Using Levels of Analysis to Understand Conflict Learning Outcomes By the end of this section, you will be able to: Define the different levels of analysis and show how they can be used to explain interstate conflict. Describe the relationship between levels of analysis and state policy. Identify the two purposes levels of analysis serve. Identify the hallmarks of each level of analysis. For 13 days in October 1962, the world watched with bated breath as a shipment of Soviet warheads on their way to Cuba pushed the United States and the Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war. In response to the United States’ decision to install nuclear weapons in Turkey, a country on the Soviet Union’s southwestern border, the Soviet Union began moving multiple nuclear warheads from Russia to the island of Cuba, approximately 100 miles south of Florida at the southeastern edge of the Gulf of Mexico. The fear that this act inspired in Americans led to nuclear attack drills and the constant presence of the threat of war in the lives of everyone in the United States. How would the United States, then led by President John F. Kennedy , respond to this apparent act of aggression? This 13-day standoff has become known as the Cuban Missile Crisis . Timothy J. McKeown, “The Cuban Missile Crisis and Politics as Usual,” The Journal of Politics 62, no. 1 (2000): 70–87. War or the threat of war draws the attention of the public at large and, more than any other international event, tends to make people sit up and think critically about the decisions states make. Just as you can seek to better understand political science as a whole by breaking your examination down to the levels of individuals, groups, institutions, and states and international relations, one way to understand international relations and the decisions actors make is to use levels of analysis; that is, you can choose to zoom in on a particular aspect of the interaction. To better understand the motivations of the actors in the larger system, it is useful to break down the analysis. In international relations, you can examine the individual, focusing on the actions that leaders in a country take; the state, focusing on the actions of countries; and the global system, focusing on how states interact with international organizations, nongovernmental actors, and multinational corporations. States create policies, such as the decision to go to war or to solve a problem through negotiation and the creation of a treaty with the assistance of an international organization like the United Nations , that focus on either a specific level or the way that the levels interact with one another. Conflict occurs when the policy decisions of one state create consequences for another state that change the environment, harming the second state or complicating the decisions it must make. We can examine international relations using three levels of analysis : the individual, the state, and the system. (attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA 4.0 license) These levels of analysis serve two purposes: they provide a foundation for understanding the different problems states face, and they help one think about how a state’s policies can affect the international community. The characteristics and players of each level of analysis give a more holistic way to describe conflict. Individual Level The individual level of analysis focuses on the decision makers within a state and how the constraints the state places on them affect their chosen courses of action. The rules associated with their positions limit what leaders can do; for example, the president of the United States has the ability to move troops but cannot formally enter a war with another country without the consent of Congress. U.S. Const., art. 1, § 8, cl. 11. This limits the possible policy responses US presidents have to choose from should they feel that the United States is being threatened. Decision makers reliably support policies that solve problems in ways that allow them to claim credit for solutions when they are called to account for their actions. Leaders like to be able to tout their accomplishments in re-election campaigns. They tend to prefer policy solutions that help them gain and keep power. In the case of the individual level of analysis, power is defined as an individual’s ability to steer policy to create outcomes that align with that individual’s personal beliefs and preferences. State Level The state level of analysis focuses on the actions of states in relation to one another. State-to-state relations occur in the context of intergovernmental organizations and in treaties and alliances. A state’s policy choice menu is defined by where the state sees itself and where the state wants to go in relation to other states. When theories of state behavior are discussed later in the chapter, you’ll see how theory helps explain the policy choices states make. In the same way that individual political actors must play by certain rules, both the people who live in a state and the international community expect states to uphold norms of behavior and to meet the expectations of the power behind their institutions. In a democracy like the United States, the state derives its legitimacy from the consent of the people. If a state begins to act in a way that goes against what the people say they want, the people can hold individual actors responsible and vote them out of office. The relationship between voters and elected officials is one way to see the relationship between the individual and state levels of analysis. In democracies, voters and those they elect form a feedback loop in which the preferences of the voters are made tangible through the policies that elected officials work to enact in the laws they make. This World War II–era poster emphasizes the role the individual plays in directing the state. (credit: “Your right to vote is your opportunity to protect, over here the freedoms for which Americans fight over there” by Chester Raymond Miller/Posters: Artist Posters/Library of Congress, Public Domain) In an autocracy like North Korea, institutions are propped up by the ability of the autocrat to hold the allegiance of the selectors needed to solidify their power. Selectors are the people that a leader in any type of government relies on to legitimize their power and position. In a democracy, selectors are the part of the population who can and do vote. In an autocracy , the selectors are the people who support the leader while at the same time controlling the parts of the country that a leader needs to legitimize their position, such as the military or the lucrative natural resources that the state may control. Global Level The global—or systemic—level of analysis considers how cooperation and conflict among states intersects with the environments in individual states to evoke change. The hallmark of this level of analysis is the number of variables that need to be considered when trying to understand the reasoning behind policy shifts and the ripple effect these shifts have on other countries. For example, though India and Pakistan are not permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and therefore, according to the terms of the United Nations Charter , “United Nations Charter (Full Text),” United Nations, Accessed February 4, 2022, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text. are not permitted to possess nuclear weapons, “Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance,” Arms Control Association, Accessed February 4, 2022, https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat. both countries have been developing and maintaining nuclear weapons stockpiles as a high-level deterrent against the possibility that the other country will take overtly aggressive actions. These growing stockpiles of nuclear weapons set the stage for a situation not unlike that between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War —one of mutually assured destruction . The usual expectation of the international community would be that states who are not supposed to be in possession of nuclear weapons would be secretive in their development and even more secretive in their use. Instead, India and Pakistan have chosen not to hide their nuclear stockpiles, and both countries are fully aware of the level of conflict they must avoid to ensure they do not provoke the other country to use its arsenal. The international community has reacted to the nuclear buildup in India and Pakistan in a way that is markedly different from the reaction to the nuclear buildup in North Korea. Arms Control Association, “Nuclear Weapons.” Because North Korea projects a general sense of distrust and aggression toward most of the members of the international community and because its tests of its nuclear stockpile are in express contravention to the wishes of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, the countries of the world see North Korea’s actions as a blatant challenge to the international system’s fine line between anarchy and order. While India and Pakistan have made it clear that their nuclear arsenal is a tool of last resort, North Korea does not seem to have that same level of restraint. North Korea has promised to use its weapons whenever it feels threatened but has provided no guidelines regarding what it perceives as a threat. Reality Check, “North Korea: What We Know about Its Missile and Nuclear Programme,” BBC News , January 28, 2022, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41174689. Though India, Pakistan, and North Korea are all violating international law to varying degrees, in choosing to place sanctions on North Korea but not on India or Pakistan, the global community is choosing to punish a state that, in what the international community perceives to be an irrational manner, seeks to threaten any and all states. In a way, the global level of analysis is one of responsiveness rather than one of agency. A state must first take an action, such as testifying before the United Nations Security Council, before an international organization can respond. The anarchic nature of the international system means that intergovernmental organizations are not able to take meaningful preventive action to head off a state’s decision. Due to the anarchic nature of the international system, this level of analysis is the most unpredictable. Its value lies in the way it allows a broad view of any trends in the way events affect different states. The Link between Policy and the Levels of Analysis Levels of analysis can be used to understand how institutions make decisions. Think about each level of analysis as a lens through which policy makers view the possible consequences of implementing a particular solution to a problem they face. Governments can also use levels of analysis to view how a particular situation might affect their country; each level of analysis