only for HBW
jotae11
Unit4.-InternationalSystem-1.pptxInternational Relations
Mgs. Hugo Calle Forrest, Lcdo.
Unit 4: The International System, institutions and regimes
Mgs. Hugo Calle Forrest, Lcdo.
The International System
3
A system of states (or international system) is formed when two or more states have sufficient contact between them, and have sufficient impact on one another´s decisions, to cause them to behave –at least in some measure- as parts of whole.
Important for Realists and Radicals
Less precise, consequential for Liberals (multiple conceptions)
International system concept
System defined
Assemblage of units, objects, parts united by some form of regular interaction
Change in one causes changes in all the others
Systems tend to respond in regularized ways
Patterns to their actions and interactions
Can break down; when changes become significant, can give rise to new system
International politics
It is a system whose major actors are individual states
International System
The State
The Primary actors we study in international relations are states.
Also known as Countries, Nation-States
International System actors
MNCs: Multinational Corporations
IGO´s: Intergovernmental Organizations
NGO’s: Non governmental organizations
INGO’s: International nongovernmental organizations
Other individuals or groups that are politically active but not necessarily recognized officially (terrorists, nations, etc.)
International System
Non-state actors
Non –state actors
In the 21st century, the status-quo of the international system is no longer monopolized by states alone. Rather, it is the presence of non-state actors, who autonomously act to implement unpredictable behavior to the international system.
Whether it is transnational corporations, liberation movements, non-governmental agencies, or international organizations, these entities have the potential to significantly influence the outcome of any international transaction.
Additionally, this also includes the individual person as while the individual is what constitutes the states collective entity, the individual does have the potential to also create unpredicted behaviors. Al-Qaeda, as an example of a non-state actor, has significantly influenced the way states (and non-state actors) conduct international affairs
International Organization
Benefits of International Organizations
Limitations of International Organizations
MNC´s
IGO´S
IGO´s
The Roles of Intergovernmental Organizations
IGOs contribute to habits of cooperation; through IGOs, states become socialized to regular interactions. Such regular interactions occur between states in the United Nations.
Roles:
Some establish regularized processes of information gathering, analysis, and surveillance.
Some IGOs, such as the World Trade Organization, develop procedures to make rules, settle disputes, and punish those who fail to follow the rules.
Other IGOs conduct operational activities that help to resolve major substantive problems
IGOs also play key roles in bargaining, serving as arenas for negotiating and developing coalitions.
IGO´s
IGOs often spearhead the creation and maintenance of international rules and principles. They establish expectations about their behavior of other states. These are known as international regimes.
Charters if IGOs incorporate the norms, rules, and decisionmaking processes of regimes. IGOs help to reduce the incentive to cheat and enhance the value of a good reputation.
For states, IGOs enlarge the possibilities for foreign policy making and add to the constraints under which states operate and especially implement foreign policy. States join IGOs to use them as instruments of foreign policy.
IGOs also constrain states. They set agendas and force governments to make decisions; encourage states to develop processes to facilitate IGO participation, and create norms of behavior with which states must align their policies if they wish to benefit from their membership.
IGOs affect individuals by providing opportunities for leadership. As individuals work with or in IGOs, they, like states, may become socialized to cooperate internationally.
NGO´s
Role of International Organizations
Role of International Organizations
International System according to Realists and Liberals / International System according to other perspectives
International System according to Realists
Anarchic (all Realists agree)
No authority above the state; state is sovereign
Anarchic structure constrains actions of decision-makers and affects distribution of capabilities among various actors
Each state must look out for own interests
Differ on degree of state autonomy
Traditional Realists recognize states act and shape system
Neorealists believe states are constrained by structure of international system
23
Realists and Polarity in the International System
Given focus on power, Realists particularly interested in polarity and system stability
System polarity = number of blocs of states that exert power in the international system
Multipolar (19th century balance of power)
Several states (three or more) influential actors in international system; relative power parity
Bipolar (Cold War; 1945-1990)
Two states influential; relative power parity
Unipolar (post-Cold War; 1991-present(?))
One state stands out as the most powerful; no parity
24
Polarity and System Stability
Are certain polarities more manageable, stable, conflict-prone than others?
