I.

EVOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS : WORLD WARS & COLD

WAR

FIRST WORLD WAR (THE GREAT WAR, 1914 -1919)

● Total war: populations and economies mobilized in the war effort

● New military technologies
● Initially it was a European War, however other states got involved such as Japan
(1914) and US (1917)
● It must be remarked the effect of the Russian Revolution on this war

SECOND WORLD WAR (1939-1945)

● It is argued that it was triggered by the Treaty of Versailles, which indeed failed to
ensure peace in Europe 🡪 restrictions imposed on the losers of WWI
● The economic crisis (Great Depression), together with the German
expansionism and Nazi ideology triggered WWII.
● Policy of appeasement used by the European leaders 🡪 the Allies accepted certain
demands of Germany, trying to avoid an international conflict.
● Hitler’s aspirations were more and more demanding = desire for more territories
● Blitzkrieg strategy was one of the most used war strategies during this period, which
consists of attacking immediately so that you give no time for your enemy to react.
● Attempt of invasion of USSR in 1941 🡪 the Nazi Germany tried to occupy this
territory
● Importance of the expansionism of other states, such as the Japanese and
Italian during the 30’s
● After the attack on Pearl Harbor (1941) the US becomes involved in the conflict,
leading to the expansion of the conflict to the Pacific Sea.
● Germany was defeated in March 1945 and that led to the end of the war, together with
the drop of the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. This obliged the
Japanese to surrender.
*The reason of the nuclear bombs has different explanations, not only used as “the only
way to end the war”, but also as a way to show the USSR their power

CONSEQUENCES

● These wars ended the empires in Europe (collapse of land empires, Hungarian,
German and Japan empires in the WWI).
● Self-determination was established as the guiding principle of international politics ,
related to the decolonization process. It must be remarked the blue water thesis
*Self-determination: right of a people to decide their own destiny without external
interference (cultural, economic, political affairs, etc.)
 *Blue water thesis: a limited decolonization approach arising from the UN. This thesis
was a criteria which advocated for the independence of those territories whose
metropolis was an ocean away from the colony.
● The Cold War will maintain anyways the persistence of the desire for hegemony

THE COLD WAR

● During the Cold War there was a bipolar structure (USA vs USSR),which marked the
armed race and space race. It started in WWII, in which USSR and USA were allies.
However, in the Yalta and Postdam conferences, they were discussing what to do with
the territories of the losers of the War. The Soviet Union established control over most
of Eastern Europe (Brezhnev doctrine) and the US did in Western Europe and NATO
(Truman doctrine).
● Kennan’s “Long Telegram” 🡪 was a telegram that informed to the US about the
policy of the USSR (1946).
● Support friendly regimes and movements, meanwhile subvert adversaries 🡪 Western
and Eastern Bloc, “Iron Curtain” (first physical separation, then ideological one)
● Soviet support for revolutionary movements in the Third World 🡪 Ethiopia in 1975,
Angola in 1978, Nicaragua, et 🡪 expand their influence
● “Domino theory” of the USA 🡪 if a government failed into a socialist rule, there
would be a contagious effect.
● Nuclear Deterrence Theory 🡪 nuclear weapons remain a problem between states =
mutually assured destruction (MAD)
*Nuclear Deterrence Theory is a doctrine which affirms that the possession of nuclear
arms avoid armed conflicts, since the cost of a nuclear war would be too high for both
parties.
● Cuban Missile crisis 1962
*These crisis was characterized by the discovery of soviet missiles in Cuba, which
caused a great tension between the 2 blocs 🡪 afterwards, the “Red Phone” was
established
● Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968) and SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation
Talks)
● “SDI”( (Strategic Defense Initiative) 1984🡪 nuclear arms control after disbarment

ASIA DURING THE COLD WAR

● End of Civil war in China 🡪 Communist regime of Mao Zedong (PCR)

 ● Korean War (1950-1953)
● Vietnam War (1955-1975)
● Divisions within the communist bloc: Vietnam vs. Cambodia (decline in Sino-Soviet
relations, US-China rapprochement)

LATIN AMERICA DURING THE COLD WAR

● Economic nationalism and protectionist policies

● Rise of socialist movements and regimes (Chile, Nicaragua, Cuba, etc.)
● Coups establishing military dictatorships (often with CIA support)

MIDDLE EAST DURING THE COLD WAR

● Creation of Israel in 1948 with both US and USSR support

● Soviet support for Arab nationalism in the 1950s
● Arab-Israeli War (1973): US alliance with Israel
● Soviet intervention in Afghanistan

END OF THE COLD WAR

● Gorbachev (1985) 🡪 Glasnost and Perestroika

● Collapse of the Soviet Union 1991 🡪 Berlin wall fall

END OF HISTORY (FUKUYAMA 1992)

● Triumph of liberal democracy over other regime types

● Not the end of global conflict, but the end of an ideological competition between
different political and economic systems
● Spread through globalization (not by force)
● Criticism: linear vision of history as heading towards progress and identity politics,
besides, new challenges such as terrorism and religious fundamentalism

THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS (HUNGTINTON 1993)

● Conflict not over ideology but over culture 🡪 increasing division instead of unity
● Rise of Non-Western powers 🡪 China, India and Islam world will crash with the
occidental culture
● War on Terror and neo-conservatism
*War on Terror: after the 11-S it was considered a political and military action against
terrorism
*Neo-conservatism: active promotion of liberal democracy and military
interventionism in countries considered enemies or authoritarian regimes.
DECLINE IN INTER-STATE CONFLICT: THE LONG PEACE

● “Territorial Integrity Norm” (1945) and growth in liberalism 🡪 Steven Pinker’s “Better
Angels”
*TIN: is an accepted norm which affirms the territorial integrity of territories,
meaning that frontiers must be respected, and no conquest/annexation are legitimate.
*”Better Angels”: a book in which Pinker argues that humanity has experienced a
decease in violence, thanks to the social progress, the arising democracy,
communication and international economic dependence.
● Nonetheless, even though there has been a decrease in international armed conflicts,
the presence of civil wars is still an important fact.
II. THEORIES OF IR: REALISM

