These are my random musings. Hopefully they will be witty, insightful, and frequently updated.
Published on March 19, 2006 By singrdave In International
Just as a nuclear physicist constructs a theory about the causes and
effects of a project before going out to the test range and detonating,
it's important that scholars and practitioners of international
relations have a strong framework of theory before going out onto the UN
floor. Trial and error is not an option, whether it's diplomacy or
nuclear physics! Through international theory, we can examine scenarios
and motivations regarding states to "understand the causes of events
that occur in international relations every day" (Mingst, 3).

Throughout history, we as a society have tried and erred many times. In
fact, compared with the bulk of human history, we have been lacking an
effective global system until recently: "[F]or most of its 350 year
existence the global system has lacked... collective norms, and has only
begun since World War II to articulate them..." (notes, "A System of
States"). Without an effective theoretical framework, we are forced to
make the same diplomatic mistakes over and over again. Trial and error
rears its ugly head.

International relations is such an esoteric field. It takes in history,
psychology (both mass and individual-level), economics, media studies,
engineering, and military science. To wrap our brains around all the
factors and forces that motivate the actors on the international stage
takes open-mindedness, courage, and the ability to think theoretically.

Sources:
Kaufman, Daniel J. Understanding International Relations. 5th Edition, Boston, McGraw Hill Companies, 2004.
Mingst, Karen A. Essentials of International Relations. 3rd Edition, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2004. 3.
"A System of States", class notes.

Comments
on Mar 19, 2006
This is really getting to be a fun class. Hopefully these are read-worthy.
on Mar 19, 2006
I major in IR at the moment, but for the life of me I can't imagine how it's ever going to be useful in my future life. Realists ignore human nature in favour of simplicity, neoliberals ignore simplicity in favour of anarchy, marxists ignore reality for a good theory and the rest are too inconsequential to bother thinking about.

The theories make no sense, and they fall apart at the slightest of winds. The only thing going for them is the fact no one in a position of power really pays any perspective much lip-service (save perhaps neorealism), so they never get tested.
on Mar 20, 2006

neoliberals

For clarification, what is a neoliberal?

on Mar 21, 2006
For clarification, what is a neoliberal?


Singrdave can almost certainly answer this better than me, but here goes my attempt:

A neoliberal is much like a realist or neorealist. Neoliberals agree with traditional realism in the belief that the world system is inherently anarchical, and that states will act on the basis of their self-interest in all situations. Where neoliberalism primarily departs from neorealism is on its approach to alliances and international organisations, including economic alliances.

A neorealist dismisses the importance of such relationships, because they are simply windowdressing over the vastly more important military imperatives of global survival. Where they offer a benefit a neorealist may reject such alliances because the benefit is not wholly on the side of one's own state; the agreements do not offer a real advantage so much as a comparative advantage. As the agreement strengthens one's potential enemy it's a pointless exchange of power.

A neoliberal values such relationships because they offer a means to improve one's own powerbase and increase the likelihood of assistance in times of difficulty or expansion. An example of a wellknown neoliberal institution is the IMF. It primarily functions as a successor to the philosophies behind the Bretton-Woods agreement, expanding the wealth and influence of its member states in general but its founding states in particular.
on Mar 21, 2006
"Liberal" in this context does not mean "democrat" or even "liberal" in the Michael Dukakis sense. My impression is that "liberal" refers to being willing to sacrifice your own state's needs for the greater good, such as Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations, the IMF (thanks, Cacto!), or the EU. Diplomacy and statescraft work toward a common goal, which may or may not be in line with a realist, "state-centric" agenda.
on Mar 21, 2006

"Liberal" in this context does not mean "democrat" or even "liberal" in the Michael Dukakis sense. My impression is that "liberal" refers to being willing to sacrifice your own state's needs for the greater good, such as Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations, the IMF (thanks, Cacto!), or the EU. Diplomacy and statescraft work toward a common goal, which may or may not be in line with a realist, "state-centric" agenda.

Yes thanks Cacto.  I knew it was not a liberal in the american sense, but had never come across the term.  Your explanation is very welcome, and I understand it now.

on Mar 21, 2006
My impression is that "liberal" refers to being willing to sacrifice your own state's needs for the greater good, such as Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations, the IMF (thanks, Cacto!), or the EU.


Sort of. It's more that by contributing to the common good you also improve your own lot, which is desirable. It's no less inherently selfish than any other IR theory. Its believers are just more willing to cooperate.

Yes thanks Cacto. I knew it was not a liberal in the american sense, but had never come across the term. Your explanation is very welcome, and I understand it now.


No worries. It's good to know four years of study haven't gone completely to waste!
on Mar 22, 2006
on Mar 22, 2006
This is the mindset that inspired Kerry to suggest that we would take no defensive action without international approval. This believes that we work together for the common good, rather than acting unilaterally to our own ends, which is the "realist" view. (Best equated today as Neocon, though I am oversimplifying.)
on Mar 23, 2006
Geo-politics or international theory is rather meaningless in face of the obstinacy of die-hard nationalism. Democratizing the Middle East, for instance, is virtually impossible.
on Mar 23, 2006
Geo-politics or international theory is rather meaningless in face of the obstinacy of die-hard nationalism.


Not always. Nationalism is the cornerstone of most major international models. The theories are useless because they fail to explain future events and thus have to be constantly rejigged (from original to neo to post-neo etc) in order to match shifting realities.
on Mar 23, 2006
The realist view of international relations is that the anarchic world stage needs bold nations to stand up for their own self-interest, rather than abrogating their perceived rights for a greater good. Nationalism plays a huge role in that.
on Mar 23, 2006
Democratizing the Middle East, for instance, is virtually impossible.

It's really tough to impose an unwelcome political system upon a nation. They gotta want it before it can be effective. Then they gotta wanna keep it, through struggle and trial.
There are democracies in the Middle East (Egypt, for one). That proves to me that democracy and Islam are not mutually exclusive.
on Mar 25, 2006
THe US is threatening to pull its economic aid because Egypt's leader is loath to an open society. Shria Law does not a constitution make!