GVPT 200 Ashford Week 4 International Political Relations Questions & Responses


Jack response –
Both Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello are Latin terms that govern laws around war. However, they cover different branches.
Jus ad bellum- Translated to law of going to war. This provides the condition that states can go to war. It is an international law that regulates the use of force, stating whether it is legal or illegal. The UN states that you are not allowed to go to war with another territory unless it is approved by the U.N., or if it is in self-defense.
Jus in bello-These are the laws that govern the behavior of the fighting its-self and are not influenced by whether the war is legal or illegal. It sets clear rules for what is and is not allowed. These rules can be found in the 1949 Geneva Convention. They cover things such as how to treat prisoners of war and the prohibition of attacks on civilians. These rules apply to all parties involved in the fighting.

Joshua response –
Jus ad bellum….
In my own words, I guess I would say it is a means in determining if going to war would be justified, in terms of weighing the cause and effect of declaring war and in achieving the goal at hand. Also determining if war would be purposeful and the only resort, in other words examining the cost.
Jus in bello……
Ethical idea focusing on the conduct of war, minimizing collateral damage and civilian casualties, attacking only military establishments. The idea is just, but is never used, if it was obeyed the side that would follow the code of conduct would surely lose.

GVPT 200 E250 International
Political Relations (2218)
Vittorio Seminara
GVPT 200 E250 International
Political Relations (2218)
Online class:

Introduction about yourselves

Read the material provided

Create a thread in the “Discussion Arena”

Reply to at least two of your peers
GVPT 200 E250 International
Political Relations (2218)
Zoom class:


Syllabus and grading system review

Module review


Debate on midterm presentation
Module 1
Key concepts
Real news vs fake news
The Treaty of Westphalia
The League of Nations
The United Nations Diplomacy
International Law
Module 1

What is Political Science?
It is a discipline about the study of government
and political processes, institutions and
Political Science is a social science regarding the
pratice and theory of politics, the analysis of
political systems and the study of political
Etymological definition
The word politics has its origins in
Ancient Greece where all of the cities,
such as Athens, Sparta and Corinth,
were referred to as city-states, that is
to say, the Greek polis.
Why Is the Study of Political Science


According to Harold Lasswell, politics is “who gets
what, when and how” and Political Science is the
study of “shaping and sharing of power”
Power is the ability to have others do something,
whether they like it or not. It often connotes
sanctions for those who will not abide.
Power is perfomed by modest bodies, such as
City Councils and by superpowers, such us during
the Cold War.
All people’s lives are affected by the choices of
political institutions and by the power structures
that exist in society.
Cross-disciplinary connections
Political Science emphasizes the role of government and
power in order to analyze how politics is, not how it should be.
For this reason, it permeates all social sciences’ realms:

economics: political institutions frame economic policies;
sociology: political activities are shaped by social classes
history: historical events have influenced political
Comparative politics;
American politics;
International Relations;
Political theory;
Public administration;
Public policy
Political behavior;
Political Research
Midterm exam:
In class ppt
Topic selection
Research question
Use of conceptual
Final research paper:
5-7 page work

Double-spaced, times new
roman font size 12, one inch
Good paper structure
Different and proper sources
See: “Methodology and Writing of Scientific Papers” by Patricia Bauer
How to Tell Fake News from Real News
Across the US, many students can’t
tell the difference between a
reported news article, a persuasive
opinion piece, and a corporate ad.
Start by asking five questions.
Five questions
Who wrote it? Real news contains the real
byline of a real journalist dedicated to the truth.
Fake news no.
What claims does it make? Fake news may
include fake sources, false urls. When in doubt,
dig deeper.
When was it published?
Where was it published? Real news is
published by trustworthy media outlets.
How does it make you feel? Fake news, like
all propaganda, is designed to make you feel
strong emotions.
Why International Relations?
organizational systems, structures, and processes,
this course aims for a better understanding of
global political discourse, and offers tools to
influence across world cultures.
The Peace of Westphalia
The Peace of Westphalia refers to the pair of treaties (the Treaty
of Münster and the Treaty of Osnabrück) signed in October and
May 1648, involving the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III, the
other German princes, Spain, France, Sweden and representatives
from the Dutch republic.
The peace as a whole is often used by historians to mark the
beginning of the modern era and international system.
Westphalia saw an end to countries as the personal possession of
their monarchs and the beginning of respect for the territorial
integrity of other nations. It did not, however, see the end of
imperial expansion
The League of the Nations
Born of the destruction and disillusionment arising from World War One,
was the most ambitious attempt that had ever been made to construct a
peaceful global order.
The idea was to eliminate four fatal flaws of the old European states:
the principle of national self-determination would create a world of
independent nation states
the secret diplomacy of the old order would be replaced by the open
discussion and resolution of disputes
the military alliance blocs would be replaced by a system of collective
guarantees of security
agreed disarmament would prevent the recurrence of the kind of arms
Before this, the closest approach to an international political structure had
been the Congress System, in which the European great powers held
occasional summit meetings to discuss issues they found urgent.
The growth of a system
The direction of the system was left in the hands of states primarily Britain and France – whose altruism was questionable.
The League of Nations did work surprisingly well, at least for a
decade after the war. By December 1920 and 48 states had
signed the League Covenant
Another crucial function was the establishment of Mandates to
bring all the territories that had been liberated from German and
Turkish rule, at the end of the Great War, to eventual selfdetermination.
Once big powers started to challenge the status quo, as Japan did
in Manchuria, the League found it practically impossible to reach a
clear verdict on who was guilty of ‘aggression’.
Still more disastrously, in the case of Italian pressure on
Abyssinia, the guilt was clear enough but the key powers, Britain
and France, were unwilling to antagonize the guilty party because
of their wider strategic fears.
The UN
The League never died, but rather faded away. With the
humiliation of seeing one of its members, Austria, taken over by
Germany in 1938 without even a formal protest all that remained
were such wraithlike undertakings as the British Mandate in
When the Allies finally began to prepare for the end of World War
Two, they rejected any idea of restoring the League, and instead
moved to establish a new organisation, the United Nations (UN)
The structure of the United Nations was to give a much stronger
position to the traditional great powers through the UN Security
Council; the most significant thing about its creation, perhaps, is
that this time the USA did not back away.
The growth of a system
A significant number of the old League’s aims and methods were
transmitted into the new organisation in 1945 such as the
International Court and the International Labour Organisation, but
also the working assumptions of the secretariat
The motive and sustaining force in the process was the survival of
the expectation of international involvement in the preservation of
global security, defence of human rights as well as the resolution
of territorial conflict.
Theories of International Relations
Realism suggests that states should and do look out for their own
interests first. The world is therefore a dangerous place. It
suggests that international relations is driven by competition
between states, and states therefore do and should try to further
their own interests. What matters, then, is how much economic
and especially military power a state has. states should seek
peace, but prepare for war.
Liberalism suggests in fact states can peacefully co-exist, despite
the persistence of armed conflict, most nations are not at war
most of the time. There are different flavors of liberalism.
Theories of International Relations
Liberal institutionalism puts some faith in the ability of global
institutions to eventually coax people into getting along as
opposed to going to war. Use of the United Nations, for example,
as a forum for mediating and settling dispute, will eventually
promote a respect for the rule of international law.
Liberal commercialism sees the advance of global commerce as
making less likely.
Liberal internationalism: democracies are less likely to make
war than are dictatorships, if only because people can say no,
either in legislatures or in elections.
Together, these three are sometimes called the Kantian triangle
Theories of International Relations
Constructivism relies in part on the theory of the social
construction of reality, which says that whatever reality is
perceived to be, for the most part people have invented it. While
the world system is indeed a form of anarchy, that does not
demand a realist response to foreign policy. People can choose to
Feminism: Feminist theory sometimes argues that having more
women in positions of power could change things, as women may
be more likely to believe peace through international cooperation
is possible.
Neo-Marxists: the way in which we organize production
determines social and political relations. Capitalism drives states
to compete. Economic problems and conflicts do continue to
inform international relations, and states do continue to try to
acquire raw materials as well as markets for finished goods.
History of Public International Law
Basic concepts of international law such as treaties can be traced
back thousands of years
The city-states of Lagash and Umma in Mesopotamia, inscribed on
a stone block, setting a proscribed boundary between their two
The ancient Greeks before Alexander the Great formed many
small states that constantly interacted.
The Roman Empire did not develop an international law, as it
acted without regard to any external rules in its dealings with
those territories that were not already part of the empire. They
form municipal laws governing the interactions between private
Roman citizens and foreigners. These laws, called the jus gentium
(as opposed to the jus civile governing interactions between
citizens) codified some ideas of basic fairness, and attributed
some rules to an objective, independent “natural law.”
After the fall of the Roman Empire and the collapse of the Holy
Roman Empire into independent cities, principalities, kingdoms
and nations, for the first time there was a real need for rules of
conduct between a large international community.
International trade was the real catalyst for the development of
objective rules of behavior between states.
As international trade, exploration and warfare became more
involved and complex, the need for common international
customs and practices became even more important.
The Italian city-states developed diplomatic rules, as they began
sending ambassadors to foreign capitals
Hugo Grotius
International practices, customs, rules and treaties proliferated to
the point of complexity.
Hugo Grotius, whose treatise De Jure Belli Ac Pacis Libri Tres is
considered the starting point for modern international law.
Grotius emphasized the importance of actual practices, customs
and treaties
The Treaty of Westphalia
The Westphalian treaties of 1648 were a turning point in establishing the
principle of state sovereignty as a cornerstone of the international order.
One important aspect of Grotius’s treatment of international law is that he
no longer bases it exclusively upon natural law, but also accepts that
states among themselves can also create binding rules of law (ius
Immanuel Kant believes that international law as a law that can justify
war does not serve the purpose of peace anymore, and therefore argues
in Perpetual Peace (Zum Ewigen Frieden, 1795) and the Metaphysics of
Morals (Metaphysik der Sitten, 1797) for creating a new kind of
international law.
After World War I, an attempt was made to establish such a new
international law of peace, of which the League of Nations was considered
to be one of the cornerstones, but this attempt failed unfortunately. The
Charter of the United Nations (1945) in fact reflects the fact that the
traditional notion of state sovereignty remains the key concept in the law
of nations.
The League of the Nations
Following World War I, there was an outcry for rules of warfare to protect
civilian populations.
The League of Nations attempted to curb invasions by enacting a treaty
agreement providing for economic and military sanctions against member
states that used “external aggression” to invade or conquer other member
states. An international court was established, the Permanent Court of
International Justice, to arbitrate disputes between nations without
resorting to war.
International crises, however, demonstrated that nations were not yet
committed to the idea of giving external authorities a say in how nations
conducted their affairs.
The post-war era
After World War II, the League of Nations was re-attempted through the
United Nations.
International cooperation has become far more commonplace, nearly two
hundred nations are now members of the United Nations.
An important development in modern international law is the
concept of “consent”, an element of customary international law:
what states actually do, plus the opinio juris of what states
believe international law requires them to do.
Customary international law applies to every country, regardless