THE REALIST APPROACH TO WORLD POLITICS

● Machiavellian moment 🡪 is a concept developed by Pocock used to describe a

critical situation in which a leader/country must make strategic difficult decisions
relying on manipulation or political shrewdness. It is based on the ideas of The
Prince which justified the use of power without hesitation to maintain the state’s
equilibrium 🡪 it is better to be feared than to be loved, no morality in the international
politics
*Not his quote but expresses the idea
● Conflict is inherent to the international systems 🡪 what causes wars? We agree
that trying to discuss these systems, we must take nation-state as the basic unit of
analysis of the international system
● States are only the legitimate authorities legitimate and sovereign in both
national and international affairs 🡪 they have legitimacy in holding means of
coercion (police, military, etc.)
● Peace of Westfalia 1648 🡪 ended the 30 years war because of religious conflicts
(important for IR history since it establishes that every country is sovereign to choose
religious identity, together with the fact that no country could intervene in the national
affairs of the others)
● Domestic (hierarchy) vs international (anarchy) structure 🡪 anarchy means
that there is no international legislative/executive organ that oversees worldwide affairs,
since each State is sovereign and legitimate, therefore, there is no ruler. On the other
hand, hierarchy means that there is a government of each nation-State.
● Key concept for nation-states is power and security 🡪 important concerns which
guarantee survival in the international scenario (where there is no supreme organ to
guarantee that survival)
● This situation creates the “security dilemma” 🡪 increasing your power will lead to a
more unsafe situation for yourself: states could be scared of you, therefore leading to a
higher effort to militarize (being now in a worse situation than before)
● Security and small countries? 🡪 coalitions (alliances and join power so that they do not
phase the IR scenario alone). E.g: USSR, NATO, etc. Therefore, the balance of power is
also an important aspect to the international panorama.

WHAT CAUSES WARS? “MAN, THE STATE AND WAR” (WALTZ 1959)

● Structural neorealists focus on the nature of IR system to study what causes conflict
● Important influence of neorealism: Waltz (he argues we can explain conflict through
three different focuses)
● 1st image: “nature” of humankind (humans are evil and selfish)
● 2nd image: state and institutions (depending on the type of regime) 🡪 for realists, the
institutions are not that important
● 3rd image: the nature of the system of IR relations
HUMAN NATURE

● Humans make society in their own image, and powerful leaders are inspired to try to
shape it as they see fit 🡪 institutions reflect human nature
● Spinoza or Niebuhr point out to the “evils in our spirit” that cause us to fight (the
opposite of our “Better Angels”)
● Morgenthau (1946): “the ubiquity of evil in human nature and man’s ineradicable lust
for power”
● Problems: our history is violent…but not continually violent. And why would we bother
with IR if there was no hope for peace?

THE STATE

● Instead of a fixed human nature, let’s look at what we build: our institutions. “Human
nature cannot be changed, institutions can” 🡪 the State is the important actor in IR
according to realists, therefore we can change them, instead of changing the nature.
● Defects in states can cause wars between them. Thus, if we solve these issues, we will
have peace 🡪 if we correct their defects, we could have peace (outside of the realist
tradition, since for realists each State is equal, all of them carrying for survival. No
importance of political ideology)
● Has this happened? Are certain kinds of states less prone to war? 🡪democracies do not
fight each other, and this idea argues that they won’t approve war. Marxists argue that
States do not represent only interests of survival, but also bourgeoisie interests.

THE ENDURING APPEAL OF THE NATION -STATE

● Humans clash over scarce resources. Without international authorities allocating those
resources, states are our agents in that struggle.
● Nation-states are, thus, the unit of analysis and key actor in IR 🡪 even in theories that
argue that they are not important in realists are they key, however they are not static.
They can appear and disappear, and their institutions change over time.

THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

It is argued as the most important one. Since States are relating without controlling these
relations, survival is not guaranteed, therefore aiming for power, control, security, etc. The
absence of authority and anarchy in IR causes war, there is no one to prevent it. Some argue
that States are power maximizers and others security maximizers.

● A final image states that it is the anarchic structure of the international system what
represents the underlying cause of war.
● “The policy of a state is determined by its goals and relations to other states”. There is
an absence of authority in IR.
● The absence of authority leads to competition and anarchical relations which, in the
ends, sows the seeds for war. “War occurs because there is no one to prevent them”
LESSONS FROM GREECE: THUCYDIDES

He is one of the most relevant historians of all time and father of realism, together with
Machiavelli. He argues about the morality of international politics. He tries to answer why the
war happened. It recalls the USA and China situation and the situation of the Cold War
(alliances, fighting on behalf of the allies, which could potentially lead to war)

● Thucydides (History of the Peloponnesian War) considered one of the most relevant
historians of all time, and “father” of realism.
● “My work is not a piece of writing designed to meet the taste of an immediate public
but was done to last forever.”
● The book tries to analyze the factors that led Athens and Sparta to a devastating war, as
well as a narration of that conflict.
● Genesis: the expansion of Athenian power changes the structure of power of the system
● Crisis: diplomatic confrontations between rising Athens and powerful Sparta
● Resolution: Sparta feared that Athens would attack at some point. War was a question
of when, not if.

THUCYDIDES TRAP

You have a ruling power, and a rising power who is arising and threatens the former (Sparta
is USA, and China is Athens). Ruling power is being fought by a rising power. This has already
happened several times in history, which indeed led to war (although there are some
exceptions).

● Allison claims that, for the past 500 years, the prospect of a rising power facing a ruling
superpower has resulted in war in 12 out of 16 times
● “It was the fire of Athens, and the fire it inspired in Sparta, that made war inevitable”
● In this context of changes in the international system, a small spark, a crisis in a system
of alliances, or a misunderstanding, can bring a conflict that seemed impossible
(although not unexpected, see WWI)

IS THIS STILL RELEVANT TODAY?

● Gilpin (1981): “The fundamental nature of international relations has not changed over
the millennia. Thucydides lives”.
● First: nation-state is still the main actor in the international system. Terms like national
interest or vital interest are still constantly thrown around.
● Second: territoriality and sovereignty are key aspects and organizing principles of
international politics
● Third: the nation-state does not exist in a vacuum, but it is part of an international
system

Because of globalization, nation-states are not that important (argued by some liberals).
EVOLUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

● Very fluid up until the 17th century. Constant apparition and disappearance of states
(See, for instance, Burgundy). Westphalia (1648) and Pyrenees (1659) set a precedent of
stability in Europe.
● That stability does not mean that there have not been changes. See, for instance,
processes of decolonization, splinters of countries through independentist movements,
independence granted through wars, or collapse of empires.

The International System has changed. Because of occupation, it was fluid in the 17 th century.
This led to the emergence of sovereignty between different States. However, decolonization has
also created lots of States, together with independent movements, collapse of empires, etc.

