sad
Revision List for Midterm exam
1) Why we need historical study of IR theory?
History of IR provide us various information to find some systemic explanation and to generalise knowledge about IR
●History of any discipline is important to self-understanding.
●To explain how IR is viewed by other disciplines
●This historic vision can provide us a special attention to specific events and processes
●History might be seen as an illustration of theoretical concepts.
1. extensive, vast question with your opinion.
From her lectures: 1) methods of explanation and means of justifying a position;2) problem of values and political position;
can be given as an example: Max Weber “Science as a Vocation” 1917 , where he proves the need to study theories, paradigms etc.(“no science is free of assumptions and the value of science is list when its assumptions are rejected”)
2) The Great debates (How many ‘great debates’ there are? Name all of the ‘great debates’);
from her lectures: 1. debate b/w idealism and realism
2. debate b/w “scientific”approach and “traditional” approach
3. “neo-neo” debate
4. debate b/w rationalists and reflectivists
3) The Great debates concept (Kuhn’s description of scientific revolutions and paradigms in IR according to B.Schmidt)
From Thomas Kuhn came the idea of paradigms and also the notion that normal science was often interrupted by scientific revolutions that replaced one normal science paradigm with another.
4) What’s Wrong With the Image of the Great Debates? (according to B.Schmidt);
–the first great debate where the emerging revisionist consensus is that the debate b/w interwar idealists and realists is nothing more than a disciplinary myth;
–scholars have begun to express displeasure with the field’s paradigm wars and great debates arguing that not only are they inhibiting scientific progress, but they also prevent from working on solutions to a bewildering array of global problems
It is difficult to understand the history of the field in terms of three debates.
-Attention directed to details of field history, that all three debates actually didn’t take place.
-Stylized version of the debates do not do justice to the nature of the controversies that were in fact taking place.
-By focusing only on the three great debates, number of additional and extremely important disciplinary controversies continued to be overlooked.
-Analytical framework of great debate, to account for the field history is a conservative move that gives the field a greater sense of coherence than actual history of the field warrants.
5) “Three traditions” (of International Relations): what are the “Three traditions” (of International Studies)?
- Realism 2. Rationalism 3. Revolutionism
6) The functions of social science according to Fred Halliday;
- Training of the mind
- production and transmission of the body of the theory
- provide knowledge that is pertinent to the resolution of contemporary issues
- to train in a particular area of professional expertise and to prepare students for working
7) International Studies after the end of the Cold War according to Fred Halliday;
Main events:
- Collapse of Soviet Union
- Its consequences.
Changes in IS:
- A new range of practical issues like nationalism, migration, proliferation, secession among them.
- An emphasis on ethical and humanitarian issues
- A theoretical problem of prediction: the social science should explain more but not predict.
Important issues:
●Right of nations to self- determination, and the conditions under which the international community recognizes such a right.
●Conflict between great powers ( Military conflict between great powers is neither taking place nor being prepared for)
8) Martin Wight;
Martin Wight (1913-1972) was one of the most influential British international theorists of the twentieth century. He explains his approach to the study of international theory in his lectures at University of Chicago and the London School of Economics, in which he conceived of his ‘three traditions’ of Grotian, Kantian and Machiavellian theory, and his later work, including the famous essay ‘Why is there no International Theory? (1960).
He classified international relations theories as realism, revolutionism and .rationalism. Hedley Bull renamed these traditions. Bull based on analysis of Wight’s three traditions his own institution.
9) “Why there is no International Theory?”
“Why there is no International Theory?” is a famous essay written by Martin Wight in 1960. According to Wight, International Relations has no distinct theory that can be uniquely applied to the subject area. It is pertinent that Wight believes there must be an academic study of IR, and seems unable to justify the separate schools of thought, through historical, legal and philosophical as acceptable for the subject.
Wight argues that it is no accident that International Relations has never been the subject of any great theoretical work, that there is ‘a kind of disharmony between international theory and diplomatic practice, a kind of recalcitrance of international politics to being theorised about’. He notes that the only acknowledged classic of International Relations—Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War—is a work not of theory but of history.
Wight was simply ahead of his time, and that the theorising of International Relations was already in existence, but that it was simply too obtuse in nature, and thus not a simple consideration of the international system meeting a set of political criteria
10) Difference between political theory and international theory according to M.Wight;
1)By “international theory” is meant a tradition of speculation about relations between States, a tradition imagined as the twin of speculation about the State to which the name “political theory” is appropriated.
2)Political theory, of course, concerns the doings of – and within – the state.
3)If political theory is the tradition of speculation about the State, then international theory may be supposed to be a tradition of speculation about the society of States, or the family of nations, or the international community. And speculation of this kind was formerly comprehended under International Law. (Choose the one which is easier to understand)
4)Wight infers that the political theories used to analyse how states work, and the political systems that inhibit them, has an inappropriate methodology to be applied within a larger context(about International doings).
11) Four kinds of writing where International Theory could be found according to M.Wight;
Where else is international theory found? The answer in four kinds of writing:
- The irenists-Erasmus, Sully, Campanella, Cruce, Penn, the Abb de St. Pierre, and Pierre-Andr Gargaz.
–Melian Stewall wrote a book on The Growth of International Thought mention the problem of how to secure common action between sovereign States
- The Machiavellians: the succession of writers on raison d’etat
- The parerga of political philosophers and historians.
–Hume’s Essay on; The Balance of Power, Rousseau’s Project of Perpetual Peace, Bentham’s Plan for an Universal Peace, Burke’s Thoughts on French Affairs and Letters on a Regicide Peace, Ranke’s essay on the Great Powers, and J. S. Mill’s essay on the law of nations.
- The speeches, despatches, memoirs and essays of statesmen and diplomatists.
–International theory, is scattered, unsystematic, and inaccessible to
the layman.
–Grotins has to be read at large to be understood; the only possible extract is the Prolegomena. Students cannot be expected to tackle Pufendorf’s De jure naturae et gentium libri octo.
12) Revolutionists (according to M.Wight);
Revolutionists: > society states/ international society
–Defined as: believing in the moral unity of states & identifying with it.
–3 types of Revolutionists:
- Religious revolutionists 16th & 17th century.
- French revolutionists (Jacobins): Europe was divided into two camps> revolution versus conservatives.
–Revolution is close to radicalism
- Totalitarian revolutionists
–Missionary Character: key distinguishment of western culture versus others
–it is great b/c changing of the world became an integral part of its cultural ideal
–there is some affiliation between the totalitarians of the twentieth century and the French Revolutionists
–Revolutions are connected through history (revolutionists often get their ideas from history).
–It is characteristic of Revolutionism to deny its past, to try to start from scratch, to jump out of history and begin again. And when it is compelled to come to terms with its own past.
–Revolutionism: about radical change in IR. Have values as a foundation. Idea is: need to change current situation. Reject old values of previous generation and construct something on the basis on your values.
13) Rationalists (according to M.Wight);
Rationalists: focus on international intercourse.
–believe in the value of, the element of international intercourse in a condition predominantly of international Anarchy
–Rationalism is the theory that reason is a source of knowledge. in itself, superior to and independent of sense perceptions
–‘How do we obtain knowledge?’ Rationalism described the view that reason itself can provide us with philosophical knowledge which is true knowledge.
–The empiricists, such as Locke, Berkeley and Hume, answered the question ‘How do we obtain knowledge?’ by saying, ‘through observation and sense-experience’
–Locke’s premise: men are reasonable, and that they live together according to reason even when they have no common government, as in the condition of international relations.
–Rationalism: reasoning with policy, law, diplomacy, tool used by actors. dealing with current norms, you don’t reject them you accept them. Compared to positivism: use academic approach rationalism combined it and produce knowledge on IR (scientific & empiricism).
14) Realists (according to M.Wight);
Realists: > Internal anarchy.
–emphasize in international relations the element of anarchy, of power politics, and of warfare.
–Realism: the research of what is real, what is reality.
–The frank acceptance of the disagreeable side of life
–It concentrates on the actual, what is, rather than the ideal, or what ought to be; on facts rather than obligations. It appeals to the inductive method rather than to a priori reasoning.
–Three ‘scientific’ underline the Realist tradition; are the 1. mechanistic, 2. the biological, and 3. the psychological.
–International Realism describes IR in sociological terms; international rationalism, teleological terms; International revolutionism, in ethical & prescriptive terms
Realism or Machievellianism/Hobbesianism – which says there is no international society, just power politics in international relations, where the pursuit of power is the aim of states. Realism establishes analogy with domestic policy. Relationship between states is defined state of nature or state of war by Realists. For the Machievellians, who included such figures as Hegel,Hobbes etc.. the true description of international politics was that it was international anarchy, a war of al lor relationship of pure conflict among the sovereign states. –to the central question of the theory of international relations- ‘what is the nature of ınternational society?’. The Machievellians give the answer ; there is no international society ; what purports to be international society. The of international law ,the mechanism of diplomacy is fictitious. For them, anarchy condition of international relations do not allage to end with a social contract, truth definition of international relations is anarchy of international in this tradition. Realists are explained by Hobbes’ state of nature/social contract. Nevertheless, it was for each states or ruler to pursue its own intrest. (Camilo added it)
15) The first phase of International Relations Theory according to T.Knutsen;
When did scholars and statesmen begin to study sovereign states and speculate about the nature of their interaction?
Phases in the development of International Relations theory.
- The emergence of the basic concepts of its discourse.
–An age where Renaissance discoveries in space (the Americas) and time (Greek and Roman cultures) altered the traditional conceptions of world geography and history.
–also the Reformation challenged the Medieval outlook upon which these old conceptions rested.
–During this era that the key concepts of International Relations theorizing, such as ‘state’ and ‘sovereignty’, found their first definitions.
–Major contributors to this formative first phase were Iberian lawyers like Vitoria and Italian historians and civil servants like Machiavelli and Guicciardini.
16) The second phase of International Relations Theory according to T.Knutsen;//Irina
The second main phase involves the continued discussion of basic concepts of the 1st phase(Medieval views of Machiavelli, Vitoria etc..) and their inclusion in larger, explanatory frameworks.
–Began since the final stage of Religious Wars until the end of 19th century.
–The basic legal and historical concepts of the first phase were synthesized into larger, secular systems of thought
Main representatives:
–Jean Bodin (clarification of the ‘sovereignty’ concept, initiated a discussion of the interaction between sovereign actors. No supreme body exists above princes => princes have to keep their promises.)
–Thomas Hobbes ( applied the concept of a social contract to describe relations between princes;he was the first to use the concept of a pre-contractual state of nature as an analogy to interstate relations)
–Other authors developed visions in which international interaction was seen as interaction between rational individuals (Emeric Cruce, Pierre. J. Bentham etc.)
–Hugo Grotius (depicted international interaction as an anarchic activity; it could be much improved by the acceptance of a codex of international law built on human reason, common interest and past habits of peaceful interaction.
17) The third phase of International Relations Theory according to T.Knutsen;
A third major phase of International Relations theory emerged around 1900.
–the study of International Relations emerged as an academic discipline
–After WWI: Idealism was the primary theory.
–After the WWII: the realism became the dominant perspective of view until 1970 (BUT IR theory still looked like a fragmented field, split among various basic principles. )
–Since 1970, the study of International Relations has been torn among an increasing variety of competing approaches.
–During the 1980s and especially after the Cold War, the discipline has grown more fractured and fragmented than ever.
18) Hedley Bull- was Professor of International Relations at the Australian National University, the London School of Economics. One of the prominent scientists of English School. Realist. Was the director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Unit of the British Foreign Office.
Worked as a professor of international relations at the Australian National University.
In 1977, Bull published his main work, The Anarchical Society.
19) “The Theory of International Politics, 1919-1969” (H. Bull);
One of the most prominent works of H Bull on IR Theory. The author provides the 3 wave view on the IR Theory:
about 3 waves , 20th question
20) Three successive waves of theoretical activity, 1919-1969: participants, major theoretical assumptions, research agenda, time (according to H.Bull);
1)1919-until mid-late 30s
Participants: Sir Alfred Zimmern, S. H. Bailey, Philip Noel-Baker, and David Mitrany in the United Kingdom, and James T. Shotwell, Pitman Potter, and Parker T. Moon in the United States;
Assump.:
–belief in progress(the world can be transformed into a fundamentally more peaceful and just world order)
–Responsibility of IR students to assist this march of progress to overcome the ignorance, the prejudices, the ill will, and the sinister interests
Research agenda:
–collective security
–International organizations
–development of international law
–establishment of an international police force
–problem of disarmament
–international morality,
2)Late 30s-early 50s –
Participants: E. H. Carr, F. A. Voigt, Georg Schwarzenberg; Martin Wight; Herbert Butterfield; Nicholas Spykman; Reinhold Niebuhr, Hans Morgenthau; George F.Kennan
Assump.:
–power politics as the law of all international life
–argument for treating the national interest as the principal standard of reference in determining what a country’s foreign policy should be
–the statesman who seeks to defend the national interest is better able to recognize and respect the different interests of other nations
–their explanation of international life in terms of permanent laws and cyclical patterns
Research ag.:
–national interests
–geopolitics
3)late 1950s and 1960s –
Participants:
–Morton Kaplan; Thomas Schelling; Kenneth Boulding; Herman Kahn; Anatol Rapoport; Albert Wohlstetter; Karl Deutsch
Assump.:
–the use of natural sciences and the ‘harder’ social sciences for methodological guidance may provide better discussion of the IR
–the concept of power is important but not the central one
–All the assumptions on IR should pass the scientific verification
Research ag.:
–strategic and arms control policy
–international political communities, groups
–military or security policy
–different methods of studying IR
21) Barry Buzan;
Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics and honorary professor at the University of Copenhagen and Jilin University. British-Canadian political scientist, specialist in the field of international relations, developer of the theory of the regional security complex, one of the founding fathers of the Copenhagen School of Studies. Buzan defines his interests as:
1.the conceptual and regional aspects of international security;
2.international history, and the evolution of the international system since prehistory;
3.international relations theory, particularly structural realism;
4.international society, and the ‘English School‘ approach to International Relations.
22) English school theory;
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. Hedley Bull, one of the core figures of the English school, agreed with the traditional theories that the international system was anarchic. However, he insisted that this does not imply there are no norms (expected behaviours), thus claiming there is a societal aspect to international politics.
Two core elements define the distinctiveness of the English School: its three concepts (intern-system, intern-society, world society) + its theoretically pluralist approach. Within the English school discourse, these are sometimes codified as Hobbes (or sometimes Machiavelli), Grotius and Kant (Cutler 1991). They line up with Wight’s (1991) ‘three traditions’ of IR theory: Realism, Rationalism and Revolutionism. Broadly speaking, these terms are now understood as follows:
–International system (Hobbes/Machiavelli/realism) is about power politics amongst states, and puts the structure and process of international anarchy at the centre of IR theory
–International society (Grotius/rationalism) is about the institutionalisation of shared interest and identity amongst states, and puts the creation and maintenance of shared norms, rules and institutions at the centre of IR theory
–World society (Kant/revolutionism) takes individuals, non-state organisations and ultimately the global population as a whole as the focus of global societal identities and arrangements, and puts transcendence of the states-system at the centre of IR theory
the main thrust of the English school’s work has been to uncover the nature and function of international societies, and to trace their history and development.The main focus of English school work has centred on a synthesis of realism and rationalism.
The three key concepts thus generate the second distinctive feature of the English school, its theoretical pluralism. The English school should be seen not just as a series of ontological statements about reality, but more as a pluralist methodological approach.
All three elements always operate simultaneously, but also that each carries its own distinctive ontological and epistemological package.
23) The main areas of weakness in English school theory (according to B.Buzan);[1]
First is that the English school needs to clarify the nature of its own claim to the idea in relation to the claims of others using the concept = weak development of the concept.
Second is that English school theory itself cannot develop until the weak world society pillar is brought up to strength.
Third, the English school still needs to sort out the concept, partly in order to come to a judgement on the matter, and partly to move to completion in the development of its distinctive theoretical approach.It is connected with an opportunity to use English school theory to clarify the perennially unfocused, but politically central, debate about globalisation.
Other minuses:
–a number of narrow channels that have slowed the development of the theory (they did not develop some facts)
–some of the English school’s founding fathers allowed their normative concerns with human rights to distort their theoretical reflections; The emphasis on universalism + on the high politics issues of human rights and (non)-intervention
The areas of concern about the existing opus of English school theory can be organised under five headings:
–levels (the missing element is sub-global or regional)
–sectors (the missing element is the economy)
*Perhaps the main explanation is simple disinterest and lack of knowledge about the economy among the founding fathers
–boundaries (between Hobbesianism, Crotianism and Kantianism)
–normative conflicts (There are two linked normative conflicts within the English school. One is between advocates of pluralist and solidarist conceptions of international society, and the other is between states’ rights, or international society, and individual rights or world society. The essence of the matter is whether individual rights/world society necessarily conflict with states’ rights/international society, or can be in harmony with them, an issue with some close connections to the debates in political theory between cosmopolitans and communitarians. It is because of the ambiguity between international and world society)
–and methodology (There are two problems here: first, the lack of any sustained attempt to construct a typology of international or world societies; and second, a lack of clarity in setting out exactly what is entailed in the theoretical pluralism underpinning English school theory).
*The reasons that the English school has not developed a typology of international societies are not difficult to see. Because the school’s mainstream writers locked themselves into concern with the single, global, modern international society; chose not to look at the regional level; and failed to consider economic developments; they did not have much reason to be interested in differentiating types
24) The issues discussed during the ‘first debate’;
the first great debate ( ‘foundational myth of the field’), was between the interwar ‘idealists’ and the postwar ‘realists’ (1930s-1949). The realists won the first debate and reoriented the field in a more practical and scientific direction.
HOW TO STUDY IRs, its nature!
Realists scholars emphasized the anarchical nature of international politics and the need for state survival. Idealists emphasized the possibility of international institutions such as the League of Nations. However, some have argued that defining the debate between realism and idealism in terms of a great debate is a misleading caricature and so described the “great debate” as a myth.
For idealists, ignorance and misunderstanding were the main source of conflict, therefore, to ensure control over them, it is necessary to develop a deeper understanding of international processes. Idealists believed that progress is possible only if people can develop and use the mind to control the irrational desires and weaknesses that infect humans.
The pinnacle of human reason in serving effective control was science. Such thinking led to the creation of an academic department of international politics located at the University of Aberystwyth, Wales. The purpose of the new discipline was to acquire knowledge that
could be used to strengthen peace. Although the idealists never clearly articulated what they mean by science, they were committed to creating practical scientific knowledge.
The lack of a clear statement of the definition of international relations as a “science” in the first years of the existence of the discipline was understandable, given that the philosophy of science itself has not yet been fully established as an academic field of knowledge. However, representatives of the school of realists disputed the conclusions of the idealists, casting doubt on their “scientific character.” Realists such as E.H. Carr and H. Morgenthau accused idealists of focusing on how the world should be and not on how it is objectively structured. E.H. Carr came to the conclusion that the difference between realism and idealism is similar to the difference between science and alchemy.
The first question was about how to organize international relations, the nature of which the idealists and realists understood very differently. The second and more significant issue, despite the limited nature of the first debate, was the discussion of the status of the theory of international relations as a scientific discipline, which became the main issue in the next debate between idealists and realists, which took place after the end of World War II.
25) Major theoretical assumptions of idealism;
– Power politics (optimistic view)
– States – international actors
– Interstate relations (not permanent but possible to change)
– Inter. Cooperation is possible and desirable
– Any cooperation can prevent inter conflicts (economic cooperation – Mitrany)
– National interests, capitalist interest vs human needs
– Possibility of a better world order (international law)
States must be more calm than violent to make IR more progressive
26) Woodrow Wilson;
28 US President
(1913—1921) – Theoretical idealist (also from the lecture)
Peace settlement after WWI (Versailles conference).
Wilson was awarded the 1919 Nobel Peace Prize.
He was the leading architect of the League of Nations.
His famous speech 14 points to a joint session of the US Congress January 8, 1918.
His ideas: improving the world (Polish independence, international law, free navigation), criticized the Europeans for their open diplomacy.
27) Major theoretical assumptions of W. Wilson;
Theoretical idealist
Major principles:
– International relations = society of
states
– Community interests
– Use of force for community
interests
Major elements of the order in the
society of states:
– International Law
– Open Diplomacy
He is not a theorist, but he actually provides the ideas of establishment of states, establishment of national interests of the US. It is controversial is he provide theoretical basis, but it’s a vision of IR (the improvement of world order).
28) W.Wilson about nation states;
A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the population concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.
All the territories which were occupied should be evacuated and restored without any attempt to limit their sovereignty. He wished to see all the nations safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity of autonomous development.
29) W.Wilson about economic issues;
The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations.
Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants.
30) W.Wilson about international organizations;
He is one of the founders of the League of Nations and for this idea he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1919. Considering the principle of international law, Wilson emphasized that every country, large or small, has the right to sovereignty. International law must guarantee the territorial integrity and political independence of the countries of the League of Nations.
31) W.Wilson about diplomacy; //Nikita I.
1)All the agreements should be opened to public and no private international action or ruling may exist. Diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.
32) Alfred Zimmern;
1924 > “Fundamental idealism of the British people
was an English scholar, historian writing on international relations. Idealist.
Held the chair of international relations at the University of Wales-Aberystwyth.
Contributed to creation of Chatham House. Worked in League of Nations(dep. director of the Leagues’s Institute of Intellectual Cooperation in Paris) and then in UNESCO
Famous for his book “The League of Nations and the Rule of Law”
33) Major theoretical assumptions of Alfred Zimmern;(acc. to the Lectures)
1. Progressive development of IR is possible (old order, period of transition, new order – rule of law in IR, Responsibility-Politics, cooperation between states)
2. Latent hegemony of interests between the states (no natural or necessary conflict of interests between the states, sense of community interest to prevent violation of international law and threats to peace)
3. Rule of law and dependence on international society (differences between the states should be settled on the principle of rule of law)
4. Notion of international society (but no universal international society)
5.Everything should be conducted through the Law
34) “The League of Nations and the Rule of Law, 1918-1935”;
1)Written in 1936, the book explains the major changes happened after the WWI which LoN introduced.
2)The author gives a brief review of the prewar system as well as of the organization and history of the League. He stresses the fact that in the postwar period the old and the new systems have existed side by side, leaving the problem of adjustment for the future.
The author also tries to make a better understanding of the LoN, to clarify its name, what, in fact, it is and to provide the challenges standing behind this organization.
35) Why A.Zimmern considered the name of the League of Nations as misleading? //Nikita I.
1)It’s not “the League” itself. suggests common action against some other party or group or cause. It implies a certain exclusiveness, derived from a common attachment to certain particular principles or doctrines. But, on contrary, the main idea of the League is inclusiveness.
2)It does not consist of “nations”. The term “Nations” here misrepresent the current membership of the League. The members of the Leagua are states. The membership “has nothing to do with nationality.”
36) What is the League of Nations in comparison with super-state and alliance (according to A.Zimmern)?
It is not a ‘Super-state‘: because all sovereign states and people agreed on it in the Covenant.
It is not an Alliance: An alliance is an exclusive relationship between two or more parties against others. it carries with it a private and intimate character.To be everybody’s ally is to be nobody’s ally.
The League, in fact, lies in an intermediate zone between these two extremes. Or, it swings between these two poles, drawing nearer sometimes to the one, sometimes to the other, but never remaining fixed. It is ‘not a super-state’ but ‘akin rather to an Association or Trade Union or Co-operative Society of States.
37) The League of Nations as an instrument of cooperation (according to A.Zimmern);
When the League is presented as a method or system of interstate cooperation it must never be forgotten that the amount ami character of this cooperation are constantly changing— not only from year to year but in times of critfis even from month to month. The League of Nations has been neatly defined by a close observer as ‘the maximum of cooperation between governments at any given moment’. There have indeed been moments within the last fifteen years when the available, maximum was very small indeed when therefore, for the time being, the League had almost ceased to exist as a going concern. Nevertheless its organisation remained unchanged: for an organisation cannot expand or shrink automatically according to the increase or decrease of the business entrusted to it. International trade, for instance, diminished in volume by two-thirds between 1929 and 1933: but this did not involve a corresponding diminution of the League’s financial and economic organisation: on the contrary, it rendered this branch of the League’s work even, more necessary than before.
38) Transformation of Power-politics into Responsibility-politics (according to A.Zimmern);
The process of dovetailing or codification or synthesis carried through in the letter of the Covenant assumes a new spirit in the whole field of international politics. It presupposes a transformation of Power-politics into Responsibility-politics, or, at the very least, a sincere and consistent effort on the part of the Great Powers to begin to face the innumerable tasks of adjustment which such a transformation would carry with it. It involves the inauguration of a real Society of States in place of the anti-social traditions and policies of the pre-war era. And it tacitly admits that, failing the adoption of such a new attitude, the new machinery not only cannot by itself bring about the passing of Power-politics, but may even provide a new and more sensational and even dangerous arena for its exercise.
39) Old diplomacy vs new diplomacy (according to Zimmern)
40) David Mitrany;
David Mitrany (1888–1975), British academic, historian and political theorist. IR scholar. He is considered as the creator of the theory of functionalism in international relations, also classified as a part of liberal institutionalism. He is anti-federalist who claims for functional agencies. The working peace system was built around international agencies. They had functional responsibilities in managing those problems for which there was a consensus to cooperate.
A working peace system – An argument for the functional development of International organizations (1943)
41) D.Mitrany about the League of Nations;
1)Some blamed the failure of the League of Nations on the irresponsibility of small states; others rather the egoism of the Great Powers.
2)others imputed the League’s failure more directly to weaknesses in its own constitution and machinery: the proper ingredients were there, but the political dosage was inadequate.
3) The Covenant of the League was concerned above all with fixing in a definite way the formal relationship of the member states and in a measure also of non-members, and only in a very secondary way with initiating positive common activities and action. The great expectation, security, was a vital action, but a negative one; its end was not to promote the active regular life of the peoples but only to protect it against being disturbed.
4) it was given a formal authority and promissory tasks for the future, while the immediate, urgent tasks of social reconstruction and reform were left to be attended to by national agencies.
42) D.Mitrany about federalism;
1)He saw the division of the world into “competing political units” as the root of international conflict. A world federal government would eliminate these divisions but would be impossible to establish given the modern “disregard for constitutions and pacts” and continuing nationalism.
2)Federation seemed indeed the only alternative to a League tried so far for linking together a number of political units by democratic methods. Federation would be a more intensive union of a less extensive group; the constitutional ties would be closer.
3)Federations have still been national federations; the jump from national states to international organization is infinitely more hazardous than was the jump from provincial units to national federations.
Any political reorganization into separate units must sooner or later produce the same effects. There are only 2 ways to achieve: one would be through a world state which would wipe out political divisions forcibly; the other one is the fundamental change to which any effective international system must aspire and contribute: to make international government coextensive with international activities.
The stays of political federation were needed when life was more local and international activities still loose.
The federation would solve those problems that LoN couldn’t resolve itself.
43) D.Mitrany about nation states;
Mitrany was far less sanguine about the value of the state and its institutions, reflecting an anarchic streak that led him to distrust political authority.
At many points the life of the nation state is overflowing back into that common world which existed before the rise of modern nationalism. The function of the nineteenth century was to restrain the powers of authority; that led to the creation of the “political man” and likewise of the “political nation,” and to the definition through constitutional pacts of their relation to the wider political group.
Because of the legalistic structure of the state and of our political outlook, which treat national and international society as two different worlds, social nature has not had a chance so far to take its course.
●Nation state is not a final result of political development, it could be further developed.
●Nation state is a limiting factor preventing international innovation.
44) Functional cooperation according to D.Mitrany: areas for cooperation, functional organizations, logic of functional cooperation;
Functional integration would be rational, pragmatic, technocratic and flexible. As functional agencies were formed and joined, national divisions would become less and less important.
Functional arrangements could be accepted, that is, because in many fields the federal states had grown in the habit of working together.
The functional coordination areas: production, economy, security, trade, distribution, railway systems, shipping, aviation and broadcasting…
Each functional agency could work by itself, but that does not exclude the possibility of some of them or all being bound in some way together, if it should be found needful or useful to do so.
45) Major theoretical assumptions of functionalism (David Mitrany);
According to functionalism, international integration – the collective governance and ‘material interdependence’ between states – develops its own internal dynamic as states integrate in limited functional, technical, and/or economic areas. International agencies would meet human needs, aided by knowledge and expertise.
The functional dimensions determine its appropriate organs. The function determines the executive instrument suitable for its proper activity and by the same process provides a need for the reform of the instrument at every stage.
The central view of the functional approach is that political authority is not essential for our greatest and real immediate needs. The elements of a functional system could begin to work without a general political authority, but a political authority without active social functions would remain an empty temple.
Economic areas do not always run with political areas. It is unnecessary to lock up the territory.
●Existence of powerful state interests – Federalism is utopia
●Distrust of universal principles such as human or an abstract justice
●Materialist approach, basing his argument on the concept of human needs
●Solution – Functionalism – an alternative that was compatible with the power relations as they currently existed
46) “A Working Peace System”
During World War 1, The result of his reflection was a pamphlet entitled A Working Peace System, which he published in London in the summer of 1943.
Mitrany argued for a transformation of the way people think about international relations, particularly the prevention of war. His “functional alternative” aimed at world, not European, unity.
Mitrany called for a functional approach. Functional integration would be pragmatic; it would deliberately blur distinctions between national and international, public and private, and political and nonpolitical. As functional agencies were formed and joined, national divisions would become less and less important. Ultimately, a central authority might coordinate the various agencies, but such a government would not be necessary to successful international relations, and might not be desirable.
●Technocratic approach to governance
●Multiple international agencies with particular functions
●Priority of human needs or public welfare: establishment of international agencies to perform the necessary function.
●“Form follows function” idea (functionalism)
47) Louis B. Sohn;
Louis Bruno Sohn (Idealist) – US Lawyer. Harvard university professor, studied international law and institutions, participated in the San Francisco Conference that established the United Nations. A professor of international law who helped draft parts of the United Nations Charter in 1945 and was a leader in subsequent efforts to turn the United Nations into a true world government.
●World peace through World law (first edition in 1958)
●Disarmament
●International Institutions
●International regulation to prevent new military conflicts and wars
●UN reform, including UN General Assembly voting procedures
●Military and police forces on international level
He called for the creation of a permanent United Nations peace force. He wanted nations with nuclear arsenals to hand them over to the United Nations and use their military budgets for relieving poverty.
He is also considered a founding father of two fields of international law: human rights law and international environmental law.
48) Enforcement of the United Nations (according to Louis B. Sohn);
Acc, to “World Peace Through World Law”, 1958 that proposed a Revised United Nations Charter. Some of their suggestions included the following:
·Allocating votes in the UN General Assembly based on the populations of member nations;
·Replacing the UN Security Council with an Executive Council with China, India, USSR, and the U.S. as permanent members, and no veto power; and
·Making a World Police Force that would become the only military force permitted in the world.
Plus in his work The Authority of the UN to Establish and Maintain a permanent UN Force he says about crucial Security Council positions. The same with General Assembly but it is necessary to make clear that no recommendation of the General Assembly binds a Member State and that any Member State can refuse to comply with a recommendation that it contribute personnel, arms, bases or assistance to a U.N. Force.
++ possibility to compose the UN Forces of member states military forces.
49) Hans Morgenthau;
Hans Morgenthau, American political scientist, representative of Political Realism and historian noted as a leading analyst of the role of power in international politics.
Lawyer, IR scholar (University of Chicago)
Politics Among Nations (1948) – six principles of political realism
●Distinction between national and international politics (among nations), but ‘ all politics is struggle for power’
●No rules for this struggle on the international level
●Military power and military alliances – can prevent conflicts
++ His work Politics Among Nations which principles and characteristics are given in the next question 50) “Politics Among Nations” and 52) Major theoretical assumptions of realism/6 principles of realism.
Morgenthau’s main contribution was in providing a framework for understanding foreign policy. He translated a European understanding of politics and foreign policy to fit the American experience. He defended the uniqueness of American democracy while emphasizing its enduring moral and political foundations. He applied his realist philosophy to problems such as human rights, stressing the need for prudence and practical morality. He tried to explain the interconnection and tensions between abstract moral principles and political necessities in world politics.
50) “Politics Among Nations”;
In 1948 Morgenthau published Politics Among Nations that presented what became commonly known as the classical realist approach to international politics. Politics Among Nations (1948) – six principles of political realism. With Politics Among Nations Morgenthau sought to define the core principles of politics and international politics.
In this work, he maintained that politics is governed by distinct immutable laws of nature and that states could deduce rational and objectively correct actions from an understanding of these laws. Central to Morgenthau’s theory was the concept of power and the definition of national interest in terms of power. His state-centred approach, which refused to identify the moral aspirations of a state. He called for recognition of the nature and limits of power and for the use of traditional methods of diplomacy, including compromise.
++ 6 principles (question 52)
51) Importance of theory to explain international politics (according to H. Morgenthau);
In international politics, power is the central content of national interests.No matter what the ultimate goal of international politics is, power is always the most direct goal. The relationship between power and national interests is not only theoretical analysis, but also the basic content of political events.
The relationship between power and national interests is not only theoretical analysis, but also the basic content of political practice. In international politics, the most important fact is the concept of interests expressed in terms of power. Each country conducts political activities in its own interests.
52) Major theoretical assumptions of realism/6 principles of realism;
1. Political realism believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature.
2. The main signpost of political realism is the concept of interest defined in terms of power, which infuses rational order into the subject matter of politics..Political realism avoids concerns with the motives and ideology of statesmen. A good foreign policy minimizes risks and maximizes benefits.
3. Realism recognizes that the determining kind of interest varies depending on the political and cultural context in which foreign policy, not to be confused with a theory of international politics, is made. It does not give “interest defined as power” a meaning that is fixed once and for all.
4. Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political action. It is also aware of the tension between the moral command and the requirements of successful political action. Realism maintains that universal moral principles must be filtered through the concrete circumstances of time and place, because they cannot be applied to the actions of states in their abstract universal formulation.
5. Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe.
6. The political realist maintains the autonomy of the political sphere; the statesman asks “How does this policy affect the power and interests of the nation?” Political realism is based on a pluralistic conception of human nature. The political realist must show where the nation’s interests differ from the moralistic and legalistic viewpoints.
53) National interests (realist interpretation);
Morgenthau has put forward a clear definition of the concept of national interest, which he said should include three important aspects: territorial integrity, national sovereignty and cultural integrity. In his view, of these three aspects, the most essential issue is the survival of a country, the rest are secondary issues. Waltz, representative of the school of structural realism, analyzed the system structure in a minimalist mode and concluded that survival is the only interest of the country.
54) Power politics (realist interpretation);
Whatever the purpose of international politics, power is the most immediate goal. Every nation, so long as it is strong enough, cannot fail to seek power. From a perspective, any country that pursues power must serve its national interests, and power is only a means to realize national interests.
55) International Politics as a special area for research;
//First ed. undeleted and corrected
1. The first is to detect and understand the forces that determine political relations among nations, and to comprehend the ways in which those act upon each other and upon international political relations and institutions.
2. In most other branches of the social sciences this purpose would be taken for granted, because the natural aim of all scientific undertaking is to discover the forces underlying social phenomena and the mode of their operation.
Limitations to understanding
1. Most formidable difficult facing a theoretical inquiry into the nature and ways of international political is the ambiguity of the material with which the observer has to deal. The events he must try to understand are, on the one hand, unique occurrences. They happened in this way only once and never before or since.
2. They try are similar,for they are manifestations of social forces. Social forces are the product of human nature in action.
Understanding the problem of international pace
1. No study of political, and certainly no study of international politics in the last third of the twentieth century, can be disinterested in the sense that it is able to divorce knowledge from action and to pursue knowledge for its own sake.
2. International politics is no longer, as it was for the US during most of its history, a series of incidents, costly or rewarding, but hardly calling into question the nation’s very existence and destiny.
//Added by Reagan
1. The multiple-state system of past ,whose center was in Europe,has been replaced by a world-wide, bipolar system, whose centers lie outside Europe.
2. The moral unity of the political world, which has been split into two incompatible systems of thought and action, competing everywhere for the allegiance of men.
3. Modern technology has made possible total war resulting in universal destruction.
The preponderance of these three new elements in contemporary international politics has not only made the preservation of world peace extremely difficult, but has also increased the risks inherent in war to the point where all-out nuclear war becomes a self-defeating absurdity.
56) Knowledge of human nature to explain international politics;
–peoples «lives are determined» by cruelty, brutish egotism and unconstrained passion that is directed by insecurity and fear”.
–This egoistic human nature, results in a war of “every man against every man”. There are no constrain it`s on an individual`s behavior: Anyone may use force at any time.
–Driven by fear, everyone is suspicious of another and likely to engage in pre-emptive actions to ensure the own survival.
–By transferring their power onto the state, individuals escaped a civil war of everyone against everyone, but wars between states still remain inevitably.
Classical realism is based on the assumption of , egoistic and power-driven human nature that can only be overcome by the nature of state which has the monopoly of power to protect its citizens from each other. However, the shift of conflict from the individual onto the state level merely means that the Hobbes in War of all against all is transferred to the international level.
57) Moral principles (realist interpretation);
–Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political action.
–Realism maintains that universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in their abstract universal formulation, but that they must be filtered through the concrete circumstances of time and place.
–The state has no right to let its moral disapprobation of political action, itself inspired by the moral principle of national survival.
– Realism, then, considers prudence to be the supreme virtue in politics.
–Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe.
58) Tension between moral command and requirement of successful political actions (realist interpretation);
Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political action. It is also aware of the ineluctable tension between the moral command and the requirements of successful political action.
Realism maintains that universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in their abstract universal formulation, but that they must be filtered through the concrete circumstances of time and place. The individual may say for himself: “Fiat justitia, pereat mundus (Let justice be done, even if the world perish),” but the state has no right to say so in the name of those who are in its care. Both individual and state must judge political action by universal moral principles, such as that of liberty. Yet while the individual has a moral right to sacrifice himself in defense of such a moral principle, the state has no right to let its moral disapprobation of the infringement of liberty get in the way of successful political action, itself inspired by the moral principle of national survival. There can be no political morality without prudence; that is, without consideration of the political consequences of seemingly moral action. Realism, then, considers prudence-the weighing of the consequences of alternative political actions-to be the supreme virtue in politics. Ethics in the abstract judges action by its conformity with the moral law; political ethics judges action by its political consequences.
Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe. As it distinguishes between truth and opinion, so it distinguishes between truth and idolatry.
59) Truth and opinion (realist interpretation);
Truth is a thing that objectively and rationally supported by evidence and illuminated by reason.
Opinion is a subjective judgment what is only, divorced from the facts as they are and informed by prejudice and wishful thinking.
60) Edward H. Carr;
Edward Carr was an English historian, diplomat, journalist and international relations theorist. In 1936, Carr became the Professor at the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, and is particularly known for his contribution on international relations theory.
In The Twenty Year’s Crisis, Carr divided thinkers on international relations into two schools, which he labelled the realists and the utopians.
●Distinction between the utopian and realist phase in the development of a science
●The utopian phase: the dominance of aspirations over a hard-nosed understanding of the world, a sign of immaturity
●The realist phase: the mark of a mature science is when it stops thinking in absolutes and regards each issue is complex.
In Carr’s opinion, the entire international order constructed at Versailles was flawed and the League was a hopeless dream that could never do anything practical.
Carr contributed to the foundation of what is now known as classical realism in International relations theory.
61) Major points of critique of idealism by representatives of realism;
→ Pay little attention to facts and analysis of cause and effect devoting their energies instead to the elaboration of visionary projects for the attainment of ends which they have in view
→ Underestimate the role of power in international politics, and overestimate the role, actual and potential, of morality, law, public opinion, and other “non material” sanctions
→ Fail to appreciate the self-interested character of their thought
62) Idealism according to E.H.Carr;
●The utopian phase: the dominance of aspirations over a hard-nosed understanding of the world, a sign of immaturity
Utopia:
– free will – possibility to reject reality and the causal sequence
– theory is more important ( theory is a norm to which reality should correspond)
– intellectual – general principles reality
– left (radical)
– ethics (independent of politics)
63) Realism according to E.H. Carr;
●The realist phase: the mark of a mature science is when it stops thinking in absolutes and regards each issue is complex.
Reality:
– Determinism (necessity to face reality and accept causal sequence)
– Practice is more important (theory is a way to codify practice)
– Bureaucrat (empirical approach)
– Right (conservative)
– Politics (ethics interpreted in terms of politics)
64) “The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939”;
The text is considered a classic in international relations theory, and is often dubbed one of the first modern realist texts. Carr’s analysis begins with the optimism that followed World War I, as embodied in the League of Nations declarations and various international treaties aimed at the permanent prevention of military conflict.
He proceeds to demonstrate how rational, well-conceived ideas of peace and cooperation among states were undermined in short order by the realities of chaos and insecurity in the international realm. By assessing the military, economic, ideological, and juridical facets and applications of power, Carr brings harsh criticism to bear on utopian theorists.
At the end of The Twenty Years’ Crisis, he actually advocates for the role of morality in international politics, and suggests that unmitigated Realism amounts to a dismal defeatism which we can ill afford.
He concludes his discussion by suggesting that “elegant superstructures” such as the League of Nations “must wait until some progress has been made in digging the foundations”
●E. H. Carr, The twenty Year’s Crisis (1939)
●Considerations about science of international politics:
●Beginning of a science: WWI
●Before it: ‘No general desire to take the conduct of international affairs out of the hands of the professionals or even to pay serious and systematic attention to what there were doing’
●> popularisation of international politics: new science.
65) 3 categories of political power according to realism;
1)Military
2)Economic
3)Over opinion
66) Military power (according to E.H.Carr);
Every act (in terms of power) of state,is directed to war, (the last resort to use.)
-Clausewitz’s-“war is nothing but the continuation of political relations by other means”
-Mr. Hawtrey defines diplomacy as “potential war”
War remains hidden in the background of International politics like the revolution in domestic politics. Hence, military strength becomes a recognized standard of political values.
Modern world: graded per the quality and efficiency of the military equipment, man-power etc.
Military power- not only an instrument, but an end in itself.
Ex: Germany after the Franco-Prussian War, the United States after the war with Spain, and Japan after the Russo-Japanese War.
Last hundred years wars have been waged to increase either trade or territory
The principal cause of war is war itself. Ex: Every stage in the Napoleonic Wars was devised to prepare the way for the next stage.
Wars, begun for motives of security, quickly become wars of aggression and self-seeking.
Ex: World War I
67) Economic power (according to E.H.Carr);
There is an intimate association between military and economic power.
Ex: Middle Ages in Western Europe, defeating feudal barons by the merchants of the towns, relying on organised economic power
Wealth is a source of political power, the state should seek actively to promote the acquisition of wealth; to make a country powerful was to stimulate production at home, to buy as little as possible from abroad (Mercantilist ideology).
Rise of modern nations & the emergence of a new middle class economically based on industry and trade.
Laissez-faire doctrine-complete theoretical divorce between economics (preserve of private enterprise, catered for the material wants of citizens) and politics (the maintenance of law and order and the provision of certain essential services)
But the separation of economic from political power -“essential to a decent society”.
19th century imperialism- An economic movement using political weapons, or as a political movement using economic weapons.
WWI- Reunite economy and politics and forged economic weapons for use in the interests of national policy.
To cripple the economic system of an enemy Power-Main aim of war.
Economic Power as an Instrument of Policy:
It takes two principal forms:
(a) Export of capital
-Making capital investments in projects abroad, foreign lending and loans. -Dollar Diplomacy of US
(b) Control of foreign markets.
Encourage exports and capture foreign markets-the granting of loans or credits to finance exports.
68) Power over opinion (according to E.H.Carr);
The art of persuasion and propaganda of opinion
Instruments of propaganda: Education, radio, the film and the popular press (some are state controlled)
Opinion is conditioned by status and interest, a ruling class or nation, or dominant group of nations.
Democracies supports mass opinions whereas Totalitarian regimes will not.
Power over opinion is limited in two ways:
Necessity of some measure of conformity with fact.
By the inherent utopianism of human nature
The ideas of the French Revolution, free trade, communism, Zionism, the idea of the League of Nations, examples of international opinion divorced from power and fostered by international propaganda.
69) George Kennan;
Goerge Kennan’s analysis provided the most influential underpinnings for America’s Cold War policy of containment. Kennan was among the U.S. diplomats to help establish the first American embassy in the Soviet Union in 1933.
Kennan was convinced that the Soviets would try to expand their sphere of influence, and he pointed to Iran and Turkey as the most likely immediate trouble areas.
Kennan believed the Soviets would do all they could to “weaken power and influence of Western Powers on colonial backward, or dependent peoples.” Fortunately, although the Soviet Union was “impervious to logic of reason,” it was “highly sensitive to logic of force.” Therefore, it would back down “when strong resistance is encountered at any point.” The United States and its allies, he concluded, would have to offer that resistance.
70) John H. Herz;
He received a diploma from the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva. In 1941 he taught Political Science at Howard University. After World War II he worked as a political analyst for the US State Department – he took part in the US delegation to the Nuremberg trials and also helped draw up a plan for democratizing the occupation zone in Germany.
While at Harvard, Herz wrote “Political Realism and Political Idealism”, a book which the American Political Science Association awarded the Woodrow Wilson Prize in 1951.
71) Major points of political realism according to John H. Herz;
–recognizes the facts as the effects of the security dilemma
–bases its theories and assumptions upon these phenomena
–Although forms of government, structures of international relationships, and all the other political phenomena and develops vary in detail according to circumstances , Political realism knows that fundamental traits are determined by the prevalence of factors connected with the urge for security and the competition for power.
–describes the anarchy of the world of states, based on formal lack of power and the absence of a superordinate regulatory power and formal hierarchy with a monopoly of a world state based on the use of force in the international system.
–The states are thus in a self-help system in which national protection needs are represented either individually, in the form of alliances or alliances with other states. Irrespective of the actual intention to maintain one’s status, this inevitably leads to a sense of threat on the part of the respective opposing party and thus to increasing reciprocal military armament.
72) Major points of political idealism John H. Herz;
–starts from the contrary assumption that a harmony between the interests, rights, and the duties of men and groups in society, and between the individual and the the general good exists , or that it may eventually be realized.
–assumes power to be something that can be channeled, utilized for the common good, and mitigated or perhaps eliminated altogether from political inter-relationships.
–political life, although at present ripe with conflict, violence, and injustice , can be adapted in the future of the rational and harmonizing aims of political idealism
73) Competition for security and for power (according to John H. Herz)
–security dilemma is a paradoxikal situation in which the insistence of several states on their security interests and their corresponding actions ultimately leads to political instability.
–this behavior perhaps leads to war, so that the result contradicts the intention of all involved parties to create more security.
–the dilemma for the participants, on the other hand is that in the case of lack of mediation this result can only be avoided by giving it into one of the participating states , even though there is no compelling chance of success for this type of behavior
74) The issues discussed during the ‘second debate’;
75) Major points of scientific approach;
The scientific approach:
[rejection of the traditional approach: new research areas, new methods, new theories]
1)studying of the behavior of decision makers => behavioralism;
2)studying of the functions of different institutes, structures of different processes=> functionalism and system analysis;
3)theories should be based on the conclusions made on the basis of scientific methods (mathematical, psycological, logical);
4)the research should have an empirical basis;
5)similar research logic as in natural science;
6)necessity to ensure objective research results, to minimize role of the researcher.
In debate:
●attempt to employ scientific methods in for studying IR (new methods)
●major issue of this debate is different methods
76) Scientific methods of international studies;
The method of document analysis plays the greatest role in the study of the history of international relations.
Content analysis – a method of analysis and evaluation of texts: in the text of a document, article, book, some key concepts or semantic units are identified, followed by counting the frequency of use of these units in relation to each other, as well as with the total amount of information.
The method of event analysis (event analysis), based on tracking the dynamics of events in the international arena in order to determine the main trends in the political situation in individual countries, regions and in the world as a whole.
The method of cognitive mapping is a cognitive map, which is a graphic image of the strategy of obtaining, processing and storing information contained in the human consciousness and forms the basis of a person’s ideas about his past, present and possible future. This method is used to determine how a leader sees a political problem Scientific modelling is a method of studying an object on the basis of constructing a cognitive image that has a formal similarity with the object itself and reflects its qualities (for example, Forrester’s model of world development prospects).
77) Major points of critique of scientific approaches by representatives of traditional approach (according to E.H. Carr and H. Bull);
From the point of view of E.H. Carr and H. Bull, the concept of “system” is too mechanical and laid-back in the social sciences. The concept of “system” in international relations was opposed to the concept of “society”,
“Civil society,” as in the case of neoliberals, but on the totality of states. This is a separate state with its selfish interests.
The realistic English versions of the 1960s did not consider the “natural state” in interstate relations to be absolutely insurmountable. They may agree among themselves regarding acceptable forms. In order to regulate relations between states, it is necessary not force, but some supranational center of power, agreement on mutually acceptable norms and principles of behavior. First of all, about your own interests. This recognizes the interests of other states.
78) Morton Kaplan;
Morton Kaplan (1921 – 2017) – American professor of political sciences, specialist in international relations, geopolitics. A student of one of the founders of the school of functional analysis R. Merton. One of the options for modeling systems of international relations was proposed by the American political scientist M. Kaplan. Under the international system, he understands the options for the alignment of forces on the basis of a certain set of participating organizations, states or groups of states. In total, he identified six types of international systems: a “balance of power” system, a free bipolar system, a rigid bipolar system, a universal system, a hierarchical system, and a veto system. Then various modifications of individual systems were proposed.
79) Stanley Hoffman;
Stanley Hoffmann was the Paul and Catherine Buttenwieser University Professor at Harvard, where he has taught since 1955. He has been the Chairman of Harvard’s Center for European Studies from its creation in 1969 to 1995.
In countless essays and many of his nineteen books, including “The State of War” (dedicated in 1965 to his mentor Raymond Aron), “Gulliver’s Troubles” (1968), and “Primacy or World Order” (1978), Hoffmann made signal contributions to the study of international relations. Although attentive to the theories of that field, he avoided embracing any one of them in favor of exploring the limits of existing doctrines and the paradoxes posed by a world that would not readily fit into a theoretical box. Hoffmann was a sharp critic of American foreign policy, focused on the limits and obligations of American power. As an early opponent of the war in Vietnam, he secured the sympathy of many students and the enmity of some colleagues, emerging as a mediating figure between the administration and students following the occupation of University Hall in the spring of 1969.
80) Major points in defense of scientific approach (according to Morton Kaplan).
Morton Kaplan’ response:
-Humans’ reaction is predictable
-It is possible to study social and political systems (but necessary to understand how they are different from physical systems)
– Relationship between intuition and scientific knowledge (there’s intuition in physical research as well)
– Validity of scientific research methods to study international relations
In his article “The New Great Debate: Traditionalism vs. Science in International Relations” he answered to the main critique points of E.H. Carr. Responding to criticism, M. Kaplan emphasized that the basic concept of the “System and Process in International Politics” is quite simple. If the number, type and behavior of states change over time and if their military capabilities, economic resources and information also vary, then it is likely that there is some relationship between these elements, due to which systems with different structures and behavior that are characteristic of various periods of history.
81) “International Theory: the Case for a Classical Approach” (H.Bull);
One of Hedley Bull’s main contributions to the 2nd debate, ‘International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach’, sought to defend the traditionalist approach from attack by behaviouralists (scientific approach). Bull defined the traditional approach as ‘the approach to theorizing that derives from philosophy, history and law and that is characterized above all by explicit reliance upon the exercise of judgement and by the assumptions that if we confine ourselves to strict standards of verification and proof there is very little of significance that can be said about international relations’. It is clear from Bull’s definition that the traditionalist approach values historically based wisdom when it comes to understanding IR.
Main Argument: Two approaches to the theory of international relations at present compete for our attention: classical approach and scientific one. The classical approach derives from philosophy, history, and law. The scientific approach contributes very little to the theory of IR and is positively harmful.
82) Major points in defense of traditional approach (according to H.Bull).
One of Hedley Bull’s main contributions to the 2nd debate, ‘International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach’, sought to defend the traditionalist approach from attack by behaviouralists. Bull defined the traditional approach as ‘the approach to theorizing that derives from philosophy, history and law and that is characterized above all by explicit reliance upon the exercise of judgement and by the assumptions that if we confine ourselves to strict standards of verification and proof there is very little of significance that can be said about international relations’.
Hedley Bull thought that the scientific approach has contributed and is likely to contribute very little to the theory of IR, and in so far as it intended to displace classical approach, it is positively harmful. In support of this conclusion he put forward 7 propositions:
The first argument is that by confining themselves[scientific approach practitioners] to what can be logically or mathematically proved or verified according to strict procedures, the practitioners of the scientific approach are denying themselves the only instruments that are at present available for coming to grips with the substance of the subject. In abstaining from what Morton Kaplan calls “intuitive guesses” or what William Riker calls “wisdom literature” they are committing themselves to a course of intellectual puritanism that keeps them (or would keep them if they really adhered to it) as remote from the substance of international politics as the inmates of a Victorian nunnery were from the study of sex.
The second proposition arises out of the first: it is that where practitioners of the scientific approach have succeeded in casting light upon the substance of the subject it has been stepping beyond the bounds of that approach and employing that classical method. What there is of value in their work consists essentially of judgments that are not established by the mathematical or scientific methods they employ and which may be arrived at quite independently of them.
The third proposition is that the practitioners of the scientific approach are unlikely to make progress of the sort to which they aspire. Some of the writers I have been discussing would be ready enough to admit that so far only peripheral topics have been dealt with in a rigidly scientific way.
The fourth proposition that may be advanced against many who belong to the scientific school is that they have done a great disservice to theory in this field by conceiving of it as the construction and manipulation of so-called ‘models’. A model in the strict sense is a deductive system of axioms and theorems. However valuable this technique may have proved in economics and other subjects, its use in international politics is to be deplored.
The fifth proposition is that the work of the scientific school is in some cases distorted and impoverished by a fetish for measurement. For anyone dedicated to scientific precision, quantification of the subject must appear as the supreme ideal, whether it takes the form of the expression or simply that of the presentation of evidence amassed in quantitative form.
The sixth argument is that there is a need for rigor and precision in the theory of international politics but that the sort of rigor and precision of which the subject admits can be accommodated readily enough within the classical approach.
The seventh and final proposition is that the practitioners of the scientific approach by cutting themselves off from history and philosophy have deprived themselves of the means of self-criticism and in consequence have a view of their subject and its possibilities hat is callow and brash. I hasten to add that this is not true or not equally true. But their thinking is certainly characterized by a lack of any sense of inquiry into international politics as a continuing tradition to which they are the latest recruits; by an insensitivity to the conditions of recent history that have produced them, provided them with the preoccupations and perspectives hey have and colored these in ways of which they might not be aware.
Having put forward seven arguments in defense of the classical approach to the study of international relations, H. Bull paid special attention to criticism of the theory of international systems by Morton Kaplan, arguing that the models of international systems that he formulated and the basic rules characteristic of the behavior of each of them were practically nothing more than “Common place”, fished out from daily discussions about international relations and the general political structure that the world had or could have.