Studies of relationship between polarity and stability inconclusive
Bipolar systems
Clear power differential between poles and other states; each can focus on other pole; each tries to preserve balance and bipolar system (Waltz)
Multipolar (balance of power) systems
System stable if poles maintain balance; multiple interactions and cross-cutting loyalties, alliances
Unipolar systems
Hegemonic stability theory (Kennedy, Keohane); hegemons willing to pay price to enforce norms
25
Realists and International System Change
Changes in the number of major actors or the relative power relationships (distribution of power)
Usually the result of war
States acting to preserve their own interests can change their relative power positions due to differing responses to political, economic, and technological changes (example: NICs of SE Asia; South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong)
Exogenous factors (from outside the system)
Advances in technology
Example: nuclear weapons (N. Korea, Iran)
26
International System according to Liberals Liberalism : International System as Process; Interdependence
Multiple interactions among different parties; actors learn from interactions
Actors include states, IGOs, NGOs, MNCs, sub-state actors (unlike Realists who emphasize states)
Different kinds of actors, variety of interactions
Likewise, range of national interests (security, economic, social, etc.) (unlike Realists who emphasize security)
Keohane and Nye, Power and Interdependence
International system as interdependent
Multiple actors sensitive/vulnerable to actions of others
Multiple channels connect states; multiple issues and agendas
27
Liberalism: International System as International Society
English tradition
International system more than a group of independent political communities
Various actors communicate, consent to common rules and institutions, and recognize common interests
Actors share a common identity
International system an arena and process for positive interactions
28
Liberalism: Neoliberal Institutionalism and The International System
Like Realists, see international system as anarchic
Each individual state acts in its own self-interest
Product of interaction among actors potentially positive
When states realize they will have future interactions with other actors involved, institutions created out of self-interest serve to moderate state behavior
29
Sources of Change in the Liberal International System
Exogenous (from “outside” the system) technological developments
Examples: changes in communication, transportation
Changes in relative importance of different issue areas
Examples: economic issues; human rights, environment
New actors (MNCs, NGOs, others) can augment, replace state actors; create new relationships
Change in overall power structure among states (not unlike Realists)
30
International System According to Radicals
Radicals describe and explain international system structure in terms of stratification
Stratification = uneven division of resources among different groups of states due to capitalism
International system stratified according to which states have vital resources (oil, military strength, economic power)
Different international systems have varying degrees of stratification
Current international system is highly stratified
7 states (U.S., Japan, Germany, France, Britain, Russia, China) have ½ of world GDP; other half shared among remaining states
Stratification of power/resources creates division between haves (North) and have-nots (South)
31
Implications of Stratification
Stratification caused by capitalism, which structures relationship between advantaged and disadvantaged, empowering the rich, disenfranchising the weak
Instruments of capitalist domination:
International institutions: rules are structured by capitalist states to facilitate capitalism (IMF, World Bank)
MNCs: headquartered in capitalist states exploit dependent areas
Co-opted individuals, classes in weak states perpetuate exploitative system
Economic disparities built into structure of international system; all actions and interactions constrained by structure of international capitalist system
Likelihood of systemic change varies among Radical theorists
32
International System according to other perspectives Constructivism and International System Change
Changes in social norms can lead to fundamental shift in system
Social purposes of international system have changed over time (Finnermore)
18th century balance of power; 19th century concert; 20th century sphere of influence; Late 20th century promotion of liberal democracy, capitalism, and human rights
Mechanisms of change
(Collective level) Coercion; international institutions and law, social movements; (Individual level) Persuasion and internationalization of new norms
Material forces constrain what order is possible, but what order emerges is function of ideas, culture, and social purposes of actors
33
International System Level of Analysis
Strengths
Important research tool; allows for comparison between systems; enables scholars to organize parts into whole; to hypothesize, test relations and evaluate changes between and within systems; holistic, top-down approach; generates plausible general explanations
Weaknesses
Generalizations sometimes broad, obvious; difficult to test theories; boundaries (what is, is not part of the system?) often unclear
Important for Realists (polarity) and Radicals (stratification): system constrains state behavior
Liberals see it as arena and process for interaction
Constructivists focus on how norms and ideas shape system
34
The United Nations / Theories’ views of International Law
The United Nations
The UN was founded on three fundamental principles:
The UN is based on the notion of the sovereign equality of member states. Each state is legally equivalent of every other state.
Only international problems are within the jurisdiction of the UN. Such problems include human rights, global telecommunications, and environmental regulation.
The UN is designed primarily to maintain international peace and security. States should refrain from the threat or use of force and settle disputes through peaceful means.
Security has broadened from the classical protection of national territory to human security—providing humanitarian relief for refugees or the starving.
The United Nations Structure
Security Council: responsible for ensuring peace and security and deciding enforcement measures. Decisions must be unanimous and each of the five permanent members has a veto.
General Assembly: with 192 member states, permits debate on any topic under its purview. Since the end of the Cold War, the GA’s work has been marginalized, and power has shifted back to the Security Council, much to the dismay of the Group of 77, a coalition of developing states, regional groups, and the Group of 20.
Secretariat: gathers information, coordinates and conducts activities. The secretary-general is the chief spokesperson and administrative officer.
Economic and Social Counsel (ECOSOC): coordinates economic and social welfare programs and coordinates action of specialized agencies.
Trusteeship Council: supervision has ended; proposals have been floated to change its function to a forum for NGOs.
International Court of Justice: noncompulsory jurisdiction on cases brought by states and international organizations.
International Law
International Law Functions
International law consists of a body of both rules and norms regulating interactions among states, between states and IGOs, and among IGOs, states, and individuals.
At the state level, law is hierarchical. Established structures exist for both making law and enforcing law, and law binds individuals and groups within the state. There is widespread compliance with the law because it is in the interest of everyone that order be maintained.
In the international system, authoritative structures are absent. Nonetheless, liberals acknowledge that international law exists and has an effect in daily life, such as airspace, trade, and shipping regulations.
International Law
The Sources of International Law
Custom. But customary law is limited because it develops slowly. Not all states participate in customary law, and its uncodified nature leads to ambiguity in interpretation.
Treaties. Treaties are the dominant source of law today, and are legally binding: only major changes in circumstances give states the right not to follow treaties they have ratified.
Authoritative bodies, such as the UN International Law Commission.
Courts. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been responsible for some significant decisions, but it is a weak institution for several reasons:
International Law
The court actually hears very few cases. Since 1946, only 112 cases have been brought before it.
When cases are heard, they rarely deal with the major controversies of the day because such controversies are outside of the court’s reach.
Only states may initiate proceedings; individuals and nongovernmental actors like multinational corporations cannot.
National and even local courts. They may hear cases occurring on their territory in which international law is invoked or cases involving their own citizens.
Under universal jurisdiction, states may claim jurisdiction if the conduct of a defendant is sufficiently heinous to violate the laws of all states. States claimed jurisdiction as a result of genocide in World War II, and for war crimes in Bosnia, Rwanda, and Kosovo.
International Law
Enforcement of International Law
A key trend in the new millennium has been the expansion of the international judiciary, motivated by the idea of individual responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Following the atrocities of Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and East Timor, the UN established two ad hoc criminal tribunals. Because of the need to establish procedures and the difficulty of finding those accused, the trials have been subject to criticism
In light of the difficulties with the ad hoc tribunals, in 1998, states concluded the statute for the International Criminal Court (ICC), an innovative court having both compulsory jurisdiction and jurisdiction over individuals.
ICC work began in 2003, and pending cases all concern crimes committed in African countries.
The ICC is controversial. Supporters see the court as essential for establishing international law and enforcing individual accountability. Others, including the U.S., objects to it on the grounds that the ICC infringes on U.S. sovereignty and may implicate U.S. military or political officials.
Why do states obey international law most of the time?
The liberal response is that they obey because it is right to do so. Individual states benefit from living in an ordered world where there are general expectations about other states’ behavior.
Should states choose not to obey, other members of the international system do have recourse: they can issue diplomatic protests, initiate reprisals, threaten to enforce economic boycotts, or use military force.
Self-help mechanisms of enforcement from one state alone are apt to be ineffective. To be most effective, states must use collective action against the violator.
Theories’ views of International Law
REALIST VIEWS OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND LAW
They are skeptical about international law
International law creates some order, and states comply because it is in the state’s self-interest to comply. It is in the self-interest of states to have their airspace and territory respected, and to enjoy secure procedures for international trade.
They are also skeptical about international organizations, both IGOs and NGOs.
Realists do not put much faith in the United Nations and point to failures of the Security Council to collectively punish aggressors.
Most NGOs exist at the beck and call of states; it is states that grant them legal authority, and it is states that can take away that authority.
THE RADICAL VIEW OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND LAW
Radicals see contemporary international law as the product of a specific time and historical process, emerging out of eighteenth-century economic liberalism and nineteenth-century political liberalism.
Law primarily comes out of Western capitalist states and is designed to serve the interests of that constituency, and is biased against socialist states, the weak, and the unrepresented.
IGOs, especially the UN and UN agencies, were designed to support the interests of the powerful. Those institutions have succeeded in sustaining the powerful elite against the powerless mass of weaker states.
The lack of representativeness and the lack of accountability of NGOs are key issues. Most radicals see the world of NGOs based in the North as dominated by members of the same elite. NGOs are captive to the dominant interests of that system.
Contemporary law and international organizations are not the agents of the political and economic changes that radicals desire,
THE CONSTRUCTIVIST VIEW OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION
They place critical importance on institutions and norms. Both IGOs and NGOs can be norm entrepreneurs that socialize and teach states new norms. These new norms may influence state behavior.
Law plays a key role in constructivist thinking because it reflects changing norms. Norms are internalized by states themselves, they change state preferences, and shape behavior.
IN SUM: DO IGOS, NGOS, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW MAKE A DIFFERENCE?
Realists remain skeptical; all are reflections of state power and have no independent identity or role.
Radicals view them skeptically as well. They see them as mere reflections of political and economic hegemony.
Liberals believe that international law and organizations do not replace states as the primary actors, but they do provide alternative venues for states themselves to engage in collective action and for individuals to join with other like-minded individuals in pursuit of their goals
