Bizim İşimiz, Sizin Geleceğiniz

Introduction to
International Relations
Second Grade
2024/2025 Academic Year
• Epistemology: ways and means by which we come to know something
about the world.
• Empricisim vs constructivism
• Methodology: modes of research and analysis or a set of rules for the
actual practice of investigating IR.
• Quantitative or qualitative
• Scientific method generally refers to positivism (what is observable,
emprical and measurable)
• Ontology: how each of us views the world. Worldview
• International system=is it material, physical, tangible or shared ideas,
beliefs are they abstract
What is International Relations?
• International politics is used as a • World or global politics: Insofar as
synonym for international relations. new actors, issues, structures and
It does, however, have the processes are thought to have
advantage of highlighting the emerged in recent decades as a
political dimension of relations that result of globalization, rendering the
are international. traditional state focused agenda
incomplete, some scholars prefer
‘world’ or ‘global politics’ to
‘international relations.
• This has prompted some scholars to
talk of an historic shift from
‘international relations’ to ‘world
politics’ or ‘global society’
International Relations
• Narrowly defined, the field of international relations (IR) concerns the relationships among the
world’s governments. But these relationships cannot be understood in isolation. They are closely
connected with other actors (such as international organizations, multinational corporations, and
individuals), with other social structures and processes (including economics, culture, and domestic
politics), and with geographical and historical influences. These elements together power the
central trend in IR today—globalization
IR As a Field of Study
• IR as a field of study deals with decisions that are made within a country that have implications for
relationships outside the borders of that country. It deals with the international system as a whole, that is,
the countries, organizations made up of those countries (like the United Nations), and the interactions
between and among them.
• Who makes those decisions? Why? How are they made? Who is affected by them?
• And what are the likely responses to those decisions? What makes the study of
• IR especially complex is the range of actors who could be involved with answering
• any and all aspects of these questions.
• The main point made thus far is that by simplifying an otherwise complex
• situation, we can start finding answers to these often difficult and challenging
• questions. That is why the study of IR is such an important part of understanding
• our world today.
• It provides a theoretical framework that allows us to simplify
• the complexity by breaking the component pieces apart, identifying the
• relevant actors, understanding their approaches, and drawing conclusions that
• help us answer these questions. And it also helps us understand what assumptions
• we need to make about the behavior of individuals, groups, and nations in
• order to answer those questions.
• The field itself really emerged after World War I, when sovereign nation-states eclipsed monarchies and
empires as the primary actors.
• Thus, the approach tends to be very state-centric, assuming that the traditional nation-state is—and will
be—the primary actor.
• But nonstate actors have emerged as major players in the international system in the twentieth and certainly
the twenty-first century. To some extent, the emergence of nonstate actors has changed the field.
• The traditional model has little room for anything other than nation-states, the societies that make up those
states, and the people and governments who lead them.
• They can still help guide our approaches both to asking questions and answering them. But now we need to
do so with an awareness of the limitations of those same theoretical approaches and models.
• Rather than looking at the specific political processes within nation-states (such as the study of American
government) or across different political systems (which is comparative politics), IR looks at the ways in which
• decisions made within a country affect that country’s relationships with other
• countries or nation-states.
• The focus remains on the interaction between countries or among countries and other actors in the international
system, including nonstate actors such as multinational corporations (MNCs), international organizations, and
nongovernmental organizations.
• It also looks at the impact of these macrolevel decisions on the various actors who exist within the nationstate
• and how they in turn affect these major decisions.
• Hence, IR looks at who makes the decisions (from the role of the government to the individual decision
• maker) and how those decisions then affect the people, society, culture, or even individuals within the nation-state
or other nation-states. In short, IR looks at
• “big picture” questions.
• Often, international relations is portrayed as a distant and abstract ritual conducted by a small
• group of people such as presidents, generals, and diplomats.
• Although leaders do play a major role in international affairs, many other people participate.
College students and other citizens participate in international relations every time they vote in
• an election or work on a political campaign, buy a product or service traded on world markets, and
watch the news. The choices we make in our daily lives ultimately affect the world we live in.
Through those choices, every person makes a unique contribution, however small, to the world of
international relations.
• As part of political science, IR is about international politics—the decisions of governments
• about foreign actors, especially other governments. To some extent, however,
• the field is interdisciplinary, relating international politics to economics, history,
• sociology, and other disciplines. Some universities offer separate degrees or departments
• for IR. Most, however, teach IR in political science classes, in which the focus is
• on the politics of economic relationships or the politics of environmental management,
• to take two examples. (The domestic politics of foreign countries, although overlapping
• with IR, generally make up the separate field of comparative politics.)
 Research Approaches

