Alliance: An agreement between two or more states to work together on mutual security

issues. By pooling their resources and acting together states believe they can improve their
power position within the international system. They can be either formal or informal
arrangements: a formal alliance is publicly recognized through the signing of a treaty (NATO).
Informal alliances are less stable and looser and rely mainly on the word of the parties
involved).

Alliances can decrease the cost of defense (which makes them attractive to small states) and
can provide increased economic benefits. For the great powers alliances can be important to
gain strategic advantages with respect to their actual or potential enemies.

Liberals argue that alliances are a source of conflict between states, realists tend to argue that
states form alliances based on their national interests.

Anarchy: In everyday usage, this term evokes images of chaos, violence, and lawlessness. A
state of anarchy can be said to prevail when there is no government with power to preserve
peace or when there is no state. IR is said to be anarchic because there is no central authority
that regulates it. The states exercise legitimate control and authority over their own territory
and answer to no higher power. Thomas Hobbes was the first modern political philosopher to
describe international relations as anarchical. His state of nature is applied to international
relations by realists particularly.

Some liberal internationalists agree that anarchy is important, but argue that realists tend to
exaggerate its effects on state behavior. Similarly, constructivists accept that anarchy is the
characteristic condition of the international system, but argue that, by itself, it means nothing.

Balance of power: The term indicates the relative distribution of power among states.
Traditionally it would refer to a situation where all states have an equal share of power, usually
referring to a policy of promoting more balanced power. Furthermore, balance of power policy
requires that states moderate their quest for power, because too much power might bring
reactions of fear and hostility from other states.

All balance of power systems have certain conditions in common:

 A multiplicity of sovereign states unconstrained by any legitimate central authority

 Continuous but controlled competition over resources or conflicting values
 An unequal distribution of status, wealth, and power potential among political actors

The balance of power is a compromise among states that find its order preferable to absolute
chaos, even though it is a system that favors the stronger states at the expense of sovereign
equality for all of them.

 Unipolarity is a situation in which one state or superpower dominates the international

system (US today)
 Bipolarity exists when two states or blocs of states are roughly equal in power. In
unipolarity and bipolarity there is a tendency to export their conflict abroad (third
world during the cold war)
 Multipolarity refers to a situation in which there are at least three great powers. The
classic example is nineteenth-century Europe. Here, threats are harder to evaluate and
 there can be a tendency for states to rely on others against a dangerous emerging new
state.

Then, there are regional balances of power and balance of power in the international system as
a whole. Finally, there is objective and subjective balance of power.

The debate between supporters and opponents of particular balance of power systems is
inconclusive for two main reasons: first, the distribution of power among states is a variable
located at a structural level of analysis. Second, there are too few cases of different systems
across which one can make meaningful comparisons.

Collective security: The basic principle behind this concept can be summed up in the phrase
‘one for all and all for one’. In formal terms, collective security refers to a set of legally
established mechanisms designed to prevent or suppress aggression by any state against any
other state. This is achieved by presenting to potential aggressors the credible threat, and to
potential victims the credible promise, of effective collective measures to maintain peace. The
purpose of a collective security system is to maintain peace among the members of the system,
not between the system and outsiders. For example, NATO is not a collective security system, it
is an alliance. Collective security systems:

 Promise security to all states, not only the more powerful

 Provide more certainty in international relations (in principle), especially in matters of
war
 Focus on an, apparently, clear cut problem, that of aggression

The league of nations, founded after the first world war, was the first example of this theory
being put into practice and showed its flaws:

 If collective security isn’t truly universal (especially about including the most powerful
states) then it probably won’t be effective
 The effectiveness of collective security depends on states sharing the view that peace
is ‘indivisible’
 Despite its apparent simplicity, the term ‘aggression’ is notoriously difficult to define in
practice.
 The concept of collective security is deeply conservative. It is dedicated to the
maintenance of the territorial status quo, identifying ‘aggression’ as the worst crime in
international relations, and it assumes that peaceful mechanisms of territorial change
exist which make war unnecessary. In the twenty-first century, when war within states
rather than between them is likely to be the norm, collective security is unlikely to
provide a solution even if the great powers share its basic assumptions.

