Realism: states are self-interested, world is anarchic — power = security
Realism
The dominant IR theory — states pursue power and security above all
No world government → states must fend for themselves. Alliances are temporary convenience. War is always possible. Explains arms races and balance-of-power politics.
States can cooperate — institutions and norms genuinely matter
Democratic Peace Theory: democracies rarely fight each other. International institutions (UN, WTO) enable cooperation. Economic interdependence raises cost of war.
Soft vs Hard Power
Soft power = persuasion and attraction. Hard power = coercion.
Soft vs Hard Power
Joseph Nye's distinction between two kinds of international influence
Hard power: military force and economic sanctions. Soft power: cultural attraction, diplomacy, values (Hollywood, universities, brands). Smart power combines both strategically.
NATO
NATO Article 5: attack one member = attack all — collective defense
NATO
The core commitment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
32 members. Article 5 has been invoked once — after 9/11. Deterrence through collective security. Expansion eastward since Cold War has been a major source of geopolitical tension.
Constructivism
Constructivism: state identity and interests are socially constructed — not fixed
Constructivism
A third IR theory — ideas and identity shape behavior as much as power
States' interests aren't fixed by material factors — they're shaped by ideas, norms, and identities. Anarchy means what states make of it (Wendt). Explains norm changes like abolition of slavery and human rights regimes.
Balance of Power
Balance of power: states form alliances to prevent any one state from dominating — key realist concept
Balance of Power
Why states form alliances — to prevent hegemony
Core realist mechanism. When one state grows too powerful, others balance against it through internal balancing (build up military) or external balancing (form alliances). Bandwagoning: weaker states join the rising power instead. Polarity: unipolar (one hegemon, post-Cold War), bipolar (Cold War), multipolar (19th century Europe).
International Organizations
International organizations: IGOs (UN, WTO) create rules and forums. Cannot enforce without state consent.
International Organizations
What international organizations can and cannot do
Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs): created by states, membership by states. UN: collective security (Security Council veto), international law, humanitarian missions. WTO: trade rules, dispute resolution. NATO: collective defense. Limitations: no world government, enforcement depends on state compliance and great power consensus.
Globalization
Globalization: increased flows of goods, money, people, and ideas across borders. Winners and losers.
Globalization
The increasing interconnection of the world economy
Economic globalization: trade, foreign direct investment, global supply chains. Financial globalization: capital flows across borders instantly. Cultural globalization: spread of ideas, values, media. Winners: consumers (cheaper goods), skilled workers in emerging markets. Losers: low-skilled workers in developed countries competing with cheap labor.
Nuclear Deterrence
Nuclear deterrence: mutually assured destruction (MAD) — rational actors won't start a war they can't survive
Nuclear Deterrence
Why nuclear weapons paradoxically promote stability between great powers
MAD: if both sides have second-strike capability (can absorb a first strike and retaliate), nuclear war becomes irrational. Cold War: US and USSR never fought directly despite intense rivalry. Deterrence works when: adversary is rational, retaliatory capability is credible and survivable. Extended deterrence: umbrella covers allies.
Democratic Peace Theory
Democratic Peace Theory: democracies rarely go to war with each other — most robust finding in IR
Democratic Peace Theory
Why the spread of democracy may reduce international conflict
Empirical finding: liberal democracies almost never fight each other. Explanations: institutional (democracies need public support for war), normative (democracies resolve disputes peacefully because they share norms), commercial (democracies trade heavily with each other — war is costly). Not that democracies are peaceful in general.
Sovereignty vs Human Rights
Humanitarian intervention: can sovereignty be overridden to protect populations from their own governments?
Sovereignty vs Human Rights
The fundamental tension in post-Cold War international relations
Traditional: state sovereignty is absolute — other states cannot interfere in internal affairs. R2P (Responsibility to Protect, 2005): sovereignty includes responsibility to protect citizens. If state fails, international community has duty to intervene. Kosovo (1999), Libya (2011): invoked R2P. Syria: R2P not applied — Security Council vetoes.
Security Dilemma
Arms race: mutual fear drives both sides to build weapons — security dilemma creates the problem it tries to solve
Security Dilemma
How defensive measures can trigger conflict through mutual misunderstanding
Security dilemma: one state's defensive buildup looks offensive to others → they build up → first state feels less secure → builds more. Spiral model. Classic example: WWI — mobilization plans locked in war no one wanted. Solutions: arms control agreements, transparency measures, CBMs (confidence-building measures).
Levels of Analysis
SIS — System, Inter-state, Sub-state individual
Waltz's three images — where you look determines what you find as cause
The same conflict can be explained differently depending on which level of analysis you use
System level (third image): anarchic system forces competition — structure causes war regardless of state type. State level (second image): domestic politics, regime type, economic interests drive foreign policy — democratic peace theory. Individual level (first image): leader psychology, misperception, miscalculation cause war — Hitler and Stalin as causes of WWII.
System
Anarchy leads to self-help and the security dilemma
Mutual Assured Destruction — the logic of nuclear deterrence since the Cold War
MAD works because both sides know a first strike guarantees their own annihilation in retaliation
Deterrence: if attacking guarantees your own destruction, rational actors won't attack. Requires survivable second-strike capability (submarines, dispersed missiles), credible commitment to retaliate, and rational adversaries. Extended deterrence: US nuclear umbrella covers NATO allies. Counterforce weapons threaten second-strike capability — destabilizing.
First strike
Attack first — destabilizing if it could disarm opponent
Second strike
Survive attack and retaliate — submarines are the key
Credibility
Threat must be believed — red lines and commitment devices
International Organizations
WINT — WTO, IMF, NATO, UN — major IOs and their functions
Key international organizations, what they do, and their limits
International organizations reduce transaction costs and create focal points — but states still dominate
UN: collective security, peacekeeping, international law — Security Council with P5 veto. WTO: trade rules and dispute settlement. IMF: balance of payments support and conditionality loans. World Bank: development lending. NATO: collective defense, Article 5. EU: supranational integration — single market, common currency, law supersedes member state law.
UN P5
US, UK, France, Russia, China — each has Security Council veto
NATO Art. 5
Attack on one is attack on all — collective defense
IMF conditionality
Austerity in exchange for loans — widely controversial
Soft Power vs Hard Power
Hard = force and money, Soft = attraction and persuasion, Smart = both
Joseph Nye's distinction between coercive power and attractive power
Soft power gets others to want what you want — without coercion or payment
Hard power: military force and economic coercion or incentives. Soft power (Nye): culture, values, legitimate foreign policy — others want what you want. Examples: US Hollywood and universities, BBC, Korean Wave (Hallyu). Smart power: combining both strategically. Sharp power: authoritarian information manipulation — distinct from soft power.
Q: Compare and contrast the main theoretical approaches to international relations.
A: Realism: states are primary actors, system is anarchic with no world government, states pursue power and security, conflict is normal, cooperation is fragile. Neorealism (Waltz): systemic structure determines state behavior. Liberalism: cooperation is possible through trade, democracy, and international institutions — democratic peace, interdependence. Neoliberal institutionalism (Keohane): institutions facilitate cooperation by reducing transaction costs and providing information. Constructivism (Wendt): anarchy is what states make of it — norms, identities, and ideas shape state behavior alongside material interests. English School: international society shares rules and institutions beyond mere anarchy.
Q: What is nuclear deterrence and what conditions are necessary for it to work?
A: Nuclear deterrence: the threat of devastating retaliation prevents nuclear attack. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction): if both sides can survive a first strike and retaliate, neither will strike first. Requirements: survivable second-strike capability through submarines and dispersed missiles (if first strike could disarm opponent, stability collapses), credible commitment to actually retaliate, and rational adversaries who value their own survival above all. Challenges: extended deterrence for allies, new nuclear states with less sophisticated command and control, crisis stability versus peacetime stability tradeoff, and non-state actors who may not respond to deterrence logic.
Q: What is globalization and how has it affected state power?
A: Globalization means increased interdependence through trade, investment, migration, information flows, and cultural exchange. Hyperglobalists argue states are losing power to markets and multinational corporations. Skeptics argue states remain primary. Transformationalists argue states' roles are changing from direct provider to facilitator of markets. Key tensions: capital mobility undermines tax base and labor standards, global problems like climate change and pandemics require global solutions that states resist, financial crises spread instantly across borders. Backlash: nationalist movements, Brexit, and trade wars represent states reasserting control against globalization pressures.
Q: What is the role of international law and can it constrain powerful states?
A: International law includes treaties, customary law, general principles, and judicial decisions. It lacks central enforcement — decentralized, relying on state consent, reciprocity, and reputational costs. Customary international law is binding even without explicit treaty if states follow it out of a sense of legal obligation (opinio juris). Jus cogens are peremptory norms — prohibition on genocide, torture, and slavery — that cannot be derogated by any state. Enforcement through diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, reputational costs, and international tribunals including the ICC and ICJ. Constructivists argue law shapes state identity and interests so compliance often occurs independent of enforcement.
Q: What explains the rise and relative decline of US hegemony in the international system?
A: Post-WWII US hegemony: the US accounted for roughly 50% of world GDP in 1945, created the Bretton Woods institutions (IMF, World Bank, GATT or WTO), established the dollar as the global reserve currency, built NATO for collective security, and provided the nuclear umbrella. Hegemonic stability theory: stable international order requires a hegemon willing and able to provide public goods. US relative decline: its share of world GDP fell from 50% to around 25%, military failures in Vietnam and Iraq, fiscal constraints, and the rise of China. Debate continues over whether US hegemony is truly declining or adjusting and what kind of power China will ultimately become.