POLI_244

POLI 244: International Politics: State Behavior 1 st September:  What is International Relations?  The study of interactions among the actors that participate in international politics. (cooperative, diff natures…) actors include sovereign satates, intl organisations, individuals, NGOs…  Traditionally state has been most prominent actor and many theories to account for intl phenomenoms refer to states and sometimes exclusively actor that matter to undestrand and explain intl relations : STATE CENTRISM (intl politics centered around the state and everuthing it does and doesn’t). even if states most imp actirs, they’re not the only ones.   Itl relations becomes study of behaviours of actors as they participat in itl political process.   goal of explaining behavior. Ultimate goal. Account for behavior of important actors.  3 main “founders, scholars” important in the discipline: Kenneth Walts: Neo realism Robert Keohane: neo liberalism Alexander Wendt: Constructivism  The modern state system:  2 main key pillars:  Sovereign state  International anarchy 1. Sovereign state:  political unit that has certain characteristics that point to the internal and external dimension of the politics  Internal: - territoriality: every state has a territorial basis, no sovereign state that doesn’t have a piece of land. Constitutive component of sovereign state hood today. Implies a territory. - Population: over which the government has significant level of control. - Hierarchy: way political authority is organized within the state. Form of a pyramid. At the top, most of political authority. Distinguishes and traditionally used to distinguish domestic politics (hierarchic) vs international politics (anarchic lacks hierarchy).  External:

Peer recognition: not enough to perceive yourself as a state, you have to be recognized as a sovereign state by others.  State sovereignty implies that there is no higher authority than the sovereign within this state, group of individuals at the top of the pyramid, no one above the sovereign on the top of the pyramid.  Sovereignty: 16 th 17 th century, after 30 years war, guerre de 30 ans. European states in order to avoid this war is to think of each other as sovereigns, paix de westphalie. Westphalian. They’re going to be recognized as states. No rights to interferre with internal system of your state. In exchange for the respect of your non interference internal affairs, I respect yours. Help avoid wars.  One ruler that has ultimate authority, no one beyond.  This have an implication internationally whih is inernatinal anarchy. Internationally, does that no one is above the other which gives anarchy. Anarchically organized, no pyramid in the international system. Horizontal plane. There are power asymatries but here we talk abt authority. 2. International anarchy:  This have an implication internationally whih is inernatinal anarchy. Internationally, does that no one is above the other which gives anarchy. Anarchically organized, no pyramid in the international system. Horizontal plane. There are power asymatries but here we talk abt authority. Right to interfere in intl affairs.  Its therefore decentralized, no centralized political authority in the intl system. That implies for intl system that there is no authority that you can rely on in order to bring someone elses behavior to justice. No state or institutions to protect states. They can only rely on themselves. If there is no ulterior authority, alliances and promises, you can break alliance and promise. You cant enforce the agreement.   self help systemin which units have to rely on themselves so be in charge of their own protection. No monopoly of use of force that we find in the state.  Politics within and outside of the state different because inside there is hirerarchy so pyramid organization but intl system anarchy and horizontal organization.  Idea f state sovereignty implies intl anarchy because no higher uthority than govmnt of a given state. Domestic pyramid with govt at the top.no supranational authority. Lack of authority above sovereign states. The system in which state exists is anarchic. Because the system is anarchic the units become ultimate source of authority.  State sovereignty and intl arachy constitute each other  co constitution of state sovereignty and international anarchy.  Explaining international politics: Paradigms, theories, explanations:  When try to explain politics in general, one needs to inevitably take complex realities and organize them, give it order  simplifying complex reality, focusing on parts and exclude some.  Theories: that’s what they do focus on some aspect and exclude others. Parsimonious theory: finds right balance between simplicity and explanatory power. Parsimonius theory will explain a lot by looking at very few things that constitute politics. Explain a lot by focusing on very little.  Parsimony. Ideal goal of finding balance between simplicity