Constructivism: Constructivists insist that international relations cannot be reduced to rational

action and interaction within material constraints or within institutional constraints at the
international and national levels. For them, state interaction must be understood as an action
that is shaped by identities over time. Institutions and actors mutually affect each other.
Institutions have both a regulative and constitutive role: regulative because they set basic
norms of conduct and constitutive because they ascribe meanings to those norms. Without
constitutive norms actions would be unintelligible. States have basic state goals, like physical
security, stability, economic development, etc. However, how they achieve these goals depends
on their social identities. Furthermore, constructivists accept that anarchy is the characteristic
of the international system, but that by itself doesn’t mean anything.

Constructivism emphasizes that the international system consists of social relationships as well
as material capabilities. But the the social relationships are the ones that give meaning to the
material capabilities. If constructivism’s utility as an explanatory theory remains unclear, it is
still productive as a theoretical framework. How and why particular social structures and
relationships develop among different states is a matter for historical research and analysis.

Democratic peace: The concept of "democratic peace" posits that democracies rarely go to war
with one another. While this correlation raises questions about the nature of democracy, some
scholars argue that other factors might explain the lack of wars between democracies, such as
external threats like the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Even if a causal link exists, various
factors have been proposed to explain it. For example, democratic leaders may be restrained
by public opposition to war costs, but this argument doesn't fully account for why democracies
engage in conflicts with non-democratic states.

Another explanation focuses on the institutional checks and balances within democracies that
inhibit aggressive behavior, although this also acknowledges that democracies are not entirely
unified and can harbor authoritarian elements. The most compelling argument suggests that a
democratic culture of negotiation fosters a preference for peaceful conflict resolution among
democratic states, in contrast to the hostility often directed toward non-democracies.

The implications for world order remain contentious. Optimists believe that the spread of
democracy will lead to greater global peace, while pessimists warn that without active efforts
to promote democratization, conflicts will persist, particularly involving non-democratic states.
Supporting democratization requires significant resources from democracies, which will likely
be offered only if there's a broader recognition of the mutual benefits for peace and prosperity.

Geopolitics: Geography significantly influences human affairs, shaping the identity, history, and
development of nation-states, as well as their international relations. Geopolitics studies how
geographical factors—such as location, climate, resources, and terrain—impact state behavior
and foreign policy.

Despite its association with Nazi Germany, geopolitics remains a valid field of study,
emphasizing how geography affects state objectives. For instance, a landlocked state has
different foreign policy goals compared to a coastal one.

Ultimately, geopolitics posits that geographical factors heavily influence a state's economic and
military capacity, positioning in global hierarchies, and interactions with neighbors. However,
some scholars argue that in the 21st century, geopolitics may be eclipsed by "chronopolitics,"
where the speed of communication and transportation has transformed the importance of
geographical location.

Great powers: After the Soviet Union's dissolution, the concept of great power has evolved.
While Germany and Japan possess significant economic strength, they lack the political will and
military potential to be great powers. Conversely, China is expected to emerge as a key global
player due to its growing economy and military.
The European Union (EU) is at a crossroads, struggling with its identity and effectiveness,
especially as its foundational Franco-German relationship weakens. Currently, the U.S. remains
the only superpower but acts differently than during the Cold War, often catalyzing multilateral
action rather than unilaterally dictating policy.

As the twenty-first century progresses, the U.S.'s ability to maintain its superpower status is
uncertain, with other powers likely to emerge. The dynamics of how these powers coexist will
significantly impact international stability.

Hegemony: Hegemony, in its original Greek sense, means "leadership." In international

relations, a hegemon is the leading state within a group of states, implying a degree of social
order and organization. Hegemony requires both material power and structural power,
allowing a state to influence other states without direct coercion.

Antonio Gramsci's work expands the concept beyond economic determinism, highlighting the
complex relationships between economic structure, state, and civil society. He emphasized the
state's role in creating alliances and providing cultural and moral leadership. Gramsci argued
for a strategic socialist "war of position" in civil society, moving away from direct confrontation
with the state. His ideas broaden the concept of hegemony to include cultural and ideological
influence, not just military or economic dominance.