THE DIFFERENT STRUCTURES OF INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS

Gilpin (1981) identifies three forms of control/structure

1. Imperial/Hegemonic: single imperial power, such as Rome/China/British Empire 🡪

they tend to stabilize the world
2. Bipolar: the international system is dominated by 2 competing superpowers 🡪 like the
Cold War, where they compete for power
3. Balance of power/multipolarity: several nation-states compete for resources, engage in
conflict…but no clear predominance 🡪 different states searching for power without a
clear dominance

When you transition between them, these transitions can lead to conflict (strong powers
feel threatened)

SIX PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL REALISM

By Hans Morgenthau, one of the fathers of “Classical Realism” 🡪 1st image realist

1. Realism believes in the objectivity of the laws of politics: distinguishing between truth
and opinion
2. Key concept: “interest defined as power”, politics is an autonomous sphere of action.
Politicians act rationally, searching for power.
3. Objective interests, and not ideas, dominate the actions of politicians (ideology is just
an excuse, is not ideology but self-interests)
4. Tension between morality and requirements of successful political action (Raison
d’état?)
5. The moral laws of a nation are not the moral laws of the universe
6. There is a difference between what is legal/moral to do and what is the ideal policy to
increase the power of the nation

FINAL THOUGHTS ON REALISM

● Recent events, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the rise of China, have
sparked a resurgence of Realist ideas in IR
● Some famous realists (Mearsheimer before, now Stephen Walt) criticize what they call
the “Liberal blob” in Washington, which confuses morality and desire with interests of
the state
● Differences between classical realism (Morgenthau), with an eye on human nature, and
Neorealism/Structural Realism (Waltz), with an eye on the international system
● Within the latter, differences between offensive realism (security through domination
and hegemony) and defensive realism (security through moderation in policies,
avoiding the security dilemma)
III.THEORIES OF IR: LIBERALISM

WHAT IS LIBERALISM?

*Individualism (individual rights), less intervention in economy, rule of law, idea of liberty,
etc.

● What is Liberalism? Can we speak about one single “liberalism” or many? (See, for
instance, Bell. D, or Freeden, M.)
● At the national level, liberalism is perceived differently according to the history,
culture, and characteristics of each country
● Some key principles would be the maximum possible amount of freedoms and rights
for each citizen without threatening those rights and freedoms for others (Mi libertad
acaba donde empieza la tuya)
● Holding governments accountable and protecting minorities (rule of law)
● At the international level, it is perceived as the dominant ideology/theory in the West.
“Rules-based world Order” is a key principle of Liberalism (e.g: EU, Mercosur, UN,
etc.) 🡪 spread of institutions, norms and peace, especially at an international level

LIBERALISM VS REALISM

● Remember: for Realism the nation-state is the key actor, conflict is inherent to the
international system, and we should decouple morality and politics.
● Liberalism states that:
- The nation state is important, but it is not the only actor in IR. Pluralist conception
of the exert of influence 🡪 others that might be important are international
organizations (treaties are the outcomes), enterprises, etc. All of these play a role
in IR. Liberals are called pluralist in this sense. Besides, there is interdependence
among them.
- Conflict exists, but there is also cooperation and a certain harmony of interests
between different groups. Progress in learning, joint institutions, science, or
technology can bring us together
- It is not only a question on “how the world really is” (realists), but also on “how it
should be” (normative, liberals) 🡪 self-interest can lead either to conflict or
cooperation, the second one should be embraced to create a better IR scenario

*Liberalism proposes guidelines to change the condition of anarchy in the IR systems, with
certain norms and institutions.

LIBERALISM AND THE STATE

● Liberalism does not argue that the state should not exist. It is important for
guaranteeing rights and freedoms
● But Liberals argue that the state is non-monolythic, it is fragmented, composed by
competing departments 🡪 it is formed by different parts, but there is representation of
different interests (does the State represent the interest of one ruler, such as in
 absolutism/dictatorship, or does it represent other interests, such as in democracy?)
Pluralist, since in the IR scenario and within States you have different levels of
influence.
● “Pluralist” conception of the state, “Official policy is an outcome of bargain between
different units” (Krasner, 1978) 🡪 See, for instance, “The Sleepwalkers” (C. Clark) on
clashes within states before WWI

State acts as a referee of competing groups, you cannot talk about national interest, but
different interests formed by the different groups.

The Liberal perspective rejects the idea of the state as something absolutely “autonomous”, with
a will of its own 🡪 reflects the will of social groups, is made up of society and that is why they
deny, (realists did affirm) the existence of a “national interest. The State is a framework in
which these interests can be aggregated.

Liberalism rejects the idea of a single and unified “national interest”, which transcends the
individual interests of members of society. Plurality of interests, not a single “common good”

The state creates a framework within which individuals exercise their own preferences.

Besides, Liberalism considers that there is “an objective harmony of interests” in our society.
Clashes with Marxism regarding class conflict

If there is harmony of interests at the national level, there is also the possibility of an
international harmony of interests. Embrace those interests and free the nations of the world
from the plight of war.

For realists there is a difference between national and international level, liberals try to apply
affairs of national level to an international one.

If there’s anarchy, there can be conflict, however, we can overcome this. That is the liberalist
mindset. Institutions act as regulations for international relations.

DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL HARMONY

“Objective harmony of interests within society”. How is that possible? According to Liberalism
in IR, free trade is a crucial vehicle for harmonious international relations. Each side gains from
trade, reducing the appetite for wars.

Free market is a key aspect of liberalism both at national and international level. At
international level there is ore interdependence creating a harmony of interests. It is in their
interest to maintain relations and avoid wars. Mercantilist measures existed during the time
when Adam Smith wrote, therefore he wanted to abolish them. Along with the idea that
democracy do not fight each other, commercial partners do neither (difference between
commercial peace and “normal” peace.

Gilpin (1987), quoting Adam Smith: “the mutual benefits of trade and expanding
interdependence among national economies will tend to foster cooperative relations. Whereas
politics tends to divide, economics tends to unite people. A liberal international economy will
have a moderating influence on international politics as it creates bonds of mutual interests.”

Is free trade conducive to harmony and peace or can it lead to conflict? Marxist could argue
that this could depend on the level of industrialization and modernization. Realist mentioned
that UK and Germany where trade partners during the WW but they still went to war
(contradiction)

If everyone gains from peaceful economic relationships, violence is destructive, bad, and
avoidable.

INTERDEPENDENCE AS BASIS OF LIBEALISM

Through trade and diplomacy, countries have been coming together. There has been a
“coupling” of the world through institutions, economy, and increase in cooperation

Keohane and Nye posit that, for liberals, issues are not “hierarchical”, they do not focus
exclusively on power and security, as the Realists would do.

The argue that interdependence is also about mutual dependence (it has a cost if it is
interrupted, e.g: countries with oil). It is not just about being connected but about WHAT is
being connected.

Finally, there is also a multiplicity of relationships between different actors in the world stage.
Not only relations between states, but between peoples, governments, or through international
institutions.

However, interdependence is not enough to achieve cooperation and international order. That
is why we need international organizations to regulate these relations. Countries do not just
about power and security (realists), but also about economic interests. Even if you are realist,
you must consider other concerns. Interdependence is also related to relations between
different countries of the world.

ON WAR, IMPERIALISM AND OTHER EVILS

Critique of imperialism by liberals. However, for liberals is important democratic principles,

therefore they justify it in order to intervene in anti-democratic regimes. What to do about
illiberal regimes? Is it legitimate to conquer them? John Stuart Mill 🡪 embrace imperialism
and justify intervention in uncivilized nations. Liberalism has been used to justify colonialism
on the grounds of civilization/progress.

