Understanding International Relations - Universitas Brawijaya

Preface to the First EditionThis is a textbook, an introduction to the discipline of International Relations.The aim is to present within a relatively small compass an overview of thecurrent state of International Relations theory. This book could be used asa text for undergraduate-level introductory courses, but it could also serveas a general introduction to theory for the increasing number of postgraduatestudents of the subject. It is sometimes assumed that postgraduates needa different literature from undergraduates; this seems to me not to be thecase – good students at all levels need to have their minds engaged and stimulated, and this book is written on the assumption that all of its readerswill have enquiring minds and be willing to put in the effort required tounderstand ideas that are sometimes quite complex.There is sometimes an assumption that ‘theory’ is something that is suitableonly for ‘advanced’ students, and that an introductory text ought not to betheoretically oriented. The fear is that students are not interested in theory,that they study International Relations with a practical orientation andbecome alienated if asked to think conceptually and abstractly, and, mostdamagingly, that students want to be told the ‘right’ answers and not to beexposed to the scandalous fact that authorities differ even on quite basicissues. These positions must be resisted. All understandings of InternationalRelations and of the other social sciences are necessarily theoretical, theonly issue is whether this is made explicit or not and most good students arewell aware that this is so. The real danger is that by presenting InternationalRelations Lite as a kind of a-theoretical discourse, ‘current-affairs-with-a-twist’,an adjunct to ‘higher journalism’, we alienate the brighter theorists amongstour students, and attract only those with a more empirical cast of mind.This is particularly galling because International Relations today is a theoretically sophisticated and challenging social science, the location of important debates on, for example, agency-structure, gender, identity, and thefurther reaches of postmodern and post-structural thought. Fortunately, thisis reflected in the large number of theoretically sophisticated, high qualityresearch students in the subject – what is interesting, and depressing, is howmany of these students have discovered the importance of InternationalRelations theory for themselves, and how few have come to the subject viaan undergraduate education in IR.When theory is taught, it is often as an adjunct to practice; its ‘relevance’is repeatedly stressed on the apparent principle that inviting students tothink abstractly is to place so onerous a burden on them that they must bepromised an immediate and tangible reward in exchange for their efforts.xii

Preface to the First EditionxiiiOn the contrary, I think the theory of International Relations is a fascinatingsubject worthy of study in its own right – fortunately it happens also to haveconsiderable practical relevance, but anyone who pursues the subject solelyon that basis is going to miss a lot of the story, and, incidentally, much ofthe fun.The following chapters fall into four sections, of unequal size. In the firstpart, Chapters 1 to 3, after an introductory chapter on the nature of theory,the evolution of International Relations theory is presented; post-1914–18liberal internationalism, the contest between liberalism and realism in the1930s, the post-1945 realist synthesis, the debate on method in the 1960s,pluralism and structuralism, and the current orthodoxies of neorealism andneoliberalism along with their critics. This history is necessary if we are tounderstand current thinking on International Relations; it provides the student with a basic vocabulary and grammar of the discipline, without whichreading the current literature will be impossible. For most of the history ofthe discipline, the state has been the central focus for concern, and realismthe most important theory, and Chapters 4 to 6 examine the characteristictopics of realist, ‘state-centric’ international relations: theories of the state,foreign policy decision-making, agency-structure problems, power, security,war and the balance of power. In the third part, Chapters 7 to 10, lessstate-centric accounts of the world are investigated: the notion of ‘globalgovernance’, the workings of the world economy and its characteristicinstitutions, and North–South relations. Finally, in Chapters 11 and 12, theimpact of the ending of the Cold War on International Relations theory isexamined.Although this may seem to offer a kind of progression of ideas, I havetried to avoid presenting this material in such a way as to suggest that thenewer ideas are better because they are newer, or, for that matter, to suggestthat any body of theory is self-evidently true or false. I have views on mostof the subjects covered in this book, and usually it will not be too difficultto work out what they are, but I assume that the role of the textbook authoris not primarily to condemn or praise. My aim is to present as fairly aspossible the arguments in question. Thus, for example, I would not seek tohide the fact that I am out of sympathy with neorealist theorizing inInternational Relations, and the conclusion I draw in a number of chapterswould, indeed, make this impossible to hide, but I would be disappointed ifneorealists were to feel that my presentation of their work was loadedagainst them. Neorealism is an intellectually rigorous and challenging set ofideas – as are the notions of ‘rational choice’ upon which nowadays it isbased. It deserves to be treated very seriously indeed and I hope I have doneso in what follows.At various points in the text I have made reference to ‘post-positivist’International Relations, in particular to work on postmodernism, gender, and