Traditional Approaches:
1. Historical Approach
2. Social Scientific Approach
Modern Approach:
Constructivist Approach
 Research Approaches

1. Historical Approach:
To understand a particular decision or
event and create a throrough description
or narrative that helps to understand
decisions that key actors made.
2. Social Scientific Approach:
Precision and certainity of natural
sciences to the social world.
 • A framework designed to organize and assist in
systematic thinking about IR.
• The causes of wars?
Levels of • 1950s Kenneth N. Waltz: Man, State and War (1959)
• Individual level: humans are aggressive innately (human
Analysis nature)
• Natures of states and societies (are some states more
aggressive?)
• The nature of international system (anarchical structure)
• 1961 David Singer: Different levels tend to emphasşze different
actors, structures and processes.
Levels of analysis

Individual

Unit

Global/Systemic
 Levels of analysis
• Individuals are members of collective groups like states.
• States are units of global politics.
• In turn collectively constitute the global system.
• Events on the system level affect units
• and individuals.
• Similarly, individuals and units act in ways that may affect the
entire global system.
• At the individual level of analysis, scholars examine
• the characteristics of leaders or citizens,
• such as personality traits, ways of reaching decisions,
• and beliefs.
 Levels of analysis
• At the individual level of analysis, scholars examine
• the characteristics of leaders or citizens, such as personality traits,
ways of reaching decisions, and beliefs.
• At the unit level of analysis, researchers focus on actors’ foreign
policies. They examine governments or agencies that determine
how units like states behave and their societies.
• At the global level of analysis, researchers focus on structural
factors such as distributions of power, wealth, and attitudes of the
world as a whole. It takes account of interactions among all actors
on the global stage and, thus, is the “whole” of which units and
individuals are “parts.”
patterns of aggregate events and behavior globally.
 Levels of analysis
• Individuals are members of collective groups like states.
• States are units of global politics.
• In turn collectively constitute the global system.
• Events on the system level affect units
• and individuals.
• Similarly, individuals and units act in ways that may affect the
entire global system.
• At the individual level of analysis, scholars examine
• the characteristics of leaders or citizens,
• such as personality traits, ways of reaching decisions,
• and beliefs.
LoA

Individuals
Nation-states:
Governments, norms,
values, society, culture
International System: Nation-
states, MNCs, NSAs, NGOs
LoA
• Describe what happened
• Explain why things happened as they did
• Draw lessons about what that might mean for similar events in the
future
Graham Allison

1.Why did the Soviet Union decide to place

offensive missiles in Cuba?
2.Why did the United States respond to the
missile deployment with a blockade?
3.Why did the Soviet Union withdraw the
missiles?
 • Model 1. The state acts as a unitary rational actor to make “decisions.”
• Governments are treated as the primary actor.

The • The government examines a set of goals, evaluates them according to their
utility, then picks the one that has the highest "payoff."

"Rational
• Under this theory, Allison explains the crisis like this:
1. John F. Kennedy, in 1961, revealed that the Soviet Union, despite rhetoric,

Actor"
had far fewer ICBMs than it claimed. In response, Nikita
Khrushchev ordered nuclear missiles with shorter ranges installed in Cuba.
In one move, the Soviets bridged the "missile gap" while scoring points in

Model
the Cold War. Based on Kennedy's failure to back up the Bay of Pigs
Invasion, they believed the U.S. wouldn't respond harshly.
2. Kennedy and his advisors (EXCOMM) evaluated a number of options,
ranging from doing nothing to a full invasion of Cuba. A blockade of Cuba
was chosen because it wouldn't necessarily escalate into war, and because
it forced the Soviets to make the next move.
3. Because of mutually assured destruction by a nuclear war, the Soviets had
no choice but to bow to U.S. demands and remove the weapons.
 • Model 2. The sub-units of the state act according to pre-determined procedures to produce
an “output.” The state is still essentially a unitary actor, but the analogy is now a quarterback,
not a chess player. Just as a quarterback calls certain (pre-planned) plays, the government
can only dictate policy options that are already in the standard operating procedures (SOPs).
Under this theory, the crisis is explained thus:
1. Because the Soviets never established nuclear missile bases outside of their country at
the time, they assigned the tasks to established departments, which in turn followed their
own set procedures. However, their procedures were not adapted to Cuban conditions,
and as a result, mistakes were made that allowed the U.S. to quite easily learn of the
program's existence. Such mistakes included such gaffes as supposedly undercover
Soviet troops decorating their barracks with Red Army Stars viewable from above.
The Alternatively, the secrecy may have been the gaffe, stoking American fears
unnecessarily.
"Organizational 2. Kennedy and his advisors never really considered any other options besides a blockade
or air strikes, and initially, were almost unanimously in favor of the air strikes. However,
Process" Model such attacks created massive uncertainty because the U.S. Air Force couldn't guarantee
it would disable all the nuclear missiles. Additionally, although Kennedy wanted a
"surgical" air strike that would destroy the missiles without inflicting extensive damage,
the existing Air Force plan required extensive bombing that would have created
more collateral damage than Kennedy desired. Because the U.S. Navy already had
considerable strength in the field, because there was a pre-existing plan in place for a
blockade, and because Kennedy was able to communicate directly with the fleet's
captains, members fell back on the blockade as the only safe option.
3. The Soviets simply did not have a plan to follow if the U.S. took decisive action against
their missiles. Khrushchev's communications indicated a high degree of desperation.
Without any back-up plan, the Soviets had to withdraw.
 Model 3. In this model, “where you stand depends on where you sit.” Those in charge of various state
responsibilities (Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.) make predictable arguments based on their
present position. Policy “outcomes” are the result of negotiations among these leaders. This model dispenses
fully with the “unitary” government idea. “The decisions and actions of governments are essentially intra-
national political outcomes: outcomes in the sense that what happens is not chosen as a solution to a problem
but rather results from compromise, coalition, competition, and confusion among government officials who see
different faces of an issue; political in the sense that the activity from which the outcomes emerge is best
characterized as bargaining.”

1. Khrushchev came under increasing fire from the Presidium because of Kennedy's revelation of the Soviet
The lack of ICBMs, as well as American successes in the Berlin Airlift. Also, the Soviet economy was being
stretched, and military leaders were unhappy with Khrushchev's decision to cut the size of the Red Army.
Placing missiles in Cuba was a cheap and quick way for him to secure his political base.
"Bureaucratic 2. Because of the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion, Republicans in the Congress made Cuban policy into
a major issue for the upcoming congressional elections later in 1962. Therefore, Kennedy immediately
Politics" decided on a strong response rather than a diplomatic one. Although a majority of EXCOMM initially
favored air strikes, those closest to the president - such as his brother and Attorney General, Robert F.
Kennedy, and special counsel Theodore Sorensen - favored the blockade. At the same time, Kennedy
Model got into arguments with proponents of the air strikes, such as Air Force General Curtis LeMay. After the
Bay of Pigs Invasion fiasco, Kennedy also distrusted the CIA and its advice. In order to avoid appearing
weak to the hawkish members of EXCOMM, Kennedy rejected the purely diplomatic proposals of United
States Ambassador to the United Nations Adlai Stevenson. This combination of push and pull led to a
consensus for the implication of a blockade.
3. With his plans thwarted, Khrushchev tried to save face by pointing to American missiles in Turkey, a
position similar to the Cuban missiles. While Kennedy refused to move these missiles "under duress," he
allowed Robert Kennedy to reach a deal with Soviet ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin, in which the Turkish
missiles would be quietly removed several months later. Publicly, Kennedy also agreed never to invade
Cuba.
The State in IR

• Max Weber (1864-1920)

• «The state as an organization with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence in a
fixed territory.»
• Three key ideas:
• 1. Territory and monoloply: A state governs a specific, identifiable portion of Earth’s
surface. Territory permanently fixed.
• 2. Control of violence: state power is built on use of violence
• 3. Monopoly of legitimate violence: police and military forces.
The Origins of State

• From the ancient world to the 1600s: Empires, not clear fixed territory or systematic rules for
their territories.
• Entity composed of separate units, all of which are under the domination of one single power,
centralised power
• Ottoman Empire, Roman Empire, Chinese Empire..
• Feudalism, a social system of obligations in which people provide labor, produce, or service to
a lord in return for land and protection.
• Organized all levels of society in a hierarchy of ties of loyalty between families or groups of
people.
• Complex, multilevel and messy
• Economic developments: City-states, relatively small populations, limited territory, behind city
walls.
• Delian League, Sparta, Athens
• Venice, Genoa: had enough resources to govern themsleves and hire mercenaries for defense.
• Feudalism: overlapping system of local, regional and continental
authorities. Individual’s loyalty was divided among many masters.
• For example, 15th cc. A peasent=local lord (Elector of Saxony)
• =Holy Roman Emperor
• =the Pope

• Today citizens owe political allegiance to only their state of

citizenship.
Major changes

• 1. Rise of loyal power over the local power of minor lords.

• Process of centralization
• 2. Separation of spritual power centers and external systems of power created
autonomous political communities centered on the person of monarchç
• King Henry VIII’s rejection of papal authority in 1534 Act of Supremacy. This made the
English king rather than the pope supreme head of Church in England.
• 3. ‘What the king wills, the law wills.’ the court became equal to state’s institution of
justice.
• 4. Centralised bureacracies and decision-making processes=raise revenue and credit
needed to fight.
Rise of State
• Charles Tilly:
• «War made the state, and the state made war.»

• Religious change, warfare, trade

• Catholic Church’s claims over Christendom
• 1517 Martin Luther and John Calvin own Christian denominations.
• Shifts in military technology: larger forces and disciplined troops
helped major lords to consolidate territory.
• Economic developments to fund larger armies.
• In France and Britain kings manages to strike deals with Merchant
class.
The Peace of Westphalia

• 1618-1648 European Religion Wars Thirty Years’ Wars

• Peace of Westphalia=sovereignty was formally established as an institution of international
society.
• Marked the end of major religious wars.
• Established nation-state as the primary actor in the international system.
• Importance of Peace of Westphalia:
• 1. Cuius regio, euis religio.
• Reinforced a principle first enshrined in the Peace of Augsburg (1555) that the religion of
sovereign would also be the religion of his or her subjects.
• 2. Declared the legal equality of all sovereign political communities.
• 3. Enshrined its provisions in a pair of multilateral treaties that received the consent of all
major Powers of Europe.
• Enshrined principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of sovereign states.
Sovereignty
• Defining principle of statehood. The principle that one organization
holds supreme authority over a territory. Absolute right to govern.
• In traditional monarchies, kings/queen are soverign, in democracies
people hold soverignty and delegate government to thier eleceted
representatives.
• Consists of two main characters:
• 1. the idea that the state should not be subject to any foreign power.
• 2. the idea that the state is the supreme authority within its territorial
jurisdiction.
• Internally each state governs its own affairs
• Externally states recognize the sovereignty of other states.
Nations
• Nation: a group of people who share a crucial identity and think of
themselves as a unit that deserves to govern itself.
• A group of people with a common history ,background ,and values
who in theory accept the primacy of state.
• Nation-state: a political model in which inhabitants of a sovereign
state share a crucial identity.
• States can create nations
• Nations can create states
• States may be imposed over nations.
• States can create nations: France, Britain
• France, in the late 1800s only half of people living in French
territory spoke French.
• Nations can create states. Modern day Germany, Italy ,Japan
• States imposed over nations. Colonialism and decolonialism
• Nigeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iraq
• Legitimacy:
• John Locke: the political leader derives his or her power from «the
consent of the governed» which became part of social contract.
• This grants legitimacy to government.
Non-state Actors
• States have the power to raise taxes, issue passports, print Money,
pass laws, wage war, put citizens in prison, make foreign policy.
• Only legitimate respresentatives of territories and populations on
the global stage.
• Deliver public goods such as security and education.
• Transnational Corporations (TNCs): PWC, Apple
• Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs): Amnesty International,
Red Cross, Kızılay