Imperialism: conquering other countries, building empires, is foolish. The expense of conquest,
and of building and maintaining an Empire, is greater than the advantages won from peaceful
trading.

But also different strands within liberalism across time. E.g: liberal imperialists in the 19th and
20th century and imperial denunciation (Hobson)

War: well-being of world’s population can increase only to the extent that production increases
too. In this context, war is destructive, and the idea of “enrichment from war” is an illusion.

DEMOCRATIC PEACE
Key element of liberal philosophy. For them democracies do not go to war with each other,
therefore we must change systems and institutions, forcing them to lead towards democracy.
If people can choose the foreign policy of the State, they won’t go to war. Liberalism argues
for a place of morality in IR scenario.

“Democracies do not go to war against each other”. Enduring appeal of this proposal (See, for
instance, Paine, or Kant).

But does democracy prevent wars against other democracies (Sreit, 1939; Small and Singer,
1976), against any kind of states (Babst, 1972), or does it foster a more peaceful international
system? (Wilson, 1917) 🡪 does it actually foster a peaceful IR scenario?

As opposed to realism, it engages in connections between morality and politics: democracies are
better and more peaceful than autocracies. Thus, dividing lines depending on political system

HOW TO CHANGE THE WORLD

If war does not pay, why then, do nation-states seem to behave irrationally so often, by getting
involved in so many of them?

Waltz (1954): “For Liberals, the causes of war are mere pretexts, ways of committing nations to
war their governors want for selfish reasons of their own. To make the liberal order real, states
must change”

19th Century: liberals believed that education, science, and technology would help in “morally
developing” nations, walking towards world peace. Moral development has always been a key
piece of Liberalism (See Rosenblatt, for instance) 🡪 education, technology and science help to
raise conscience, overcome the violent human nature 🡪 more of a classical view.

Realists focus on how the world is. They do not care about good or bad, but for liberalism,
since they try to ensure peace and have a moral ideal, their moral feature is included in their
view. Division between states which behave toward conflict or peace.

However, in the 20th Century, despite moral progress, growing interdependence, and more
trade, two devastating World Wars

What is an alternative way of changing the behaviour of nation-states? Bull (1977): “Because
each state is responsible for the interests of only a limited segment of the human
population, the states system obstructs the just distribution of economic and social
benefits among states and nations, among individuals or according to some conception
of the world common good”.

Liberalism focuses no longer on the moral education of leaders and peoples, but on the
international system. Construction of international organisations, regimes, and authorities to
promote cooperation.

These institutions challenge the sovereignty of the nation-state, and act as a vehicle of
cooperation. These are the first steps of what we call “Liberal World Order” or “Rules-based
world order”

TOWARD PERPETUAL PEACE

Philosophical sketch by Immanuel Kant in order to achieve peace. Historical context matters: he
writes in a very turbulent time in European history, and in a kingdom famous for its military
prowess 🡪 he saw an IR scenario marked by conflict. He believes in a state of nature (anarchy
of international system), but the solution is more of a union of states (constitutions and social
contract)

He also believes in a “state of nature”, but his solution is not a Leviathan, but a union of states
through a social contract.

War can happen in the state of nature, but “rulers should treat people as ends in themselves”.
Thus, they need the consent of those who are governed before waging war.

He aspires to a federation of states, or a league of states, with them voluntarily agreeing to settle
disputes in a way that avoids wars.

Six preliminary articles/bans:

● No signing of peace treaties while preparing for a new war

● No annexation of other states (territorial integrity norm)
● Abolishing standing armies
● Forbidding debt emission to pay for expansionist policies
● Non-interference in other states internal affairs (sovereignty)
● Set limits in the conduct of war

Three “definitive” articles:

● Each state shall have a Republican Constitution

● Each state shall participate in a League of States
● Cosmopolitan Right of Universal Hospitality

THE LAW OF PEOPLES AND ITS BASIS

He argues that you can have perpetual peace among this member of federation and try to
increase this tendency, but this has not happened. There are still autocracies. Is it important to
know what norms can be accepted by liberal and illiberal states? How to create a just society
at a domestic level and extrapolate it to the international one. He defends equality of
opportunities and individual freedom at a national level.

The Rawlsian theory: social contractualism to create a fair society 🡪 “Justice is the first virtue of
social institutions, as truth is that of a system of thought”

His “Theory of Justice” (1971) is one of the most cited works of political philosophy of all time.
Two principles of justice, chosen under a “Veil of Ignorance”

The Law of Peoples states that the great evils of human history, like wars and oppression, come
from political injustice. It is an attempt to have a “Realist Utopia”

(Basis of the Laws of people)

There is an international basic structure, similar to the institutional structure in a society. With
the Veil of Ignorance on, we would choose 8 principles, and bring stability, moving towards a
“liberal peace” (democratic peace)
Eight principles: freedom an independence of people/observe treaties/Equality of peoples/Non-
intervention (Except for grave violations of HR)/Self-defence/Honour HR/Restrictions when
conducting war/Assist those living in unfavourable regimes

“Peoples instead of States”

● “Liberal peoples”: liberal constitutions, popular control of govt. No oligarchy (except

these ones, the rest are illiberal peoples)
● “Decent peoples” : they respect a core list of HR, “decent consultation hierarchy”
● “Burdened societies”: social and economic conditions that make it difficult to develop
liberal institutions. International community should help them
● “Outlaw states”: engaging in wars, attacking HR, and other territories. International
community should fight if attacked (self-defence), and take action to stop violation of
HR.

FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE

Conventions and Declarations: see, for instance, Geneva Convention (Aligned with Kantian
thinking) for rights of prisoners, military, and civilians, or the Universal Declaration of HR

Institutions: see the World Trade Organisation, the International Court of Justice, or the
European Coal and Steel Community

Political institutions: see the European Union, the League of Nations, or the UN

HAS LIBERALISM SUCCEEDED?

Reduction of the number of interstate wars since the end of WWII (“The Long Peace”)

Despite some outlaw states, institutions such as the ICJ still hold weight, the EU was
unthinkable merely 70 years ago, and countries such as China speak in terms of “multilateralism

Humans seem to “learn” from their mistakes and engage in transnational cooperation to
preserve the future of humankind.

HAS LIBERALISM FAILED?

Despite the decrease of inter-state wars, other forms of collective political violence are on the
rise. The world is still bloody.

Despite conventions, institutions, and treaties, civilians are still massacred. Recent examples,
such as Ukraine and Gaza, show that the “binding” of these institutions is not strong enough.

Are these institutions truly cosmopolitan/liberal, or just tools of the West to impose a certain
vision of life?

Do the liberal institutions need an “enforcer”, a country which is able to become a sort of global
Leviathan to ensure Liberalism triumph?

THE DARK SIDE: INTEREDPENDENCE

Interdependence is a tool for peace, but it can also be “weaponised”. How?

If we are too dependant on products, services, or any other kind of goods from other countries,
interdependence can become a curse. See, for instance, Miller, C. (Chip War), or Russian gas.

The pandemic sparked a protectionist turn. From “just in time” to “just in case”. Are we too
dependant on others? Does that affect our national security and global peace?

THE DARK SIDE: THE PROBLEMS OF DEMOCRATIC PEACE

Key questions regarding democratic peace:

1. What is a democracy?
2. What is a conflict?
3. Can it become “Westernisation” of the world?

RODRIK’S TRILEMMAS AND OUR WORLD ORDER

Dani Rodrik detected some problems in the

development of globalization in his book “The
Globalization Paradox” (2010), where he saw the
impossibility of having, at the same time “nation-
states”, “democratic policies”, and “hyper-
globalization”

If the trilemma is right, and we cannot move

towards more supra-national forms of
governance, then Liberalism has a problem.

He has recently written about a new trilemma:

“Green policies” – “Reduction of global poverty”
– “Preservation of middle class in advanced
economies”. Is this really true?
IV: THEORIES OF IR: MARXISM

CORE AND PERIPHERY

• Global Finance
• “Wealth continues to be highly concentrated in a few Gulf states, Europe and North
America”
• “Poverty remains extensive throughout the world, particularly in Africa. In fact, Africa
dominates the bottom of the rankings, occupying nine of the last ten spots.
• Key question: what explains this divide? Why are there poor countries and why are
there rich countries?

*Classic theory of imperialism by Lenin

GDP/capita → clear difference between

developed and under-developed countries

*Importance of the idea of legacy of

colonialism and artificial boundaries.
Advanced countries are developed at the
expense of others.

Gini coefficient → the idea that

capitalism has caused deep economic
inequalities

*Natural resource curse

THE FIRST SOCIALISTS

• Referred to as utopian socialists (criticized because of the lack of a scientific method,

unlike Marx). Writing at the same time as the liberal tradition, but offers more
communitarian solutions for the problems of that time.
• Saint Simon → public control of the property through central planning
*He tries to understand society by classes, we have the ones who engage in production
and the others which profit from the production but do not contribute. We should focus
on a society based on a productive activity to get rid of the “parasite” classes. Against
free market competition and argues to introduce public control property. Also known
as father of sociology (studied as a living organism). He favors the idea of facing
wages in terms of productivity.
• Robert Owen → social organization through industry, change the conditions = society
*By changing the organization of factories and changing the conditions of workers, we
can change society. Factories that were cooperatively run. He improved worker
 conditions, banned child labor and other changes to improve worker’s conditions.
Society is based on the relations we find in production, so by changing that relations
we can change society.
• Fourier → Phalansteres as self-managing communities
*Proposes the idea of phalansteries as self-managing committee, no wages no private
property. Small communities based on agriculture, but the utopian idea to organize
production.

WORKERS AND THEIR CONDITIONS

*Activist aspects are also important. Lots of movements throughout history to improve
worker’s conditions.

• Levellers → mid-17th century during English civil war. They demanded political and
economic equality. Even before socialist utopians.
• Chartism → working class movement at the beginning of 19th century in the UK.
Advocated for the political representation of workers.
• Luddites → skilled-textile workers in the beginning of the 19th century who rebel against
machines of the factories and destroy them. These technologies would deteriorate their
working conditions. Automation would make the situation worse for them.
• Paris Commune of 1871 → revolutionary government which ruled France for some
months and was made up of artisan, farmers, working class, etc. They are introducing
improvements of working conditions and cooperative factories. They were suppressed.
• First International 1864 to 1876 - International Workingmen’s Association
*Were supposed to support socialist movements but it was dissolved because of the
difference between Marxists and anarchists.
• Second International 1889 to 1916
*Included socialist movements but ended with WWI.

THE MARXIST PERSPECTIVE

*Marxist perspective that tries to explain the situation not only at a domestic level. What
drives politics are economic forces and economic interests of states. They argue that the
economic order is fundamentally unjust (rich core exploits the periphery), so develops at the
expense of it. For the periphery it is difficult to overcome this disadvantaged position.

Key questions for Marxist scholars:

• What are the origins of this core-periphery division between rich and poor countries?
• What keeps this division in place?
• For Marxist analysts, what drives world politics are economic relations and economic
forces.
• International economic order is fundamentally unjust: the rich “core” exploits the poor
“periphery”. And the periphery finds it difficult, or straight-up impossible, to escape this
situation of economic exploitation.

KEY MARXIST CONCEPTS

• Key unit for Marxism is social class

 *Not individuals, not necessarily states. You can conceptualize societies based on the
production relations.
• Political conflict arises from struggle between social classes (“capitalists” versus the
“workers”) over the distribution of wealth in society
• In contrast to Liberal argument that there is a “harmony of interests”, Marxists argue
that capitalist economic relations are fundamentally about exploitation of the workers,
leading to continuing conflict between them and the owners of capital
• Increasing exploitation / misery /suffering would lead workers to gain a revolutionary
consciousness.
*This would lead to an uprising to remove the bourgeoisie class.
• Under capitalism, the industrial working class (“proletariat”) are in constant conflict –
“class struggle” – with the owners of the means of production (“bourgeoisie”)
• End result is the overthrowing of capitalism by the workers and the establishment of a
class-free (“Communist”) society
• Political conflict will only disappear with the elimination of capitalism, the market and
economic exploitation, and a society no longer based on classes.
• Annex: many strands of Marxism, different approaches regarding how to eliminate
capitalism

For Marx this was inevitable. You can describe history throughout these production relations,
adapting them to each time → historical materialism.

*Dialéctica → tesis + antítesis = síntesis, es decir lucha de clases. Este concepto lo hereda de
Hegel y lo inserta dentro de su materialismo histórico. Este consiste en relacionar la
dialéctica de Marx (burgueses y proletariado) con las relaciones laborales y de producción
(es decir propiedad de los medios de producción, que permite la explotación). Esto es
materialismo histórico pues esta dialéctica (con esas relaciones productiva adheridas) lleva
sucediendo durante toda la historia.

MARXISTS AND THE STATE

Differ from the previous two in matter of the State. The State represents the interest of the
upper class (critique to the realist point of view).

• If Marxism rejects the Liberal view of a “harmony of interests” within society, it also
attacks the Realist school of thought:
• Marxism rejects the notion of a “national” interest and argues that the state mirrors the
preferences of the capitalist class.
• In The Communist Manifesto, the state is effectively an “executive committee” which
defends the “common affairs of the whole of the bourgeoisie”. → Empirical evidence?
(See, for instance, Bartels)
There is research which points out that the State tends to represent more the interests
of upper/middle or educated class. The representatives tend to be of upper class or
educated and besides, ideologically they are usually aligned.
• Thus: the end point of Communism is to, effectively, “get rid of the state”

THE DYNAMIC NATURE OF CAPITALISM

Much of Karl Marx’s arguments are based on the development of capitalism – the “Industrial
Revolution” – in Britain in 19th Century
Industrial Revolution had massive impact on the structure of the economy and, as a result, on
society as a whole. For example:

• Rise of industrial manufacturing, large factories, large-scale production, relative decline

of agriculture, emergence of industrial working class, trade unions, socialist parties,
urban slums etc.
• Britain eventually joined by other powerful capitalist competitors undergoing their own
Industrial Revolutions: Germany, France and the USA.
• The Great Divergence and Small Divergence: Europe vs the rest of the world and within
Europe.

MARXISM AND WORLD POITICS

• Though Marx himself generated his arguments by analyzing a single case (Britain), he
fully expected capitalism to spread globally.
• So key part of Marxist thinking on international relations is that for capitalist countries,
foreign economic expansion is necessary
• Late 19th Century / early 20th Century: economies of core capitalist countries became
increasingly sophisticated. As a result, their need for foreign resources and materials
also increased.
• Stephen Krasner (1978): economies of advanced capitalist countries would have faced
severe problems without access to new markets and confined to their own boundaries.
Capturing new resources via foreign expansion an “imperative necessity of advanced
capitalism”

Idea of under consumption.

CAPITALISM AND IMPERIALISM

• The result? Powerful capitalist countries built foreign empires – they became Imperial
Powers
• Lenin (Imperialism, Highest stage of capitalism1917)
- Paradox: term first coined by Hobson

The next part is Lenin’s explanation:

• Overseas imperialism enables advanced capitalist countries to acquire cheap resources

• Brutal exploitation of colonies provided capitalist powers with economic surplus and
profits to use “back home” (for example, “buying off” their own workers, and avoiding
internal revolution)
- Similar to the argument of Luebbert (Liberalism, Fascism, and social democracy)

IMPERIALISM AND WAR

• For Lenin, colonial imperialism had become a necessary feature of advanced capitalism.
• As its productive forces developed, capitalist economies had to expand abroad or else
suffer economic stagnation and internal revolution. Advanced capitalist countries had
huge appetite for raw materials and resources to be found in the colonies
• Crucially, this process creates international conflict because resources are limited →
you are competing with other countries for colonies and their resources
• So for Lenin, WWI is a fight between the Imperial powers for control and exploitation of
resources found in the various colonies.
 • For Liberalism, expansion of trade, international economic relations, are forces for
peace and stability in world politics.
• For Lenin, international capitalism was a war system:
- As capitalist economies developed, they were compelled to seize colonies to serve as
new markets, sites of investment, and sources of food and raw materials.
- In competition with one another, they divided up the colonial world in accordance
with their relative strengths (For instance, Conference of Berlin)
- Imperialist conflict inevitably leads to war among rising and declining imperial
powers. WWI was a war of territorial redivision of colonies between the UK and
Germany

AFTER IMPERIALISM

• Colonial Empires of old have disappeared since the process of decolonization after
WWII. However, later Marxist scholars of 2nd half of 20th Century argue that the
fundamental divide between the rich, advanced, powers of the “core” and the poor,
underdeveloped countries of the “periphery” remains in place. IR are still defined by the
unequal nature of economic relations
• This argument states that there is no need for “physical empires”, international
capitalism can exploit the resources of other countries through businesses,
multinationals, and other forms of domination → “Invisible Empire” idea
• Big Tech can play a role in this sort of neo-Imperialism, as well as the spread of “zones”
and Western-dominated policies across the “periphery”

CORE-PERIPHERY

• Traditional explanation of development for liberals was the “Modernization theory”:

economic development, middle-class growth, and appearance of a liberal democracy
that sustains and preserves that growth (Lipset).
• However, Marxist analysis provides an alternative: “dependency theory”: poorer
countries of “periphery” remain as suppliers of raw materials for more developed
countries of “core”. They are essentially “shut out” from the benefits of economic
development themselves.
• Dependency: “strongest” version of core-periphery divide. Applies to countries with
either no natural resources, or very few. Difficult to “break into” international economic
system. Vulnerable to barriers established by wealthier countries (e.g., European Union
acting as “Fortress Europe”).
• Also, poorer countries that export only one or two products/commodities are
economically highly vulnerable to price changes on the world market.
- Natural resources curse → if you have access to rents because of natural resources,
there is no demand nor intention of the rulers to transition to another political
regime. This leads to autocracies and corruption.

A new way of Marxist thought, not only about imperialism, but also capitalism as a cause to
explain why some countries are more developed than others. Underdeveloped are in a specific
position in the economic system, it is not that they are not under-developed just because they
don’t have capital or resources.

Dependency theory.
WORLD SYSTEM

• “A social system with boundaries, structures, groups, and legitimation. Organism-like,

things that change and things that do not.”
• There is a multicultural and multiterritorial division of labour, which leads to a
difference between labour-intensive and capital-intensive áreas. Core and periphery,
with a buffer of semi-peripherial states. Technology as key defining variable in this
exploitiation.
• Unequal exchanges lead to capital accumulation, and growing differences between the
“centre” and the periphery. Key actor is not the nation-state, but we should focus on the
“social prison” of which all actors (states, individuals, corporations) are part -> Aiming
at endless accumulation of capital.

PROBLEMS OF MARXISM

• How would the real communist society that emerges from the ashes of capitalism look
like?
• Historically: the Communist countries which did emerge in Soviet Union and Eastern
Europe always suffered problems of economic inefficiency and stagnation. They also
were entangled in wars.
• Collapse of Soviet Union and most of Communist world has damaged power and
credibility of Marxist analysis
• Marxism remains influential as a criticism of the problems and evils of capitalism, but
less useful at building alternatives.
• Does the division between core and periphery still make sense?
• There is still a huge gap between the worlds’ richest and poorest countries, but critics of
this theory could point out to: 1) massive reduction of poverty) countries which were
“peripherial” entering the core (Southeast Asia, South Korea, Turkey, parts of Latin
America…)
• Where does China fit in this equation? And if all of these countries were peripherial,
what is the explanation for the growth of some and the stagnation of others?
V. END OF THE WESTERN ERA? RISING POWERS AND CURRENT
GEOPOLITICS

INTERNATIONAL ORDER (OR DISORDER)

• “Minimal conditions of coexistence” in the anarchical system of states (Aron 1965) vs.
“pattern that leads to a particular result, an arrangement of social life such that it
promotes certain values or goals” (Bull 2003)
• “Organized group of international institutions that help govern the interactions”
(Mearsheimer 2019)
o Great powers create and manage orders
• “World Order refers to the concept held by a region or civilization about the nature of
just arrangements and the distribution of power thought to be applicable to the entire
world.” (Kissinger 2014)

WORLD ORDERS

• Gilpin: imperial/unipolar, bipolar, and multipolar

• Mearsheimer (2019): realist → liberal → realist
• Kissinger (2014):
o European Order
o Islamic Order
o Chinese Order
o American Order
• Archarya (2023): Non-Western World Orders
o Classical Near East
o Indian
o Chinese
o Islamic

UNIPOLAR, BIPOLAR, AND MULTIPOLAR MOMENTS

• Pax Romana: peace in the Roman Empire

• Peace of Westphalia (1648)
• Pax Britannica: after napoleon was defeated (until WWI)
• Cold War
• Liberal International Order (Pax Americana): now, USA is the global power

THE WESTERN ERA (1990 -2025?)