xivPreface to the First Editioncritical theory. However, this is a book about theory, not about methodologyor the philosophy of science, and, for the most part, the coverage of postpositivism will be limited to areas where post-positivists have actuallycontributed theory, as opposed to presenting promissory notes on whatpost-positivist theory might look like when it actually arrives. This meanscoverage of these topics is rather more patchy, and less enthusiastic thantheir adherents would approve of. However, compromises have to be made,and my own area of international political theory is also represented only ata few points. My aim is to give a critical account of the current ‘state-of-the-art’of the discipline rather than to anticipate its shape in the next millennium –although, naturally, a few markers for the future will be laid down, especially in the final chapter. To deploy in defence of this project an analogyclose to my heart, some of the masterpieces of twentieth-century music arecertainly atonal, or serial, but it is impossible to develop any real appreciation of, say, Schoenberg’s Op. 31 Orchestral Variations, or Berg’s Lulu,without grasping the principles of tonality these great works defy. Thisbook is about the International Relations equivalent of these latter principles,with some pointers as to how they might be overcome. In any event, thereare many modern composers who persist with tonality to good effect butI digress.References have been kept to a minimum to improve the readability ofthe text; however, a short guide to further reading is attached to each chapter. I have tried to provide a mixture of readings – old and new, books andarticles; given the constraints on library budgets, a reference to an old, butstill useful work may be more helpful than one to an up-to-date but unobtainable text. I have tried to provide both. A full bibliography is provided atthe end of the book.All textbooks are, one way or another, multi-authored. I have been studyingInternational Relations for 31 years, and teaching the subject for 26; thishas involved exchanging ideas with so many teachers, colleagues and students that I find it difficult to say where my own thinking begins and theirsends. Listing all the people who have influenced my views on InternationalRelations theory over the years would be impossible; if I single out therather diverse group of Michael Banks, James Mayall, John Groom, SusanStrange and Steve Smith for special mention, it is in no spirit of disrespect tomany others. I have had very helpful comments on this text from a numberof anonymous readers for the publishers. Graham Smith has helped me toavoid making silly mistakes about the environment, but still disagrees withmy position on that subject. Susan Stephenson assisted in the preparation ofthe index. Most of all, I have had the advantage of extensive commentariesfrom two of the best of the younger generation of International Relationstheorists in Britain today; Molly Cochran of Bristol University read Parts Iand II, and was particularly helpful in clarifying a number of presentational

Preface to the First Editionxvpoints; and Tim Dunne of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, read thewhole text, improved the argument throughout, and, in particular, forcedme to rewrite Chapter 12. With the usual disclaimer that remaining errorsof fact and interpretation are all mine, thanks to the above, to colleagues atthe Universities of Kent and Southampton, to Steven Kennedy, and to thearound 1,500 students on S314 (Kent) and PO 105 (Southampton) who,over the years, have attended my lectures (or not) and, variously, noddedin agreement, stared out of the window, looked confused, or laughed –sometimes even in appropriate places – all the while keeping me entertainedand in gainful employment.Southampton, 1997CHRIS BROWN

List of AMNCMSFNATONGOsNICsNIEOOECDR&DRAMSRFUNbilateral immunity agreementsBretton Woods SystemCommon Agricultural PolicyConvention on the Elimination of All Forms of DiscriminationAgainst WomenchlorofluorocarbonsEconomic Commission for Latin AmericaEuropean Defence Unionforeign policy analysisGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and TradeGeneralized System of PreferencesInternational Criminal CourtInternational Committee of the Red CrossInternational Criminal Tribunal for RwandaInternational Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslaviaintergovernmental organizationsInternational Monetary FundIntegrated Programme for CommoditiesInternational Political EconomyInternational RelationsIntermediate Range Ballistic MissilesImport Substition Industrializationinformation technologyInternational Trade OrganizationKosovo Liberation Armyliberal international economic orderMulti-Fibre Arrangementmultinational corporationMédecins Sans FrontièresNorth Atlantic Treaty Organizationnon-governmental organizationsNewly Industrializing CountriesNew International Economic OrderOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Developmentresearch and developmentRational Actor ModelSoviet Rocket ForcesUnited Nationsxvi

List of AbbreviationsUNCEDUNCTADVERsWMDWTOUnited Nations Conference on Environment andDevelopmentUnited Nations Conference on Trade and Developmentvoluntary export restraintsweapons of mass destructionWorld Trade Organizationxvii

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 1Introduction: DefiningInternational RelationsThis book is an introduction to the discipline of International Relations;‘International Relations’ (upper case – here frequently shortened to IR) is thestudy of ‘international relations’ (lower case) – the use of upper and lowercase in this way has become conventional and will be employed throughoutthis book – but what are ‘international relations’? A survey of the fieldsuggests that a number of different definitions are employed. For some, international relations means the diplomatic–strategic relations of states, and thecharacteristic focus of IR is on issues of war and peace, conflict and cooperation. Others see international relations as being about cross-border transactions of all kinds, political, economic and social, and IR is as likely to studytrade negotiations or the operation of non-state institutions such as AmnestyInternational as it is conventional peace talks or the workings of the UnitedNations (UN). Again, and with increasing frequency in the twenty-firstcentury, some focus on globalization, studying, for example, world communication, transport and financial systems, global business corporations andthe putative emergence of a global society. These conceptions obviously bearsome family resemblances, but, nonetheless, each has quite distinct features.Which definition we adopt will have real consequences for the rest of ourstudy, and thus will be more than simply a matter of convenience.The reason definitions matter in this way is because ‘internationalrelations’ do not have some kind of essential existence in the real world ofthe sort that could define an academic discipline. Instead there is a continual interplay between the ‘real world’ and the world of knowledge. Thelatter is, of course, shaped by the former, but this is not simply a one-wayrelationship. How we understand and interpret the world is partly dependenton how we define the world we are trying to understand and interpret. Sinceit is always likely to be the case that any definition we adopt will be controversial, this presents a problem that cannot be glossed over. Some of thedifficulties we face here are shared by the social sciences as a whole, whileothers are specific to International Relations. The arguments are often noteasy to grasp, but the student who understands what the problem is herewill have gone a long way towards comprehending how the social sciencesfunction and why IR theory is a such complex and difficult, but ultimatelyvery rewarding, subject for study.1

2Understanding International RelationsIt is generally true of the social sciences that their subject-matter is notself-defining in the way that is often the case in the natural sciences. Anexample may help to make this clear. Consider a textbook entitledIntroductory Myrmecology. This will, on page 1, define its terms byexplaining that Myrmecology is the study of ants, which is unproblematicbecause we know what an ‘ant’ is. The classificatory scheme that producesthe category ‘ant’ is well understood and more or less universally acceptedby the relevant scientific community; anyone who tried to broaden thatcategory in a dramatic way would not be taken seriously. There is a scientific consensus on the matter. Ants do not label themselves as such; thedescription ‘ant’ is given to them by scientists, but since everyone whoseopinion counts is of one mind in this matter, we need have no worries aboutforgetting that this is so. We can, in effect, treat ants as though they did,indeed, define themselves as such. By contrast, there are virtually no areasof the social sciences where this kind of universal consensus can be reliedupon to define a field. Perhaps the nearest equivalent is found in Economics,where the majority of economists do agree on the basics of what an‘economy’ is and therefore what their discipline actually studies – however,it is noteworthy that even here in the social science which most forcefullyasserts its claim to be a ‘real’ science, there are a number of dissidents whowant to define their subject-matter in a different way from that approved ofby the majority. These dissidents – ‘political economists’ for example, or‘Marxist economists’ – are successfully marginalized by the majority, butthey survive and continue to press their case in a way that somebody whotried to contest the definition of an ant would not.In the case of most of the other social sciences, even the incomplete levelof consensus achieved by the economists does not exist. Thus, for example,in Political Science the very nature of politics is heavily contested: is‘politics’ something associated solely with government and the state? Weoften talk about university politics or student politics – is this a legitimateextension of the idea of politics? What of the politics of the family? MuchWestern political thinking rests on a distinction between the public realmand private life – but feminists and others have argued that ‘the personal isthe political’. This latter point illustrates a general feature of definitionalproblems in the social sciences – they are not politically innocent. The feminist critique of traditional definitions of politics is that their emphasis onpublic life hid from view the oppressions that took place (and still takeplace) behind closed doors in patriarchal institutions such as the traditionalfamily, with its inequalities of power and a division of labour which disadvantages women. Such critiques make a more general point; conventionaldefinitions in most of the social sciences tend to privilege an account of theworld that reflects the interests of those who are dominant within a particular area. There are no politically neutral ways of describing ‘politics’ or

Introduction3‘economics’ – although this does not mean that we cannot agree amongstourselves to use a particular definition for the sake of convenience.What does this tell us about how to go about defining internationalrelations/International Relations? Two things. First, we have to accept thatif we can find a definition it will be a matter of convention; there is noequivalent to an actual ant here – ‘international relations’ does not definethe field of ‘International Relations’, rather scholars and practitioners of thesubject provide the definition. Second, while it may make sense for us tostart with the conventional, traditional definition of the subject, we shouldbe aware that this definition is sure to embody a particular account of thefield – and that the way it does this is unlikely to be politically neutral.Instead, what we can expect is a definition of the field which, while purporting to be objective – simply reflecting ‘the way things are’ – is actuallygoing to be, perhaps unconsciously, partisan and contentious. It followsthat having started with the conventional account, we will have to examineits hidden agenda before moving to alternative definitions, which, of course,will in turn have their own hidden agendas.There can be little doubt that th

Third Edition Chris Brown with Kirsten Ainley. UNDERSTANDING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. . 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010 . PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the Palgrave Macmillan division of St. Martin's Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Macmillan is a registered trademark in the United States, United .