UCSF – FDyCP – Licenciatura en Relaciones Internacionales – INGLÉS – Prof. Eduardo A.

Quintana

Introduction to International Relations 1

by Professor Michael Cox with Richard Campanaro - Department of International Relations,

London School of Economics and Political Science. University of London – (2012)

Read this academic TEXT and do the following activities:

TEXT:
The twentieth century origins of international relations - (C)
Growing diversity in IR
Though Realism is normally identified as the dominant tradition in IR, it has never held the
field alone. Depending on how you date it, Liberalism predates Realism – dating back to the
much-derided idealism of the interwar years – and remains one of the discipline’s most
influential approaches. For Liberals, interdependence – mutual dependence on one another
for social and material goods – provides the best foundations on which we can build a more
peaceful world.
According to supporters of Liberalism like Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, the extraordinary
expansion of ‘trans-boundary interactions’ since the end of the Second World War is the most
obvious foundation on which to build a new international system in a post-hegemonic age.
Increasing interdependence, they argue, means that states are not absolutely sovereign
insofar as they remain vulnerable to transnational forces. This is not to deny the continued
importance of the state and power in IR. However, in a world in which the USA appears to be
losing its capacity to lead from a position of hegemonic strength, Liberals argue that
additional means must be sought to guarantee the stability and improvement of the
international system.
Their analysis, therefore, includes an expanded set of international actors, focusing also on
the role of multinational corporations (MNCs), non- governmental organisations (NGOs) and
intergovernmental organisations (IGOs).
Another distinct contribution to IR has been made by the English School (ES), first developed
at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Many of its theorists accept a good
deal of what Realists have to say about power and the competitive, anarchic character of IR.
At the same time, they disagree with Realism’s claim that the international system is a free-
for-all, ‘anything goes’ arena. Realism, argues the ES, cannot explain why states – even ones
as hostile to each other as the USA and the USSR – work together, engage in diplomacy, and
thereby generate forms of international order in an otherwise anarchic system.
Instead of accepting Realism’s Hobbesian view of IR, the ES argues that the international
system is best described as an international society, in which actors (including states, MNCs,
NGOs, etc.) are bound together by socially-generated practices and principles. These
practices and principles – which some ES scholars call institutions – range from bilateral and
multilateral treaties (the formal institutions of international society) to unwritten but
 UCSF – FDyCP – Licenciatura en Relaciones Internacionales – INGLÉS – Prof. Eduardo A. Quintana

influential principles such as sovereignty and democracy promotion (society’s informal

2
institutions). Both are historically changeable, varying over time and space. In the past 50
years, European international society has gone from being one of the world’s most unstable
and war-torn regions to one of its most tranquil. Its institutions have evolved over time away
from the use of force as a legitimate means of conflict resolution. This does not mean that
war in Europe is impossible, but only that it is made less likely as an alternative means of
conflict resolution – mainly via the European Union (EU) – become available and accepted.
We will discuss the English School’s institutions at greater length later in this guide.
For now, it should suffice to note that whereas Realism sees IR as conflictual and Liberalism
sees it as cooperative, the ES leaves the answer open. International societies can be
cooperative or conflictual, depending on when and where you look. Furthermore,
institutions evolve over time, changing the character of the international societies that they
describe. Analysing the character and evolution of international institutions therefore
remains the main object of ES research.
As the Cold War progressed, issues arose for which Realists and Liberals had few answers. In
the 1960s, a new generation of critical theorists began to question global power structures
rather than merely taking them for granted. Few of these thinkers traced their intellectual
roots directly back to IR. The overwhelming majority were either historians of US diplomatic
history dissatisfied with standard accounts of American conduct abroad, or radical
economists with an interest in the Third World and its discontents. Through the efforts of
these thinkers, critical theories born in other branches of the social sciences began to have a
major impact on the generation of IR scholars who entered the field in ever-larger numbers.
This includes Marxism, with its class-based analysis of global economics, Social
Constructivism, with its focus on humans’ ability to consciously alter the principles by which
the world operates, Post-structuralism, which denies the existence of any absolute Truths on
which to base analyses of human action, and Post-colonialism, which traces the international
system’s social, economic, and political foundations back to its colonial – and ultimately
European – roots.
In a related development, the 1970s saw an upsurge of interest in what became known as
International Political Economy (IPE). This branch of IR seeks to explain links between the
international economic and political systems. The collapse of the post-Second World War
Bretton Woods economic system in 1971, perceptions of relative US economic decline, and
a general recognition that one could not understand IR without at least having some
knowledge of the material world forced some in IR to come to terms with economics, a
branch of knowledge of which they had hitherto been woefully ignorant. But even a little
knowledge of international economics had its advantages. For, if the US was in decline – as
some were already arguing in the 1970s – a new form of world order had to be forged.
These challenges to Realism have risen to greater prominence since the end of the Cold War
in 1991. That said, Realism remains very much at the heart of the discipline, particularly in
the USA where it originated.
 UCSF – FDyCP – Licenciatura en Relaciones Internacionales – INGLÉS – Prof. Eduardo A. Quintana

Other attempts to dethrone this academic heavyweight have met with only limited success.
3
Moreover, even while Realism has come under increasing attack, the USA has become the
uncontested centre of our academic discipline. Having found a new home after the Second
World War, IR has remained what Stanley Hoffmann termed ‘an American social science’.
US resources, its ability to attract some of the best and the brightest from Europe and farther
afield, and the appearance of having influence in the corridors of US power have made
American IR look like an especially robust animal compared to its rivals elsewhere, making
the USA an intellectual, if not political, hegemon.
International relations and the end of the Cold War
Ultimately, it took a seismic event to produce a widespread change in IR. The end of the Cold
War was an unexpected and almost entirely peaceful revolution in world politics.
The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 shattered the
stability of the Cold War international system, plunging IR scholars into an intellectual crisis
as they tried to come to terms with the end of bipolarity.
Many began to question old certainties and think about the shape of the post-Cold War
world. This led to a shift in IR’s intellectual focus, away from what might be defined as
‘classical’ security issues (dealing with states, armies, diplomats and spies) towards a whole
host of ‘new’ security issues associated with globalisation. These are qualitatively different
from their classical and statist predecessors, and include issues such as human rights, crime,
and the environment. It also reinforced a shift towards new kinds of theory and more issues
relating to international ethics.
To get a sense of this shift, it is worth comparing a standard IR textbook written during the
Cold War with one produced after 1991. The former normally begins with a few well-chosen
observations about the origins of Cold War following the Second World War, continues with
a lengthy discourse on the foreign policies of the two superpowers, talks about key concepts,
such as sovereignty and polarity, spends some time on the balance of power and the role of
nuclear weapons, and probably concludes with a general discussion about why the world will
not change much over the longer term. A textbook written after 1991, on the other hand,
generally has very little to say about the Cold War except in an historical background context.
Thus, the USSR and superpower rivalry will not be included (for obvious reasons), while new
topics – globalisation, failed states, the role of religion, and non-state actors – give the subject
a new feel. In some of the more theoretically daring studies authored after the Cold War, the
focus has shifted away from the study of states and the notion of a well-structured
international system whose laws can be discovered by careful analysis. Instead, many now
emphasise the role of non-state actors and the apparent absence of a coherent international
structure in the new, uncertain, post-modern world of the 1990s and early twenty-first
century.
The other obvious change is to IR more broadly. After fighting for many years to get
recognition as a subject in its own right – a fight it continues to wage in many countries in
continental Europe – IR in an age of globalisation has become increasingly popular with
 UCSF – FDyCP – Licenciatura en Relaciones Internacionales – INGLÉS – Prof. Eduardo A. Quintana

students in the twenty-first century. It is not clear whether this is because the end of the Cold
4
War brought increasing opportunities for travel, greater international contact between
academics and students, or because it brought a growing recognition that what happens in
one part of the international system is bound to impact on every other part. Whatever the
reason, there is little doubting the growth of the discipline. IR in the twenty-first century, with
its many world-class departments, recognised international associations, plethora of
journals, global league tables, and intellectual superstars, has never looked in better shape.
In many universities today, we see that traditional subjects like political science – which
normally studies ‘domestic’ affairs – are experiencing tough times. Meanwhile, IR – which
looks at the state of the world today – is on the rise.
One thing, however, remains unchanged. Academic IR still revolves around an American axis.
Interest in the USA as the last superpower remains high, and American scholars continue to
exert an enormous – some would say disproportionate – influence on the field. Of course,
one should not exaggerate. Other centres of IR – in the UK, Scandinavia and Germany – have
made their presence felt.
Moreover, there is a rising number of major powers in the world for scholars to consider,
including the EU – a focus of much lively discussion since the 1990s – and China – forever on
the rise. But because of its staying power and its position at the heart of the international
system, the USA continues to demand everybody’s attention. Whether this interest,
sometimes bordering on the obsessive, is likely to go on forever is not entirely certain.
Ultimately, it will depend on many factors, the most fundamental being America’s power in
the world, an issue to which we shall return later in the concluding section of this course.
However, as the first decade of the twenty-first century has given way to the second, the USA
and its academics have continued to exert a powerful pull on all those around them.

READING COMPREHENSION ACTIVITIES

Task 1: Multiple choice activity
Read the following questions and choose the correct answer based on the information
provided in the text.
1. ) According to the text, which of the following is NOT considered a significant
theoretical approach in International Relations (IR)?
a) Realism
b) Liberalism
c) Marxism
d) Humanitarianism

Answer: __________________________________________________________________
 UCSF – FDyCP – Licenciatura en Relaciones Internacionales – INGLÉS – Prof. Eduardo A. Quintana

5
2. ) What is the main argument made by Liberals regarding the international system?
a) States should prioritize sovereignty over interdependence.
b) Interdependence among states leads to a more peaceful world.
c) Power should be centralized in a hegemonic state.
d) The USA should maintain its hegemonic strength.

Answer: __________________________________________________________________

3. ) What is the primary critique presented by the English School (ES) against Realism?
a) Realism lacks empirical evidence to support its claims.
b) Realism underestimates the importance of non-state actors.
c) Realism fails to explain international cooperation and order.
d) Realism ignores the impact of globalization on state behavior.

Answer: __________________________________________________________________

4. ) Which theoretical approach emphasizes the role of class struggle in shaping global
economics?
a) Social Constructivism
b) Post-structuralism
c) Marxism
d) Post-colonialism

Answer: __________________________________________________________________

5. ) What event marked a significant shift in the focus of International Relations (IR) after
the Cold War?
a) The collapse of the Soviet Union
b) The rise of the European Union
c) The emergence of China as a global power
d) The signing of the Bretton Woods Agreement

Answer: __________________________________________________________________

Task 2: Multiple matching activity

Match the following concepts or ideas mentioned in the text with their corresponding
descriptions.
 UCSF – FDyCP – Licenciatura en Relaciones Internacionales – INGLÉS – Prof. Eduardo A. Quintana

Concepts / Ideas
6
A. Realism
B. Critical Theories
C. International Political Economy (IPE)
D. Liberalism
E. English School (ES)

Descriptions
1. This theory argues that states act primarily in their own self-interest and that power
is the most important factor in international relations.
2. Advocates of this theory emphasize interdependence among states and stress the
importance of cooperation for achieving peace.
3. This theoretical approach suggests that the international system is best described as
an international society, where actors are bound together by socially-generated
practices and principles.
4. These theories emerged in the 1960s and questioned global power structures,
drawing from various disciplines such as history and economics.
5. This branch of IR seeks to explain the links between the international economic and
political systems and gained prominence after the collapse of the Bretton Woods
economic system in 1971.

Correct Matches:

1._____, 2. _____, 3. _____, 4. _____, 5. _____.

Task 3: True and False quiz

Read the text again and say whether each of the following statements is True or False based
on the information in the text. Write T (True) or F (False) next to each statement and justify
your answers.
1. The text suggests that Realism has always been the sole dominant tradition in the
field of International Relations. ( T / F )
2. Liberalism is described as a tradition that emerged after Realism, dating back to the
interwar years. ( T / F )
3. According to the text, Liberals argue that states are absolutely sovereign and not
vulnerable to transnational forces. ( T / F )
4. The English School (ES) agrees with Realism's claim that the international system is a
free-for-all arena. ( T / F )
5. The ES argues that the international system is best described as an international
society, where actors are bound together by socially-generated practices and
principles. ( T / F )
 UCSF – FDyCP – Licenciatura en Relaciones Internacionales – INGLÉS – Prof. Eduardo A. Quintana

6. Critical theorists mentioned in the text primarily originated from the field of
7
International Relations. ( T / F )
7. Post-structuralism denies the existence of any absolute Truths on which to base
analyses of human action. ( T / F )
8. The collapse of the Bretton Woods economic system in 1971 had no impact on the
study of International Political Economy (IPE). ( T / F )
9. Since the end of the Cold War, Realism has lost its significance in the field of
International Relations. ( T / F )
10. The text implies that American influence in the field of International Relations has
declined significantly in recent years. ( T / F )

Justifications:

1. __________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
2. __________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
3. __________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
4. __________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
5. __________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
6. __________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
7. __________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
8. __________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
9. __________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
10. __________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Task 4. Reading Comprehension Questions

Answer the following questions based on the information given in the academic TEXT.
1. What is stated about the dominance of Realism in the field of International Relations?
2. According to Liberalism, what provides the best foundation for building a more
peaceful world?
3. Who are some supporters of Liberalism mentioned in the text?
 UCSF – FDyCP – Licenciatura en Relaciones Internacionales – INGLÉS – Prof. Eduardo A. Quintana

4. What is the main argument of the English School (ES) regarding the international
8
system?
5. How does the text describe the evolution of European international society in the
past 50 years?
6. What distinguishes the focus of critical theorists from Realists and Liberals?
7. What event led to an upsurge of interest in International Political Economy (IPE) in
the 1970s?
8. What change in focus occurred in the field of International Relations after the end of
the Cold War?
9. Why has the study of International Relations become increasingly popular in the
twenty-first century, according to the text?
10. What remains unchanged despite the growth of the discipline of International
Relations?

Answers:
1. __________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
2. __________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
3. __________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
4. __________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
5. __________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
6. __________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
7. __________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
8. __________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
9. __________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
10. __________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________