• End of Cold War: US emerging as sole remaining “superpower”

• “New World Order” (Bush) resting on:
o Military Strength of the US
 o Strength of international institutions (influenced by USA)
o Strength of bilateral alliances (eg. Europe and USA)

THE WESTERN ERA ACCORDING TO THEORIES OF IR

• Liberalism: Positive developments because it means:

o Globalization, spread of democracy, and norms
o Strengthening of international organizations
• Realism: Unipolarity
o Strong given US overwhelming military power
o Bipolar moment more stable (Kenneth Waltz, John Lewis Gaddis) BUT
problematic ideological component such as USA trying to spread democracy
(Mearsheimer 2019)
• Marxism: US Imperialism
o Bush actions in Iraq, Afghanistan
• Some famous realists (Mearsheimer before, now Stephen Walt) criticize what they call
the “Liberal blob” in Washington, which confuses morality and desire with interests of
the state
• Differences between classical realism (Morgenthau), with an eye on human nature, and
Neorealism/Structural Realism (Waltz), with an eye on the international system
Within the latter, differences between offensive realism (security through domination and
hegemony) and defensive realism (security through moderation in policies, avoiding the

THE DECLINE OF THE LIBERAL ORDER

• Important events:

o 9/11 and War of Terror (Iraq, Afghanistan) → Bush administration

(unilateralism) with invasion of Irak and Afghanistan: anti US sentiment
o Economic Crisis of 2008: rise of populist parties, mostly from the right
o (Refugee Crisis of 2015): antimigration sentiment: backlash

• Limits of using military force for achieving political goals and human rights
violations by the US (e.g., in Guantanamo)

o Loss of legitimacy of the US through out the World.

• Mearsheimer (2019): Liberal International order containing the seeds of its

own destruction

o Democracy promotion
o International Organizations
o Hyperglobalization (+ emerging multipolarity): has lead to some countries such
as China to grow. We shift into a different international order.

The US: Declining Superpower?

 • Economic decline but military commitments

• Political divisions regarding various foreign policy matters:

o Regional conflicts and hostile powers

o Terrorism
o Relations with allies (eg. NATO)
• Donald Trump: isolationist or sovereigntist?

• Has the US decline been greatly exaggerated?

UNILATERALISM VS. MULTILATERALISM

How to exercise military power?

• Multilateralists: embed US power into pre-existing international institutions

(especially UN), to demonstrate USA’s ability to exercise its power responsibly and in
consultation with other countries → liberals would argue this

• Unilateralists: UN flawed as an international institution; EU economically important

but not major military actor (with exception of Britain and France); need to protect
USA’s freedom of action

These debates and differences key to explaining dynamics of US foreign and

military policy in 21st Century

EUROPE (OR THE EU)

• Trajectory of European Union – key ally of USA – far less positive in 21st
Century:

o 1990s: successful enlargement of EU (previous Soviet countries)+ further

deepening of institutional integration
o 21st Century: Euro Crisis, stalled and threatened process of integration
(decline)
o Backlash from within: Brexit, far-right parties, Poland and Hungary
o Crisis of North Atlantic alliance → between the US and Europe, US is not
backing as before.

RISING POWERS

• Russia

• China

• Regional powers and BRICS

Russia

• Collapse of the Soviet Union (1991): loss of sphere of influence

• Economic stagnation and crisis with liberalization
• Increased national security threats: Rusia is trying to regain power but avoid
confrontation
 • Interventions in Ukraine (also War with Georgia in 2008) trying to ptotect (or expand?)
sphere of influence.

China

• Communist rule since 1949:

o Mao Zedong (1949-1976) after Civil War

o Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward
o Repression in Tiananmen Square (1989)
o Xi Jinping (2013-) →aggressive form of recovering past glory
• Liberalizing reforms by Deng Xiaoping (1970s) → second-largest world economy

• Increasing foreign investments (Belt and Road Initiative: investment in 150 different
countries)

• Threats to Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South China Sea

BRICS: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa

• Jim O’Neill (2001): 4 countries as key emerging powers in the world economy

• China and India as world’s principal suppliers of manufactured goods and services

• Brazil and Russia as world’s dominant suppliers of raw materials

• They are no longer reliant on foreign aid but donors

• Expanding trade relations with each other and less affected by financial crisis

• Brazil and India now part of “quad” in the WTO

Regional World Orders

• Rising new powers first regional superpowers (e.g., Brazil, South Africa)

o Latin America: Brazil

o Central America: Mexico
o South Asia: India
o South-East Asia: Indonesia
o Africa: Nigeria and South Africa

REVENGE OF THE THIRD WORLD

• Anti-imperialist leaders in the early 2000s (“Pink Socialists”)

• Much greater willingness to act in pursuit of collective interests and against traditionally
dominant countries of developed world → Greater say in international matters (G20)

• Unclear division between Third World and the West (or Global North and Global South)

• Bridging role of emerging countries (e.g. Brazil)

• Non-aligned countries denouncing hypocrisy of the Great Powers not choosing a side(e.g. War
on Ukraine)
ON THE SOURCES OF POWER

• Military and economic power:

• Declining economic power with military responsibilities (US)

• New powers rising in terms of economic not military power → Demographic power
such as the amount of population (Eberstadt 2019)

A NEW ERA?

• Decline of the US?

• Bipolar or multipolar?
• End of the territorial integrity norm?
• New challenges:
o Climate change
o Cybersecurity
o Pandemics
o Nationalism
VI. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND TRANSNATIONAL ACTORS

ACTORS IN IR

• Realism vs. liberalism:

• Realism: Nation-states are the primary actors, acting based on self-interest.

• Liberalism: Multiple actors influence world politics, including institutions and non-state
actors.
• Pluralist view: International politics is shaped by a variety of actors beyond just states.

Types of actors in IR:

• Nation-states: primary in realist perspectives).

• International Organizations (IOs): UN, EU, NATO: Interest of states vs. interest of
peoples → International Justice (Guest lecture)

• Transnational actors : Multinational Corporations, NGOs, criminal networks).

