IR231- INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS - Part 1 Actors in the system interact with each other about issues of conflict,

cooperation, coordination, and war. As international society evolves, we start to talk about not only state but failed sate, fragile state, hybrid states which will come up in the form of state but not necessarily sovereign. *NATION STATES When we look at nation states, it is one of the most important actors which made int. relations as a discipline to come out. We see the emergence of nation state in time but we also see that nation states are also transforming especially at the time of globalization, changing their characteristics. One of the most important arguments is about the duality which exist in terms of rule and type of rule within the states and outside of states. Within the states in domestic politics we have a hierarchy where the members of that state have to abide with the rules of this hierarchy. If a citizen of a nation state commits a crime, the authority of that sovereignty will punish. There is a duality of the authority in the international system, in the world in general. The difference btw the domestic politics and int. politics; -Domestically there is organized conflict, state has monopoly over power, there are hierarchical organizations, there are rules of authority, these rules and authority are legitimate. Organized violence means there are armies, police which means control of the units. -In international politics there is no overarching authority and there are anarchical organizations. There are bargains and deals btw the states but it means that there is an absence of world government. In domestically there is a government that makes rules, executes these rules and punishes those who do not abide these rules. So as members of that polity the ruled (individual) have to comply with the law, rules, regulations and accept the legitimacy of the power above them. In international politics, states as the members of this international system are all alone. It means there is no central body that makes rules, execute rules or punishes. And also the rules of the game are evolving. There are new court, new responsibilities, new debates, the power of international law is tried to be strengthen. But still its up to the states in international system to become part of certain regulations or not, unlike domestic politics. So there is the duality and there is the difference of political systems. This is one of the characteristics of international politics. When we are talking about international system, we are talking about the concepts of the states. As Hedley Bull tells the starting point of the international relations is the existence of states or independent political unities. Each of which possess a government and asserts sovereignty in relationship to a particular piece of land and a particular segment of human population. so at times there seems to be an obsession with states in the international relations. While some theories are almost obsessed with the state, some others sees states as the main problem for the individuals or for actors other than states but still theyre also concerned with state. When we are talk about states what is most important concept is the concept of sovereignty. Sovereignty is the central concept of IR. It has emerged with the
1

Westphalian state system, it implies that there is an international anarchy. States are free to assert their authority over a piece of territory. There is absolute sovereignty that means states makes laws and implements them freely in their domestic constituency but it also means that its jurisdiction ends domestically where the other states jurisdiction starts at the border. So there is in it the concept of non intervention. When we are talking about sovereignty and sovereign nations, we are talking about the existence of anarchy. What happen to states when they have absolute sovereignty domestically and there is a respect for their existence and sovereignty over that territory and there is no higher authority above them to control their behavior is one of major questions in IR. We look at anarchy as a condition of int. politics, as an overarching factor that directly impact state behavior. So states are alone in the int. system because there is no higher authority above them telling them what to do. *INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY And this brings some questions like why there is no constant state of war btw the actors. This brings us to the concept of international society. The question is if all the states are all alone in the international system then why is there constant war all the time? Because there is an international society. In international system there is no constant war but there is also no constant peace. Once we have, according the ideas of scholars of English School international society, they share certain rules, norms, values and principles based on the idea of coexistence. States by emphasizing the importance of sovereignty, non-intervention, sanctity of borders as the main principles of int. system has created an international society, according to Hedley Bull. Just like domestic society they have managed to live together based on certain principles and it is what underlines the characteristics of our system since Westphalia. This international society is anarchical, is like the principle of non-intervention, but they did not evolve to something which led to world government, did not led to the creation of hierarchy. It is rather a minimum set of norms, values and principles based on the idea of coexistence. So in international system, the system of states, we are mainly talking about Westphalian state system, because since Westphalia 1648 we are talking about states which have accepted to live with certain norms and principles but this system is still anarchical. Therefore it is an anarchical international society as the major characteristic of int. system. What is anarchical international society is that when states agree on certain rules, norms and values in their relations with each other but still there is no higher authority above the states to tell them what to do and these principles are minimum principle of coexistence. The most important rules are the rule of sovereignty, non-intervention and balance of power. Anarchical international society is not war all against all but it is the creation of a society with certain rules, norms and values which bound states as the English school defines. Economic relations and society of the state prevent a constant state of war. Hedley Bulls definition is the most important one in this context. He says that there is no going to be a high power above the states in the anarchy. There is going to be a condition of international anarchy so there will be no a central world government. But there is still an order based on certain rules, norms and values and institutions. He says That a society of states or
2