convenient and useful theories putting the state as a sigle unit thru which we’ll explain intl phenomena.  The levels of analysis in intl relations  Trying t explain recurrence of war for ex. What are we going to look at, explanatory factors. Where the main causes are located.  3 levels of analysis in international politics: 1. Individual level of analysis (1 st image): individual decision makers. Explain that looking at individual decision makers. There are characteristics in this person hat help us explain why that war happened for example. We have biological factors or psychological theories that look at rational decision making. Psychological cognitive limitations for reasoning, group think methodology, forcing all to one opinion. Steering away from rational path. Gender also important factor, different tendencies for decision they make. Personality traits, more or less aggressive, conciliatory, confrontational… Mental health, mental stage of hitler for example. Example: Canada’s non intervention in Syria’s war because of his pacifism 2. State level of analysis: comes more from comparative politics, fav factors they llook at are political regimes, then make diff predictons concerning the outcome depending (democracy, authoritarian etc..). political culture of a state or nation, predominant values held by the nation, world views, attitude internalized. Example: Iranian lobby in Canada, influence Canada’s decisions not to intervene in Syria 3. International system (3 rd image): explain patterns of state behavior by looking at the structure of the intl system. Not at the units (states or individuals) but structure itself: the way in which authority is organized. Power relationships: characteristics of intl system, theorists focus on it. Look at polarity (multi polar, bipolar…). Alliances inside the intl system may also explain why certain phenomenon’s exist (are they public, private, ideologically driven…). Corporate intensity of interactions, how integrated are the states? Different levels of economic interdependence because of globalization. Existence of world organization (UN), difference in intl outcomes? Spread of norms in the system (using chemical weapons: okay or prohibited? Taboo?) Example: Distribution of power in the MEA and intervention would upset the equilibria of powers. Might hurt Canada’s interests.  A brief international history of political authority  Evolution of political authority in intl system in last 20 centuries or so.  27 bc, at the time, roman empire in Mediterranean centralization of political power but then began to disintegrate in the year 400 so pol authority decentralized in Europe because feudal lords were not subjects to someoe above them so decentralized. Religious authority was centralized under the Pope that co lived with the Lords at the time.

 Game changer was protestant reformation, in the 1500 roman catholic church lost monopoly, Lutherans calevnists challenged authority of the pope in Rome. At the same time, larger kingdoms begun to consolidate (France, Spain).  Religious authority that used to be centralized became very decentralized.  Political authority that used to be decentralized became more centralized (not in a single unit tho).  30 years war: between catholics and protestants trying to controlate roman holy empire. Destructive war ended with westphalian peace, series of treaties. This facilitated for states to organize their relations, that they come to an agreement: State Sovereignty. You don’t interfere in internal affairs of other countries. After that,smaller scale wars until 1 st ww. Modern state system was born, intl system dominated by sovereign states. Smaller number of larger political units, sovereign political units, no supranational authority above, the Pope was no longer a political unit above.  This took us to the state of international anarchy: ultimate authority in the state is the ruler of that state. Clear territorial boundaries within one ruler has exclusive jurisdiction, non interference, key component of sovereignty.  But idea of sovereignty is tricky : good way to fight against dangers of foreign intervention but now no external limits to the actions of monarch towards their subjects  lots of persecutions that was legitimized bu the idea of state sovereignty. The idea of state sovereignty today more impermeable to external interference specially when fundamental human rights are beig violated. So now limits to what states can do to their population: constitution that sets limits and intl limits, intl norm as to how sovereign perogatives is understood: each state has exclusive authority for intern policy, regulate markets, ppl’s public and rivate lifes until limit until it’s not legitimate anymore. When crossed, intl community has right to intervene for protection of individuals.  Religion was put below politics now. Most of history it has not been the case, monarch or president or whatever is above the church.  GRADUAL PROCESSES , feudalism to westphalian with many complex bounces and actors… 8 th September: A world dominated by sovereign states  How did the Sovereign State come to dominate international system? 2 theories: 1. Charles Tilly:  Charles Tilly (coercion, capital and European states).  One can understand todays intl system as a globalized version of the European system. Syatem of states that originated in Europe and was later exported or spread throughout the rest of the world. This book by Tilly, theoretical account applies to intl system of today. Not just Europe dominated by sovereign states but the world also dominated by those political units. So book applicable to rest of the world.  2 aspects of research questions: 1- emergence of the sovereign state that will compete with other pre existing froms of political units. 2- how is it that that form of

 Some pts of agreements: both offers evolutionary explanation as how they emerged, and how that from became pre dominant and out competed the others. Selection mechanism that explains how over time one became dominant.  Other pt being war as an importat factor. However, war imp for spruyt when it comes to selection mechanism, how became predominent over others, not so much when explaining its emergence.  1 st pt of disagreement:  Tilly says war made the state and the state made war . Spruyt disagrees because the emergence of sovereign state emerged before military revolutions of 14 th and 15 th cent. One can find insipid forms of what would become the sov state type of poli org prior to those moments.  Acc to spruyt, war not rly factor that moved states to acquire this form of pol organization . Emergence of sov state as one kif of unit happened because of economic interests of a new economic class that emerged in middle age: town dwellers, economically successful class in the city . Wanted to be successful so overcome barriers preventing from becoming wealthier. Some parts of Europe where trade low in volume and added value, they understood that they couldnt set up by themselves conditions to acquire greater levels of econ cooperation and trade. Only way was to pull some of their resources and put in hands of centralized power that wld be able to set up standardized rules applied throughout diff towns  create infrastructure like roads necessary for economic growth .  In France for ex the burghers understood that they couldn’t improve situation on their own so create central power and give resources to trade more and more efficiently.  sovereign state  In Italy’s city-states, capitalist class traded and very wealthy and because of that understood that they could do really well without pulling resources together, successful on their own no need for supra city authority. In addition, relationship between cities in Italy not one of cooperation but competitive one. City states remained unorganized, no central form.  Hanseatic league: City leagues, town dwellers powerful in terms of coercive resources so even though economic interest to pull authority at the league level, that govt at the level of the league was weak compared to the coercive powers that each of the cities retained. Even though some central authority, that one was weak, not powerful enough.  Diff between French burghers and city leaks, both did supra city authority but for city league the central authority lacked power. That’s to central power In France that infrastructure was here, rules were made and successful economy. For spruyt all this happened before war.  War becomes imp factor when explaining why these 3 competing forms of pol org, why sov state outcompeted others. Sov state had war waging advatanges, better at fighting wars, more efficient  Sov state was better (Tilly): size of the army, able to pull and extract more ressources, build larger armies that translated into military victories.  Spruyt agrees but something behind it, institutional make u of sov state, what drove emergence of sov state. Ability of sov power to create standardized rules, rules that would be effectively enforced , because state have enough power to impose those rules, law same for all and enforced.

 Predictability of enforced laws that helped capitalist sovereign states become wealthier  more ressources  raise an army.  Having predicatble rules and centralized pwers  econ trasactions, trade, much more costly in city state or leagues because rules had to be negociated constantly. In France cheaper because of central authority, standard rules.   more ressources produced and extract more ressources and make them to prepare wars. More efficient in wars  Explains how over time sov states became predominant in Europe.  Concepts to understand intl phenomena as the outcome of interactions between actors (usually states).  Interactions combine individual choices to produce collective outcome which is intl phenomena.  Actors engage in interactions (unconsciously or consciously), typically conscious, interact because they intend to get something out of it, by coordinating, can obtain benefits, increase their welfare. We measure it depending on the type of actor. For ex states want security, power; politicians want reelections, policy goals etc…  You want to maximize your wealth  UTILITY : any benefit, good possibly valued by the actor.  Cooperation, coordinating both behaviors in order to benefit from this cooperation, produce something you couldn’t have without other actors.  Bargaining: once you achieved the cooperation, dividing fixed goods