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS (IOS)

• Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs)

• Necessary to deal with global issues
• Different areas of cooperation: Economic, security, environmental, etc.
• Examples: UN, WTO, NATO, World Bank, IMF.

BEFORE THE UN

• Pre-20th-century world politics

o Based on bilateral diplomatic relations and alliances been few nation-states (e.g.
Triple Entente vs. Triple Allaince)

o Westphalian system: Balance of power system often breaking down (e.g., WWI).

• The League of Nations (1920-1946)

o Created after WWI (Wilsonian idealism).

o Goals:

▪ Prevent wars through collective security and disarmament

▪ Settle international disputes via negotiation & arbitration.

o Failures:

▪ No enforcement power (no standing army).

▪ Relied on powerful nations (some did not join, e.g., the U.S.).

▪ Did not represent colonized regions.

THE UNITED NATIONS (1945-PRESENT)

 • Created to fix League of Nations’ weaknesses

o Collective security system but with consensus from Great Powers (+binding
power like the Security Council).

o Founded in April-October 1945: drafting of the charter, ratification by the 5

members of the Security Council and majority of other governments)

PREAMBLE OF THE UN CHARTER: KEY VALUES

• Prevent war and promote peace.

• Human rights and equal rights for all nations.
• Social progress and better living conditions globally.

UN GOALS AND PRINCIPLES

Main goal: Promote peace and security.

• Harmonize actions of nations, foster peaceful relations between equal states (with right to self-
determination)

• International cooperation to solve economic, political and social issues

→Security council might take action to restore international peace and security

Principles:

• Sovereign equality of all its members

• Settle disputes by peaceful means

• Refrain from using force against territorial integrity/political independence of another state

STRUCTURE OF THE UN

EVALUATING THE UN

• Growth: Expanded post-1945 due to decolonization & USSR collapse.

• Current status:

o 193 member states + 2 observer states (Holy See & Palestine).

• Promoting peace and security:

 • UN Charter provided a standing army set by agreement between SC and
consenting states (→ Cold War), but improvised arrangements

• Peacekeeping operations (classical, peace enforcement)

• Humanitarian role (disarmament, Specialized Agencies)

• Security Council no longer reflects current distribution of power + Important

limitations during the Cold War

REGIONAL INTEGRATION

• Key debate: Should IOs reflect state interests or should they act as world government?
• (Neo-)Functionalism vs. Intergovernmentalism (→EU)

o Neofunctionalism: Integration in one area→ spillover in other areas → emphasizes

the role of supranational institutions (e.g., the European Commission) and non-
state actors in driving integration beyond what states initially intended.

o Intergovernmentalism: States, based on national interest, determine the

outcome of regional integration → national governments are the primary
decision-makers, and integration only occurs when it aligns with state interests.
Supranational institutions play a limited role.

THE EUROPEAN UNION (EU)

BACKGROUND AND TRAJECTORY OF INCREASING INTEGRATION:

• 1952: European Steel and Coal Community (ECSC).

• 1958: Treaties of Rome → European Economic Community (EEC) & Euratom.
• 1958: Birth of the European Parliament
• 1960: European Free Trade Association (EFTA)
• 1962: Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
• 1965: Merger Treaty – ECSC + EEC + Euratom
• 1968: Customs Union
• 1970s-1980s: First enlargements
• 1990s: Second phase of enlargements
• 1992: Maastricht Treaty → European Union (1993) and Single Market (EEA in 1994)
• 1995: Schengen Agreement
• 1999: Euro (€)
• 2005: EU Constitution
• 2007: Lisbon Treaty, reforming institutions.

EU DECISION-MAKING BODIES

• European Commission – Proposes laws, manages policies.

• European Parliament – Legislative role, elected representatives.

• European Council – Heads of state, sets political direction.

• Council of the EU – Represents governments, votes on laws.

 • Other institutions: European Court of Justice, European Central Bank.

CHALLENGES FOR THE EU

• Euro Crisis (2010s) → Banking Union.

• Terrorism (2015 attacks).
• Refugee crisis (2015).
• Brexit in 2016 (official departure in 2020)
• Rise of far-right populism in EU states.

BEYOND THE EU: REGIONAL TRADE ORGANIZATIONS

1980s: "New regionalism" → Growth of trade agreements

• NAFTA (US, Canada, Mexico) → USMCA (2020)

• Mercosur (Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina, Uruguay)
• ASEAN (10 Southeast Asian Countries)
• African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) (2021)

TRANSNATIONAL ACTORS

• Groups, organizations, movements etc. which operate across national boundaries at a

regional and/or global level

→National states (or representatives thereof, like IGOs) as not the sole actor

• Transnational companies (TNCs)

• International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs)
• International “non-legitimate” networks of crime and of terrorism (Week 12)

Transnational Corporations:

• Definition: Companies with subsidiaries in multiple countries (Do not just import and/or
export products)

• Origins: Historically from Western Europe & the US.

→ Classic image of expansion of production and sales overseas, using cheap labor from
peripheral countries
→ But now some from developing countries as well (e.g. Lenovo, Marcopolo)

• Key aspect of Globalization

• Challenge for financial and tax policies, “blackmail” power, clashing legislations
(“extraterritoriality”)

International NGOs (INGOs)

• More “positive” transnational actor:

o Non-profit making organizations, relying almost entirely on voluntary
membership and contributions. (So: contrast to TNCs)
o Do not use or advocate violence as a means of pursuing their goals
o Global in focus, and are independent of national governments and particular
national interests → Specialists in given issues (“moral prestige”)
 • Examples: Amnesty International, Greenpeace
• Challenges: recent scandals, accusations of racism and neocolonialism

BONUS POINT: GUEST LECTURE ON INTERNATIONAL COURTS

International Governmental Organizations

• Association of states or other intergovernmental organizations

• Established by treaty
• Capable of generating an autonomous will distinct from the one of its members

International Rule of Law Bodies

• Apply to international legal standards

• Act on the basis on pre-determined procedures (beforehand)

Adjudicative Bodies

• Produce legally binding outcomes and obligation to comply

• Composed by independent judges
• Never purely true, they are chosen by member states (so “a dedo”)

International Courts and Tribunals ***

• Established by an international legal instrument (treaty)

• Apply and interpret international law
• Decide cases based on pre-determined procedures (beforehand)
• Issue legally binding judgements
• PERMANECY: International courts are made of groups of judges who are sitting
permanently and are not selected ad hoc: This permanency differs them from the rest

Old style vs new style International Courts

Old style (ICJ, ITLOS) New Style (CJEU, CCJ, ATJ…)

-Only inter state diputes -Access to private parties
-Optional jurisdiction -Compulsory jurisdiction
-No private access -Creation of a transactional legal order?

Reasons for Increased Jurisdiction

• Geopolitical momentum (End of WW2, End of cold war..)

• Variation of institutional design (From old to new)