int. society exist when a group of states conscious of certain common interests and common values for a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a certain set of rules in their relationship with one another and share in the working of common institutions. So states underlined that there is a set of norms and values which are Westphalian norms which are sovereignty, sanctity of borders, the legitimacy of the rules in countries (so respect for domestic affairs- non intervention) and states act according to those principles. Because of creation of common rules, norms and values in the anarchy and because think and agree that they are bound by the rules of this society, the English School argues that there is no constant war btw states. What keeps anarchy from turning into a constant war is these creation of norms, rules and values but the possibility of war always remain. The world until 1970s there was not much of a question whether the Westphalian state system (the anarchical int. society) has changed or not. The main concern about state was that who live with each other in an international system which is anarchical but they share certain norms& rules and ready to comply those rules and norms. From 1970s onward they increasingly started to question what is happening to sovereignty and anarchy. Traditional thinking is based on the idea of anarchy which is somehow controlled by certain principles of coexistence. However, although we are talking about creation of modern int. system (the state system since 1648), we know that there has been some forerunners of this international society and anarchy, there is two examples in history where we are going to see certain regions which have implemented anarchical international system principles. Ancient Greece: In ancient Greece there has been city states which have created certain norms with each other but there was no overarching authority above them controlling their behavior and linking their legislations to a government above them. So ancient Greek city states is one example where there is some norms of modern state. We sees forerunners of modern state system in Ancient Greece like Thucydides in Peloponnesian war, what happens in an anarchy to the weak and to the strong states is the idea that we learn from Greek City States. Italian City States: Machiavellis ideas of what happens domestically& internationally the idea of statesman, statecraft, security and reason dtat.

1648 Modern International Society *There are two important things in this context; 1. Anarchy is rare in int. politics. For centuries we have seen the domination of empires. Anarchy and anarchical int. society is a rarity. The major political organizations were empires. Most of the times polities were ruled directly by a center. For example; Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire. The relationship btw them is that there is no international society necessarily. Anarchical periods where political units had relationship with each other on an equal horizontal level is actually a rarity. 2. Int. society and anarchy are European concepts. So it is European state system which has emerged in Europe and later has expanded to different parts of the world. So int. system is based on the emergence of anarchical society in Europe which made its way to other parts of the world through colonization and which later became members of international system through decolonization period.

One of the most important characteristics of the world system in general was the dominance of hierarchy and the rarity of anarchy but the system we are in since the Westphalia is an anarchical international society centered in Europe and expand later to other parts of the world in time with colonization and imperialism of Europeans. Some of the important lessons that we learned from past anarchical experiences are from the two periods and the thinkers of this time in analyzing relationship btw the units especially Thucydides and Machiavelli. When were looking at this period we are talking about empires and within the empires (in their period of demines) the emergence of certain city states which have been important for our discussion. Greek city states were mainly based on the idea of Hellenic culture and Italian city states were based on the idea of state and urban identities which were designed in the emergence of these units. We know that they could not continue and overtaken by empires, but they are important as the forerunner of modern int. system. *Thucydides underlines the themes which later constitute the core of realist IR in general. Realist IR theory is based on the importance and centrality of the concept of power and Thucydides has been important in underlining the importance of the power. What means by power; what the strongest state could do (Athens in Peloponnesian war) and what the weak had to comply with. His writings in Peloponnesian war give us important clues about the importance of power and being strong in int. system. He is looking at the causes of war but he was also telling about the Melian dialogue, what the people of Melia were demanding form Athens to be out of war but their call for mercy was rejected by the strong state. This gives us an important example of how justice does not have a place in anarchical int. system. The realist motto let the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. It is the idea that wars are caused whenever one state tries to become over powerful to the point that others are threatened by powerful state will dominate them. So whenever the balance of power is broken, peace breaks and wars start. So far is right and wrong are concerned, there is no difference btw the two. This tells us that in int. relations there is no room for any values of ethics or morality. It is about the power. Lack of morality is one of the important points in realism. During this period what kept the Greek states together was their Hellenic culture and common understanding btw each other. They were threatened by outside powers, they had a distinct idea of who they were and who the barbarians were. All of the city states shared a common understanding. During this time there were no diplomatic missions but there were something called proxiny it resembles the forerunner of diplomatic activity. Realist statement which we learnt from Thucydides is that context is important it emphasizes the importance of power, emphasizes the analogy btw human nature and state behavior, underlines that there is no room for values (right &wrong) in it. Politics because there is no morality; if you dont cheat the other will cheat. *Machiavelli: Italian city states, most of them based on trade and interact with each other with certain patterns in an anarchical way. It means that there is no higher authority above them. Machiavelli in his book Prince is calling for unification of these city states and tells them that the moment that dont unite they are going to be erased from the history. What has happened during this time in Italy was the creation of city states for mainly based on the wealth they earned from trade. Machiavelli tried to bring some new patterns of behavior for states in this existence system. States were important. Why we should have stato, sovereign units became in the core of the discussion in this context and
4

domestically centralized units with legitimate rulers constituted the most imp. Idea during this time. What Machiavelli wrote to our thinking about int. politics was the idea of duality of morality. Machiavelli put the Thucydides idea more clear there is no morality in int. politics. One of the things that differentiates the domestic politics from international politics is the domestically statesmen had to be moral, but in int. system statesmen should even be immoral. He is arguing that a good statesman should be both a lion and a fox. Because a good statesman should be strong but should not shy away from cheating if it serves to national interest. He brings in the concept of national interest which is the reason of state. Which is the boost of the power of the state is justified. In domestically there is Christian rules & morals in this time which guided ruler; ruler should be trusted, should not lie to his people, should not cheat his own people; in the international system he should manage to cheat because this is a power game. Not only that internationally anarchy domestically there is hierarchy, Machiavelli argues internationally immoral, domestically state abide by morality. Classical realists as Machiavelli, Thucydides constitute the core of our realist understanding and school of thought in modern int. system. Because there is no hierarchy in the int. system, there is equality in terms of status btw the units; all of them sovereign, legitimate regimes. What is different between them is their power. Because there is no vertical relationship the states are all alone to defend themselves. This brings us to the self help system. This serves to power politics and push states to acquire more power. Until 17th century the wars are made in the name of religion, but after 1648 Westphalia Treaty, after religion wars on Europe it comes to an end. A secularization process is going to come into international level and the conflict btw the states are mainly going to be about national & secular issues rather than religious issues and causes. 1648 is the secularization of international system. In medieval authority there are many different circles of authority, in time there is the creation of one authority of central government. Some argued that what has happened in this context was a melting of diverse authorities in the medieval Europe and how they have left their space with the declining power of popes, bishops, archbishops and the decline of religion and the increasing power of secular rulers is going to be important in the creation of modern nation state. The wars are still important but there is a secularity of war causes which means there is less wars based on religion and almost in time they almost disappeared. So wars namely will be the part to be thought over political territorial lives rather than religious lives as it was. And also there is the creation of a system of balance of power btw the states. The loyalty was used to be to the local authority and to the church, and now the Christian idea shrink to the national level where the kings will become then rulers of their territories and which will become legitimate rulers in these certain territories. The reason of state, the national interest, the need to exist as one legitimate territorial unit is going to take over the responsibilities of Respublica Christiane. In short there is these new concepts at this time; *secularity of international system *the idea of secular separate sovereign state Looking at Westphalia there is the creation of three important principles; the first steps and the emergence of the modern international system.
5