represents a different group of people with different wants and needs. Governments have to work to balance the preferences and needs of each member of each level of analysis when they craft and implement a policy. The Cuban Missile Crisis is a classic example of how each of the three levels of analysis plays a role in complex potential or realized international conflicts. The History of the Cuban Missile Crisis This animated clip investigates the Cuban Missile Crisis in the context of the intense unease and brinkmanship of the Cold War and underscores just how close the United States and the Soviet Union came to starting a nuclear war. At the individual level of analysis, President Kennedy had to consider both his own preferences and how his advisors would want to handle the situation. President Kennedy’s immediate circle of advisors, McKeown, “Cuban Missile Crisis”; David R. Gibson, “Avoiding Catastrophe: The Interactional Production of Possibility during the Cuban Missile Crisis,” American Journal of Sociology 117, no. 2 (2011): 361–419, https://doi.org/10.1086/661761. known as ExComm , embodied the facets of the individual level of analysis when they provided the president with their assessment of the crisis and offered possible solutions. Military leaders within ExComm strove to balance their own preferences for how the United States should project strength, favoring large shows of force and more aggressive response measures, with their understanding of who the president was and how he perceived the world around him. In order to get the president to support their plan over any other offered solution, they needed to play to the president’s desire to avoid long-term engagement or escalation. It was important to some members of ExComm to persuade the president that a more aggressive response would lead to a more decisive American victory that would send a strong message to Soviet leaders. These members believed that taking a strong stance would dissuade the Soviets from taking further actions against the United States. Executive Committee of the National Security Council, “National Security Council Executive Committee (EXCOMM) Meeting, 10:10AM,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum Archives, October 29, 1962, https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/JFKWHP/1962/Month%2010/Day%2029/JFKWHP-1962-10-29-A?image_identifier=JFKWHP-ST-A26-18-62 ExComm meets during the Cuban Missile Crisis. (credit: “National Security Council Executive Committee” by White House Photographs/John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, Public Domain) At the state level, President Kennedy had to consider the actions of the Soviets in terms of the preferences of their state—that is, their government institutions, which could override what Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev might want—in order to understand what message they hoped the movement of missiles to Cuba would send. The United States had to be careful about what escalation of conflict could mean in terms of potential danger to people in the United States and in the Soviet Union. Such escalation could also set a precedent for what other states would choose to do if placed in the same situation. At the international, systemic level, the United States and the Soviet Union were involved in back-channel unofficial negotiations with then Secretary General of the United Nations, U Thant . A. Walter Dorn and Robert Pauk, “Unsung Mediator: U Thant and the Cuban Missile Crisis,” Diplomatic History 33, no. 2 (2009): 261–92. International law and norms limit what actions countries are willing to allow states to take, and this is especially true when the potential of nuclear conflict threatens the safety of not only the nations involved in a standoff, but also of the entire world. Secretary General Thant appealed to the United States and the Soviet Union to think as rationally as possible and to provide each other with the space in which to make decisions. Beyond levels of analysis, political scientists use a variety of frameworks to help make sense of the way states respond to the actions of other states. The chapter now turns to those frameworks. Conflict is a natural part of a system in which multiple organizations vie for access to limited common resources and sovereign states may choose from many different courses of action. In complex situations where many factors affect state decisions about how to act in times of conflict, one way to understand how they arrive at those decisions is to use levels of analysis, breaking down the motivations, goals, and resources involved at the individual, state, and global level. selectors people that a leader in any type of government relies on to legitimize their power and position

Social Sciences


The Realist Worldview Learning Outcomes By the end of this section, you will be able to: Describe how theories and worldviews can be used to understand international relations. Explain the realist worldview, including fundamental concepts and possible limitations or critiques. Identify and differentiate among various branches of realist theory. Apply principles of game theory to explain a state’s decision-making process. Explain the types of polarity in an anarchic system. Discuss the role of comparative advantage in a unipolar system. Analyze the ways tensions can escalate, destabilizing the system, in a realist worldview. Several key theories have emerged to explain the different ways states see the world and their place in it and to understand the decisions they make and the courses of action they choose based on those views. The primary theories come from three major groups of worldviews: the realist worldview, liberal and social worldviews, and critical worldviews. This section discusses realism and its variants. Realism In popular culture, international relations is usually presented through the filter of the basic tenets of realism. Whether it’s Jack Ryan working with the FBI, risking his life to rescue soldiers held by drug cartels, or Jason Bourne running from his past involvement with clandestine operations as a former CIA assassin, representatives of states are shown as engaging in actions focused on self-preservation, no matter the cost. Jason Bourne Goes to Extremes to Avoid Capture in The Bourne Ultimatum In this clip from the 2007 film The Bourne Ultimatum , Jason Bourne goes to extreme lengths, breaking laws and property and putting himself in intense physical peril, to avoid being captured or killed. Realism is distinctly characterized by marked self-interest. According to realism , states embark on policy initiatives with a go-it-alone attitude that aims solely to preserve their own safety and security. In a realist’s mind set, the state is the primary actor of the international system. According to realists, self-interested states do what they can to gain more power to increase their ability to structure the rules of the system to their advantage. As a general rule, realists believe that states see it as being to their benefit to withhold some of the details about their goals and aspirations in a given situation. The thinking is that if a state is completely transparent about its capabilities and how far it is willing to go to get what it wants, it makes itself vulnerable to other states that might try to take advantage of it. Michael C. Williams, “Why Ideas Matter in International Relations: Hans Morgenthau, Classical Realism, and the Moral Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization 58, no. 4 (2004): 633–65. This air of distrust underlies the thinking of a realist state. Because a state cannot trust other states, realists consider diplomacy and negotiations unreliable methods of self-preservation. Instead, realists try to implement policies that send a clear, strong message about the ability of a state to protect itself. Game theory is a way of conceptualizing what motivates a political actor in terms of the steps the actor takes to reach what they deem to be the optimal outcome for themselves. The general discussion of political behavior in Chapter 2: Political Behavior Is Human Behavior briefly introduces the idea of game theory . Based on the idea that all the actions players take in a specific game or situation have a certain probability of being taken, game theory helps illustrate a realist view of state strategy in international relations. Have you ever played a game of strategy, such as Risk or Settlers of Catan? In these types of games, you, the player, focus on amassing the most land and resources you can, relative to the other players, to win. You try to anticipate and consider all the information you have about the current situation and what other players might do when calculating what actions you should take to achieve your goals. In the realist view, states have the same mindset in their interactions with each other. For states, every decision-making process is part of a complicated equation, the result of which is an action the state will take. States weigh the risks and rewards of possible courses of action, seeking the greatest net benefit for their purposes. States can only base their strategic decision-making on the information they have—for example, intelligence information about another state’s true motivations—and if that information is faulty, a state’s chosen course of action may not achieve the desired results. By accounting for the weight of all the probable variables a state considers in calculating what course it will take versus the benefit a state expects an action to yield, one can calculate the likelihood, or probability, that a state will make a decision or implement a policy in response to another state’s actions. Game theory can be applied to many situations, such as labor negotiations to end a workers’ strike, in which opposing sides strategize to optimize the chances of achieving their desired outcomes. (credit: “picket line” by Susan Jane Golding/Flickr, CC BY 2.0) Realism characterizes states as rational actors, meaning that all the actions they take or policies they implement are a function of what they see as the outcome of a situation. Realists see the international system as a zero-sum game grounded in the idea that all facets of the system are finite. In a zero-sum game, a state seeks to take something, whether it be power or a physical resource, away from another state; in essence, if I win, then you lose, and there can only be one winner. When all aspects of a system are finite, one state can control all of a particular resource, preventing another state or states from having that resource. You can apply this idea to your everyday life. Suppose you and your friend are hungry for a snack and there is only one bag of chips that is readily available. If this situation were a zero-sum game, whoever got to the bag of chips first would have all the chips, and the other person would have none. The balance of