← Introduction to Political Science outline

Week 14 · Chapter

Chapter 14 — International Relations

Introduction to Political Science Free sample edition

The module's primary reading · ~45–55 minutes · Objective 8 (explain the major theories of international relations — realism, liberalism, and constructivism — and the basics of the international system, international organizations and law, and global political economy, presenting competing theories and contested global questions evenhandedly and reading global data for what a measure and a line mean), Objective 2 (explain power, authority, legitimacy, and the state — Weber's types of authority, the criteria of statehood, sovereignty, and the social-contract answers of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau — and apply these concepts to real and hypothetical cases) · Read it first this week; the lecture, the slides, the tutorial, the quiz, and the workshop all build on it.

In plain language

This week moves from politics inside countries to politics between them. Inside a country, a government can make rules and enforce them; between countries, no world government sits on top. Political scientists call that condition anarchy (no authority above the states), and it does not mean chaos. You will meet three paradigms (broad schools of thought about why states act as they do) and read the founding text of the United Nations with each one in turn. You will not be told which paradigm wins; you will be shown how each one reads the same facts.

Why you already care about this

Picture a row of 6 small shops that share one parking lot of 30 spaces. Every detail here is illustrative. No landlord, manager, or security guard is ever on site, and nobody can order you or the other 5 owners around. On most of the 7 days in a week, the lot still works. The owners take turns with the loading space, keep the fire lane clear, and settle small fights with a word.

Then one owner puts up a barrier to protect 2 reserved spaces. A neighbor reads the barrier as a land grab and puts up one of their own. Nobody meant any harm, and the lot is now worse for everyone. Notice what happened. Order held most of the time without a boss, and trouble came from steps each owner took to feel safe.

That is the puzzle of international relations, scaled up from six shops to the states of the world. The U.N. Charter, signed in San Francisco in 1945, built the closest thing the world has to a shared parking-lot association, and it still has no army of its own. This chapter asks the question for the unit: with no world government, what explains conflict and cooperation?

By the end of this chapter you will be able to:

explain anarchy in the discipline's sense and say why it is not chaos;
trace a security dilemma step by step and say why it is structural, not moral;
state realism, liberalism, and constructivism at full strength, each with its thinkers and years;
tell collective security from an alliance;
describe the United Nations in outline and read its pinned articles through all three lenses;
give one explanation per paradigm for why states mostly obey international law without a sheriff.

Carry this line with you: no one in charge is not the same as no order.

Where we are

Already covered: Week 1 named international relations as one of the five subfields. Week 2 defined the state, sovereignty, and external sovereignty. Week 3 defined liberalism the ideology. Week 8 gave you the three-layer read, and Week 13 compared countries on a plan.
This week: anarchy and the security dilemma, the three paradigms, collective security against an alliance, the United Nations in outline, the U.N. Charter and the Universal Declaration read through three lenses, and why states mostly comply with international law.
How they connect: Week 2's external sovereignty is the reason no state answers to a higher power, and that is where this week starts.
Where we're going next: Week 15 closes the world-stage unit with political economy, trade, and global poverty.

Three earlier ideas carry this chapter. From Week 2, external sovereignty is a state's independence from outside control, a claim to final authority and not a measure of strength. From Week 3, liberalism the ideology is a tradition about individual rights and limited government; this week's liberalism is a different thing with the same name. From Week 8, the design layer is what the rules say, the practice layer is what actually happens, and the verdict layer is what ought to happen. Keep all three within your reach.

1. Define anarchy: no one above the states

Go back to the parking lot. No manager can fine an owner who blocks the lane. Yet the lot runs well on most days, because the owners have reasons to get along. The lot has no boss, and it still has order most of the time.

International relations, the subfield that studies politics between states, starts from the same picture.

Anarchy — In international relations, the absence of any authority above sovereign states that can make rules for them and enforce those rules; a structural fact about the system, not a description of chaos.

The word "structural" matters. It describes how the system is built, not how any state behaves on a given day. Inside your country, a court can order you to pay a debt and the police can enforce it. Between countries, no court sits above every state with a police force behind it. That is all anarchy claims. It follows from Week 2: each state claims external sovereignty, so no state answers to a higher power.

Most dealings between states, most of the time, are peaceful. Mail crosses borders, ships dock in foreign ports, and treaties are kept. An honesty note about the word: everyday speech uses "anarchy" for disorder, as in "the meeting descended into anarchy". This course sets that reading aside.

Misconception check. Students often read anarchy as chaos, a world of constant war. You can see why it is tempting: the everyday word means disorder. But in international relations anarchy is a structural fact: there is no authority above the states. A system with no one in charge can still run in order most of the time, as the parking lot does. When you see the word this week, read it as "no world government", not "chaos".

Memory hook: anarchy means no boss, not no order.

2. Trace the security dilemma: a spiral no one wanted

Think of two neighbors on your street. One installs a bright floodlight and a camera after a break-in two blocks away. The other neighbor sees the camera pointed toward their yard and wonders what is coming. So they add a taller fence. The first neighbor reads the fence as hostile and adds a second camera. Neither one is a villain, and both now feel less safe.

Political scientists have a name for this pattern between states. It comes from Herz (1950), "Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma", taught here in words.

Security dilemma — The spiral in which steps one state takes for its own defense look threatening to others, who arm in response, leaving every side less secure than before; a structural argument that needs no side to intend harm.

Worked example — Selvara and Ondrith. Selvara and Ondrith are made-up states, and every number about them is illustrative. Each patrols their shared sea with 4 ships, so 4 + 4 = 8 ships in all.

Selvara adds 2 ships for defense: 4 + 2 = 6.
Ondrith sees 6 against its 4 and adds 2: 4 + 2 = 6.
Selvara adds 2 more: 6 + 2 = 8.
Ondrith answers: 6 + 2 = 8.

Now there are 8 + 8 = 16 ships, and 16 ÷ 8 = 2, so the sea holds twice as many ships: 16 versus 8, a 2-fold change. The ratio between the fleets began at 4 ÷ 4 = 1 and ends at 8 ÷ 8 = 1. In words: both states spent heavily, the sea grew more crowded with warships, and the balance between them did not change. Neither state is safer, and neither had to intend an attack.

The argument is structural, not moral. You do not need to decide which state is the aggressor, and your verdict on either one changes nothing. The spiral comes from the setting: with no one above them, each state must judge the other's ships by what they could do, not by what their owner says they are for.

Misconception check. Students often think a security dilemma needs a bad actor, a state secretly planning war. You can see why it is tempting: arms races in films always have a villain. But the dilemma works even when both sides want only defense. Selvara and Ondrith each added ships to feel safe, and each step looked like a threat to the other. The cause is the structure, not anyone's wickedness.

Memory hook: my shield — your sword: one step, two readings.

3. Meet realism: self-help and the balance of power

Picture your shared apartment kitchen with no house rules and no landlord who checks in. If you want your food to last the week, you label it and keep it on your own shelf. You cannot call anyone to get it back. And if one roommate starts deciding everything, the other two tend to side together until things even out.

Your kitchen is the first paradigm in miniature. A paradigm is a broad school of thought that explains how states behave by stressing some forces over others, such as power, institutions, or ideas; a classroom model and a lens, not the last word. The three paradigms you meet this week are models in exactly that sense.

Realism — The paradigm that treats states as the main actors, each pursuing security and power because nothing above them guarantees their safety.
Self-help — The condition in which each state must provide for its own security, because no higher authority will protect it.
Balance of power — A pattern of order in which states shift their weight and alliances to stop any one state from dominating the rest.

Realism comes in two strands, each tied to a book that is in copyright and taught here in words.