* Westphalia argues that the first the king is the emperor of his own realm. (The king is sovereign in that territory, there is no other authority) *The king determine the religion in that territory (no higher authority above state& non-intervention) *Westphalian state system has created implicitly the balance of power system. It argues that in Europe no higher authority, no one state will be powerful enough to control others. Balance of power is going to be the major driving and ordering principle of the anarchy. There is no morality in the system but how will states maintain order and continue to live? This brings us to the balance of power issue. Balance of power is aims to prevent hegemony, any movement which will lead a change from anarchy to hierarchy. It aims to create a system where no one county will be strong enough to dominate others. Whenever one state becomes over powerful, other states will come together to balance. It requires a collective action of threatened part. They are all alone but they can cooperate to maintain their national interests-survival- . In Westphalian state there are; *territories *centralized exclusive domestic powers *in the in international system there is anarchy *boundaries btw the domestic and international are very clear, not only borders btw states but also borders btw the characteristics of politics. One is hierarchical the other is anarchic; one is based on moral principles while the other is no just and no moral values as guide. Some people criticized Westphalia Treaty as be the creation of modern international system. Some says that it had nothing to do with 1648, it had to be before. However many authors argue that we have to take Westphalia as a turn because Westphalia made the charter of Europe which is permanently organized on an untied hegemonial principle and we can read all the developments after 1648 for example Napoleonic wars as moves to prevent the rise of one hegemon and to try to build a system based on balance of power. This modern state system is European centered, and expand in time. First to North America with discoveries then to the non-western states, japan etc. When look at the period, for example 1815 and hundred years from then, concert of Europe is giving us a lot of ideas about how we should understand a smooth working of the European system, a smooth working of European system because we see that during this time there were no wars in Europe. The system of balance of power has been built. The characteristics of European society have changed in accordance with three principles; *Sovereignty *Non-intervention *Balance of Power There are some others like secular politics at the time; it is possible to say that European society has changed from 17thcentury onwards consisted of member states who political independence and juridical equality recognized by each other and by international
6

law. This means that although states were not equal in terms of their power there was recognized unity of the territory at the time and there was also recognition of equality btw these states in the international system. We started to see international law starting to grow especially from 16th c. onwards and international law based on equal members of international system which is the national states became one of the important characteristics of European society. *Every member state is legitimate *The relations btw sovereign units managed by diplomats *The importance of religion has declined in the relation btw states *However, Christian culture became an inherent part of European society. *Balance of power became an order in European society. Especially late 18th and 19th century balance of power has been successful looking at the wars on the continent. For example; Napoleonic wars. For a hundred years from 1815 to 1914 there is a peaceful continent. There was the concert of Europe which was built to prevent a hegemonic movement. * European state system expanded in 19th century through colonialism and imperialism. * Liberal ideas in state relations has flourished during this time. *through this time it can be seen how it is possible to create interdependencies and peaceful coexistence btw states because states are trading with each other. Trade btw the sates is an important component of peaceful relations according to liberals. **On the one hand we have the working of realist understanding which was dominant, the peace in the Europe for a hundred years was based on the balance of power according to realists who sees the major problem of international relations as a power struggle. On the other hand, there were those who argued that as long as there was peace state would trade more and more states trade the more peaceful they become. The idea was that states who were trading would create certain dependencies which would help them to continue to favor cooperation and peaceful means. So the idea that started to emerged at the time in Europe was that trade has a chance to create a peaceful world. This idea which will break by ww1 is going to prove that even if states trade peace will not be possible to maintain or not be possible to maintain automatically. *Two factors became especially important in driving the world to a war by 1914. One is the struggle for colonies and unification of Germany and Italy, second is the eastern question; how to solve the weakening of Ottoman Empire within system of European states. When war started the whole idea that peace trade and balance of power worked to maintain peace. The world war has become important in the way we think in relation btw states and about world politics. And the questioning of balance of power by some. The idea in this context which became a core question behind the emergence of international relation discipline became a solution to issues of war. The disaster of ww1 made people to ask question of how it could be prevented for another time. After ww1 we have witnessed the creation of first IR chair in UK which has specifically worked on Woodrow Wilsons idea of creation of peace. Until this time realists believed the inevitability of war, there was no mechanism & reason &hope that peace could be maintained in international system. For realists, wars are like rain, it can happen anytime. The nature of international politics keeps wars as a constant possibility btw states. What can be done is to reveal the patterns and understand why wars happen and bring predictability to the international
7

system. But the idea that war can be prevented is nonsense. Living through the example of ww1 the new elite, post-war thinkers, will come up with the idea that wars can be prevented, should be, because peace is desirable and possible. During the interwar years, there was a period where people started to talk about the prominence of the idea of collective security. From balance of power to collective security understanding has evolved. Liberals after WW1, have understood that peace cannot be achieved only by trade which they argued before the WW1. They believed that peace can only be made through a man-made machinery which was an international institution. So bringing the peace to world politics through the creation of League of Nations is going to constitute the major argument regarding inter-war period. The idea was that if there was an authority above the states to punish them if necessary then peace would be easier. Collective security is based on the idea of deterrence of any aggressor before aggression happens.

Jeton Dukagjini

J.D