Hegemony at a global level, therefore, isn't solely about material dominance or military power,
as realists suggest, nor necessarily a public good, as some liberal internationalists argue.

Idealism: is a variation of liberal internationalism. The term was given by realists, arguing that
idealists were out of touch with current thinking and that they put moral principles before
practical consequences. Idealism came to prominence after the first world war, and the best
summary of the thinking of this period is Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” (basis for the
settlement of the first world war and for the league of nations). Generally speaking, the
idealists shared a belief in progress and were of the view that the procedures of parliamentary
democracy and deliberation under the rule of law could be firmly established in international
diplomacy. Hence why they placed so much faith in the league of nations. A central
characteristic of idealism is the belief that what unites human beings is more important than
what divides them. Idealism lost credibility after the collapse of the League of Nations and the
outbreak of World War II. Though idealists aimed to replace European Realpolitik with the
League, it became a forum reflecting national interests. British Marxist E. H. Carr's critique in
The Twenty Years' Crisis (1946) further discredited idealism. Carr argued that idealists, whom
he called utopians, were naïve about power dynamics and the nature of international relations.
He viewed idealism as a product of the dominant powers, lacking a universal moral code. Carr
contended that not all states have an interest in peace, especially those outside the established
international order. States that benefit from the status quo are more likely to pursue peace,
while idealism wrongly assumed a natural harmony of interests among nations. Since the
outbreak of war in 1939, idealism has been regarded as an example of both policy failure and
theoretical naïveté in international relations.

Liberal internationalism: Liberal internationalism is essentially a project to transform

international relations so that they conform to models of peace, freedom, and prosperity
allegedly enjoyed within constitutional liberal democracies such as the United States. The US
have, in fact, been the leaders of promoting liberalism for the whole world. 

 Commercial Liberalism: Advocates for free trade and economic interdependence

between nations. The idea is that such interdependence reduces the incentive to use
force by making the cost of conflict higher, and that it may weaken political loyalties to
the nation-state by uniting people economically.
 Republican Liberalism: Focuses on spreading democracy, arguing that democratic
governments, accountable to their citizens, are less likely to pursue aggressive policies
that benefit economic or military elites. There's debate over whether democracies are
generally more peaceful than non-democratic states.
 Regulatory or Institutional Liberalism: Emphasizes the role of international institutions
in promoting cooperation and the rule of law. It contrasts with realism, which holds
that international anarchy always prioritizes national over collective interests. Liberal
internationalists believe that institutions can help moderate the security concerns of
states.

It should be noted that liberal internationalism is fundamentally reformist rather than

revolutionary. First, it is clear that the three main types of liberal internationalism do not
necessarily support one another; in fact they are often contradictory. For example, in an era of
globalization, how can states represent and be accountable to their citizens when they must
adapt their macroeconomic policies to the constraints of global capitalism? Moreover, it
remains unclear whether commercial liberalism promotes or impedes republican liberalism.
Second, liberal internationalists face challenges in applying their values globally. While peace,
individual freedom, and the rule of law may coexist within liberal democracies, these principles
don't always translate smoothly to the international level. A key dilemma is how to deal with a
world that includes both liberal and non-liberal states, raising the question of whether non-
liberal states should be accommodated or coerced into reform. Third, there is a tension
between liberal cosmopolitanism and liberal internationalism. Cosmopolitanism prioritizes
individual autonomy and views the state with suspicion, while internationalism accepts the
state's central role. This conflict is evident in debates over humanitarian intervention and self-
determination. Liberal internationalists struggle with balancing the protection of human rights
(which may justify intervention) against the respect for state sovereignty and the rule of
international law. Similarly, they support self-government but are cautious of how self-
determination often subordinates individual freedoms to national interests. In addressing its
dilemmas, liberal internationalism either relies on the belief in historical progress to resolve
challenges or shifts toward a more radical, cosmopolitan approach. The first option risks
becoming complacent, while the latter opens it up to realist critiques of idealism. However,
being labeled an idealist might be a minor sacrifice for adhering to ethical principles.

Middle power: The term "middle power" is more rhetorical than analytical. While terms like
"superpower" or "great power" can objectively categorize states based on attributes, "middle
power" is problematic because it encompasses too many diverse states, leading to significant
differences in behavior. Unlike great powers, middle powers don't behave similarly, and
attempts to create lists of middle powers, such as Carsten Holbraad’s 1975 GNP-based list,
highlight the diversity within the group. The term emerged during the formation of the UN,
when Canada and Australia sought recognition beyond being small powers. They used "middle
power" to emphasize their role as good international citizens, advocating for a rule-based
international order and stronger institutions.
Therefore, it is dangerous to use "middle power" to describe states whose foreign policies may
be shaped more by circumstances than any inherent national character.

Multilateralism: This term refers to three characteristics or principles underlying relations

among states or groups of states and other actors in specific issue areas (particularly trade).
The principles are non-discrimination, indivisibility, and diffuse reciprocity.

 Non-discrimination: States must honor treaty obligations without bias or exceptions

based on alliances or national interests. An example is the Most Favoured Nation
(MFN) status in trade agreements under GATT and the WTO.

 Indivisibility: Commitments in areas like collective security must apply equally to all
members of a treaty, with peace considered indivisible among the signatories.

 Diffuse reciprocity: Cooperation must be sustained over time rather than episodic,
fostering trust and transforming state self-interest in long-term multilateral
agreements.

The end of the Cold War and global economic integration have renewed interest in
multilateralism, particularly in areas like trade and the environment, where organizations like
the WTO and transnational networks are influential. However, debates persist over whether
regionalism and multilateralism will clash or complement each other. Additionally, multilateral
cooperation varies by region, with less political multilateralism in Asia-Pacific compared to
North America and Western Europe, partly due to the absence of U.S.-introduced multilateral
norms after World War II in Asia.

National interest: The concept of "national interest" is often vague and can be easily
manipulated, especially by politicians, to justify foreign policy decisions. Despite being less
studied today, it remains crucial for evaluating a government's performance. The term has two
meanings: it reflects the needs of a state and is used to support specific policies. Determining
the criteria that connect the national interest to these policies is challenging.

Three approaches are outlined:

1. Elitist Approach: The national interest is defined by government leaders, as they are
best positioned to decide on policies. However, this fails to distinguish good policies
from bad ones.

2. Realist Approach: This focuses on power and security in an anarchic international

system. While emphasizing the importance of power, this view can be tautological and
doesn't account for human agency.

3. Democratic Approach: The national interest is best identified through democratic

processes, as it reflects the nation's preferences. This approach contrasts with both
elitist and realist views, emphasizing the importance of democratic procedures in
determining the national interest.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization: NATO, also known as the Atlantic Alliance, was established
in 1949 with its headquarters in Brussels. Its mission is to protect the security and freedom of
its members, maintain stability in the Euro-Atlantic region, prevent and manage international
crises, and promote democracy, human rights, and international law. It operates as a collective
defense organization, where an attack on one member is considered an attack on all.
positivism

Postmodernism: Postmodernism in international relations, emerging in the 1980s, rejects the

idea of universal or absolute truth, claiming that all truth-claims are based on subjective
metanarratives. These narratives, often rooted in Enlightenment ideals like realism or
liberalism, cannot be objectively adjudicated, as they reflect specific worldviews.

Postmodernists critique these grand narratives for masking new forms of oppression, such as
liberalism leading to capitalism or Marxism to authoritarianism. They argue that truth is often a
tool of power, used to exclude and oppress "the other." Ethically, they advocate for respecting
differences and resisting large-scale liberation projects, favoring local resistance instead.

In international relations, postmodernists emphasize how knowledge and power are

interconnected, critiquing traditional IR theories that seek ideals like order or freedom. They
engage in "deconstruction" to expose how power shapes dominant discourses. Reception is
mixed: some welcome postmodernism's critique of rigid epistemological norms, while others
see it as promoting relativism and undermining efforts toward justice or reform.

Power: Power in international relations is the ability of a state to influence other states or
events, both internally (autonomy) and externally (influence over others). Power is often seen
as a means to achieve goals like security, prestige, or territory, and can be exercised through
persuasion, rewards, threats, or force. However, power is complex and difficult to measure, as
it depends on the context, the resources available, and how effectively a state can convert
potential power into actual influence.

National power is dynamic, influenced by factors such as military capability, economic

resources, and political unity, all of which can change rapidly due to events like wars,
revolutions, or technological advancements. Power also has a reputational aspect, as states can
project power based on perceived strength, even if it's not fully realized.

There is a distinction between relative power (influence over others) and structural power
(shaping the frameworks within which states interact). Structural power can affect areas such
as knowledge, finance, security, and production, shaping the global order. For instance, the U.S.
retains structural power, despite relative power shifts, due to its ability to influence these
broader structures.

Realism: Realism presents a pessimistic view of international politics, emphasizing survival over
progress. Within a sovereign state, politics may lead to moral development, but beyond its
borders, states operate in an anarchic world marked by constant power struggles. Realists
argue that order, not justice, is the best outcome possible, achieved through a balance of
power. They draw on history to show that war and conflict are inevitable due to human
nature’s flaws, rejecting utopian ideas like perpetual peace.

Despite its dominance after 1945, realism has faced criticism. Hans Morgenthau’s concept of
power was deemed imprecise, and realism was criticized for failing to address the growing
economic and institutional interdependence between states. The idea that wars are driven by
human nature led to further criticism, as it overlooks instances of peace. Neorealism,
championed by Kenneth Waltz, shifted focus to international anarchy rather than human
nature, arguing that wars arise due to the anarchic structure of the global system.

While neorealism addressed some issues, it was critiqued for its scientific claims, its defense of
Cold War bipolarity, and its neglect of ethical concerns. Today, scholars debate whether realism
is still relevant in a globalized world where intrastate violence and non-state actors play a larger
role. However, realism’s adaptability suggests it will continue to be a key framework in
understanding international relations.

Security dilemma: The concept of the security dilemma arises in an anarchic international
system where states must rely on their own efforts for protection. As states seek to increase
their power for security, they inadvertently make others feel threatened, leading to a cycle of
mutual insecurity. This dynamic, where one state's defensive measures provoke military
responses from others, can result in a decrease in security for all, and is seen as a key factor in
the lead-up to conflicts like World War I.

The security dilemma stems more from the international system's structure than from states'
aggressive intentions. Defense planners often prepare for worst-case scenarios, fueling further
distrust. The intensity of the dilemma varies depending on the ability to distinguish between
defensive and offensive weapons, and the political relationships between states. For example,
states with close ties, like Australia and New Zealand, do not experience a security dilemma,
while tensions in regions such as sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East still make the
dilemma dangerous.

Sovereignty: The concept of sovereignty originated with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648,
marking the recognition of territorial boundaries and non-interference within states. This led to
the weakening of external religious authority and the rise of the secular nation-state.
Sovereignty, originally linked to individual rulers, shifted to popular sovereignty, where the
people acknowledge a central authority within a territory. Importantly, sovereignty is not
contingent on a government's moral approval but on the recognition of its governing authority.

In international law, sovereign states are equal, forming the basis of the United Nations.
Sovereignty includes legal equality, respect for other states, territorial inviolability, and the
freedom to choose political systems. However, sovereignty is not absolute; states can limit it by
entering international treaties.

The concept of sovereignty also influenced European colonialism, where colonial powers drew
borders around nations, often disregarding existing ethnic or cultural divisions. Sovereignty
became tied to nationalism, which reinforced the idea that political power should reflect
cultural homogeneity.

In recent years, sovereignty has been widely debated due to globalization and the rise of quasi-
states and failed states. Some scholars distinguish between negative sovereignty (the right to
non-interference) and positive sovereignty (the ability to effectively govern). The erosion of
sovereignty in globalized economies and questions about humanitarian intervention have also
brought sovereignty back into normative discussions. The changing dynamics of sovereignty
are now explored across time and space, making it a central topic in modern international
relations.