Classical realism — The strand of realism that roots power politics in the struggle for power among states, linked with Morgenthau's 1948 book Politics Among Nations.
Structural realism — The strand of realism that explains state behavior by the anarchic structure of the system and the spread of power across states, linked with Waltz's 1979 book Theory of International Politics.

Realism also has a very old proof-text. In Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Book V, in the Crawley translation (1874), envoys from Athens argue with the people of Melos. This exchange is called the Melian Dialogue: the debate in Book V of Thucydides' history between Athenian envoys and the people of Melos, whose line on the strong and the weak is spoken by the envoys, not given as Thucydides' own view. The envoys say: "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".

Worked example — sourcing a famous line. You ask four questions of the Melian line. Who speaks it? The Athenian envoys. Who wrote it down? Thucydides, as he rendered their words. In which edition do you read it? Book V of the Crawley translation (1874). What kind of claim is it? Empirical-leaning: a claim about how power works, offered as an argument to the Melians. So the correct citation is "the Athenian envoys, as Thucydides rendered them".

Misconception check. Students often quote the Melian line as Thucydides' own verdict on how the world should work. You can see why it is tempting: his name is on the book and the line is famous. But Thucydides puts the words in the mouths of the Athenian envoys at Melos. A historian recording a speaker's argument is not endorsing it. Attribute the line to the envoys, as Thucydides rendered them.

Memory hook: realists watch the shelf; nobody else will.

4. Meet liberalism as an international relations theory

Picture your town and the next town over sharing one water plant. Each town pays half the cost, and each depends on the other to keep its pipes in good repair. A quarrel between them over a parking rule stays a quarrel, because a real fight would cost both towns their water. They also set up a joint board that meets each month and publishes the plant's accounts.

That is the second paradigm's picture of the world, and you can test it against the news you read.

Liberalism as an international relations theory — The paradigm holding that institutions, interdependence, and regime type shape how states behave, so lasting cooperation is possible even without a world government; a different thing from the ideology and from the U.S. party label.
Interdependence — A condition in which states depend on one another through trade, investment, and other ties, so a conflict carries costs for both sides.

The paradigm is linked with Keohane and Nye (1977), Power and Interdependence, taught here in words. Its most cited finding concerns regime type.

Democratic peace — The finding that established democracies rarely if ever go to war with one another, while they fight non-democracies at ordinary rates; why it holds is still debated.

The finding comes from Doyle (1983), "Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs", and Russett (1993), Grasping the Democratic Peace, both taught in words. Russett's book came 1993 − 1983 = 10 years after Doyle's article.

Worked example — stating the finding precisely. You read each version and decide whether it matches the finding.

"Established democracies rarely if ever go to war with one another." Matches.
"Democracies never fight wars." Does not match: democracies fight non-democracies at ordinary rates.
"Shared democratic norms are proven to be why democracies avoid war with each other." Does not match: the mechanism is debated. Some scholars point to shared norms, others to institutions that slow a decision to fight.

Tally: 1 match and 2 errors in 3 versions. The finding is about pairs of established democracies, and it is about an association, not a proven cause.

Misconception check. Students often read liberal international relations theory as the view of politically liberal people, or as the Week 3 ideology. You can see why it is tempting: the word is the same. But liberalism the international relations theory is a claim about institutions, interdependence, and regime type. It is not liberalism the ideology, and it is not "liberal" in U.S. party talk. A free-market conservative can hold it, and so can a social democrat.

Memory hook: shared pipes — cooler heads.

5. Meet constructivism: anarchy is what states make of it

Picture a low wooden fence between two yards on your block. In one pair of houses, the neighbors are old friends, and the fence is where they lean and chat. In another pair, the neighbors have feuded for years, and the same fence is a battle line. The wood is identical. What the fence means depends on what the neighbors believe about each other.

That is the third paradigm, and you have lived it if you have ever had a friend become a rival.

Constructivism — The paradigm holding that what international structures mean is built from the ideas, identities, and norms states form as they interact, so the same anarchy can produce rivals or friends.
Norm — A shared expectation about how a member of a group ought to act, which shapes behavior even when no one enforces it.

The paradigm is most closely linked with Wendt (1992), "Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics", in International Organization. The article is in copyright and cited by title only. Its point, in words: anarchy does not dictate self-help on its own.

Worked example — one structure, two meanings. Return to Selvara and Ondrith and their 8 ships each. Suppose the two states spent decades as rivals. Each new Ondrith ship looks like a threat, and the spiral from section 2 runs again. Now suppose instead that the two states have trained together for decades and see each other as partners. The same 8 ships look like help in a storm. The number of ships is the same in both stories, and so is the anarchy. What changed is the identities the states built in interaction.

Notice the limitation of each lens. Realism explains the spiral and struggles to explain lasting friendship. Constructivism explains the friendship and has to say how rival identities change. Each paradigm is a classroom model, a lens that makes some facts stand out, and none is the winner.

Misconception check. Students often rank the paradigms, as if one were the correct theory and the other two were mistakes. You can see why it is tempting: tests usually reward the right answer. But this course treats realism, liberalism, and constructivism as competing accounts at full strength. Each explains some facts well and others poorly. A quiz will ask what a paradigm claims, never which one is right.

Memory hook: same fence — different neighbors, different meaning.

6. Sort pacts: collective security versus an alliance

Think of two agreements you might sign on a campus. The first is a dorm's code of conduct: anyone who damages a common room faces the floor's response, residents included. The second is three study groups agreeing to back one another against one rival team in a trivia league. The first is aimed at any wrongdoer. The second is aimed at a named opponent.

States make both kinds of agreement, and you can tell them apart with one question.

Collective security — An arrangement in which members commit to act together against any state that attacks another, including an attacker from among their own members.
Alliance — A pact in which members commit to defend one another against a specified outside threat.

Worked example — two made-up pacts. The Harbor Pact binds 3 states to defend one another against Ondrith, a named outside threat. You ask one question: whom is the pact against? A named state, so the Harbor Pact is an alliance. The Concord of Seven commits all 7 members to act against any state that attacks another, including a member. Ask the same question: anyone who attacks. So the Concord is collective security. Tally: 1 alliance + 1 collective security = 2 pacts.

The difference has a cost. An alliance is easier to keep, because members agree on who the threat is. Collective security asks a member to act against a friend, and that is a caveat worth naming: the promise is harder to keep when the attacker is an ally.

Misconception check. Students often use "alliance" and "collective security" as two words for any group of states that defend each other. You can see why it is tempting: both involve promises of mutual help. But an alliance points at a named threat, and collective security points at any aggressor, members included. Ask whom the pact is against before you name it.

Memory hook: a pact aimed at them is not a pact aimed at anyone.

7. Read the U.N. Charter: the United Nations in outline

Picture a homeowners' association where your house, like every house, gets one vote at the yearly meeting. A smaller board handles emergencies, and a few seats on that board belong to the same households every year. Any one of those permanent households can block an emergency decision. You might wonder how that squares with "one house, one vote". Hold that question.

The United Nations is the international organization founded by the U.N. Charter, with six principal organs and no standing army of its own. The U.N. Charter is the founding treaty of the United Nations, signed in San Francisco in 1945, which sets out its organs and its members' main obligations.

General Assembly — The U.N. organ in which every member state sits and casts one vote.
Security Council — The U.N. organ of fifteen members, five of them permanent, charged with matters of peace and security.
Permanent member — One of the five Security Council seats held without election, by China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, each of which can block a substantive decision with a no vote.
International Court of Justice — The principal court of the United Nations, which hears disputes between states.
Sovereign equality — The Charter principle that every member state counts as an equal in law, whatever its size or strength.

Worked example — counting the design. The Charter creates 6 principal organs: the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice, and the Secretariat. In the General Assembly every member casts 1 vote (Articles 9 and 18). The Security Council has 15 members, of which 5 are permanent, so 15 − 5 = 10 members are elected (Article 23). The permanent members hold 5 ÷ 15 × 100 ≈ 33.3 percent of the seats. A no vote from any 1 permanent member blocks a substantive decision (Article 27), even if the other 15 − 1 = 14 members vote yes. In words: one third of the Council's seats are permanent, and any one of those five can stop a decision the other fourteen support.

Now you read the two pinned articles exactly.

Article 2(1): "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."
Article 2(4): "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

In practice (your tools). In this week's workshop you read the Charter on its official page at un.org. Open the full text, use your browser's find command (Ctrl+F on Windows, Command+F on a Mac), and search for "sovereign equality" to land on Article 2(1). Search for "refrain" to land on Article 2(4). Copy each fragment from the page, never from memory, and compare it letter by letter with the version a chatbot gives you.

Misconception check. Students often think the U.N. has an army it sends to enforce the Charter, or that the Security Council is a world government. You can see why it is tempting: news reports talk about U.N. missions. But the U.N. has no standing army of its own, and the Charter makes it an organization of sovereign states, not a government above them.

Memory hook: one state, one vote in the Assembly; five vetoes on the Council.

8. Read the Universal Declaration and run the three lenses

Think about a sign in the study room you use: "Quiet voices, please." No one enforces it with fines. Yet most people lower their voices, and a newcomer learns the habit within a week. The sign works by building an expectation, not by punishment.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the statement of rights proclaimed by the U.N. General Assembly in Paris in 1948 as resolution 217 A, a norm-building text that is not backed by an army. It came 1948 − 1945 = 3 years after the Charter. Two pinned articles:

Article 1: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."
Article 21(3): "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government"

Worked example — the Charter through three lenses. You take Article 2(1), "sovereign equality", and read it three ways.

The realist reads the veto beside it. Equality holds in law, yet 5 members hold a power the other 10 Council members lack. To a realist, the Charter writes power into its own design.
The liberal reads a standing institution in which every member meets and votes. To a liberal, a permanent forum makes cooperation cheaper and cheating more visible.
The constructivist reads a norm that gains force each time states invoke it. To a constructivist, the words become real as states repeat them.

Then take Article 2(4), the rule against the threat or use of force. The realist asks who enforces it against a permanent member. The liberal sees a common rule that makes breaking it visible and costly. The constructivist sees a rule that, repeated over decades, shapes what states think counts as acceptable.

Worked example — the kind sort. You sort the week's five pinned fragments.

The week's five pinned fragments, each with its source and its kind of claim
Fragment	Source	Kind
"The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."	U.N. Charter, Article 2(1)	empirical, a design-layer statement checkable against the Charter
"the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must"	Thucydides, Book V, the Athenian envoys	empirical-leaning, a claim about power offered as an argument
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."	U.N. Charter, Article 2(4)	normative in content, a rule about how members ought to act
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."	Universal Declaration, Article 1	normative, a moral standard phrased as a statement of fact
"The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government"	Universal Declaration, Article 21(3)	normative, a standard for legitimate government

Tally: 1 empirical + 1 empirical-leaning + 3 normative = 5 fragments. Notice Article 1. It is phrased like a fact, as the Declaration of Independence's "all men are created equal" was in Week 1, and it is a moral standard, not a measurement.

Misconception check. Students often sort a sentence as empirical because it is written in the form "X is Y". You can see why it is tempting: Article 1 sounds like a report. But "born free and equal in dignity and rights" sets a standard people ought to honor; you cannot check it with a measurement. Sort by kind, not by grammar.

Memory hook: a declaration builds the habit; it does not send the police.

9. Explain compliance without a sheriff

Picture a neighborhood tool library run on trust, a few blocks from your home. You borrow a ladder and bring it back on time, with no deposit and no late fee. Why? Maybe because you want to borrow the drill next month. Maybe because the sign-out sheet shows everyone who returns things late. Or maybe because returning things on time is part of who you are.

Your three reasons map onto the three paradigms. International law is the rules that states accept as binding on one another, such as treaties, even though no world police force enforces them.

Reciprocity — Keeping an agreement so that the other side keeps it too, a self-interested reason for states to comply with rules.
Internalized norms — Rules a state has come to treat as part of who it is, so it follows them without weighing the costs each time.

Worked example — three explanations of one treaty. Selvara and Ondrith sign a fishing treaty and both obey it for decades.

A realist explains it by reciprocity and reputation: each obeys so the other will, and a cheater would lose the next deal.
A liberal explains it by institutions: a joint commission counts the catch and publishes the numbers.
A constructivist explains it by internalized norms: both states have come to see the fishing grounds as shared and cheating as out of the question.

Tally: 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 explanations, one per paradigm. Each one is a full explanation, and each could be right about a different treaty.

Now the limit, stated plainly: enforcement against a powerful violator is not guaranteed. Reciprocity works when the other side can answer in kind. A commission works when its members want it to. A norm works when a state holds it. When a powerful state decides to break a rule, no sheriff arrives.

Misconception check. Students often conclude that international law is not real law, because no police force stands behind it. You can see why it is tempting: law inside a country comes with courts and police. But states obey most international rules most of the time, for reasons each paradigm can name. The honest picture holds two facts at once: compliance is common, and enforcement against the powerful is weak.

Memory hook: trade back, track it, or take it to heart — three ways to comply.

10. Weigh realism against liberalism

Back to the 6 shops and their parking lot, still with no landlord or manager on site. One owner says the lot works only because each owner watches out for themselves and no one dares to push too hard. Another says it works because the owners set up a weekly meeting and a shared calendar for the loading space. A third says it works because, after years side by side, they think of the lot as a shared space. Each owner can point to something real.

That is this week's open question. Realism or liberalism? Here is each side at full strength, for you to weigh with your own reasons.

Proponents of realism argue that power and security still decide the hard cases. They point to the veto: the Charter gives five states a power the rest lack, which shows where power sits.
Proponents of liberalism argue that institutions, trade, and democracy have made lasting cooperation normal. They point to a standing organization where every state meets, and to the democratic peace.
Constructivists add that both pictures depend on what states believe about one another, and those beliefs can change.

Each side names a real weakness in the others. Realists ask liberals why institutions fail when a great power decides to ignore them. Liberals ask realists why so many states cooperate when self-help predicts suspicion. Constructivists ask both why the same structure produces friends in one region and rivals in another.

Worked example — the three-layer read on the Security Council. You read one institution on all three layers, naming the layer before you judge.

Design layer: "the Council has 15 members, 5 of them permanent with a veto" is empirical, checkable against Articles 23 and 27.
Practice layer: how often the veto has blocked action is a question for evidence. This course pins no count, so you name the evidence you would need instead of inventing a number.
Verdict layer: "the five permanent members ought to keep the veto" is normative. Proponents argue the veto keeps the great powers inside the organization; critics respond that it sits uneasily with sovereign equality. The verdict is yours.

Correlation or cause: the democratic peace is a finding about an association, that established democracies rarely if ever fight one another. It does not by itself show why, and the mechanism is debated: some point to shared norms, others to institutions that slow a decision to fight.

Pause and think, choosing one of these two:

(a) Pick the paradigm you find least convincing and state its strongest case, as its best defender would state it.
(b) Pick the Charter's veto and explain how a realist and a liberal would each answer the question "why does it exist?"

Misconception check. Students often think the realism-or-liberalism debate has a right answer the instructor is hiding. You can see why it is tempting: most questions in school have one. But both paradigms are models that explain some facts well and others poorly. Your grade on the discussion rewards a charitable statement of the other side and clear reasons, never agreement with one paradigm.

Memory hook: power, rules, or beliefs — name your lens before you argue.

Key terms

anarchy — In international relations, the absence of any authority above sovereign states that can make rules for them and enforce those rules; a structural fact about the system, not a description of chaos. (first used: 1. Define anarchy: no one above the states)
security dilemma — The spiral in which steps one state takes for its own defense look threatening to others, who arm in response, leaving every side less secure than before; a structural argument that needs no side to intend harm. (first used: 2. Trace the security dilemma: a spiral no one wanted)
paradigm — A broad school of thought that explains how states behave by stressing some forces over others, such as power, institutions, or ideas; a classroom model and a lens, not the last word. (first used: 3. Meet realism: self-help and the balance of power)
realism — The paradigm that treats states as the main actors, each pursuing security and power because nothing above them guarantees their safety. (first used: 3. Meet realism: self-help and the balance of power)
self-help — The condition in which each state must provide for its own security, because no higher authority will protect it. (first used: 3. Meet realism: self-help and the balance of power)
balance of power — A pattern of order in which states shift their weight and alliances to stop any one state from dominating the rest. (first used: 3. Meet realism: self-help and the balance of power)
classical realism — The strand of realism that roots power politics in the struggle for power among states, linked with Morgenthau's 1948 book Politics Among Nations. (first used: 3. Meet realism: self-help and the balance of power)
structural realism — The strand of realism that explains state behavior by the anarchic structure of the system and the spread of power across states, linked with Waltz's 1979 book Theory of International Politics. (first used: 3. Meet realism: self-help and the balance of power)
Melian Dialogue — The debate in Book V of Thucydides' history between Athenian envoys and the people of Melos, whose line on the strong and the weak is spoken by the envoys, not given as Thucydides' own view. (first used: 3. Meet realism: self-help and the balance of power)
liberalism as an international relations theory — The paradigm holding that institutions, interdependence, and regime type shape how states behave, so lasting cooperation is possible even without a world government; a different thing from the ideology and from the U.S. party label. (first used: 4. Meet liberalism as an international relations theory)
interdependence — A condition in which states depend on one another through trade, investment, and other ties, so a conflict carries costs for both sides. (first used: 4. Meet liberalism as an international relations theory)
democratic peace — The finding that established democracies rarely if ever go to war with one another, while they fight non-democracies at ordinary rates; why it holds is still debated. (first used: 4. Meet liberalism as an international relations theory)
constructivism — The paradigm holding that what international structures mean is built from the ideas, identities, and norms states form as they interact, so the same anarchy can produce rivals or friends. (first used: 5. Meet constructivism: anarchy is what states make of it)
norm — A shared expectation about how a member of a group ought to act, which shapes behavior even when no one enforces it. (first used: 5. Meet constructivism: anarchy is what states make of it)
collective security — An arrangement in which members commit to act together against any state that attacks another, including an attacker from among their own members. (first used: 6. Sort pacts: collective security versus an alliance)
alliance — A pact in which members commit to defend one another against a specified outside threat. (first used: 6. Sort pacts: collective security versus an alliance)
United Nations — The international organization founded by the U.N. Charter, with six principal organs and no standing army of its own. (first used: 7. Read the U.N. Charter: the United Nations in outline)
U.N. Charter — The founding treaty of the United Nations, signed in San Francisco in 1945, which sets out its organs and its members' main obligations. (first used: 7. Read the U.N. Charter: the United Nations in outline)
General Assembly — The U.N. organ in which every member state sits and casts one vote. (first used: 7. Read the U.N. Charter: the United Nations in outline)
Security Council — The U.N. organ of fifteen members, five of them permanent, charged with matters of peace and security. (first used: 7. Read the U.N. Charter: the United Nations in outline)
permanent member — One of the five Security Council seats held without election, by China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, each of which can block a substantive decision with a no vote. (first used: 7. Read the U.N. Charter: the United Nations in outline)
International Court of Justice — The principal court of the United Nations, which hears disputes between states. (first used: 7. Read the U.N. Charter: the United Nations in outline)
sovereign equality — The Charter principle that every member state counts as an equal in law, whatever its size or strength. (first used: 7. Read the U.N. Charter: the United Nations in outline)
Universal Declaration of Human Rights — The statement of rights proclaimed by the U.N. General Assembly in Paris in 1948 as resolution 217 A, a norm-building text that is not backed by an army. (first used: 8. Read the Universal Declaration and run the three lenses)
international law — The rules that states accept as binding on one another, such as treaties, even though no world police force enforces them. (first used: 9. Explain compliance without a sheriff)
reciprocity — Keeping an agreement so that the other side keeps it too, a self-interested reason for states to comply with rules. (first used: 9. Explain compliance without a sheriff)
internalized norms — Rules a state has come to treat as part of who it is, so it follows them without weighing the costs each time. (first used: 9. Explain compliance without a sheriff)

Summary

Anarchy means no authority above the states; it is a structural fact, not chaos.
In a security dilemma, one side's defense looks like the other side's threat, and both end up less safe.
Realism stresses self-help, power, and the balance of power (Morgenthau, 1948; Waltz, 1979).
Liberalism as an international relations theory stresses institutions, interdependence, and regime type (Keohane and Nye, 1977).
The democratic peace: established democracies rarely if ever fight one another; the mechanism is debated.
Constructivism holds that anarchy is what states make of it (Wendt, 1992).
Collective security is against any aggressor; an alliance is against a named threat.
The U.N. has a General Assembly of one vote per member, a Security Council of 15 with 5 permanent members holding a veto, a court, and no army.
The Melian line belongs to the Athenian envoys, as Thucydides rendered them.
States mostly comply with international law through reciprocity, institutions, and internalized norms; enforcement against the powerful is not guaranteed.

Check your understanding

Work these before looking at the answers — they are ungraded, and the answers (with reasoning) are at the bottom of the page.

A made-up regional council has 11 seats, and 3 of them are permanent with a veto. How many seats are elected, and what share of the seats is permanent, to one decimal place? If 10 members vote yes and 1 permanent member votes no, does a substantive decision pass?
Two made-up river towns each run 5 patrol boats. Each town adds 1 boat, then each adds 1 more. How many boats does each town end with, how many are on the river in all, and did the ratio between the towns change?
The Lakeshore Accord is a made-up pact of 5 states that promise to act against any state that invades another, members included. A second made-up pact binds 2 states against one named neighbor. Name each kind of pact.
Name the paradigm each statement fits best: (a) "Two states that trade heavily avoid war because war would cost both." (b) "A small state joins the rival of a rising power to keep any one state from dominating." (c) "After decades of joint exercises, two navies no longer see each other as a threat."

Answers (worked reasoning — read after attempting)

Elected seats: 11 − 3 = 8. Permanent share: 3 ÷ 11 × 100 ≈ 27.3 percent. The decision does not pass: with a veto rule, one permanent member's no vote blocks it, even though 10 members voted yes. This is the same design logic as the Security Council, on made-up numbers.
Each town ends with 5 + 1 + 1 = 7 boats. The river held 5 + 5 = 10 boats at the start and holds 7 + 7 = 14 at the end, which is 14 ÷ 10 = 1.4 times as many. The ratio between the towns was 5 ÷ 5 = 1 and is still 7 ÷ 7 = 1, so neither town is safer. That is a security dilemma: both spent more, and the balance did not move.
The Lakeshore Accord is collective security, because it is aimed at any aggressor, members included. The second pact is an alliance, because it is aimed at a named outside threat. The test is the question "whom is the pact against?"
(a) fits liberalism as an international relations theory, because it rests on interdependence. (b) fits realism, because it describes the balance of power. (c) fits constructivism, because the change is in how the two navies see each other, not in the number of ships.

Next up in this module: the Readings & Resources page, the lecture tutorial, the practice set, and the quiz. Next week, the comparative-advantage model and the World Bank's poverty line take the world-stage unit into political economy.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com