. Cooperation between states is voluntary, from one incident to another, and is limited by so-called “relative gains”, played by states dominated by the conflict thinking of an anarchical structured system. In other words, states are less concerned about whether everyone benefits (“absolute gains”) and more concerned about whether someone may benefit more than someone else.

However, there are much more international cooperation than this Realist perspective would seem to indicate.

Political organization throughout history
Empire
If we look at history, we find that the dominant form of political organization is the empire. An empire is a hierarchical structured world society, dividing the populations into very different actors — the hegemon and its clients. Examples are the Roman, Persian, Macedonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Aztec, Inca, Spanish Habsburg, and Ottoman empires.
Hellas (500-300 BC) and Northern Italy (1300-1500 AD)
In Hellas, or ancient Greece, we find the beginnings of the modern national state. Several city states, each with its own identity within the Greek cultural paradigm, led it’s own foreign and domestic politics, and saw themselves as entities independent of each other. Of course, might was right even to a greater extent than it is today, and some states were more independent than others, but the principles can be traced back to this epoch. The Northern Italian city states of the Renaissance were also a predecessor of the modern national state.
The Peace of Westphalia, 1648
The breakthrough for today’s political organization came in 1648, in the aftermath of the 30 Years War. This war saw on of the beginnings of the end of the political power of the Church, and of religion as basis for war. Europe evolved from a feudal system with overlapping authorities and loyalties, into a more streamlined system of territorial states based not on religious legitimacy, but on a social contract (not a literal one) between a governing body and its subjects. In other words, Europe moved from a double-lined relation of power, with both a secular and a divine authority to which the population owed its allegiance, to a single-lined relation of power.
The main principles established by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648:
1. Rex est imperator in regno suo: The king (or head of state) rules within his own territory.
2. Cujos regio, ejus religio: The king (or head of state) decides which Christian confession the population of the state shall belong to.
3. Balance of power: To avoid the rise of a hegemon that would dominate all other states in the region, a system of alliances was established. This system lasted at least until the Napoleonic Wars, and some claims that it was one of the causes for WWI as well.

France’s imperialist ambitions in Europe stranded in 1815. Now, the expansion of an international society based on European experiences and values, begun. Even though the European powers primarily created an international system between themselves, they also created large empires to rule non-European entities elsewhere in the world. Inevitably, the norms of the European state were globalized through decolonization, and through the end of the Cold War.

How is peace and cooperation possible in a state of anarchy and insecurity?
How is it possible to maintain a state of stability and order in a system characterized by states struggling for and seeking power, potentially at the expense of each other? Two main reasons have been pointed out:
1. The principle of sovereignty.
2. The balance of power.
(Both of which were established in Westphalia, 1648.)

Normative limitations to the struggle for power and survival
One of the normative limitations to the struggle for power and survival is the thought of a international society. This thought accepts the anarchic structure, but claims that there are more to IR than that: There are also norms and rules, which play a part.
“A society of states exists when a group of states, conscious of certain common interests and values, form a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another, and share in the working of common institutions.” (Bull 1977)
So, which values and common norms can be said to apply in the international society?
1. The principle of sovereignty. This includes the principles of self-determination, non-intervention, and the right to self defense.
2. International peace and security. This phrase is often used as exceptions to the above principles; they can be broken if upholding them constitutes a threat to the international peace and security.
Some institutions confirm the norm of state sovereignty:
– Diplomacy.
– International law; recognition, laws of warfare, international organizations and treaties, etc.
The basis for common values, norms and rules for behavior in IP, includes common historical experiences and cultural background. Furthermore, there’s a shared fear of the future, based on the past; fear for repeating the mistakes of yesterday. States also have to consider their good name and rumor when evaluating whether or not to act in an immoral way. Additionally, they want to minimize insecurity and costs of transactions (e.g., war isn’t exactly an effective incentive for improving trade). Finally, there’s the disputed hegemonic stability theory, which claims that for an international system to function smoothly there must be a hegemon.

Nevertheless, the existence of various norms as a moderating factor on states’ struggle and search for power, has had the result of power not being exclusively tied to military or economic strength. There is also a normative power. (Definition of power: When A makes B do what B wouldn’t otherwise have done.) An effect of this is that actions have to be legitimized through international law.

Problems with the concept of an international society
The concept of an international society forces us to ask the following question: To what extent are European norms for the world society globally accepted? Many factors speaks against such acceptance:
– The lack of a common, fundamental culture.
– Global inequalities are much larger than European inequalities.
– The “stagnation” of international ties and borders has created a barrier to the creation of new jurisdictions (i.e. new states).
– The huge imbalance between formal equality (sovereignty) and socio-economic capabilities has led to a weakening of the estimation of e.g. self-sufficiency.
– The meaning of state sovereignty has changed.

All these factors can be combined into even more questions, such as to what extent today’s norms — e.g. the principle of non-intervention — are the best, considering today’s civil war-dominated pattern of conflicts. Another question is what norms are needed to solve problems concerning civil wars and so-called “failed states“.

Phew. Three hours worth of work, that was. I originally intended to type out the notes of a couple of lectures more tonight, but my brain is jelly. (As can be seen by the horrible English and structure of the last part of this post.) But I think I’ll manage; I’ve only got one more lecture this week, so if I type out one lecture per day, I think I’ll manage. I’ll even have time left to read.