• but an anarchical international society making us coexists at least through

• the ancient Greeks are especially important because it tells us certain traits of the
realist understanding ,the anarchical international system and the Malian
dialogue and the Peloponnesian War.
• The Melians (Athens) said to Peloponnesians (Sparta) if you don’t join the war we we will actually conquer you.
• the strong do what they have to do and the weak has to abide
• the idea that we are talking about the lack of justice in intl politics
• One of the major questions that we are going to deal within our ir -small letters is the issue of justice vs order.
• The issue emphasises in away the duality of morality
• the weak are saying we don't want to fight
• and the the strong the strong do what they have to do and the weak has to abide
• this lack of morality in international politics became an ongoing trait in our current anarchical international system
• in Medieval Europe the emergence of certain practices of norms, certain practices, principles
• —> the emergence of this concept of just wars
• —> what do we mean by just war
• —> before the Medieval period there must be a justifiable cause to kill others
• —> there must be a just war or principle ; today also constitutes one of the important traits of war
• —> there's just war principles emerging in Medieval Europe period
• —> the early intl. society that experiences there must be just cause war there must be proportionality of the means
• —> there must be a possibility to win/loose a war ; you cannot forever with the opponent.
• —> certain principles emerge
• we see from the period between 500 and the beginning of 16th century mostly the Roman Empire, the Bicentennial and the emergence of what we came to know as the Republica Christiania seeking the power of the Pope/the power of Rome,
• religious concerns driving human groups to wage a war with each other, engage in campaigns against each other, and fight with each other
• during this period, the sanctity of the papacy the loyalty, which was turbo
• we have seen, although the emergence of certain secular kings, the loyalty
12

• —> remained mostly until the Reformation period, with, with Roman with the Papacy, the Papacy, you remained as a higher authority and force fought for religious purposes, came to constitute the major issue in European politics
• the emergence of the protestantism seethe nature of transformation from feudal order to the nation states
• after the 15th century the individual loyalty expanding from the immediate feudal Lord to the king
• the legacy and the loyalty shown to the pope, to the papacy shrank consolidated the secular kings
• By the 15th century there has been certain developments
• already have the tradition of diplomats being established in Europe and elsewhere
• the creation of the embassy, the creation of the diplomatic corps especially important because it is a one of the first functions of relations between two entities a permanent embassies being established near the Italian citizen state times being the first practices of diplomacy & becoming our major subject of studied international relations
• By the 15th century we already have the beginnings of the diplomatic corps having apolitical immunity as they represented their own kings
• we see that they have immunity-> you could not kill and or captivate the ambassador
• we seethe institution of diplomacy beginning to be established from our earlier experiences coming into fruition slowly
• we have seen the beginnings of a second important institution in international relations which was the beginning of international law
• we have seen that first negotiations treaties becoming an important force of regulating relations between the studies
• we have seen that the idea that there should be minimum treaties abiding with them as a norm in international relations
• but undermining that the consent of the signing party was a must innternational law being legal only binding for those who signed
• if you don't sign a treaty you're out of the regulation
• but signing treaties between different unions not nation states,at this time- but still different units- and abiding with the contents of the treaty constituted a newly emerging institution in our world and mostly we're talking about the European world
• and it wasn't this time that we started the beginnings of a balance power where we see different groups, different rulers, trying to secure themselves in the European context through building alliances with each other
• the beginnings of the 15th century, for all times and the period that follows until
1648 roles up important dev.
13

• one of them has been the beginning of long travel and discoveries of the New World environments and has brought the concept of colonization
• we see that one of the important issues with the discoveries of the Americas has been the conflict between the warring parties in Europe being transferred to other countries
• the expansion of the European norms, nor values, principles of coexistence between different political units has started to expand through globalization to the new world which was pretty novel actually pretty new
• at this time we have protestanism which has made an impact for Reformation and Renaissance made an impact in the secularization of the political system in Europe
• thus political drivers of political units in Europe shifting from religiously oriented policies, religiously motivated conflicts shifting towards a more secular path
• with the emergence of interest, the concept of interest in behavior of political units, cases of religious revival and making campaigns
• what we see are different political units emerging around this idea of interests of the community, rather than an abstract religious conceptualization- secularization of world.
• ( the Thirty Years War ending at 1648 be the last religiously driven war or named to be the last religiously driven war between two parties- is pretty important.
• interesting discussion in our book questioning whether the 30 years war was actually a religiously motivate
• there are different conceptualizations whether this was religiously motivated or even at the time
• there was the issue of interest emerging in European politics ) Especially in the 1648 where's the context we seethe institutionalisation of this idea of European international society- international in the sense of secular international nation states building three major principles to move the relations among themselves and respecting sovereignty.
• the king is the emperor in his own territory, the principle of nonintervention, and the principle of balance of power as the major principal becoming the principles of coexistence of westfalia
• since then we're talking about a European International Society emerging as coming to dominance mostly through colonization, through imperialism, through different methods of domination, to come to become the international society as we know
• Euroscepticism in understandingvis recently increasingly interested in this idea that international society is a European international society
• Is eurosceptisim of our discipline that we can't understand nation states as given in international system
14

• alternative views in understanding international political developments, world history from a completely different perspective of the East
• whether there could be new conceptualizations to understand the given European international system which became dominate around the whole world are all questions that we are tackling and discussing in international relations,
• international relations or anarchical international society without thought is a European inventio
• it is based on the power struggle between the European states
• it has consolidated itself as a European sovereign, secular state and through European combat—> imperialism has come to occupy the whole world where the political organization of other regions also have to replicate the European experience in building nation states
• this idea that nation states in certain times, certain parts of the world are very artificial, that they have been imposed from outside, that they area result of colonization
• what is given to us as an international society, our own European values, norms, which has very little in common with other regions rules and norms is very much at the core of this discussion
• yet in our discipline international relations-> we can criticize it for being European centered, eurocentric ; we can criticize it for being a European dominated domain we can criticize it for legitimising only European worldviews in understanding intl rel.
• our discipline, international rel. was born & studied in the West
• although recently different especially postcolonial approaches to tackle this eurosceptisim—> creation of alternative ways, studying our intl sytsem
• international society which emerged out of the experience of Europe w two different values of colonization and imperalism
- after 1648 we are in anarcg´hical system
• the loyalty of the secular kings expanding and the loyalty of the sanctity of rule of the papacy shrinking
• we came with the actors of the nation state
• the nation states might not all be purely nationalist, compose of one nation
• the basic function of nation states, as we understand it is that these nation states seek their interests
• seek national interests
• the beauty of the state is to seek national interests not religiously driven or motivated behavior but seek national interest
• this is the core of our thinking about international politics as about
• realism in ir came to dominate our thinking about this period
15

• until today there is the dominant realist international relations which makes us emphasize more the side effects of anarchy in terms of making states to think of themselves alone in intl. relations to survive because there is no higher authority to protect them
• Westfalian state system has established this institution of balance of power
• why do we make institutional balance of power —> the constant practice of balance of power as maintaining the international system
- what is the balance of power
• there are different levels
• there is no one balance of power
• there are different balance of powers
• There are 2 types of balance of powers there can be a global balance of power like seen in the bipolarity as in the of the Cold War, that can be the ideal balance of power
• there are two powers which are able to balance each other, all others bandwagon with these two and there is a constant stability
• also local balance of powers meaning in certain regions states practices of balance of power
• this is balance of power when one state in this anarchy becomes to powerful or more powerful than others ; threatening the survival of other states
• when one state becomes more powerful than others in away that it can dictate other states what to do and dominate them then the idea is that others will come together to balance
• the unity of the others will prevent the state from implementing its will on others one by one
• when one state becomes more powerful than others to a level that others think it's becoming too powerful, it will start dominating us invading us then others form an alliance to check the power of the scroll
• balance of power - when we talk about the Cold War, a perfectly working balance between Soviet Union and the United States
• each power watched each other making sure that one does not become too powerful
• It does not mean that people can display balance of power
• like with the Congress of Vienna 1815 - the the century of peace where many different powers
• Europe perfectly balanced each other to prevent wars but that does not mean that there's not going to be wars
16

Download 0.86 Mb.

Share with your friends: