Brown (2001) Understanding International Relations,
Citation: Brown, Chris (2001) Understanding International Relations, Second Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Time Period Covered:
Theory, Research Question, Hypothesis:
Relationship to Other Research/Ideas Contested/Noted Gaps:
Concepts and Definitions:
Method:
Primary/Original Data:
Argument/Conclusion:
Limitations/Flaws:
Abstract:
Notes:
Brown (2001): What is IR: — Diplomatic/strategic relations between states (war/peace, conflict, cooperation) — Cross-border transactions (trade, NGOs) — Globalisation (communication, transport, financial systems). First view dominant
Brown (2001:4): Conventional IR account: relationship between states is anarchic, as in it lacks a formal, centralised authority. Actors are not looking to influence government to act on their behalf, they are pursuing their own self interests, dependent on their own resources. Security is the overriding concern.
Brown (2001:9): Susan Strange offers example of why we theorise.
Brown (2001:22-24): Liberal internationalism — People do not want war, therefore the promotion of liberal, democratic, constitutional systems fosters peace. — International institutional structures are necessary to ensure rule of law, provide security and mechanism for preventing war.
Brown (2001:26-30): Realist critique of liberal internationalism: — Hitler, Mussolini came to power through quasi-democratic means, enjoyed support, glorified war, aims could not be achieved but through war. — Impossible to enforce law except through war — E.H.Carr labelled liberal internationalism ‘utopianism,’ contrasted with ‘realism.’ World is governed by scarcity, conflict is between ‘haves’ and ‘have nots,’ and only former want a rule-based system that protects their gains. — But Brown suggests Hitler and Stalin were exceptional and judging theory by them sets too high a standard.
Brown (2001:30-): Realism: — Dominant post-1945, even today. — Morgenthau — Politics Among Nations. Saw sin, rather than scarcity as most important feature of world. Offered series of lists (principles of political realism, three available foreign policy strategies, etc) that made book a success but stripped it of nuance of Carr. Key principle: States pursue interests defined in terms of power. — State is key actor, regulating behaviour of other actors. States can, like people, possess interests, and these are more important than abstract principles.
Brown (2001:34): Notes Morgenthau’s approach is highly unscientific, relies on authority rather than rational argumentation to rebut critics.
Brown (2001:36-38): Over time, challenges emerged, debunking ideas of the state as a unitary actor, challenging automatic predominance of state in some international organisations (e.g. European Economic Community). Keohane and Nye challenge some of assumptions of realism.
Brown (2001:43-44): Sees contemporary IR as fixated on Kenneth Waltz’s 1979 Theory of International Politics. Links success to rise of rational choice theory. Links RC’s popularity to it being “particularly congenial to the American psyche, which accounts for the dominance of this approach in the US, as opposed to its comparative unimportance in Britain and, until recently, much of the European continent.” Waltz seen as giving rise to neorealism.
Brown (2001:45): Waltz is a realist in the general understanding of the term, though he himself rejects it. He seeks to explain the international system, not international relations in general, therefore sidestepping many of the criticisms of Morgenthau.
Brown (2001:46): Per Waltz, systems can be either hierarchical, with clear lines of authority, or anarchical — and the international system is clearly the latter. States are heavily concerned with security. “They must continually adjust their stance in the world in accordance with their reading of the power of others and of their own power. The results of these movements is the emergence of a balance of power. The balance of power is the theory of the international system.” Balances of power are determined by the number of poles, which are those states capable of genuinely threatening each other’s survival. Therefore the system is bipolar. Waltz, unlike many other theorists, sees this bipolarity as inherently stable because it is simpler.
Brown (2001:47): Waltz draws analogies with markets and economics to explain role of agency.
Brown (2001:52): Sees constructivism as a broad church, a poorly defined term used by many who reject mainstream US IR theory. Initially, however, it was more concentrated and associated with people like Friedrich Kratochwil (1989), Nicholas Onuf (1989) and Alexander Wendt (1987, 1992).
Alexander Wendt — Social Theory of International Politics
Brown (2001:54): ‘English School’ associated in particular with LSE, Oxbridge, and with Martin Wight, Hedley Bull, Adam Watson, R.J. Vincent, James Mayall, Robert Jackson, Tim Dunne and N. Wheeler. Focus on ‘society of states’ or ‘international society.’
Hedley Bull — The Anarchical Society Terry Nardin — Law, Morality and the Realtions of States, and The Ethics of War and Peace Habermas and the Frankfurt School. Also associated with school: David Held, Andrew Linklater, Mark Neufeld, Richard Wyn Jones. James Der Derian. See also further reading at end of chapter.
Brown (2001:63): Sees post-positivistsas united by a rejection of the epistemology of rational choice, but having little else in common.
Brown (2001:69): Observes one major flaw with realism is that it is state-centric, but actually generally has lacked a clear theory of the state (although it offers a detailed description of the state).
Brown (2001:71-74): Sees something approaching a theory of the state, but it as being largely implicit and therefore contradictory. Proposes state may be conceived of as concentration of power and military force; as power coupled with responsibility in the Weberian sense of a “monooly of legitimate violence,” as representing its people and their interests; as an enablung force, a mechanism for realising common interests and ensuring agreements; or as the means by which the dominant class secures its interests, in a Marxist sense.