power is a classic realist way of seeing the structure of the international system. Realists see the world as populated by states in a race to set the rules of the system to work for their own benefit. Because the system is inherently anarchic, poles, or centers of power, form within the system around the states that have the capacity, in whatever the system deems to be the currency of power, to gather other states to their side. Three different types of polarity emerge in an anarchic system: unipolar, bipolar, and multipolar. In a unipolar system , one country, the hegemon , sets itself up as the main player who decides the rules of the international system. By virtue of having the strongest economy, largest military, or most stable political and social institutions, the hegemon is able to use its position to extend its power. A hegemon might simply use its military might to extend its power, or it might employ less aggressive means. When a hegemon expands the institutions that benefit it to other countries, it encourages those countries to be like the hegemon. In doing so, the hegemon expands its sphere of influence with the underlying premise that states that are similar in culture, economy, and political structure are less likely to fight one another. While these states share a number of similarities, they have differing abilities to allocate the skills and resources necessary to create certain goods or services. When a hegemon expands its sphere of influence, it expands its access to resources, goods, and services in areas where it lacks a comparative advantage. An imbalance in comparative advantage is what drives a country to trade for a good or service that it needs. In a bipolar system , two states with equal relative power but different underlying institutional characteristics vie to create opposing spheres of influence. This creates two groups of allied countries that allow the states at the center of the poles to expand their power with the support of other actors in the system, giving those two states similar strength as if each were a hegemon. In a multipolar world, multiple states form many smaller spheres of influence, creating a pared-down version of a unipolar or bipolar system. A multipolar system , where three or more states have equal or relative power, is pared down even further. While anarchy is inherent in the international system, from the realist’s view, a state is motivated to create an environment, and therefore a balance of power, that protects the state. Rational actors prefer order. Order allows actors to have a greater sense of what is coming next. Essentially, states—especially the bigger, stronger, more powerful ones—see anarchy as an opportunity to create order in a way that favors their interests and fits their long-term goals. The balance of power between states is a way to understand who succeeds in creating a world that benefits them the most. The relationship between the United States and Russia from World War II to the present is perhaps the most accessible way to see shifts in polarity in the international system. Before World War II, colonial European powers had divided up the world, and the United States and Russia were doing what they could, in smaller ways, to expand their own reach. After World War II, the United States and Russia emerged as the two major powers at opposite ends of the economic ideological spectrum, pitted against each other for supremacy, thus creating a bipolar world. The interaction between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War provides a glimpse of the best and worst of decisions states have made. The Cold War represents a period in world history in which there was a slowly simmering conflict Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change,” International Organization 52, no. 4 (1998): 887–917. on multiple fronts between the Soviet Union and the United States, who had emerged from World War II as the states with the economic strength and political stability to exert their influence and preferences on other states in the international community. This map of Cold War allies illustrates the spheres of influence in a bipolar world. (credit: “Map Of The Cold War” by The1994JMan/Flickr, CC BY 2.0) The intense competition between these two major world powers for global supremacy spilled into all parts of society, from the propaganda and policies of the United States focused on weeding out suspected communists in all aspects of society and government to the race to see who could make the greatest advancements in space exploration, which spurred a steep increase in scientific and technological development. In the context of foreign relations, the conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States was more tangible and mired in a number of proxy wars , conflicts in which each of the warring parties is supported and funded by two larger parties who have a vested interest in the outcome of the conflict. The Vietnam War , Michael Howard. War and the Liberal Conscience (New York: Columbia University Press), 2008. in which the democratically elected Vietnamese government fought the insurgent Viet Cong, who had the support of the Soviet Union, and the conflict in Afghanistan, where the United States supported Afghanis as they fought to keep the communist forces of the Soviet Union from taking over their country, are two examples of Cold War–era proxy wars. The 1990s brought an end to the Cold War, with the United States emerging as the hegemon, but that came with its own challenges. In the era immediately following the Cold War, newly independent former Soviet states looked to the United States for monetary, political, and military support. This is the burden of the hegemon ; when you are the victor in a conflict you may be seen as the only stable, strong power, and with that status comes a sense of obligation to help less powerful, less stable states. The security dilemma is the byproduct of a system in which states are motivated to act in their own interest. As states implement security policies that aim to either expand or solidify their position in the system, other states may perceive those actions as provocations. The state or states implementing those policies face a security dilemma, where those changes in their policies related to their own safety and security, because they appear aggressive to other states, may lead those other states to preemptively respond in the interests of their own security, potentially ratcheting up tensions between two or more states. This highlights the implications of a system based on a fundamental mistrust of all actors that views any action as a signal. The conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War is a direct long-term example of the consequences of two states existing in the midst of a security dilemma. States that see the actions of another state as an offensive provocation seek to respond in as proportional a manner as possible, but in some cases, as in the hypothetical situation of nuclear war, the response can have consequences that negatively—and in the case of nuclear war, catastrophically—impact the entire international community. Neorealism The lack of institutions in the international system that can hold states accountable for their actions or provide consistent, altruistic help to states in need perpetuates the mentality of states that see themselves as lone actors within the international system. In the contemporary international community, realists view states as having a go-it-alone attitude in order to best safeguard their own interests. A more recent offshoot of the realist school of thought, neorealism (also known as structural realism ), speaks to states that take a middle path to international relations. David A. Baldwin, ed., Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate (New York: Columbia University Press), 1993. Like classical realists, neorealists see the state as the main actor in an anarchic system. Unlike classical realists, they contend that it is the structure of the system rather than the people who lead the state that drives the system forward. States that implement policies that align with neorealist ideas attempt to work through international institutions, such as multinational security pacts like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) , to get what they want. Understanding the Global Community—Realism/Neorealism In this clip, University of Oklahoma professor of international studies Suzette Grillot explains and differentiates realism and neorealism. Neorealism that advocates for transparency in order to avoid conflict and maintain the status quo is known as defensive realism . Robert Jervis, “Realism, Neoliberalism, and Cooperation: Understanding the Debate,” International Security 24, no. 1 (1999): 42–63. In the minds of defensive realists, the constant distrust between states, and the resultant policies, create an environment of instability that drives states into conflict with one another. As such, these theorists believe that it is to the benefit of all states to maintain the status quo, that is, to maintain the current balance between the states in the system as it exists at that moment. Defensive realists see conflict as a destabilizing force that upsets the status quo and should be avoided. They encourage states to make transparent policy choices meant to give clear signals to other states that they see themselves as a part of and clearly support the anarchy inherent in the system and that they will not do anything to challenge it. Offensive realism takes the opposite view. According to offensive realism , overt actions states take in order to grow and project their power lead to interstate conflict. Michael W. Doyle, “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part 2,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 12, no. 4 (1983): 323–53. These theorists argue that there is an inherent benefit in conflict and in taking self-serving action. States, they say, are intrinsically motivated to seek out power and will do so only by establishing a sense of supremacy over other states, particularly those with characteristics similar to their own. According to offensive realists, states use aggressive actions—whether military, economic, social, or political—to secure their place in the system. Realism is a theory of international relations that places states at the center of the system. In the realist view, states choose to enact policies focused on maintaining the security of their state. The states with the most power tend to have the most influence over other states in the system and tend to play the greatest role in global security. Unless there is one state with much more power than all the others, realists describe the maintenance of world order as requiring a balance of power among two or more great powers and their spheres of influence. balance of power the ability of one or more states to act as a counterweight to another country or group of countries in order to protect themselves bipolar system an international environment where two states of comparable power create a situation in which neither is willing to attack the other defensive realism a type of neorealism that advocates for transparency in order to avoid conflict and maintain the status quo game theory a way of conceptualizing what motivates a political actor in terms of the steps the actor takes to reach what they deem to be the optimal outcome for themselves hegemon the country that possesses the most power in a unipolar world multipolar system an international environment in which three or more states have relatively similar power that they can project out to other countries neorealism an offshoot of realism that contends that it is the structure of the system rather than the people who make up the state that drives the system forward offensive realism the theory that interstate conflict is the product of the overt actions states take in order to grow and project their power proxy wars conflicts in which each of the warring parties is supported and funded by a larger party who has a vested interest in the outcome realism a theory of international relations that holds that states embark on policy initiatives with a go-it-alone attitude that aims solely to preserve their own safety and security security dilemma a situation in which changes in a state’s policies related to its own safety and security, because they appear aggressive to other states, may lead those other states to take preemptive action that ratchets up tensions between two or more states unipolar system an international environment in which only one country possesses the political, economic, and military strength to exert its power and preferences on all the other countries in the world zero-sum game an interaction between two players in which there is only one round of play where one player takes everything available and leaves nothing for the second player

Social Sciences


The Liberal and Social Worldview Learning Outcomes By the end of this section, you will be able to: Explain the liberal worldview, including fundamental concepts and possible limitations or critiques. Discuss complex interdependence. Explain the constructivist worldview, including fundamental concepts and possible limitations or critiques. Liberalism as a worldview differs from liberalism as a political ideology . Ideology is the lens through which an individual makes choices and, if that individual is in a place of governmental power, through which they view policy options with regard to whether they align with their values. Worldviews, such as the ones listed in this chapter, serve as the basis for how states see the political environment around them and their place in it. Liberalism In contrast to the realist school of thought, those who adhere to liberalism see investment in the system as a whole, by working within institutions and their constraints to carve out a secure space, as the best way for a state to ensure its protection. Like other theories, liberalism sees states as the primary actors in the international system, Jervis, “Realism, Neoliberalism, and Cooperation.” but liberalism contends that their domestic rules and institutions constrain their actions. As such, states must consider constantly changing factors, both internal and external, when deciding on a course of action. Above all, liberalism views states as motivated by what they see as being in the best interest of the international system. Collective Security One branch of liberalism, institutionalism , sees international institutions in which states take part as essential to the functioning of the international system. Brian Frederking, “Constructing Post-Cold War Collective Security,” The American Political Science Review 97, no. 3 (2003): 363–78. In creating international institutions, whose mere existence seems counter to the expectations of a system described as anarchic, states look to each other to form a web of allies that they can count on for support in times of need. Collective security, Waheeda Rana, “Theory of Complex Interdependence: A Comparative Analysis of Realist and Neoliberal Thoughts,” International Journal of Business and Social Science 6, no. 2 (2015): 8. wherein states form alliances to strengthen the security of each member within the alliance, entrenches the idea that no one state can act independently in all instances and emerge victorious. These arrangements are especially beneficial for states with limited resources to put toward their own protection. NATO is one real-world example of an institution designed to promote collective security . Flags of many countries fly outside NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. (credit: “170517-D-SW162-3038” by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff/DoD Photo by U.S. Army Sgt. James K. McCann/Flickr, CC BY 2.0) Smaller states such as North Macedonia and Bulgaria have limited abilities to divert their country’s GDP for investment in modern military armaments. In joining NATO, these smaller countries agree to allow more formidable powers, such as the United States or the United Kingdom, to install military personnel and weapons in their countries and to use them as a base of military operations in exchange for the promise that the more formidable military power will provide the smaller country with protection should the need arise. In the case of a joint military engagement, the smaller country contributes personnel and financial resources. With the promise of support from more powerful countries, smaller states can deter other states from taking actions against them. All states within the pact, however large or small, are obligated to take part in joint actions, and because all the states in the pact see an attack on one member as an attack on all members, smaller states are assured of protection. Thus, NATO is a true example of liberal international theory in practice. (For more on NATO, see Chapter 15: International Law and International Organizations .) Complex Interdependence Complex interdependence René Grotenhuis, Nation-Building as Necessary Effort in Fragile States (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2016), https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1gr7d8r. attempts to cut a middle path between liberal and realist theories. Acknowledging the intricacies of the international system, where all parts of the system—states, individuals, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, multinational corporations, and nonstate actors—have competing interests, complex interdependence posits that networks of actors form to meet common goals. Complex interdependence has three principal tenets: There are many pathways actors can take to achieve their desired ends. These pathways are differentiated based on the abilities of each of the actors. All issues are of relatively equal importance to states. States see the use of force as relatively more costly than any gain it might achieve and so may be inclined to chart paths of cooperation and the use of more stable institutional solutions. Robert Maxwell Morrison, “An Analysis: Complex Interdependence and the Chinese-United States Cyber Relationship” (master’s thesis, Virginia Tech, 2018), 86. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/83572. Consider the relationship between the United States and China “US Diplomats to Boycott 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics,” BBC News , December 7, 2021, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59556613. as a real-world modern example of complex interdependence in action. The economic linkages between the US and China cannot be overstated. Those linkages keep the two countries locked in a long-standing, deeply complicated relationship. The United States relies heavily on the highly developed, highly efficient Chinese manufacturing sector, and the Chinese financial system buys up American government debt to back Chinese currencies. The international community relies on China to keep North Korea in line. However, these interdependencies do not stop China from choosing to engage in cyberwarfare against the United States, nor do they prevent the United States from filing complaints against China for human rights violations, as the United States diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Summer Olympic Games Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics” International Organization 46, no. 2 (Spring 1992): 391–425; Maja Zehfuss, Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002). in Beijing illustrates. That China and the United States are a part of similar international organizations, such as the United Nations, where both countries hold veto power on the Security Council, does not prevent either country from using military might and prowess to signal its strength to the other country. Constructivism The international system is both fragile and highly changeable. The anarchic nature of the system means that there is no centralized enforcement mechanism that can coerce states to act in a generally accepted manner. So, what keeps state actions within the boundaries of appropriate behavior? How do states even know what behavior is appropriate? Constructivism Robin Wright, “Russia and China Unveil a Pact Against America and the West,” The New Yorker , February 7, 2022, https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/russia-and-china-unveil-a-pact-against-america-and-the-west; Brandon K. Yoder, “Theoretical Rigor and the Study of Contemporary Cases: Explaining Post-Cold War China-Russia Relations,” International Politics 57 (2020): 741–59, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-019-00173-z; Elizabeth Wishnick, “In Search of the ‘Other’ in Asia: Russia–China Relations Revisited,” The Pacific Review 30, no. 1 (2017): 114–32, DOI: 10.1080/09512748.2016.1201129. posits that shared conceptions of the world, how the world works, what constitutes power, and who holds that power result in shared norms—expected patterns of behavior that align with the expectations and behavior patterns of others. For constructivists, these shared conceptions and resultant norms are the glue that holds the international system together. At its core, constructivism is about the interaction of many different actors within the system, each aiming to hold the others in line. According to constructivists, the perceptions states share about the world and the consequences that it is generally accepted a state might suffer should other states view it in a negative light are what keeps state actions within the boundaries of appropriate behavior. For constructivists, how the world works and how it is perceived are not static. According to constructivism, the commonly accepted view of the world determines who has the most power to convey norms