of whether they have formally agreed to it.
Customary international law can be overruled, however, by a
Modern treaty law
Treaties are essentially contracts between countries.
Modern nations engage in a two-step procedure for entering into
treaties. The first step is signing the treaty. The second step is
ratifying the treaty.
Each country ratifies treaties its own way. The United States
requires the two-thirds support of the Senate, the upper body of
its legislature, for a treaty to be ratified; both the executive and
the legislature must agree.
Modern treaties are interpreted according to the 1969 Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties. This convention is so widely
accepted that even nations that are not parties to the convention
follow it.
The Truman Doctrine
With the Truman Doctrine, President Harry S. Truman established that the
United States would provide political, military and economic assistance to
all democratic nations under threat from external or internal authoritarian
forces. The Truman Doctrine effectively reoriented U.S. foreign policy.
The Truman Doctrine arose from a speech delivered by
President Truman before a joint session of Congress on March
12, 1947.
Truman asked Congress to support the Greek Government
against the Communists . the U.S. Government believed that
the Soviet Union supported the Greek Communist war effort and
worried that if the Communists prevailed in the Greek civil war,
the Soviets would ultimately influence Greek policy.
$400,000,000 worth of aid to both the Greek and Turkish
Governments and support the dispatch of American civilian and
military personnel and equipment to the region.
Kennan – What would he say today?
Kennan was an American diplomat theorizing the containment of Soviet
expansion. This would lead the eventual breakup of the Soviet Union.
He believed that wise foreign policy would limit military intervention.
In the post-Cold War era, Mr. Kennan criticized military interventions in Panama,
Somalia and Iraq as a waste of scarce resources.
Trying to spread democracy by using military force, “is something that the
Founding Fathers of this country never envisaged or would ever have approved.”
Mr. Kennan believed that psychologically astute tactics were the most effective
way to manage tensions.
Diplomacy and soft power were more cost effective in influencing a rival’s
Kennan – What would he say today?
“We are ultimately dependent on the intentions, rather than the
capabilities, of the adversary, the influence of which is primarily a
political and psychological, not a military problem,” Mr. Kennan
As for America’s role in the world, Mr. Kennan wanted the United
States to abandon its exhausting efforts at playing world
policeman. “The greatest service this country could render the
rest of the world would be to put its own house in order and to
make of American civilization an example of decency, humanity,
and societal success from which others could derive whatever
they might find useful to their own purposes.”
Collapse of the Soviet Union
In December of 1991, the Soviet Union disintegrated
into fifteen separate countries. Its collapse was hailed
by the west as a victory for freedom, a triumph of
democracy over totalitarianism, and evidence of the
superiority of capitalism over socialism.
The breakup of the Soviet Union transformed the
entire world political situation, leading to a complete
reformulation of political, economic and military
alliances all over the globe.
Collapse of the Soviet Union
After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the newly-formed
government developed a philosophy of socialism with the
eventual and gradual transition to Communism:
one monolithic state based on a centralized economical and political
the Communist leadership had complete control over the country.
Two issues:
1. the Soviets underestimated the degree to which the non-Russian
ethnic groups in the country would resist assimilation.
2. their economic planning failed to meet the needs of the State, this
led to gradual economic decline.
Collapse of the Soviet Union
Gorbachev introduced a two policy of reforms:
glasnost, or freedom of speech
2. he began a program of economic reform known as
perestroika, or rebuilding
The disintegration of the Soviet Union began on the peripheries, in the
non-Russian areas. The first region to produce mass, organized dissent
was the Baltic region, where, in 1987, the government of Estonia
demanded autonomy. Same in Lithuania and Latvia.
A movement developed inside the Armenian-populated autonomous
region of Nagorno-Karabagh, in the Republic of Azerbaijan.
The power of the Central Government
weakened by these movements
Collapse of the Soviet Union
On December 25, 1991, Gorbachev resigned.
By January of 1992, by popular demand, the Soviet Union
ceased to exist.
A new entity was formed. It was called the “Commonwealth of
Independent Republics,” and was composed of most of the independent
countries of the former Soviet Union.
The fifteen newly formed independent countries must
develop their economies, reorganize their political
systems, and, in many cases, settle bitter territorial
Do you agree with the Truman
Which communist countries do you
Module 2
Key concepts
International Relations theories
n Liberalism
n Idealism
n Neoliberal Institutionalism
Theoretical Approaches in International Relations
In International Relations it is not one theory but a set of
theoretical assumptions about state behavior.
The core assumptions of realist theories are:
States are the basic units of the international system.
The international system is anarchic; that is, no central
authority exists above sovereign states.
States are unitary actors.
States seek power in rational pursuit of their national
Realism and Machiavelli
Thucydides’s book History of the Peloponnesian War, states:
“Those who have power use it, while
the weak make compromises”
Machiavelli’s book, The Prince (1513), is about how a ruler should
acquire, maintain, and wield power. It is better to be feared than
loved, argued that the private morality of a ruler should not constrain
his actions as a ruler; rather, the ruler should do whatever is needed
to be successful.
Machiavelli’s writings gave rise to realpolitik, an amoral,
ends-justify-means approach dictated by the need for
success with no ethical considerations. (followers von
Metternich and Henry Kissinger)
Realism and Hobbes
According to Hobbes’ book Leviathan people have
desires, some of which are limitless.
All individuals are more or less equal in their
capabilities but live in a “perpetual and restless
desire for power after power”.
In the absence of an authority above individuals,
competition between men leads to distrust, which
leads to war. Hobbes calls this state “the natural
condition of mankind” or the state of nature. The
state of nature is a state of war.
Other form of Realism
Classical Realism
Morgenthau wrote the most influential statement of classical
realism in his Politics Among Nations. The assumptions were:
States “think and act in terms of interest defined as power”.
“International politics … is a struggle for power”.
The struggle for power among states “leads of necessity” to
a balance of power.
Given the nature of anarchy, the balance of power is seldom
stable. Because states continue to seek ways of maximizing
their power, the balance of power is constantly disturbed
Other form of Realism
In his 1979 book, Theory of International Politics, Waltz argued that
the structure of the international system not human nature, was the
primary determinant of state behavior, via the concept of self-help:
i.e. any action states take in their self-interest in an anarchical
international system. The logic of anarchy and self-help compelled
states “to behave in ways that tend toward the creation of balances
of power”.
The core assumptions of neorealism are:
States seek to maximize security, not power.
The structure of the international system determines outcomes.
States seek to maximize relative power, not absolute power as
Morgenthau claimed.
States worry about the capabilities of other states, not their
It is not one theory but a set of assumptions about state
Liberals believe that despite being selfish, human beings can,
individually and as a state, rationally come to accept
cooperative and normative behavior.
The core principles of liberalism are:
Human nature is essentially good.
Harmony of interest exists among states, promoting
cooperation, not conflict, leading to benefits for all.
Norms are more important than power.
The evolution of Liberalism
Aristotle’s discussion of virtue captured the essence of both
rationality and normative behavior. Virtue “is a state involving
rational choice,” that enables an individual to choose “what is best
and good.” His concept of “practical wisdom” enables people to
choose the right ends.
For Locke, the state of nature is not “a state of license” in which one
can inflict harm on another at will. Rather, everyone is bound by the
“law of nature” in which reason prevails and enjoins on everyone not
to harm the life or property of others.
The state of nature is, thus, not a
state of war or conflict, but one in
which people rationally choose to live
in harmony.
Kant (1724–1804) introduced idealism into liberalism. Kant accepted
the Hobbesian notion of the state of nature being a state of war but
with two conditions for permanent peace between states:
establishment of republican governments
establishment of a federation of such governments
Idealism received a further boost when, in the aftermath of World
War I, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson introduced many of the
principles that to this day dominate liberal positions on international
politics: self-determination, collective security, support for
democracy, and international organizations.
Classical Greece
Classical Greece
View of human nature
Role of states
States are primary actors
Institutions and individuals also
State as unitary actor
Core assumption of realism
Not a core assumption of
States as rational actors
Core assumption of realism
Core assumption of liberalism
State of nature
State of war
State of harmony and reason
Power vs. norms
Power important
Norms important
Response to insecurity
Balance of power
Collective security
Role of institutions
Not important
Very important
Neoliberal Institutionalism
Two developments began in the 1970s that would lead to the
resurrection and a significant transformation of liberalism:
European integration showed that interstate cooperation among
states was indeed possible in an anarchic international system.
Several European states voluntarily surrendered part of their
national sovereignty to a supranational authority (through a
process that eventually created the European Union) in the
expectation of significant advancement of their national interests.
The proliferation of international institutions (most notably the
United Nations Organization) with their steadily increasing
membership (as more and more states in Asia and Africa became
independent after World War II) helped create a web of
international norms and interdependent relationships in a number
of areas that constrained state behavior.
Neoliberal Institutionalism
Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye introduced the concept
of interdependence defined as “situations characterized by
reciprocal effects among countries or among actors in different
countries”. That complex interdependence had fundamentally
transformed international relations with these elements:
Interstate, transgovernmental, and transnational relations take place
through a wide variety of channels
Security concerns no longer overshadow all other state interests.
The use of force in international relations has declined.
The version of liberalism the two advocated, called neoliberal
institutionalism, accepted many assumptions of neorealism:
States are principal actors and act in their self-interest.
States primarily rely on self-help.
Neoliberal Institutionalism
Neoliberal institutionalists “emphasize role of international
institutions in changing conceptions of self-interest and claim:
Rational pursuit of self-interest does not lead to conflict.
Institutions help states “achieve their interests through limited
collective action” “by facilitating the making and keeping of
agreements through the provision of information and reductions in
transaction costs”.
Institutions “enable states to achieve valued objectives
unattainable through unilateral or bilateral means”
Neoliberal Institutionalism
Principal actors
States rely on self-help
States rely on self-help
Security still primary concern of states
Security no longer highest-ranked
Pursuit of self-interest leads to conflicts
Rational pursuit of self-interest does not
lead to conflicts
Role of institutions
Institutions not important
Institutions help states achieve their
Radical theories
Radical theories grew on the foundations of Marxism, proposing that
class interest, not national interest, determined outcomes in
international politics.
Radical theories proposed that class interest, not national interest,
determined outcomes in international politics.
Hobson’s Theory of Imperialism
Advances in the technology of industrial production led to
overproduction. The capitalists, however, underpaid the workers,
causing underconsumption and oversavings in the capitalist countries
Capitalists looked to their governments to provide them with such
outlets through their colonial policies, leading to imperialism.
Radical theories
World System Theory
Wallerstein divided the world into three areas: (1) the “core,” where
advanced industrial production emerged, (2) the “periphery,” which
produces raw materials and performs unskilled work for the core. (3)
the “semi-periphery” consists of a small number of declining core
states or advancing periphery states.
Dependency Theory
Core principles are:
The international system consists of dominant (developed) and
dependent (underdeveloped) states.
Resources of underdeveloped states are used for the benefit of
the dominant states because of external coercion, leading to longterm dependency relationships.
Dependency relationships are sustained by the elites of dependent
states whose interests converge with the interests of dominant
states and who thus benefit personally from such relationships.
Multinational corporations (MNCs) help in enforcing dependency.
Alternative Approaches
The new approaches that have become prominent in International
Relations in recent years include feminism, critical theory,
postmodernism, and constructivism.
Feminism regards the core assumptions of the traditional IR theories
as masculine, focusing on areas that are of interest to men, such as
Critical Theory
Critical theorists seek “to understand the world in order to change it”
Rejects the idea “that there is an objective reality out there that is
waiting for the right method to come along and in the name of
scientific progress make use of, make sense of, give order to it”
Constructivism looks at social reality in cultural, not materialist,
terms. Constructivists believe that core concepts of international
relations, such as power and anarchy, have no objective, permanent
reality but are socially constructed, hence subject to change.
Which theory of International
Relations is, according to you, more
What is, in your opinion, the role of
the State in today’s world?
Module 3
Key concepts
International Relations actors
n Balance of power
n Sovereignty
n Hard and Soft Power
What is a State?
A state is an organized political community acting under a government.
States may be classified as sovereign if they are not dependent on, or
subject to, any other power or state.
States are considered to be subject to external sovereignty, or hegemony,
if their ultimate sovereignty lies in another state.
A federated state is a territorial, constitutional community that forms part
of a federation. Such states differ from sovereign states, in that they have
transferred a portion of their sovereign powers to a federal government .
Americans live in a
federal system of
50 states that,
together, make up
the United Sates of
Traditional Actors in International Relations
Individuals make most of the decisions that affect international
politics, even when they are at the mercy of state- and system-level
forces. Traditional IR theories assume that decision makers are
rational. The perceptions and expectations of decision makers are
called belief systems. Within states, individuals collectively influence
decisions through public opinion.
IR deals primarily with the behavior of states in their relations with
other states. According to Max Weber’s classic definition, “a state is a
human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the
legitimate use of physical force within a given territory”. States have
the following attributes:
clearly defined territories
stable (not nomadic) populations
functioning governments
diplomatic recognition by other states
Traditional Actors in International Relations
States possess sovereignty, which means that they exercise
undisputed authority within their territories. The concept of a
sovereign state became enshrined in the 1648 Treaty of
Westphalia. Scholars generally refer to the system of sovereign
states that came into existence in the seventeenth century as
the Westphalian system.
A nation is a group of people who share one or more common
identities such as ethnicity, language, or religion. A state whose
population consists of people of one nation is called a nationstate. During the early part of the modern era, a number of
nation-states, such as France, Denmark, and Sweden, came into
existence in Europe.
States possess power—the ability to influence the actions of other
states with the aim of determining the outcome.
Decision-Making Models
The making of foreign policy constitutes the function of the state
that has the most direct impact on international politics.
The rational-actor model assumes states to be unitary actors.
When faced with a significant issue, decision makers take the
following steps:
1. identify goals
2. analyze options on the basis of cost-benefit analysis
3. rank alternative options on the basis of the cost-benefit analysis
4. choose the highest-ranked option
This process results in what is called an optimal choice, in which
decision makers maximize their gains.
The bureaucratic model attempts to offer such insights; it views a
decision as “a resultant of various bargaining games among players
in the national government” (Allison)
The organizational behavior model, views decisions as “outputs”
of various organizations that form governments.
The International System
A set of interacting states forms an international system. The
modern international system began as a system of European
states, some of which gained sovereignty as a result of the Treaty
of Westphalia. States in this system interact in the sense that
actions of individual states have consequences for one or more
other states.
Realists derive their balance-of-power theory from anarchy and
self-help. Neorealists stress the relative distribution of power
among states, which they elevate as the structure of the
international system, which determines state behavior and the
outcomes of interstate competition and conflicts. Classical realists
also accept the uneven distribution of power among states.
Balance-of-Power Systems
Until World War II, the international system had always consisted of
several powers that were called major powers. For varying periods,
the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, Austria, the United
States, Japan, and Italy had the rank of major powers. This pre–
World War II period is known as the multipolar age. Relations among
these powers were always in a state of flux, keeping the balance of
power in constant change.
At the end of World War II, only two big powers—the United
States and the Soviet Union—remained.
With only two dominant powers, the world now became bipolar.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War,
the United States remained as the sole superpower. The world
now became unipolar. With fast economic growth in states such
as China and eventually India, the world may become multipolar
once again sometime in the future.
Sovereignty means supreme authority within a territory.
Historical variants can be understood along three dimensions — the
holder of sovereignty, the absoluteness of sovereignty, and the
internal and external dimensions of sovereignty. The state is the
political institution in which sovereignty is embodied.
Two broad movements to understand it:
The development of a system of sovereign states, culminating at
the Peace of Westphalia in 1648
The circumscription of the sovereign state, which began in
practice after World War II
Definition of Sovereignty
In his classic, The King’s Two Bodies (1957), medievalist Ernst
Kantorowicz describes a profound transformation in the concept of
political authority over the course of the Middle Ages. The change
began when the concept of the body of Christ evolved into a notion
of two bodies — one, the corpus naturale, the consecrated host on
the altar, the other, the corpus mysticum, the social body of the
church with its attendant administrative structure.
Whereas the king’s natural, mortal body would pass away with his
death, he was also thought to have an enduring, supernatural one
that could not be destroyed, even by assassination, for it represented
the mystical dignity and justice of the body politic
Definition of Sovereignty
Definition that captures what sovereignty came to mean is:
supreme authority within a territory.
A holder of sovereignty possesses authority. That is to say, the
person or entity does not merely wield coercive power, defined as A’s
ability to cause B to do what he would otherwise not do. Authority is
rather what philosopher R.P. Wolff proposed: “the right to command
and correlatively the right to be obeyed”.
A right,” connoting legitimacy”.
But if sovereignty is a matter of authority, it is not a matter of mere
authority, but of supreme authority. Supremacy is what makes the
constitution of the United States superior to the government of
A final ingredient of sovereignty is territoriality. It is a principle by
which members of a community are to be defined. Their membership
derives from their residence within borders.
Dimension of Sovereignty
Even supranational and international institutions like the European
Union and the United Nations are composed of states whose
membership is in turn defined territorially. Understanding
sovereignty, then, involves understanding claims to it.
Over the past half millennium, these claims have taken
extraordinarily diverse forms — nations asserting independence from
mother states, communists seeking freedom from colonialists, the
vox populi contending with ancien regimes, theocracies who reject
the authority of secular states.
Three dimensions needful to categorize:
1. the holders of sovereignty
2. the absolute or non-absolute nature of sovereignty
3. the relationship between the internal and external dimensions of
Dimension of Sovereignty
Diverse authorities have held sovereignty — kings, dictators, peoples
ruling through constitutions. The character of the holder of supreme
authority within a territory is probably the most important dimension
of sovereignty. French theorist Jean Bodin thought that sovereignty
must reside in a single individual. Both he and English philosopher
Thomas Hobbes conceived the sovereign as being above the law.
Today, many European Union (EU) member states exhibit nonabsoluteness. They are sovereign in governing defense, but not in
governing their currencies, trade policies, and many social welfare
policies, which they administer in cooperation with EU authorities as
set forth in EU law. Absolute sovereignty is quintessential modern
sovereignty. But in recent decades, it has begun to be circumscribed
by institutions like the EU, the UN’s practices of sanctioning
intervention, and the international criminal court.
Dimension of Sovereignty
A final pair of adjectives that define sovereignty is “internal” and
Sovereign authority is exercised within borders, but also, by
definition, with respect to outsiders.
The state has been the chief holder of external sovereignty since
the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, after which interference in other
states’ governing prerogatives became illegitimate.
External sovereignty depends on recognition by outsiders.
An assemblage of states, both internally and externally sovereign,
makes up an international system
The Rise of the Sovereign State
The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 consolidated its long transition from
the Middle Ages to a world of sovereign states.
In 1555, a system of sovereign states gained important ground in
the Peace of Augsburg, whose formula cuius regio, eius religio,
allowed German princes to enforce their own faith within their
territory. But Augsburg was unstable.
In two broad respects, though, in both legal prerogatives and
practical powers, the system of sovereign states triumphed.
First, states emerged as virtually the sole form of substantive
constitutional authority in Europe. Pope Innocent X condemned the
treaties of the peace as “null, void, invalid, iniquitous, unjust,
damnable, reprobate, inane, empty of meaning and effect for all
Second, Westphalia brought an end to a long era of intervention in
matters of religion, up to then the most commonly practiced
abridgment of sovereign prerogatives. Establishing the authority of
princes and kings over religion
The Rise of the Sovereign State
Today, norms of sovereignty are enshrined in the Charter of the
United Nations, whose article 2(4) prohibits attacks on “political
independence and territorial integrity,” and whose Article 2(7)
sharply restricts intervention.
French philosopher Jean Bodin was the first European philosopher to
treat the concept extensively. Only a supreme authority within a
territory could strengthen a fractured community.
Bodin thought that the body that exercised sovereignty was bound
by natural and divine law, though no human law could judge or
appeal to it.
Bodin’s “statement of sovereignty” is the first systematic one in
modern European philosophy.
The Rise of the Sovereign State
The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes also wrote during a time of
civil war and also arrived at the notion of sovereignty as a solution.
For Hobbes, the people established sovereign authority through a
contract in which they transferred all of their rights to the Leviathan,
which represented the abstract notion of the state.
Hobbes’ Leviathan was above the law, a mortal god unbound by any
constitution or contractual obligations with any external party.
Rousseau, far different from Bodin or Hobbes, saw the collective
people within a state as the sovereign, ruling through their general
The Circumscription of the Sovereign State
After the Holocaust the meaningful legal and institutional
circumscriptions of sovereignty arose, many of which have come to
abridge the rights of sovereign states quite significantly. The two
most prominent curtailments are conventions on human rights and
European integration.
It was in 1948 that the vast majority of states signed the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, committing themselves to
respect over 30 separate rights for individuals. As it was not a
legally binding declaration and contained no enforcement
provisions, the declaration left states’ sovereignty intact. Over
decades, these human rights would come to enjoy ever stronger
legal status.
Progress in this direction began to occur after the Cold War through a
historic revision of the Peace of Westphalia
The Circumscription of the Sovereign State
In a series of several episodes beginning in 1990, the United Nations
or another international organization has endorsed a political action,
usually involving military force, that the broad consensus of states
would have previously regarded as illegitimate interference in
internal affairs.
Unlike peacekeeping operations during the Cold War, the operations
have usually lacked the consent of the government of the target
state. They have occurred in Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, Bosnia,
Kosovo, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, Cambodia, Liberia, Libya and
The U.S. bombing of Iraq in December 1999 and NATO’s intervention
in Kosovo, for instance, failed to elicit U.N. Security Council
endorsement, as did the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.
An explicit call to revise the concept of sovereignty so as to allow for
internationally sanctioned intervention arose with The Responsibility
to Protect, a document written and produced in 2001 by the
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, a
commission that the Government of Canada convened at the behest
of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan.
The Circumscription of the Sovereign State
Responsibility to Protect serves as
a manifesto for a concept of
sovereignty that is non-absolute
and conditional upon outside
The Circumscription of the Sovereign State
European integration began in 1950, when six states formed the
European Coal and Steel Community in the Treaty of Paris. The
community established joint international authority over the coal and
steel industries of these six countries, entailing executive control
through a permanent bureaucracy and a decision-making Council of
Ministers composed of foreign ministers of each state. This same
model was expanded to a general economic zone in the Treaty of
Rome in 1957. It was enhanced by a judicial body, the European
Court of Justice, and a legislature, the European Parliament, a
directly elected Europe-wide body.
European integration has widened twenty-eight members, and
deepened, as it did in the 1991 Maastricht Treaty, which expanded
the institution’s powers and reconfigured it as the European Union.
A “supranational” institution in which
their freedom of action is constrained
The Circumscription of the Sovereign State
They are no longer absolutely
In 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon came
into full force, pooling sovereignty
further by strengthening the Council of
Ministers and the European
Parliament, creating a High
Representative of the Union for
Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
Sovereignty in the 20th century
Writings on sovereignty over the past
four centuries reflect two distinct
views, one unlimited and absolute, the
other restrictive and conditional.
States freely enter into legally binding agreements through treaties,
but in doing so, they in effect agree to a diminishment of
sovereignty. An example is the optional clause to the Statute of the
International Court of Justice, which imposes
compulsory jurisdiction on all states signing the clause.
Sovereignty today is the subject of much debate, with some calling
for the “deterritorialization” of sovereignty and others heralding the
erosion of the sovereign state in favor of a combination of
simultaneously more local and more global societal relations.
Hard and Soft Power
Power is one’s ability to affect the
behavior of others to get what one
wants. There are three basic ways to
do this: coercion, payment, and
attraction. Hard power is the use of
coercion and payment. Soft power is
the ability to obtain preferred
outcomes through attraction.
Hard and Soft Power
World politics today is like a threedimensional chess game. At the top level,
military power among states is unipolar; but
at the middle level, of interstate economic
relations, the world is multipolar and has
been so for more than a decade. At the
bottom level, of transnational relations
(involving such issues as climate change,
illegal drugs, pandemics, and terrorism),
power is chaotically distributed and diffuses
to nonstate actors.
Do individuals have a role in
International Relations?
Make an example of Soft or Hard
GVPT 200 E250 International
Political Relations (2218)

Zoom class:
Modules review
Zoom presentation and debate of midterm essay
Openbook quiz
Module 4
Key concepts
Jus ad bellum
n Jus in bello
n Just war theory
n Terrorism
Some reject the very idea of the “morality of war”. Of those, some
deny that morality applies at all once the guns strike up; for others,
no plausible moral theory could license the exceptional horrors of
1. The first group are sometimes called realists.
2. The second group are pacifists.
The task of just war theory is to seek a
middle path between them: to justify
at least some wars, but also to limit
Just War Theory
Contemporary just war theory is dominated by two camps:
traditionalist and revisionist.
Their views on the morality of war are substantially led by
international law, especially the law of armed conflict. They aim to
provide those laws with morally defensible foundations. States (and
only states) are permitted to go to war only for national defence,
defence of other states, or to intervene to avert “crimes that shock
the moral conscience of mankind”.
They question the moral standing of states and the permissibility of
national defence, argue for expanded permissions for humanitarian
intervention, problematise civilian immunity, and contend that
combatants fighting for wrongful aims cannot do anything right,
besides lay down their weapons.
How Should We Think about the Morality of War?
There are two different ways in which moral and political
philosophers think about war:
The primary goal is to establish what the institutions regulating war
should be.
We should focus first on the moral reasons that apply directly to
individual and group actions, without the mediating factor of
Just War Theory
Just war theorists divide their enquiry into
reflection on:
jus ad bellum, the resort to war
jus in bello, conduct in war
They have added also
jus post bellum, permissible action post-war
Jus ad bellum
Traditional just war theory construes jus ad bellum and jus in bello as
sets of principles, satisfying which is necessary and sufficient for a
war’s being permissible. Jus ad bellum typically comprises the
following six principles:
Just Cause: the war is an attempt to avert the right kind of injury.
Legitimate Authority: the war is fought by an entity that has the
authority to fight such wars.
Right Intention: that entity intends to achieve the just cause,
rather than using it as an excuse to achieve some wrongful end.
Reasonable Prospects of Success: the war is sufficiently likely to
achieve its aims.
Proportionality: the morally weighted goods achieved by the war
outweigh the morally weighted bads that it will cause.
Last Resort (Necessity): there is no other less harmful way to
achieve the just cause.
Jus in bello
Typically the jus in bello list comprises:
Discrimination: belligerents must always distinguish between
military objectives and civilians, and intentionally attack only
military objectives.
Proportionality: foreseen but unintended harms must be
proportionate to the military advantage achieved.
Necessity: the least harmful means feasible must be used.
Michael Walzer on Just War Theory

In the 18 months that have passed since the events of 9/11, the
world has changed in many profound ways.
Questions of security now permeate our lives.
Complicating the fight against terrorist organizations is their
increasingly sophisticated nature, not just from an operational
perspective, but also in terms of how they are funded. For example,
Jemaah Islamiah—the Indonesia-based terrorist organization—has
created at least 50 commercial businesses in Asia that provide a
plethora of sources of finance for its operations. Hence, law
enforcement and intelligence agencies must now identify these
sources of funding in order to destroy their ability to operate.
The Impact of Globalization
Terrorist organizations have “harvested” the globalization process to
improve their methods of operation.
There is an increased risk that smaller terrorist groups will develop
the ability to carry out attacks that will cause mass death. Suicide
attacks will be the preferred method of attack in the near term in the
United States and Europe.
For example, there are 22 million antiaircraft missiles in existence,
many of which are dated and are sold relatively inexpensively on the
black market.
The global reach of AQ is a source of great concern. More than 3,000
of its members have been arrested in 98 countries since September
11, evidence that AQ exists in at least half the world’s countries.
A Changed World
How the world’s civilized nations collectively fight against terrorism
will determine the future course of international relations.
If the United Nations Security Council is unable to reach a majority
consensus on the best path for eliminating the threat of weapons of
mass destruction from Iraq, it stands little chance of achieving the
same where North Korea and other “problem” nations are concerned.
There has already been a significant shift in bilateral relations
between the United States and Europe, Russia, and China as a result
of the debate on the war on Iraq. France and Germany’s opposition
to a U.S.-led war against Iraq has brought into question the very
essence of NATO.
What is likely to emerge as a result is an enhanced role for individual
European countries in international affairs, while the role of NATO
could diminish with time.
The Middle East
The war in Iraq is less about oil and more about influencing the
course of events in the Middle East. The United States has
historically been forced to try to influence events in the region from
the “outside”—relying on diplomacy to deal with subjects such as the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the Kurdish question.
Once the Iraq war is over, Iran and Syria will find it more difficult to
pursue policies that support international terrorist organizations.
The war against Iraq will also create a sea change in how prominent
a role human rights plays in America’s future foreign policy. Both
Russia and China have benefited from the war on terrorism because
it has granted legitimacy to both countries’ actions against
indigenous opposition movements.
And China’s growing international prominence meshes nicely with the
evolving United States view of the world. It will benefit from
enhanced political and commercial relations with the United States.
Is war, in your opinion, the final
What is the influence of globalization
on terrorism?
GVPT 200 E250 International Political Relations (2218)
Name and Last name (stamped)_____________________________________ November, 2021
Mark the box for correct answer and provide description when requested.
1. Political Science has a cross-disciplinary connection with other social sciences such as International
 True;
 False;
2. The beginning of the International system is usually marked by:

the First World War;
the Peace of Westphalia;
the creation of the League of Nations;
all of the above;
3. Gorbachev introduced several reforms in the Soviet Union two of which are:

the Soviet party rebuilding and the introduction of the gulag;
glasnost, economic reforms, and perestroika, freedom of speech;
glasnost, freedom of speech, and perestroika, economic reforms;
he didn’t introduce any reform;
4. Modern treaties are interpreted according to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of
 True;
 False;
5. According to Thomas Hobbes, all individuals but also States:
 must adopt republican governments and establish federation;
 must accomplish interstate cooperation with international institutions;
 are bound by the law of nature and they rationally choose to live in harmony;
 live in a perpetual and restless desire for power after power and in a state of war;
6. The Truman doctrine established that:
 United States would provide political, military and economic assistance to all democratic
nations under threat from external or internal authoritarian forces;
 United States would affirm their economic supremacy over the world;
 United States must comply with international law;
 United States will help Europe to fight against Nazism;
7. Sovereignty can be defined as:

a group of people who share one or more common identities;
the power exercised by the king;
the undisputed authority within a territory;
the authority exercised by the people;
8. Hard power is ____________, soft power is _____________.

the use of attraction, the ability to obtain outcomes through coercion and payment;
the use of coercion, the ability to obtain outcomes through attraction and payment;
the use of payment, the ability to obtain outcomes through coercion and attraction;
the use of coercion and payment, the ability to obtain outcomes through attraction;
9. The Peace of Westphalia introduces:

The principle of the sovereignty of States;
The principle of disarmament of the States;
The principle of collective security;
All of the above;
10. One International Relations’ radical theory is:

World System Theory;
Neoliberal Institutionalism;
11. Two events that contributed to the circumscription of State sovereignty are:

The collapse of Soviet Union and the war in Vietnam
The Peace of Westphalia and the Peace of Augsburg
The collapse of dictatorships and the end of WWII
Convention of Human Rights and European integration
12. The League of Nations replaces the United Nations:
 True
 False
13. According to Immanuel Kant the two conditions for permanent peace are:

establishment of republican governments and establishment of a federation of such governments;
the creation of international relations and international organizations;
establishment of a federation of governments and the creation of a world army;
the creation of a superpower and the acceptance of all the remainder countries;
14. According to John Locke, in the “law of nature”:
 reason prevails and enjoins on everyone not to harm the life or property of others;
 individuals are like wolves and fight each other;
 human nature is essentially good;
 any action of states is taken in their self-interest in an anarchical international system;
15. In his book “________”, Immanuel Kant states that International Law ”__________”:
 “Perpetual Peace”, “doesn’t justify war as a means for maintaining peace”
 “De iure belli ac pacis”, “justifies war as a means for maintaining peace”
 “Critique of the Pure Reason”, “is a means for declaring war in certain cases”
16. President Woodrow Wilson introduced the principle of:

collective security
support for democracy
all of the above
17. Jus ad bellum means the right to resort to war:
 True
 False
18. The State is ”___________” acting under ”__________________”.

“a community of people”; “the command of a governor”;
“an organized political community”; “a government”;
“the exercise of the power”; “the behavior of politicians”;
“a geographical area”; “the will of a monarch”;
19. Traditional Actors in International Relations are:
 States and individuals;
 States and individuals, IGOs and NGOs;
 States and individuals, and European Union;
20. Describe why and when the Soviet Union collapsed.
21. Terrorist organizations do not adapt to globalization:
 True
 False
22. Describe what the Leviathan is.
23. Modern nations engage in a two-step procedure for entering into treaties by signing first
and then ratifying them.
 True
 False
24. “Pacta sunt servanda” is an international custom:
 True
 False
25. Customary International Law applies to:

all military personnel;
Political parties;
every country;

Purchase answer to see full

Order your essay today and save 15% with the discount code: VACCINE

Order a unique copy of this paper

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
Top Academic Writers Ready to Help
with Your Research Proposal