NATIONAL SCHOOL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Department of International Relations and European Integration

Masters Degree Program: Security and Diplomacy

Theory of International Relations

- World Politics Professor Vasile Secre, Ph.D.

SNSPA
Bucharest, 2014

I. Theory of International Relations:

An Introduction

1. Intentions and objectives

My intention today: to present the topics, the main

ideas and concepts I intend to discuss during my

lectures
Of course: this is about theory and this is an effort
to shape up a theoretical framework of world
politics
But this is not an abstract or general discussion
about IR
an effort to capture the real dynamics of world
politics, the present changes and the new challenges

2. Where are we now?

A revolution in international affairs may have begun at

the beginning of the 21st century: a watershed!

The collapse of the previous world order + important
political, economic and military evolutions + the present
economic crisis + globalization have been judged to have
shaken the existing foundations of international stability /
of international security
The present watershed represents both the culmination of a
logic that had developed during the 90s and the departure
point for a new era in the evolution of the international
society

This is a challenge for the theory of IR in connection with its

capability to understand and explain the present developments
and even more important: to make predictions / forecasts!
In the late 80s and early 90s we were witnessing an early
warning of this situation: the discipline of IR failed to predict the
collapse of communism and the implosion of the Soviet Union
and the collapse of the Soviet imperial system. This was a severe
setback!
During the Cold War period: Western governments found that
they could rely on academic institutions for conceptual
innovation, hard research, practical proposals and eventually
willing recruits for the bureaucracy of foreign policy and security
and defense! NB: McNamara, Kissinger, Brzezinski
Decreasing confidence in the predictive utility of international
studies: especially the discipline of strategic studies was
undermined

Aside from this credibility gap, the discipline of IR the

practitioners of this domain faced an even more serious problem: the
sudden lack of the political or strategic conflict (was it real? what
about the fundamentals of the political dynamics of the international
system?)
The absence of the great power conflict produced evidence of
disorientation!
a)
in the idealist tradition: the end of history approach (Fr.
Fukuyama) the primacy of economics / economic conflict and
the shrinking role of the state.
b)
the realist tradition: attempts to recast international conflict in
terms of a clash of great civilizations rather than great powers; or
replacements for the former Soviet threat: China, Russia or/and
Germany or?

There is a clear need of change and of some amount of retooling =>

new instruments in IR

3. The real context: how to understand the

present transition?

We are witnessing the historic transition from the world

in which we have been living from 1500 to 2000 into a
different one.
this transition has already begun and it will be a dark
period: in the sense of being one of violence, of acute
political, economic and even military struggle:
a) a power / systemic transition = 25 years
b) an economic transition = (?) the present crisis is a
crisis of post-war capitalism towards a new
(different?) global (capitalist) economy
c) a social transition = 50 years

There is no doubt that the great struggle of the 20th century over ideas
is over. The militant visions of class, nation and race which promised
utopia and delivered misery have been defeated and discredited
But: the world evolution at the beginning of the 21st century is not that
simple!
The victory of liberal democracies versus new tensions based on
nationalistic or religious beliefs
Fukuyamas vision (in line with Hegel) is not based in a real
understanding of the world evolution. The world continues to be a
dangerous place
The world is changing but not in a linear way
We live in a very complex world and in an era of contradictions:
globalization and fragmentation, peace and conflict, prosperity and
poverty

What is very important is the fact that we live in a period

of transition.
The bipolar system has disappeared and a new
international system still has to emerge from its ashes.
The present transition: some huge tectonic plates of
history are moving (Thomas L. Friedman).
Now we are present at the creation of some kind of new
global structure; let me put it this way:
a)
b)
c)

a transition towards a new power cycle

a transition towards a new distribution of power at the
world level and a new hegemonic structure
a transition towards a new political and security
architecture, new global institutions = a new world order

This transition started with the collapse of

communism: 89 91

The first stage: 89/91 - 2008

The world is changing not only in terms of

communication, markets or trade but in terms

of geopolitics: new world and regional power
structures, a new geopolitical map.

 We need to understand all these dimensions of

change: see the specific political and military +

economic evolutions (the invasion of Kuwait and
the first war against Saddam, the dismantling of
the Warsaw Pact, German reunification, the
Balkan Wars, PfP &NATO enlargement etc.)

 The second (final) stage started with the global

financial & economic crisis.

The new stage of the restructuring process
includes a component wich targets the centre of
the system: see the EU crisis and the
renationalization of power competition in Europe,
the new role of Germany and the new relationship
between Germany and Russia as well as the
impact of the strategic shift/pivot of the USA.

 The economic/financial crisis as an

instrument of redistribution (a new structure

of power). The new role of the BRICS
countries.
The Arab spring and the reshaping of the

geopolitical map in the MENA region.


a)

The main issues:

What kind of global structure:
Is it going to be unipolar, centered on the US, or a multipolar
international system, based on some sort of balance of power?
Amid the present uncertainty is the stark reality that the US is the
most powerful country in the world
But: the US superiority will not last for ever. As power diffuses
around the world, Americas position relative to others will erode!
Other nations and non-state actors are rising. The world is becoming
more multipolar!
But the question is: is this process producing results in 10 or 20
years from now on?! (a transition =20-25 years).
What kind of hegemonic structure is going to evolve for the rest of
this century (80-90 or more years)?

b)

What kind of new security architecture?

The issues and preoccupations of the 21st century present new

and often fundamentally different types of challenges (new
actors, violent political Islam, intra-state warfare, failed states,
WMD etc.). The terrorist attacks of 9/11: the war against
terrorism is one like no other war before it.
A new vision on security: broadening the concept; hard and soft
security; cooperative security.
The mandates and capacity of international institutions have not
kept pace with the present needs.
NB: The current debate on international intervention for human
protection purposes (R2P) reflects new sets of issues and new
types of concern

4. Change and theory: what kind of impact on the

discipline of IR

Saying this: we seem to assume that general evolution of human

society somehow must influence and change international relations
and the IR discipline (Keohane, Nye, Weaver).
Realism (the dominant tradition in IR) is denying progress in IR =
progress has no place in IR. Martin Wight: international politics =
the realm of repetition.
But this is not about progress: it is about the consequences of this
new phase in the evolution of the international system: of this
transition towards a new international system or of this revolution
in international affairs.
The events in the 90s and early 2000 transformed an international
system that had evolved over a period of more than three centuries
(1648!) to ensure the security of states!
What are the consequences, what do we have to change in order to
capture the new realities?

Let me mention 10 important evolutions or

changes affecting International Affairs at the
beginning of the 21st century:
1)

2)

the evolution of the structure of IR (the

components and principles of arrangement of the
parts in a system and how the parts are
differentiated from each other).
changes transforming the political and legal
framework of the international system (the impact
of the so-called three revolutions).

3)

a growing cultural and civilization divide and a wealth and

poverty divide.

4)

changes in the structure of power = transition towards a new

global structure of power.

5)

a geopolitical revolution: new geopolitical systems / regions

a new geopolitical map.

6)

changes determining the revolution in military affairs.

7)

changes transforming the nature of risks and threats a

new agenda, with some very important consequences .
NB: Thomas Schelling provided a framework for thinking about
how two sides might pursue competing interests without losing
sight of shared interests (USA and USSR); what about now?
USA and Al Qaeda?
8)

changes transforming the strategic culture: America vs. Europe;

strategic culture and preemptive and preventive approach (USA;
Russia).

and 10) changes in the paradigms of the use of force and changes
transforming the management of violence under the impact of the
present RMA and the proliferation of military technology.
the present trends in asymmetric warfare, together with the
security vulnerabilities of the industrial states mean that
conventional military approaches to maintaining western and
international security will not succeed.
new trends connected to the changes affecting the monopoly of the
state in this domain (the use of force).
a)
at the center: increased use of private security organizations;
subcontracting of different defense and security components;
b)
periphery: paramilitary forces, mercenary forces employed by
local elites or even governments.
9)

5. The theoretical perspectives on IR and the Post

Cold War Security Order: the need for a new
synthesis

a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)

How to use the contribution of neorealism (structural realism),

neoliberal institutional approach and constructivism = a
multidimensional approach
Levels of analysis:
the international system: the bipolar structure vs. multipolar
structure;
the nuclear / strategic level;
the political power frame (domestic politics);
the institutional level and the bureaucratic process
ideological and cultural patterns;
individual level: psychological and cognitive style; individual
decisions
perceptions: errors
randomness

Bibliography
1. K.J. Holsti, International Politics. A Framework For Analysis, 7th
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

edition, Prentice Hall International, 1995 , pp. 42-50; 54-68

H. Bull, The Anarchical Society, 3rd edition, Columbia University
Press, New York, 2002, pp. 13; 23-26; 39; 130; 200-201; 207; 240241; 248-249
B. Buzan, From International to World Society?, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 2004, pp. 8-9; 45-62; 231
A. Belamy (ed.), International Society and Its Critics, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 2005, pp. 9-11; 65; 70-71
A. Wendt, Why A World State is Inevitable, in European Journal of
International Relations, vol. 9, no. 4, 2003, pp. 491-542
Barry Buzan, Ole Weaver and Jaap de Wilde, Security: A New
Framework for Analysis, Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1998
Barry Buzan and Ole Weaver, Regions and Power. The Structure of
International Security, Cambrige, CUP, 2003, Chapter 3

8.

9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

Noile sensuri ale puterii and Gladiatorii globali, in A. Toffler,

Powershift Puterea n micare, Ed. Antet, 1995, p.11-28 and p.453463; Rzboiul din al treilea val and Urmtoarea form de pace, in A.
Toffler, Rzboi i antirzboi supravieuirea n zorii sec. XXI, Ed.
Antet, 1995, p.81-101 and p.262-277
Noua ordine mondial reconsiderat, in H.Kissinger, Diplomaia, Ed.
All, Bucureti, 2002, p.700-727
A. Schlesinger Jr., Has Democracy a Future?, in Foreign Affairs,
vol.76, no.5, September-October 1997, p.2-12
Politica globalizrii, in H.Kissinger, Are nevoie SUA de o politic
extern? Ctre diplomaia secolului XXI, Ed. Incitatus, Bucureti,
2002
James Gow, A Revolution in International Affairs, in Security
Dialogue, vol.1(3), 2000, p.293-306
Benjamin Schwary and Christofer Layne, A New Grand Strategy, in
The Atlantic, January 2002
Robert Kagan, Power and Weakness, in Policy Review, no.113

15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.

Lawrence Friedman, International Security Changing Targets, in

Foreign Policy, Spring 1998, p.48-62
Michael J. Glennon, Why the Security Council Failed, in Foreign
Affairs, May/June 2003
G. John Ikenberry, Americas Imperial Ambition, in Foreign
Affairs, September/October 2002
Richard Lugar, The Role of NATO in the War Against Terrorism,
from http://www.senate.gov/~lugar/011702.html
M. Ionescu (coord.), Regiunea extins a Mrii Negre: Concept,
Evoluie, Perspective (I), in Occasional Papers, 2007, no.10
V. Secre, The New Strategic and Security Landscape of Southeast
Europe: The Case for a Wider Black Sea Area, in Research Paper,
No. 15, NDC, Rome, 2005
I. Chifu et al., The Russian Georgian War, Ed. Curtea Veche,
Bucureti, 2009, Chapter 2