and to influence changes in norms and in ideas about how the international system should work. How the world is and how it works influence how actors choose to act, and this creates the norms and perceptions that will shape the world to come—what can be thought of as “the new normal.” One useful way to better understand the constructivist view is to use levels of analysis . At the individual level, leaders might try to use their own personal power and charm to shape the perceptions of other actors in the system. In order to change the behavior of other states to benefit their own purposes, leaders of states who are focused on projecting their own strength, such as Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong Un , seek to carefully craft what other leaders think of them. According to constructivists, states work to establish norms by modeling behavior and pressuring other states to emulate that behavior. For example, changes in a country’s domestic law become part of that country’s national identity; if a state chooses to enact a social safety net program, such as providing open access to education for all children, it can then pressure other states to enact a similar policy. States that enact similar policies sow relationships that can serve as a foundation on which other interactions or agreements can be built. At the systemic level, constructivism again prioritizes the importance of norms and the tendency of political actors to seek to align with those norms. The way states identify and place value judgments on “democratic” countries or “rogue states” can motivate an individual state to change its behavior. International organizations can establish specific rules or expectations of state behavior, placing further pressure on states to align their behavior with the rest of the world—especially if being in the out group means that a state has fewer resources to support their own economic, political, or social standing. Consider recent developments in the relationships among China, Russia, and the United States. China and Russia are becoming allies as relations between the United States and these two countries grow more strained. Constructivists contend that how a state views itself—its national identity—affects its goals and how it views and interacts with other states. For decades the United States has been the preeminent power in international relations, setting the tone for interactions. That may be changing. When Russia and China announced a sweeping—if informal—agreement declaring their friendship and opening the door for mutual cooperation, it appeared that the efforts of the United States to keep China neutral on the issue of Russia’s aggressive stance toward Ukraine had failed. Though Russia and China are both powerful autocracies, as economist and former National Security Council official Andrew Weiss notes, they have not always viewed each other as strong allies: “The Russians for the longest time were condescending in their view of China as an uninteresting rural society. Now China looks at Russia and says, ‘What are you good for?’” Wright, “Russia and China.” Foreign affairs analyst Robin Wright contends that their new alliance “challenges the United States as a global power, NATO as a cornerstone of international security, and liberal democracy as a model for the world.” “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,” United Nations, December 10, 1982, https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm; International Law Commission, “Articles Concerning the Law of the Sea with Commentaries,” Yearbook of the International Law Commission Vol. II, 1956, https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/8_1_8_2_1956.pdf; Encyclopaedia Britannica Online , “Law of the Sea,” https://www.britannica.com/topic/Law-of-the-Sea. In changing their views of each other and joining together to form an alliance, Russia and China seek to change the way they are viewed in the world, and in fact perhaps the way the world order itself has worked for decades. International relations and international politics are always changing, so having the most up-to-date information and analysis possible is vital to understanding what is happening in the world. Podcasts provide a useful resource for up-to-date discussions of international politics. Some good podcasts to explore include: Pod Save the World (Crooked Media) The Lawfare Podcast (The Lawfare Institute) IS: Off the Page ( International Security ) States must rely on norms to communicate expected behaviors. Norms can be repeated behaviors, such as the use of fiat currency —government-issued, physical currency, the value of which is not linked to some other commodity (such as the gold standard)—in modern economies. They can also be actions required by international law, such as the role the United Nations Security Council plays in dealing with matters of international conflict or the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which prohibits state control over international waters beginning five miles outside of a state’s continental shelf. Vendulka Kubálková and Albert Cruickshank, Marxism-Leninism and Theory of International Relations (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980). Norms provide states with a starting point from which to weigh possible courses of action and determine how best to respond to any situation that may come up during the course of normal state relations. Theory in Action: Constructivism In the 1999 science fiction film The Matrix , Neo has the ability to change the rules upon which his world is based. In this clip, Caleb Gallemore (then a PhD candidate at Ohio State University and now Assistant Professor of International Affairs at Lafayette College) explains that this is how constructivists view international relations, contending that some actors have more power than others to change the system and how it works. If members of the international community consider a state’s actions to be in conflict with existing norms, they may not consider that state to be a reliable ally. Once a state loses its standing as a positively regarded member of the international system, it can affect the way other states enter into agreements, whether they be economic or political. In an increasingly interdependent world, a state that is no longer able to enter into beneficial agreements with other states will have difficulty employing its resources in the most efficient way. Liberalism, as a theory of international relations, places states as part of a larger system, working in concert with various other institutions to create an environment through which all people and states benefit. In the liberal view, states work together to achieve collective security. Constructivists see the system in which these interactions occur as an ever-changing one, the conditions of which are determined by how states see themselves, how they see other states, and how they see the system as a whole and by the norms of the system to which all states tend to adhere, which are usually heavily influenced by the most powerful states. collective security a cooperation agreement between multiple countries aimed at providing military power for all complex interdependence a theory of international relations that holds that all parts of the international system have competing interests but that these parts form networks to meet common goals constructivism in international relations, the theory that expected patterns of behavior among states are the glue that holds the international system together fiat currency government-issued, physical currency, the value of which is not linked to some other commodity (such as the gold standard) institutionalism a branch of liberalism that sees international institutions in which states take part as essential to the functioning of the international system liberalism a theory of international relations that sees investment in the system as a whole, by working within institutions and their constraints to carve out a secure space, as the best way for a state to ensure its protection

Social Sciences


Critical Worldviews Learning Outcomes By the end of this section, you will be able to: Explain Marxism, including its fundamental concepts and possible limitations or critiques. Explain feminism, including its fundamental concepts and possible limitations or critiques. Recall that a state’s policy decisions are grounded in the general way it perceives the structure of the world, its place in the larger system, and what it believes would be necessary to secure and grow its position relative to other states. The perspectives of those in power tend to dominate discussions of international norms and theories of international relations. Those who see the system as fundamentally unjust have developed alternative theories to explain the way states act in the international system. Marxism Marxism Miguel Reyes Hernández and Miguel Alejandro López, “Dependency Theory in Latin American History,” in Oxford Bibliographies Online, Updated January 15, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199766581-0205. emerged as a response to the rise of capitalism on the back of the imperial actions of the European powers. Karl Marx asserted that the individuals who controlled the factors of production in a country — the land and physical resources, the labor force, the capital needed for investment in the facilities and processes of an economy, and the entrepreneurship and creativity that drives economic growth and diversification—had too much power over its social norms. According to Marx, over the long term, those in power seek to create institutions that further entrench the stratification of the classes of a population, keeping wealth in the upper classes and leaving the lower classes with significant obstacles to their individual advancement. Marxist states seek to promote equality among all people so that each individual has the same opportunities to further their own wealth and success. These states seek to develop an international system in which societies invest internally to focus on the development of their own power and their own means of production so that the producing state gains the most from those products to the benefit of its own citizens. Proponents of dependency theory Christopher Chase-Dunn and Marilyn Grell-Brisk, “World-System Theory,” in Oxford Bibliographies Online , Updated November 26, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199743292-0272. argue that the stratification of countries in the international system is based around core countries and periphery countries . This view is known as the core-periphery model . Diana Thornburn, “Feminism Meets International Relations,” SAIS Review 20, no. 2 (Summer-Fall 2000): 1-10. Core countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom are more developed than most other countries, with more stable political and social institutions and higher-order economic systems. These states rely on developing, or what were once called third-world, countries—periphery countries—that are rich in extractive resources the core countries need to maintain their status. Earlier, the chapter discussed comparative advantage and trade as the basis for international relations; dependency theory suggests that countries that are able to produce higher-order goods and services, such as technologically advanced products like machinery and computers, are better suited to protect their power in the long term. To entrench this advantage, core states have an incentive to keep periphery countries in positions of political and social unrest so that the core countries may extract the needed resources with minimal costs. At its core, dependency theory rests on Marxist views that those who control the factors of production have the ability to exploit workers. Marxism argues that the pursuit of equality is more assured if the control of society is given to those doing the work to bring about societal progress. Feminism Feminist theory promotes equality among all people, regardless of biological sex or sociological gender. According to feminist theory , traditional views of international relations consider the state to be the main actor in the international system, Alise Coen, “Can’t Be Held Responsible: Weak Norms and Refugee Protection Evasion,” International Relations 35, no. 2 (June 2021): 341–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117819884613. and the feminist tradition views the state as an inherently masculine institution in that it is and has been dominated by men and the male point of view since its inception. As such, according to feminist theory, international relations has traditionally focused on “hard policy” issues, such as conflict and security, and has concentrated primarily on the actions of men. It has relegated to second-class status issues related to development and access to social programs. The end of the Second World War saw a huge shift in the role of women in society in general, ushering in a corresponding shift in the priorities of state policies toward the inclusion of more social programs. Since that time, the number of women in positions of power within governments has steadily increased. Women such as Sirimavo Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka, the first woman to be elected a prime minister, have introduced policies in their countries focusing on the health, safety, and welfare of women and children alongside issues of national security and military engagement, leading to an increased focus on these policies in the international arena. When she was elected in 1960, Sirimavo Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka became the first women prime minister in the world. (credit: “Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Prime Minister of Ceylon and member of the Sri Lanka (Freedom) Party, head-and shoulders portrait, seated at desk, facing left” by United Press International (UPI)/Library of Congress, Public Domain) Issues like poverty, infant and maternal mortality, access to education, and violence against women have become a more central part of the conversation in organizations like the United Nations. As more women become part of the policy-making process, the areas that were once relegated to “women’s issues” are being recognized as issues that affect everyone and that must be dealt with to help support vibrant, growing, prosperous societies. It is worth noting that the scholarship of international relations as a whole has followed the slow track of progress to include women in the field. Especially in the case of scholarship related to conflict and security issues, women have been left out of the conversation, and the overwhelming perspective of work has been that of the heteronormative White male. This lack of diversity in the contributors to the scholarship has led to a lack of objectivity in the scope and process of the study of international relations. As the body of international relations scholars has incrementally, albeit marginally, diversified, the breadth and depth of the scholarship of the field has followed. As the people working in the field of international relations diversifies, a diversity of new perspectives will emerge that can help the field as a whole meet the challenges of the modern system. Scholars such as University of Wisconsin—Green Bay professor Alise Coen “Maya Sen,” Harvard University, Accessed December 14, 2021. https://scholar.harvard.edu/msen/home. and Harvard University professor Maya Sen are bringing their unique perspectives to the study of refugee rights and its associated policies and war, respectively. Just as the most powerful states tend to dominate the international system, the perspectives of those in power have tended to dominate the study of international relations. Critical theories of international relations, such as feminism and Marxism, push back against traditional points of view, bringing in the perspectives of underrepresented groups and questioning standard interpretations of the international system. Suggested Readings Chase-Dunn, Christopher, and Marilyn Grell-Brisk. “World-System Theory.” In International Relations , by Christopher Chase-Dunn and Marilyn Grell-Brisk. Oxford University Press, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199743292-0272. Classic Readings and Contemporary Debates in International Relations . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2006. Dunne, Timothy. “The Social Construction of International Society.” European Journal of International Relations 1, no. 3 (1995): 367–89. Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.” International Organization 52, no. 4 (1998): 887–917. Griffiths, Martin. “International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century: An Introduction.” In Marxism , edited by Mark Rupert, 35–46. London: Routledge, 2007. Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph Nye. Power and Interdependence . New York: Longman, 2011. Lebow, Richard Ned. A Cultural Theory of International Relations . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Moravcsik, Andrew. “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Relations.” International Organization 51, no. 4 (September 1997): 513–53. Putnam, Robert D. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games.” International Organization 42, no. 3 (June 1988): 427–60. Robinson, William I. A Theory of Global Capitalism: Production, Class, and State in a Transnational World . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004. Thompson, Kenneth W. “Collective Security Reexamined.” American Political Science Review 47, no. 3 (September 1953): 753–72. Tickner, J. Ann. Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security . New York: Columbia University Press, 1992. Wendt, Alexander, “Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics” International Organization 46, no. 2 (Spring 1992): 391-425. core countries countries with developed economic systems and stable political and social systems core-periphery model a model of international relations that views the world as divided between two types of countries, core countries and periphery countries, where core countries depend on periphery countries to maintain their status dependency theory a theory of international relations that argues that the stratification of countries in the international system is based on core countries and periphery countries, where core countries depend on periphery countries to maintain their status feminist theory a theory of international relations that supports creating institutions and norms that prioritize equality among all people, regardless of biological sex or sociological gender Marxism in the context of international relations, the idea that the role of states is to ensure equal access to the factors of production in an economy and an equitable distribution of the benefits of the goods and services that economy produces periphery countries countries with less stable political and social systems that are rich in the resources that more developed states require to maintain their power

Social Sciences


Introduction According to the Seychelles News Agency, yellowfin tuna in the Indian Ocean is the most overfished tuna in the world. Under pressure from the European Union and numerous nongovernmental organizations, Indian Ocean Tuna Commission countries met in 2021 to discuss the sustainability of fishing practices. Salifa Karapetyan, “How Much Tuna? Seychelles, IOTC Meets on Sustainability of Vital Industry,” Seychelles News Agency, March 9, 2021, http://www.seychellesnewsagency.com/articles/14475/How+much+tuna+Seychelles%2C+IOTC+meets+on+sustainability+of+vital+industry. In this photo, buyers and sellers negotiate prices of different varieties of tuna at a market in Mogadishu. (credit: "2013_03_16_Somalia_Fishing m" by AMISOM Public Information/Flickr, Public Domain) No individual or state “owns” the oceans and the wildlife in them. They are a shared, finite resource. Overfishing is an unsustainable global problem, especially now that technological advancements allow thousands of fish to be harvested at once. Only through the establishment of rules can the fish continue to be a source of food and income for future generations. In a system of sovereign states, managing international resources like the fish in the sea is no easy task. As discussed in earlier chapters, state sovereignty is the concept that states have an inherent right to independence and a right to formulate policies and take actions that they deem to be in their own national interests. Managing international resources requires navigating the claims sovereign countries have on those resources, understanding the needs of individuals who depend upon them for their livelihood, and thinking about the sustainability of those resources for the future. No individual state can do this alone. International law and non-state actors, especially international organizations, participate in global governance in order to address complex issues like managing global fishing or preventing conflict. Along with governments, thousands of organizations engage in collaborative problem-solving, encourage broad and transparent international communication, and assist those in need. By creating and following norms and rules and advocating for the impoverished and marginalized, international law and non-state actors shape state behavior and promote a more peaceful and prosperous international system. The importance of international law and non-state actors to the outcomes of international relations is a subject of some debate among proponents of the various theories of international relations discussed in Chapter 14: International Relations , but there is little doubt that the era of globalization has enhanced their visibility and influence.

Social Sciences


The Problem of Global Governance Learning Outcomes By the end of this section, you will be able to: Define global governance . Define and give examples of collective goods and the tragedy of the commons. Discuss global governance as a response to the anarchic nature of the international system. Identify the actors involved in global governance. States do not operate in isolation. They exist in a global community of sovereign states. As in all communities, each individual actor has their own motivations or goals and is impacted by the broader shared environment. Though the international system is anarchic—that is, there is no overarching international authority to help promote peace and prosperity among states—each state’s efforts to achieve those goals is to some degree dependent upon the actions of other states in the system. Recognizing that the achievement of prosperity and security requires shared action, the global community sets rules and norms of behavior to give some structure to the anarchic system. This global governance is the process by which sovereign states accrue rights and duties in the international community. It provides “peace and security, justice and mediation systems for conflict, functioning markets and unified standards for trade and industry,” “What Is Global Governance?” Global Challenges Foundation, accessed January 25, 2022, https://globalchallenges.org/global-governance/. helping states thrive even under conditions of anarchy . Like other communities, the international system is tasked with convincing individual members to take some responsibility for solving collective problems. This task is especially difficult when individual members somehow profit from behavior that exacerbates these problems. The tragedy of the commons Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Science 162, no. 3859 (December 1968): 1243–1248, DOI: 10.1126/science.162.3859.1243; see also Chapter 2: The Fundamentals of Group Political Activity. occurs when there is a rivalry for limited resources to which it is inherently difficult to restrict access and individual states prioritize their own short-term economic survival over broader long-term community interests, interests that are often referred to as collective goods . Individual states have incentives to take actions in order to secure these goods for their own benefit that may negatively impact others. For example, individual states may prioritize cost savings for manufacturing plants that use the cheapest energy source, even if doing so contributes to continuing damage to the common environment. China, for instance, engaged in rapid industrialization, dramatically increasing the size of its economy and the quality of life for the Chinese people; however, in the process, China became the world’s leading producer of air pollution. Air pollution cannot be contained to the boundaries of the country producing the pollution, and clean air is a collective good. International issues like air pollution, where one state’s actions to mitigate its role in intensifying a problem may be ineffective if its neighbor does not take similar action, illustrate the complexities of the tragedy of the commons. Tragedy of the Commons The more we exploit common resources, the scarcer these resources become. The anarchic nature of the international system complicates efforts to persuade states to recognize their contribution to a common problem and to take responsibility for their actions. Collective goods benefit everyone, regardless of whether they participate in securing them, and it can be difficult to motivate individual states to make sacrifices to secure those goods if other states are already working on it—a phenomenon called free riding , which is discussed in more depth in Chapter 6: The Fundamentals of Group Political Activity . Through global governance, the international community helps states and people obtain these public goods while maintaining the principle of state sovereignty on which the international system is based. Multiple actors take part in global governance. States themselves, both as individual actors and through their participation in organizations with other states, are the primary actors. Nongovernmental organizations, multinational corporations, national groups, and religious actors also contribute to global governance. International cooperation among these various actors is needed to reach agreement—to develop international law that sets limits on who can do what and establishes punishments for exceeding those limits. Disruptive groups that pose a threat to the common peace and prosperity can only be countered through global governance. Issues such as climate change, terrorism, international crime, religious movements, trade, and human migration impact every state. The need to cooperate to address common problems and attain collective goods has led to the development of a robust if imperfect system of global governance. Global governance helps manage the anarchy of the international system by setting rules and boundaries for state behavior and providing forums for collective action. collective goods goods available to all, regardless of individual contribution global governance the bringing together of state and non-state actors to coordinate collective action for the purpose of providing global public goods such as peace and security, economic prosperity, conflict mediation, human rights, and environmental protection tragedy of the commons the depletion of common resources when the incentives for states to act selfishly are greater than the incentives to cooperate to achieve a collective good

Social Sciences


International Law Learning Outcomes By the end of this section, you will be able to: Define and identify sources of international law. Explain how state sovereignty informs international law. Differentiate between the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). Discuss the development of key areas of international law, including the law of the sea, the Geneva Conventions, and human rights law. International law is a set of formal and informal rules that loosely govern the international system, setting parameters around the conduct of state and non-state actors. In the absence of a central global government, international law plays a critical role in increasing the predictability of international relations, helping to counteract the anarchy of the system by prescribing norms and setting expectations of behavior. It facilitates state interactions in “common” places, such as the air and the sea, and helps promote peace and lessen the impact of conflict. International laws govern airline travel, commerce, maritime law, human rights, the development and use of weapons, and the environment, among other areas. International law is not found in a single book or document; rather, it is the sum total of international treaties, other international agreements, and customary law , which is derived from the long-time practices of states (see Chapter 11: Courts and Law ). International law has developed out of functional necessity, as in the cases of international transportation, commerce, or communications, for example, or because of broad consensus around moral or immoral behavior, as in issues of human rights and the laws of war. Two courts adjudicate international law: the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which has jurisdiction over disputes between states, and the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has jurisdiction over individual criminal behavior such as war crimes or genocide. Some other international organizations such as the European Union and the World Trade Organization also have legal systems that adjudicate disputes between member states. How Does International Law Establish the Rights and Obligations of States? The recognition of state sovereignty provides the foundation for international law. Typically, sovereign states willingly enter into agreements that they believe will benefit them in some way, with the understanding that by signing a treaty they agree to its terms, including obligations and constraints on their behavior. The United Nations (UN), a global organization bringing together nearly every state in the world to promote peace and stability, hosts a repository of more than 500 active treaties across every conceivable issue in international relations. “United Nations Treaty Collection,” accessed January 25, 2022, https://treaties.un.org/. Signatory states may monitor or punish states that do not fulfill their treaty obligations. In this way, all individual, sovereign parties to a treaty ensure that they are treated fairly under the terms of the agreement and that they receive the benefits they are due. Some treaties require states to modify their domestic policies. For instance, states that sign the Paris Climate Accord commit to solve a common problem, climate change , by taking certain steps in their own country. Signatory countries that fail to take those steps may be acting within their sovereign rights, but if they signed the treaty, those domestic actions (or that domestic inaction) are now regulated by international law. States that sign international conventions like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) commit to follow the guidelines set forth in those documents. Examples of International Law Three particularly well-developed areas of international law are the law of the sea , the Geneva Conventions , and human rights law . They illustrate how functional needs and moral obligations have driven the development of international law and helped states acquire global goods. The United Nations convened the first conference on the law of the sea in 1958. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was signed in 1982 and came into force in 1994. Among other things, the UNCLOS clarifies where countries’ boundaries extend into the ocean, who “owns” the fish in the water, and who has the right to use sea traffic lanes. UNCLOS identifies state “rights, freedoms and obligations” in areas such as shipping, fishing, wrecks and cultural heritage, and the protection of the marine environment. “Law of the Sea,” Audiovisual Library of International Law, United Nations, accessed January 25, 2022, https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/lawofthesea.html; John Norton Moore, “Navigational Freedom: The Most Critical Common Heritage,” International Law Studies 93 (2017): 251–260. All UN member states sign the Geneva Conventions, a series of treaties and protocols that codify international humanitarian law. Through the efforts of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the first Geneva Convention was signed in 1864, allowing noncombatants to treat wounded soldiers in the battlefield. There are now four Geneva Convention treaties—the fourth of which establishes a legal definition of war crimes—all focused on protecting civilians and prisoners of war during military conflicts. Former UN Ambassador Susan Rice Discusses Geneva Conventions and American Red Cross Curriculum On the 60 th anniversary of the signing of the Geneva Conventions, then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice discussed the United States commitment to supporting international humanitarian law. The Geneva Conventions serve as the basis for a much broader body of international human rights law that includes nine core human rights treaties that extend beyond wartime behavior. These treaties recognize the “inalienable rights” of people and codify crimes against humanity. They call upon all states to prevent genocide , which they define as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,” “Genocide,” United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, accessed January 25, 2022, https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml. and to punish those who perpetrate it. All UN member states have ratified at least one of the nine core human rights treaties, and 80 percent have ratified four or more, accepting the obligations and duties under international law to respect, protect, and promote human rights. “What Are Human Rights?” United Nations Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, accessed January 25, 2022, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Pages/WhatareHumanRights.aspx. In 2001, the international community developed a principle called Responsibility to Protect (R2P) , which justifies international intervention to protect human rights. Arising from the horror at the complacency of the international community during the Rwandan genocide and the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s, in 2005 world leaders at the UN World Summit unanimously agreed to adopt R2P. “What Is R2P?” Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, accessed January 25, 2022, https://www.globalr2p.org/what-is-r2p/. The philosophy behind R2P is that “state sovereignty carrie[s] with it the obligation of the State to protect its own people, and that if the State [is] unwilling or unable to do so, the responsibility shift[s] to the international community to use diplomatic, humanitarian and other means to protect them.” “Responsibility to Protect,” United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, accessed January 25, 2022, https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/about-responsibility-to-protect.shtml. R2P obliges state governments to prevent crimes against humanity, and if they do not, it specifies that the United Nations Security Council may intervene to protect at-risk populations. Amal Clooney, International Human Rights Lawyer In this video clip, international human rights lawyer Amal Clooney delivers a statement to the UN Security Council on her work representing women who have been victims of international crimes against humanity at the hands of ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, a militant extremist group that the United Nations has designated a terrorist organization) and asks the international community to bring the perpetrators to justice. How Is International Law Enforced? Enforcing international law requires the will and power of states. This can be a challenge for a variety of reasons including the risk of hostile confrontation, the potential damage to valuable international relationships, and the reluctance to interfere with state sovereignty by intervening in domestic affairs. States are rarely punished for violations of international human rights law that happen within their borders. Beginning in 2017, the Myanmar government launched a campaign against the Rohingya, an ethnic minority, and in the years since observers have accused the government of burning down villages and engaging in systematic rape and torture in violation of human rights treaties Myanmar has signed. In cases like these, in which a government violates an international law within its own borders, the international community may be unwilling or unable to enforce treaty obligations. Giavanna O’Connell, “How China Is Violating Human Rights Treaties and Its Own Constitution in Xinjiang,” Just Security, August 19, 2020, https://www.justsecurity.org/72074/how-china-is-violating-human-rights-treaties-and-its-own-constitution-in-xinjiang/; “World Court Rules Against Myanmar on Rohingya,” Human Rights Watch, January 23, 2020, https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/01/23/world-court-rules-against-myanmar-rohingya#. The groups suffering these human rights abuses are typically without political or military power and have little recourse if the international community is unwilling to come to their aid, even if there is broad agreement that international law is being broken. International law is the “judicial branch” of global governance. Within a country, judicial decisions are meaningful when, if necessary, the executive branch has the ability to enforce them. Because there is no executive branch in the global governance system, international laws are difficult to enforce. Sometimes powerful states decide to enforce international law, but this is not guaranteed and often depends upon power imbalances (powerful states are more likely to get away with noncompliance than weak states), state interests (states that are allied with powerful states may get away with noncompliance more than enemies), and the perceived ease of halting the bad behavior. In August 1990, Saddam Hussein , the leader of Iraq, invaded Kuwait, violating international law. The UN Security Council set a January 15, 1991, deadline for Iraqi withdrawal. On January 17, a UN coalition of 39 countries, led by the United States, launched Operation Desert Storm to force Iraq out of Kuwait and show “intolerance for military aggression and the strengthening of international cohesion, international law and liberal institutions, including the UN.” Louise Kettle, “A New World Order: The Importance of the 1991 Gulf War,” Ballots & Bullets , School of Politics & International Relations, University of Nottingham, January 19, 2016, https://nottspolitics.org/2016/01/19/a-new-world-order-the-importance-of-the-1991-gulf-war/. In this photo, soldiers and civilians raise American, British, Saudi, and Kuwaiti flags to celebrate following the retreat of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. (credit: “American, British, Saudi and Kuwaiti flags are held aloft by celebrating soldiers and civilians following the retreat of Iraqi forces from Kuwait as a result of Operation Desert Storm” by Cw02 Ed Bailey/Department of Defense, American Forces Information Service, Public Domain) The International Court of Justice (ICJ) The International Court of Justice (ICJ), also called the World Court, is headquartered in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. The ICJ was the original judicial institution of the United Nations. The Peace Palace in The Hague is the home of the International Court of Justice. (credit: “Peace Palace” by Cliché Lybil Ber/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 4.0) The ICJ was founded in 1945 to resolve disputes between states. Any UN member state can bring a case to the ICJ. The ICJ’s jurisdiction is limited to interstate disputes and advisory opinions for United Nations bodies. The most common types of cases states bring before the ICJ involve boundary and resource disputes. About a third of UN member states—not including the United States—have signed a document agreeing to be bound by the ICJ’s rulings. Since its founding, the ICJ has issued approximately 160 rulings, including both resolutions to interstate disputes and advisory opinions. “List of All Cases,” International Court of Justice, accessed January 25, 2022, https://www.icj-cij.org/en/list-of-all-cases. The International Criminal Court (ICC) When egregious human rights crimes are perpetuated on domestic groups and do not cross state boundaries, they are particularly challenging to punish as the doctrine of state sovereignty protects internal affairs. Following the 1994 Rwandan genocide and “ethnic cleansing” in the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, the UN established international criminal tribunals to help bring the perpetrators to justice and to end impunity , or the lack of punishment for criminal behavior. Given the costs and logistics associated with these temporary and issue-specific courts, in 1998 the United Nations Rome Statute established the International Criminal Court (ICC) as a permanent court to oversee such cases. The ICC was designed to address problems outside the scope of the ICJ, particularly to bring to justice individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. In 2018, the ICC’s jurisdiction was expanded to cover the crime of aggression. Thus far, the ICC has heard 30 cases and is investigating multiple others. “ICC Situations and Cases,” Coalition for the International Criminal Court, accessed January 25, 2022, https://www.coalitionfortheicc.org/explore/icc-situations-and-cases. Over 120 states are party to the Rome Statute, but powerful states with global reach like Russia, China, and the United States have been reluctant to recognize the legitimacy of the ICC, fearing it will infringe on state sovereignty and be used as a political weapon against soldiers or other nationals abroad. The United States has established a network of bilateral treaties with countries around the world promising not to prosecute any US citizen through the ICC. “The US-ICC Relationship,” International Criminal Court Project, accessed January 25, 2022, https://www.aba-icc.org/about-the-icc/the-us-icc-relationship/. How Does International Law Contribute to Global Governance? As doctoral researcher Heath Pickering notes, “agreements to norms and treaties have . . . increased international institutions, given rise to non-state actors, and rapidly developed the contemporary customary and treaty based rules system.” Heath Pickering, “Why Do States Mostly Obey International Law?” E-International Relations, February 4, 2014, https://www.e-ir.info/2014/02/04/why-do-states-mostly-obey-international-law/. Given the relative lack of enforcement mechanisms, state compliance with international law is surprisingly high. Most states comply with their obligations most of the time, and state leaders typically couch their actions in the language of international law, feeling compelled to justify their behavior according to accepted norms. The more states comply and feel the need to explain their behavior in common terms accepted by the international community, the more predictable international relations will be. International law, created by multilateral treaties, establishes boundaries on state behavior. In a system of sovereign states, with no authoritative overarching governing body, international law helps define norms for interstate conduct. International law creates a sense of obligation and expectations between countries. genocide an intentional and systematic attempt to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part International Criminal Court (ICC) a permanent court established to try individuals accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity International Court of Justice (ICJ) the judicial body of the United Nations that hears cases between states; also called the World Court international law the rules, drawn from treaties and customs, that govern the way states interact with each other responsibility to protect (R2P) a principle that states have a responsibility to protect all people, whether they are citizens of their own state or of other states, from genocide and crimes against humanity

Social Sciences