ISD 121 EVOLUTION OF THE CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

  • Slides: 64
Download presentation
ISD 121: EVOLUTION OF THE CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM ADULOJU Ayodeji Anthony

ISD 121: EVOLUTION OF THE CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM ADULOJU Ayodeji Anthony

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE COURSE This course aims at providing ISD students with the

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE COURSE This course aims at providing ISD students with the necessary theoretical and practical tools for understanding the contemporary international system. More specifically, the goal of this course is to familiarize students with • • • The notions of international system International society International community Power The origins and evolution of the contemporary international Society.

It will then answer questions such like: • What is the role of values

It will then answer questions such like: • What is the role of values and interests in the international system? • How does the distribution of power among States affect the stability of a particular international system? • When were the established foundations of the post -Cold war contemporary international society?

 • What has been the impact of globalization on the evolution of the

• What has been the impact of globalization on the evolution of the contemporary international society? • What are the main challenges confronting this system? • What are the global governance mechanisms in place to cope with them?

In order to address these and other relevant questions, this course is divided into

In order to address these and other relevant questions, this course is divided into three complementary sections, which: 1. Identifies and defines the main theoretical conceptions for the study of the international system; 2. Explains the emergence and evolution of the contemporary international society between the Second World War and the end of the Cold War period 3. Analyzes the transformation of the post-Cold War international society and the main challenges it faces.

SECTION ONE: THE STUDY OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM 1. INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM q International society

SECTION ONE: THE STUDY OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM 1. INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM q International society q international community q Theoretical approaches to the study of the international system q Definition of international society q Definition of international community q Differences and similarities between international system, society, and community

SECTION TWO: ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION OF THE CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM 4. FOUNDATIONS (1941 -1945).

SECTION TWO: ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION OF THE CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM 4. FOUNDATIONS (1941 -1945). q The First and Second World Wars v The Allied Victory and its aftermath: the demise of Europe in the international system and the rise of new superpowers. v The birth of the United Nations. v The design of the new financial architecture: the role of the IBRD, the IMF, the WB and GATT. q THE COLD WAR v The confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union. v The end of the Cold War and the restructuration of the contemporary international society (1985 -1991).

2. POWER IN THE CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM q Definitions of power. q Material and

2. POWER IN THE CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM q Definitions of power. q Material and non-material sources of power. q Relational and structural power. q Hard power and soft power. q Definition of polarity q Hegemony and interdependence. q Typology of States according to their accumulation of power. q Typology of international systems according to the distribution of power among States. q The distribution of power within the contemporary international system.

3. EVOLUTION AND CONTENT OF THE CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL ORDER. q Definition of international order.

3. EVOLUTION AND CONTENT OF THE CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL ORDER. q Definition of international order. q Order, Anarchy and Justice in the international system. q Phases in the construction of international orders. q Typology of international orders. q Characterization of the contemporary international order.

SECTION THREE: THE POST-COLD WAR CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM q Change and continuity in the

SECTION THREE: THE POST-COLD WAR CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM q Change and continuity in the post-Cold war contemporary international society. q Globalization and regionalization. q The redefinition of sovereignty and its impact on the State’s role in international affairs. q The “proliferation” of democratic regimes. q The emergence of new powers.

THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM What is a theory? What

THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM What is a theory? What are theories? How do theorists view the international System?

A theory is a set of propositions and concepts that seeks to explain phenomena

A theory is a set of propositions and concepts that seeks to explain phenomena by specifying the relationships among the concepts; theory’s ultimate purpose is to predict phenomena. Good theory generates groups of testable hypotheses: specific statements positing a particular relationship between two or more variables.

As more and more data are collected, one must be tolerant of ambiguity, concerned

As more and more data are collected, one must be tolerant of ambiguity, concerned about probabilities, and distrustful of absolutes. International relations theories come in a variety of forms. We will introduce three general theories.

THEORY AND THE LEVELS OF ANALYSIS In a classification first used by Kenneth Waltz,

THEORY AND THE LEVELS OF ANALYSIS In a classification first used by Kenneth Waltz, three different sources of explanations are offered. They are; üIndividual Level üState Level üInternational Level

If the individual level is the focus, then the personality, perceptions, choices, and activities

If the individual level is the focus, then the personality, perceptions, choices, and activities of individual decision makers and individual participants provide the explanation.

If the state-level, or domestic, factors are the focus, then the explanation is derived

If the state-level, or domestic, factors are the focus, then the explanation is derived from characteristics of the state: the type of government, the type of economic system, or interest groups.

If the international system level is the focus, then the explanation rests with the

If the international system level is the focus, then the explanation rests with the anarchic characteristics of that system or with international and regional organizations and their strengths and weaknesses.

NOW… The purpose of theory is to guide us toward an understanding of which

NOW… The purpose of theory is to guide us toward an understanding of which of these various explanations are the necessary and sufficient explanations for the invasion. Good theory should be able to explain phenomena at a particular level of analysis; better theory should also offer explanations across different levels of analysis.

 REALISM AND NEOREALISM Realism is based on a view of the individual as

REALISM AND NEOREALISM Realism is based on a view of the individual as primarily selfish and power seeking. Individuals are organized in states, each of which acts in a unitary way in pursuit of its own national interest, defined in terms of power.

Assumptions of the Realists Power is primarily thought of in terms of material resources

Assumptions of the Realists Power is primarily thought of in terms of material resources necessary to physically harm or coerce other states. States exist in an anarchic international system, characterized by the absence of an authoritative hierarchy. States’ most important concern is to manage their insecurity, and they rely primarily on balancing the power of other states and deterrence to keep the international system intact.

Apart from the previous assumptions, realism revolves around four central propositions: • That states

Apart from the previous assumptions, realism revolves around four central propositions: • That states are the central actors in international politics rather than individuals or international organizations, • That the international political system is anarchic as there is no supranational authority that can enforce rules over the states, • That the actors in the international political system are rational as their actions maximize their own selfinterest, and • That all states desire power so that they can ensure their own self-preservation.

Four of the essential assumptions of realism are found in Thucydides’ History of the

Four of the essential assumptions of realism are found in Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War. The state is assumed to be a unitary actor: once a decision is made to go to war or capitulate, the state speaks and acts with one voice. The state is the principal actor in war and politics in general. Decision makers acting in the name of the state are assumed to be rational actors. Rational decision making leads to the advance of the national interest. A state’s need to protect itself from enemies both foreign and domestic. A state augments its security by building up its economic prowess and forming alliances with other states.

St. Augustine (354 -430) added an assumption, arguing that humanity is flawed, egoistic, and

St. Augustine (354 -430) added an assumption, arguing that humanity is flawed, egoistic, and selfish, although not predetermined to be so. He blames war on this basic characteristic of humanity. Niccolò Machiavelli (1469 -1527) argued that a leader needs to be ever mindful of threats to his personal security and the security of the state The central tenet accepted by virtually all realists is that states exist in an anarchic international system. Thomas Hobbes originally articulated this tenet, and maintained that each state has the right to preserve themselves.

Hans Morgenthau (1904 -80), whose textbook, Politics among Nations, became the realist bible following

Hans Morgenthau (1904 -80), whose textbook, Politics among Nations, became the realist bible following World War II, argued that international politics is a struggle for power that can be explained at three levels of analysis: The flawed individual in the state of nature struggles for selfpreservation. The autonomous and unitary state is constantly involved in power struggles, balancing power with power and preserving the national interest. Because the international system is anarchic—there is no higher power to put the competition to an end—the struggle is continuous.

In summary Not all realists agree on the correct policy. Defensive realists argue that

In summary Not all realists agree on the correct policy. Defensive realists argue that all states should pursue policies of restraint. Offensive realists argue that under conditions of international anarchy, all states should seek opportunities to improve their relative positions and that states should strive for power.

Neorealism, as delineated by Kenneth Waltz’s theory of international politics, gives precedence to the

Neorealism, as delineated by Kenneth Waltz’s theory of international politics, gives precedence to the structure of the international system as an explanatory factor, over states.

The most important unit to study is the structure of the international system, and

The most important unit to study is the structure of the international system, and that structure is determined by the ordering principle (the distribution of capabilities among states) The international structure is a force in itself; it constrains state behavior and states may not be able to control it. This structure determines outcomes. Like classical realism, balance of power is a core principle of neorealism. However, neorealists believe that the balance of power is largely determined by the structure of the system.

 In a neorealist’s balance-of-power world, a state’s survival depends on having more power

In a neorealist’s balance-of-power world, a state’s survival depends on having more power than other states, thus all power are viewed in relative terms. Neorealists are also concerned with cheating. The awareness that such possibilities exist, combined with states’ rational desire to protect their own interests, tends to preclude cooperation among states

LIBERALISM AND NEOLIBERAL INSTITUTIONALIS LIBERALISM Liberalism holds that human nature is basically good and

LIBERALISM AND NEOLIBERAL INSTITUTIONALIS LIBERALISM Liberalism holds that human nature is basically good and that people can improve their moral and material conditions, making societal progress possible. Bad or evil behavior is the product of inadequate social institutions and misunderstandings among leaders.

One origin of liberal theory is found in Enlightenment optimism: French philosopher Montesquieu argued

One origin of liberal theory is found in Enlightenment optimism: French philosopher Montesquieu argued that it is not human nature that is defective, but problems arise as man enters civil society. War is a product of society. To overcome defects in society, education is imperative. According to Immanuel Kant, international anarchy can be overcome through some kind of collective action—a federation of states in which sovereignties would be left intact.

Another origin, nineteenth-century liberalism, reformulated the Enlightenment by adding a preference for democracy over

Another origin, nineteenth-century liberalism, reformulated the Enlightenment by adding a preference for democracy over aristocracy and for free trade over national economic self-sufficiency: üThis liberalism saw man as capable of satisfying his natural needs and wants in rational ways. üIndividual freedom and autonomy can best be realized in a democratic states unfettered by excessive governmental restrictions üFree markets must be allowed to flourish and governments must permit the free flow of trade and commerce. This will create interdependencies between states, thus raising the cost of war.

Twentieth-century idealism is also termed Wilsonian idealism (its greatest adherent was Woodrow Wilson, author

Twentieth-century idealism is also termed Wilsonian idealism (its greatest adherent was Woodrow Wilson, author of the League of Nations). ü War is preventable; more than half of the League covenant’s provisions focused on preventing war. ü The covenant also included a provision legitimizing the notion of collective security, wherein aggression by one state would be countered by collective action, embodied in a League of Nations. ü Liberals also place faith in international law and legal instruments mediation, arbitration, and international courts.

Finally, the basis of liberalism remains firmly embedded in the belief of the rationality

Finally, the basis of liberalism remains firmly embedded in the belief of the rationality of humans and in the unbridled optimism that through learning and education, humans can develop institutions to bring out their best characteristics.

NEOLIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM Neoliberal institutionalism asks why states choose to cooperate most of the time

NEOLIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM Neoliberal institutionalism asks why states choose to cooperate most of the time even in the anarchic condition of the international system. One answer is the story of the prisoner’s dilemma, developed by Robert Axelrod and Robert Keohane. Two prisoners are interrogated separately for a crime. Each prisoner is faced with a onetime choice. Neither prisoner knows how the other will respond; the cost of not confessing if the other does is high. So both sides will confess. üSimilarly, states are not faced with a onetime situation; confront each other over and over again. üThe prisoner’s dilemma provides neoliberal institutionalists with a rationale for mutual cooperation in an environment where there is no international authority mandating such cooperation.

Cooperation emerges because for actors having continuous interactions with each other, it is in

Cooperation emerges because for actors having continuous interactions with each other, it is in the self -interest of each to cooperate. Shared democratic norms and culture inhibit aggression and international institutions that bind democracies together act to constrain behavior. Large-scale conflict is less frequent than in earlier eras. Thus, as Francis Fukuyama argues, there is an absence of any viable theoretical alternatives.

In conclusion, How individuals see the international system depend on our theoretical lens. These

In conclusion, How individuals see the international system depend on our theoretical lens. These perspectives hold different views about the possibility and desirability of change in the international system.

POWER IN THE CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM ü Hard power and soft power. ü The

POWER IN THE CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM ü Hard power and soft power. ü The distribution of power within the contemporary international system. ü Definition of polarity ü Hegemony and interdependence.

Power is often defined as the ability to get another actor to do what

Power is often defined as the ability to get another actor to do what it would not otherwise have done (or not to do what it would have done). A variation of this idea is that actors are powerful to the extent that they affect others more than others affect them.

Because the ability to control others is often associated with the possession of certain

Because the ability to control others is often associated with the possession of certain resources, political leaders commonly define power as the possession of resources. These resources include population, territory, natural resources, economic size, military forces, and political stability, amongst others.

HARD POWER AND SOFT POWER The terms Hard Power and Soft Power represent two

HARD POWER AND SOFT POWER The terms Hard Power and Soft Power represent two important concepts in the field of International Relations, more specifically, in the political relations between states. We are all well acquainted with the term ‘Power‘ and identify it as the ability to influence or control the behaviour and/or actions of another.

What is Hard Power? The term Hard Power is defined as a coercive approach

What is Hard Power? The term Hard Power is defined as a coercive approach to international political relations, one that involves the use of military and economic power to influence or control the behaviour or interests of other states. Thus, states with a strong military and economic capacity will generally wield their influence on states that are not so powerful in such capacities.

According to Joseph Nye, the term is “the ability to use the carrots and

According to Joseph Nye, the term is “the ability to use the carrots and sticks approach to influence other states. Classification of the approach This clarifies how states use the economic and military might to make others follow their will. Carrot Approach This means that stronger countries will exert influence on weaker states through: üThe reduction of trade barriers üOffering military aid üEconomic aid üGiving assistance or any other beneficial offers or other forms of inducements or persuasion

Stick Approach A state may also influence other states through the use of threats

Stick Approach A state may also influence other states through the use of threats such as ü imposing economic sanctions, ü trade restrictions ü military intervention ü use of force. or other forms of coercion.

The resounding theme of Hard Power is coercion. Therefore, the objective behind nations applying

The resounding theme of Hard Power is coercion. Therefore, the objective behind nations applying Hard Power is to coerce other states into doing their will. Generally, a country is recognized as a great power due to its size, capacity and quality of resources. This includes its population, natural resources, territory, military strength, and economic power. A nation’s Hard Power is reflected on its ability to use its abundant pool of resources.

There are many examples of Hard Power in practice. The invasion of Afghanistan in

There are many examples of Hard Power in practice. The invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 by the Soviet Union or the invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the United States and allied forces are classic examples of states applying Hard Power to achieve their outcomes. Further, trade embargos imposed on countries such as Iran, Cuba and Iraq in the 20 th century by the United States represents an example of a state applying its economic power to achieve certain goals.

What is Soft Power? Soft Power is a term that was introduced by Joseph

What is Soft Power? Soft Power is a term that was introduced by Joseph Nye. As mentioned before, it represents a more subtle form of power. It is defined as a persuasive approach to international political relations, involving the use of a nation’s cultural, historical and diplomatic influence. Nye explains it as a form of power that has the ability to attract and co-opt rather than coerce, use force, or provide payment as a means of persuasion.

Unlike Hard Power, Soft Power is not based on the idea of force or

Unlike Hard Power, Soft Power is not based on the idea of force or coercion. In simple terms, Soft Power is the ability of a state to indirectly convince others to desire its goals and vision. States and non-state actors such as international organizations use Soft Power to present their preferences and, in turn, transform the preferences of others to match their preferences. Nye further explains that a nation’s Soft Power is based on the use of three resources, namely, “its culture (in places where it is attractive to others), its political values (when it lives up to them at home and abroad), and its foreign policies (where others see them as legitimate and having moral authority). ” 3

What is the difference between Hard Power and Soft Power? The distinction between Hard

What is the difference between Hard Power and Soft Power? The distinction between Hard Power and Soft Power is thus easily identifiable. While both represent important concepts in international relations and constitute two forms of power exercised by states, they differ in their nature and function.

Hard Power represents a coercive approach to international relations and employs the use of

Hard Power represents a coercive approach to international relations and employs the use of military or economic power to achieve certain outcomes. The underlying theme of Hard Power is coercion and states use such power to influence weaker states to comply with their will. Soft Power, in contrast, represents a subtle, persuasive approach to international relations between states. States utilize Soft Power to “attract and co-opt” other states to desire what they desire. It has the ability to influence the preferences and interests of other states. This persuasive approach is applied through cultural, historical and/or diplomatic means.

THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWER WITHIN THE CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM ü Balance of Power ü

THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWER WITHIN THE CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM ü Balance of Power ü Polarity ü Hegemony All realists characterize the international system as anarchic. No authority exists above the state, which is sovereign. Each state must therefore look out for its own interests above all.

Balance of Power In International Relations an equilibrium of power sufficient to discourage or

Balance of Power In International Relations an equilibrium of power sufficient to discourage or present one nation or prevent one nation from imposing its will on or interfering with the interests of another. Balance of Power theory asserts that the most effective check on the power of a state is the power of other states. In international relations, the term state refers to a country with a government and a population. The term balance of power refers to the distribution of power capabilities of rival states or alliance.

The balance of power theory maintains that when one state or alliance increases its

The balance of power theory maintains that when one state or alliance increases its power or applies it more aggressively; threatened states will increase their own power in response, often by forming a counter-balancing coalition. Balance of Power is a central concept in neorealist theory.

A Balance of power system can function effectively in two different ways: 1. Multiple

A Balance of power system can function effectively in two different ways: 1. Multiple states can form a balance of power when alliances are easily formed or broken on the basis of suitability, regardless of values, religion, history, or form of government. Occasionally a single state plays a balancer role, shifting its support to oppose whatever state or alliance is strongest. 2. Two states can balance against each other by matching their increases in military capability.

One weakness of the balance of power concept is the difficulty of measuring power.

One weakness of the balance of power concept is the difficulty of measuring power. Ultimately a state’s power is derived from the size of its land mass, population, and its level of technology. But this potential power—measured roughly by a state’s gross domestic product (GDP)—translates imperfectly into military capability. The effective use of military force depends on such elements as leadership, morale, geography

POLARITY Polarity in international relations is any of the various ways in which power

POLARITY Polarity in international relations is any of the various ways in which power is distributed within the international system. It describes the nature of the international system at any given period of time. One generally distinguishes four types of systems: üUnipolarity üBipolarity üMultipolarity The type of system is completely dependent on the distribution of power and influence of states in a region or globally.

UNIPOLARITY Unipolarity in international politics is a distribution of power in which there is

UNIPOLARITY Unipolarity in international politics is a distribution of power in which there is one state with most of the cultural, economic, and military influence. It is defined by three characteristics, namely; 1. Unipolarity is distinct from empire in that the former takes place in an inter-state system.

2. Unipolar state is significantly constrained by anarchy, which sets it apart from a

2. Unipolar state is significantly constrained by anarchy, which sets it apart from a hegemonic entity which is able to control the foreign policies of other states. 3. Third, much like hegemony, unipolarity obstructs the international system's usual proclivity towards a balance of power

BIPOLARITY Bipolarity is a distribution of power in which two states have the majority

BIPOLARITY Bipolarity is a distribution of power in which two states have the majority of economic, military, and cultural influence internationally or regionally. Often, spheres of influence would develop. For example, in the Cold War, most Western and democratic states would fall under the influence of the USA, while most Communist states would fall under the influence of the USSR. After this, the two powers will normally maneuver for the support of the unclaimed

MULTIPOLARITY Multipolarity is a distribution of power in which more than two nation-states have

MULTIPOLARITY Multipolarity is a distribution of power in which more than two nation-states have nearly equal amounts of military, cultural, and economic influence. Opinions on the stability of multipolarity differ. Classical realist theorists, such as Hans Morgenthau and E. H. Carr, hold that multipolar systems are more stable than bipolar systems, as great powers can gain power through alliances and petty wars that do not directly challenge other powers.

On the other hand, the neorealist focuses on security and inverts the formula: states

On the other hand, the neorealist focuses on security and inverts the formula: states in a multipolar system can focus their fears on any number of other powers and, misjudging the intentions of other states, unnecessarily compromise their security, while states in a bipolar system always focus their fears on one other power, meaning that at worst the powers will miscalculate the force required to counter threats and spend slightly too much on the operation.

HEGEMONY Hegemony comes from the Greek word hēgemonía, which means leadership and rule. In

HEGEMONY Hegemony comes from the Greek word hēgemonía, which means leadership and rule. In international relations, hegemony refers to the ability of an actor with overwhelming capability to shape the international system through both coercive and non-coercive means. Usually this actor is understood to be a single state, such as Great Britain in the 19 th century

However, it could also refer to the dominance of a cohesive political community with

However, it could also refer to the dominance of a cohesive political community with external decision-making power, such as the European Union. Hegemony is distinct from Empire because a hegemonic power rules by influencing other states rather than by controlling them or their territory. Unipolarity refers to the distribution of military capabilities, whereas hegemony also refers to economic, social, and cultural power.

SECTION TWO: ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION OF THE CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM 4. FOUNDATIONS (1941 -1945).

SECTION TWO: ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION OF THE CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM 4. FOUNDATIONS (1941 -1945). q The First and Second World Wars v The Allied Victory and its aftermath: the demise of Europe in the international system and the rise of new superpowers. v The birth of the United Nations. v The design of the new financial architecture: the role of the IBRD, the IMF, the WB and GATT. q THE COLD WAR v The confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union. v The end of the Cold War and the restructuration of the contemporary international society (1985 -1991).

ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION OF THE CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION OF THE CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM