• Fukoyma thinks coat dialectical struggle has ended with victory of liberalism

• glob. will not face any barriers bc of east west conflict
• glob. was desired & embraced, homogenising—> creating collective entity
• glob. did not create diff. heterogeneity
• glob. intl system the more interconnected the less fight with each other
• taking Fukuyamas understanding to its core
• more optimistic future, criticism of cw period—> now constant probability of war declined,
• liberalism has won over
• Realists more pessimistic idea in pcw period bc cw generated stability ; bc we knew the threat, the adversary, where the conflict comes from
• bop btw 2 superpowers
• you know your enemy—< you are safe
• proliferation of dangers—> proliferation of threats
• —> bc bipolarity causes atbiliry (?), its collapse causes fail of powers
• collapse of Soviet Union made certain pow states nuclear states
• irrational actors have increased
• Cuban Missile assuming state leaders rational
• with collapse of cw—> failure of states
• some of states taking cannot control nuclear arsenal
• —> besides the states might use nuclear power for more regional issues, bc adversary might not have mutual asserted destruction (<— kept cw cold)
• newly independent states, using nuclear weapons
• machiavelli: states men need certain characteristics
• —> its not always dominance—> its his ppl in power
- bipolarity formed stability
• most important pessimist Huntington
• clash of civilisation book (melds pic)
• Western Dominant Civilisation—> 2 phenomenon
• —> 1. kin country syndrome (on turkey)
• in new emerging pcw states are going to chine (?) on civil. identity : turkey—> asking with Azerbaijan
41

• turkey aligning with Azerbaijan —> Karabakan
• one of the most complex crisis of this civilisation approach taking place in torn countries —> again turkey as example
• he says turkey is a torn country
• the elite belongs to Europe the rest of population to muslim—> in away doomed bc always apart will always want to be part of Europe, the other one part of islam
• there are many diff. criticisms to think that identity politics drew conflicts
• Kaldor imp. figure having discussed driving community being conflicted Serbia
Herzegowina& Bosnia—>90-95 torn in a bloody war
• —> war of identities she underlines in her book that the key to new wars is not necessarily owning the collapse order processes of glob. having coherently fastened identity
• bc of glob, making it homogene, heterogenic, we have developed new conflicts based on identity
• this identity is necessarily civili
• for K. intrastate conflict btw those who have managed to become part of liberalism
• Kaldor: emerge of erosion of autonomous state
• making wars like WW, interstate wars are diff., attack, kill etc
• argues there is pressure from below through anew way of being integrated —> monopoly of legitimacy used violence eroded from above and below
• —> creating intrastate conflicts—> diff btw identities
• Tilly’s concept he emphasises that how the state became the nation state that we know bc the most efficient wars were fought by nation states —< need to built weapons etc
• Tilly demonstrates that ruler o 15/16th cent found out best way to built armies was through the working of nation states—> taxes—> aiding weapon system estab.
- what created the state was the war
• wars make state, state make wars, most effect. made by nation states
• Kaldor conceptualisation nature of world wars changed, polit. maybe also change
• if was made nation state, will it change the nature of wars
• if we think of the key of Westphalia is the reason war, what if the key changes
• ancient identities were not thought, but which review bc of collapse of state-> is state able to cope new ideas of war
42

• glob. only increases, diff. of identities, cleavage btw cosmopolitan vs particularistic identities
-
Kaldor sees
• identities are boundless, all state identities equals ind. identity, then no conflict
• but if ind. identity not common state identity >then war
• change in warfare, means of how wars are conducted have changed
• —< not only armies fighting wars, guerrillas at diff levels —> see sera
• many diff groups have capacity to wage war, wars which are smaller but based on deep entrenched differences
• intl. world much worse place, we don’t know here the threat comes from
• what is happening to sovereignty
• radical alternative : Chomsky attacking basic premisses of both liberals and to some extent of the realists
• rad. alternative questions optimums of realism for him nothing changed with cw, exploitation continued in a different disguise
• the basic working of intl. system 89-90, same exploitation by rich of poor, and the general pattern of society, bc basic working of intl. glob. —-> is continued after cw, by leftist
• underlines that US is superpower, multilateralism
• peace brining champ is not force of good at all—> making multinational companies richer
• US as imperial expansionary power
• rd —> Chomsky promotes democracy for own purposes
• US depends on manufactured concept
• humanitarian intervention is an old styled imperialism
• inline with Chomsky, Roberts Coxs promotes an idea that nothing changed from cw-pcw
• since Keynes exploitative word order
• Realism chanGe came ins mass prod. , from. social. change to neo-liberal star
• the real change we must look at political coney
• 2nd: non of the structures in pcw new, all remains same
43

• —> national security, surveillance system—> so there is nothing new
• rd world order not new, new emancipatory challenges
• for liberals , less wars Democratic World Treaty, cooperative place of liberal economic
• Huntigton: new kinds of wars, actors of wars changed , from states to super or sub stats actors—> world more of a war zone
• radicals who don’t see change in working of intl. system based on exploitation
• now world in a disorder st Recitation - 4th November - Monday
• intentional society —> elements : sovereignty nonintervention institutions diplomacy, international law, bop,
• diplomacy means formal comm
• ill law—> body of laws binding actors
• bop refers to preventing any state of domination
• principle od sovereignty. bc conflating spheres of other powers
• evolution of into society power struggle—> helped centralised military machines to get estab—< provided efficient tool to be sovereign and independent mother instituion of diplomacy : italy see meldas picture, bop came to fruition geographical discoveries gave impetus to intl. law bc of how to tackle and how to specify status foreign territories
—> main westphalia event peace of 1648 as regarded
44

westphalia not. a change o everything overnight imprint bc formally declared sovereignty snd nonintervention frist time treaty of utrecht ended spanish succession wars globalisation undermines the fact that nations can mange own countries, even if states are main players in world politics —> states not holding monopoly
04/11/2019- 7th Lec- Tuesday
• in pcw more or less optimism in the sense of opportunity to make intl org. as UN work—
> multilateralism
• indivisible nature of intl security—> implementation od+f security council
• mJOR concern of pcw nature from interstate into intrastate conflicts
• emergence of new wars—> changed into issues of identity
• shift in nature of conflict, from btw states to within the sates
• new question what dow e do within the states
• realist understanding : not interested what is going on within the sates
• does into comm. have responsibility to tackle crisis wherever they happen
• is sovereignty given ? or is it sth conditional upon keeping minimum standards of human rights
• what do we do if sovereign states start aggression within their own states
• major principles of 1648 challenged during
• soveeinty became conditional (ask her why)
• no justice—> justice vs order
• ——————> tackled this in 5th Lec
• indivisibility of security
• —> not only about wars, security challenges with the stated
• 1990’s—> emergence of multilateralism—> states, Un all worked together at diff level, more inclusive system—> Unipolarity emerging as US leadership
45

• this unipolarity was proud to make sure to collar with staes and diff. actors at same time > multilateralism
• at the same time growing normative concern—> justice debate
• at this time from interstate to intrastate, multilateralism as method becoming more possible, also time discussing role of state bc state perceived as more or less given
• seen as main actor in intl. system—> but still state constituted major discussion
• but in pcw state was problematised— > in the sense of nonintervention non state actors becoming powerful
• what was our relationship to Westphalia

Download 0.86 Mb.

Share with your friends: