ULUSLARARASI İLİŞKİLER TEORİLERİ II - Deneme Sınavı - 8

culture

Intersubjectivity

Kantian

security

Holistic

Realism became a dominant theory and even a point of reference for almost every scholar studying international relations with the publication of Hans Morgenthau’s seminal book Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace in 1948. Drawing on the writings of Thucydides, Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes and E. H. Carr, Morgenthau developed a realist theory of international politics in which he argued that “international politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power. Whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is always the immediate aim” (Morgenthau, 1948: 13).

The correct answer is A.

States constantly seek power because of human nature: For neorealism, why states continuously seek power has little to do with human nature. Neorealism explains why states want more power with reference to the structure of the international system.

State leaders and their decisions are the major factors that affect distribution of power: While classical realism mainly focuses on state leaders and their decisions, neorealism, by contrast, emphasizes the structure of the international system that is external to the actors, in particular the relative distribution of power. Leaders are relatively unimportant because structures compel them to act in certain ways. Structures more or less determine actions.

States have more or less similar capabilities for performing similar tasks: States are similar in the tasks they face, not in their abilities to perform them. States are distinguished primarily by their greater or lesser capabilities for performing similar tasks... the structure of a system changes with changes in the distribution of capabilities across the system's units.

The interests and identities of states are constructed by the structure of the system exogenous to them: The interests and identities of states are constructed by the structure of the system exogenous to them. Under the conditions of anarchy, it is logical to assume that states must acquire egoistic identities and take care of themselves or they will risk being crushed.

Anarchy entails states to seek international help: For Waltz, the assumption of anarchy means that states will be unwilling to risk functional differentiation, in other words, an international division of labor. Anarchy compels each state to focus on its core preference – maintaining its sovereignty, i.e. its own survival – without relying on external help.

The correct answer is D.

In terms of epistemology and methodology, constructivism can be divided into three main categories: neoclassical, postmodern and naturalisticconstructivism. Neoclassical constructivists incorporate values, norms, and other ideational factors into their theorizing, but “they do not reject the canons of science, standards, and methodologies for testing hypotheses or propositions”.

Postmodern constructivists, on the other hand, “reject the conventional epistemology of social science. They emphasize instead the linguistic construction of subjects, resulting in ‘discursive practices’ constituting the ontological or foundational units of reality and analysis”.

Finally, naturalistic constructivism, which is mainly associated with the writings of Alexander Wendt, defines IR as part of the social sciences, and puts more emphasis on the intersubjective aspects or structures of social life.

The correct answer is B.

According to rationalist theories, especially Neorealism, political structure is a force above states that can shape actor identities and interests. States do not have much to change it, but succumb to the requirements of structure. Neorealism assumes that “only the behavior of states is affected by system structure, not their identities and interests” (Wendt, 1999: 248). Constructivists, on the other hand, emphasize a process of interaction between agents and structures; “the ontology is one of mutual constitution, where neither unit of analysis —agents or structures—is reduced to the other and made ‘ontologically primitive” (Checkel, 1998: 326).

The correct answer is D.

Wendt distinguishes three separate cultures in which states’ behaviors, identities and interests vary considerably: Hobbesian culture, Lockean culture and Kantian culture.

The Hobbesian culture is characterized by a constant enmity between states that see each other as enemies. In the Lockean culture, although states view each other as rivals, they nevertheless “recognize each other’s sovereignty, and therefore submit to a minimum standard of common norms”

In a Kantian system, states no longer see each other as enemies or rivals, but friends and the scope of shared norms is much more extensive. Drawing from Immanuel Kant’s ideas, Wendt argues that this culture is the closest one to a collective security system where states identify with each other and define their interests collectively. In other words, in a Kantian culture states form a community.

The correct answer is C.

Corporate identity which is defined as the intrinsic, self- organizing qualities that constitute actor individuality generates four basic interests: 1) physical security 2) predictability in relationships to the world 3) recognition as an actor by others 4) economic development.

The correct answer is E.

Wendt describes three factors at the systemic level that can play a causal role for the emergence of collective identity formation: structural contexts, systemic processes, and strategic practice. Structural contexts refer to social structures with a particular culture. 

Systemic processes include “rising interdependence among states through either increasing trade and capital flows or the emergence of a common external threat” and the transnational convergence of domestic values.

Strategic practices can be both behavioral (what actors do) and discursive (what actors say). Actors’ behavioral and discursive practices in an interaction will determine the nature of interaction, and shape their identities.

The correct answer is E.

Wendt’s constructivist approach adapts a system level (systemic) analysis. He tries to show how states form their social identities, and consequently interests, through systemic interaction. Wendt aims to show how state identities and interests are endogenous. International and external factors play a significant role in state behavior and identity development. Structural contexts referring to social structures with a particular culture either facilitate or inhibit collective identity formation. In this process, domestic factors are generally ignored.

The correct answer is A.

Unit-level constructivism starts with the critique of systemic approach and contends that systemic constructivism’s focus on the role of the international environment and norms in constructing state identities and interest, leaves out the important role that domestic factors play in the formation of state identity and interests. “Instead of focusing on the external, international domain, unit-level constructivists concentrate on the relationship between domestic social and legal norms and the identities and interests of states, the very factors bracketed by Wendt”.

The correct answer is C.

In terms of the levels of analysis, constructivism is categorized under three headings: systemic, unit level, and holistic constructivism. Holistic constructivism aims at removing the traditional dichotomy between system and unit levels of analysis and tries to bridge the two domains. Holistic constructivism argues that states’ corporate and social identities continuously interact with each other and states’ foreign policies are the product of this interaction. Interactions between corporate (domestic level) and social identities (international level) will result in the production and reproduction of self and other.

The correct answer is B.

For most scholars of security studies, security is not an easy term to define. At its base, the term ‘security’ involves the “alleviation of threats to cherished values” (Williams, 2008: 1). Both Realist and Liberal theories generally “explain security by identifying an objective situation as threatening to an objective entity” (Balzacq, 2011a: xiii). In other words, according to traditionalists, security means a freedom from any objective military threat to the state survival in an anarchic international system. The traditional definition of security, however, is most commonly associated with political Realism that defines security as national security. In both classical and structural variants, Realism defines security in terms of national security in which the survival of the state is the main objective. Thus, “Realism is usually seen to emphasize the state as the main object of security, and war as the main threat to it”

While Realism is concerned with national/ military security, the CS argues that this is a very narrow definition of security and must be widened as to include other sectors. Buzan defines security as “the pursuit of freedom from threat and the ability of states and societies to maintain their independent identity and their functional integrity against forces of change which they see as hostile” (Buzan, 1991: 432). However, Buzan adds that even though security is about survival, it also includes a substantial range of issues other than the state (Buzan, 1991: 433). This is the first difference between Realism and the CS. According to the CS, security cannot be confined only to the military sector but should include other sectors, such as economic, societal, political and environmental.

The CS has played an important role in broadening the conception of security and provided a framework for analysis. It became particularly influential in analyzing how an issue is securitized and desecuritized. It broadened the scope of security studies and helped the reconceptualization of the notion of security.

The CS contributed to security studies in three major theoretical and conceptual ways: the theory of securitization, the notion of different sectors of security and regional security complex theory.

The securitization theory, on the other hand, argues that threats are discursively constructed and “securitization like politicization, has to be understood as essentially an intersubjective process” 
According to the securitization theory, when the process of securitization is successfully accomplished, this allows the political elite to take “emergency measures and (justifies) actions outside the normal bounds of political procedure”.
“The use of this speech act had the effect of raising a specific challenge to a principled level, thereby implying that all necessary means would be used to block that challenge” (Wæver, 2011:95). Securitization legitimizes the use of force and allows the state to mobilize or to take special powers to handle existential threats.