1. 제목 Chapter 2. What is International Relations? 서강대학교 교수학습센터 부소장 정유성
왜 사이버캠퍼스가 필요한가?
지식기반사회 도래, 급격한 기술의 발전은 고등교육기관의 위기를 가져오고 있음
대부분의 대학들은 예산감소, 학생수감소, 학생들의 다양함이라는 문제에 직면
테크놀로지 활용이 교육개혁의 방법으로 논의됨 지식기반사회 학습자는 자기주도학습능력, 협동학습능력, 사고하는 능력이 요구됨(강의로는 지식창출, 활용법을 가르치기에 부족)
서강대학교 교수학습센터
부소장 정유성

2. What is International Relations?
and how does it differ from other fields of study?
IR – from contacts and interactions among countries,
such as political interactions among governments, wars, alliances, diplomatic relations, negotiations, and threats of military force.
Traditionally, students of IR have studied these political interactions almost exclusively.
However, economic, cultural, religious, racial and ethnic ties, and relations between people living in separately organized states may also fall within the proper sphere of international relations.

3. As a field of study, IR - relatively new and is difficult to define precisely.
First appearance as a field of study in American universities only about eighty years ago, the study of history, economics, and government (or politics) comes from the ancient Greeks.
To be sure, IR – understood usually as an adjunct to history or politics.
In most American universities, IR - considered one of the major subfields of political science.
But, students of international relations are not same as political scientists.
International relations is interdisciplinary in character and, thus, defining its precise boundaries as a field is difficult.

4. Student of international relations includes
mathematicians (who build mathematical models of arms races),
economists (who study the international trade and monetary system),
psychologist (who study the role of perception in international decision-making)
lawyers (who study international law),
theologians (who study the moral implications of international policy),
historians (who study diplomatic history and the evolution of the state system),
sociologists (who study group behavior among nations),
and anthropologists (who study and compare the interactions of cultures).

5. Even physicists and biologists study international relations.
Physicists - active in the nuclear weapons filed and
- voiced concerns about the impact of new weapons systems on IR.
Biologist -studied theories of aggression in the animal kingdom and their applicability to international phenomena such as war.
The unifying thread among students in these different fields is the study of interactions between and among separately constituted governments, societies, and peoples.

6. Charles McClelland’s definition of IR:
“The outermost boundaries of international relations are suggested if we imagine all of the exchanges, transactions, contacts, flows of information, and actions of every kind going on at this moment of time between and among the separately constituted societies of the world.
To this picture in the mind, we should add the effects created within societies from all such interflowing events in earlier times both of the immediate and the more remote past. Finally, the stream of these actions and responses should be conceived as moving on to the future of tomorrow and beyond, accompanied by the expectations, plans, and proposals of all observers of the phenomena.”

7. the level-of-analysis problem.
To add some clarity and order to the exploration of the various dimensions of international relations, it is useful to differentiate
the five levels of analysis:
(1) the individual level,
(2) the subnational group level,
(3) the national level,
(4) the regional level, and
(5) the international (or systemic) level.

8. the individual level
key decision makers such as presidents and foreign minister - an impact on international relations.
Their thoughts, perceptions, and attitudes can determine whether a nation goes to war or stays at peace.
(2) the subnational group level
the behaviors of subnational interest groups, bureaucracies, governmental departments, and agencies that influence or formulate a country's foreign policy should also be studies carefully.

9. nation-states are the dominant actors in IR,
(3) the national level,
nation-states are the dominant actors in IR,
and their behavior has attracted the great amount of interest among students and scholars.
(4) the regional level
trade blocs, alliances, and international organizations to help achieve their mutual interests.

10. an international environment as well.
(5) the international (or systemic) level.
an international environment as well.
all international interactions, regional systems, and the overall distribution of power between states.
The serious student of international relations should be interested in how the structure of the international system affects the behavior of states.
how entities at each level of analysis affect international relations,
how each level of analysis is affected by the other levels.

11. So, international relations is the study of states and other actors and their interaction at the five levels of analysis.
about the history of IR - how development in the United States?
Unlike most other disciplines in the related social-behavioral sciences, international relations developed synthetically.
That is,
grew out of adjustments to changes in world politics and trends in the related social sciences, rather than out of experimentation and discovery.

12. no series of logical steps that led to new, systematic advances.
identifying at least three, or possibly five, states of development that led to the present status of international relations.
In theoretical terms, consisting of both analysis and synthesis, international relations as a field of study went through
three distinct periods of development:
- traditional,
- behavioral,
- and post-behavioral.

13. in historical terms, IR - five phases of development.
(1) the first phase - the historical phase (prior to World War I) –
the emphasis was on reconstructing the past through documentary evidence and legalistic interpretations.
(2) the second phase (after World War I) –
a strong belief that the present had been formed from the past and
that this trend could be projected into the future.
Organization and a world order based on the peace settlement at Versailles were emphasized.

14. (3) The Third phase (between the two world wars)
The great powers interplay and the military strategy of geopolitics
(4) The fourth phase - after World War II
the context of a bipolar world overshadowed by ideology and the realist-versus-idealist controversy.
In the late 1950s Hans Morgenthau's realist explanation
the state actors,
concerning with stability in a conflict-prone world system,
maximizing power in the name of national interest
Until about 1970 the underlying realist assertion that nation-states were the only actors in the global arena was never challenged.

15. (5) fifth phase - in the 1970s the post-behavioral,
a triangular "inter-paradigm" debates (i. e., the realist versus the pluralist and structuralist), focusing on the assumption of a state-centric world.
The realist : criticized for neglecting to deal with important actors such as intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and nongovernmental organizations(NGOs), terrorists, ethnic groups, and religious movements.
: also accused of not paying attention to the state's transnational and interdependent role in a "cobweb" context of world societal relations.

16. 1970s, the beleaguered realist regrouped under the label to neo-realists
- launched a counterattack with very different characteristics from traditional realism.
- adopted a structural mode of analysis that was antithetical to the traditional realism exported from Europe.
1980s, the behavioralists' criticisms of the realist
– importance of the economy and its political impact on IR:
- the new field of IR called international political economy,
which focuses attention on economic matters, nonstate actors, interdependence, and issue areas, became institutionalized.

17. Neo-realist (Robert Keohane and Stephen Krasner) - their claim by studying the U. S. role in international finance as a function of world capitalist development.
On the other hand,
the Marxist version of IPE (Immanuel Wallerstein) rejected both realism and neo-realism, focusing instead on dependency theory, imperialism, and the crises and contradictions in capitalism.

18. Global modelers - focused on the dynamics of global capitalism
- but were not influenced by neo-Marxist studies of imperialism and dependency.
- mostly systems engineers and computer modelers who are concerned with world problems that transcend national boundaries, such as the population explosion and environmental degeneration.
- Their goal : to reconceptualize the planetary situation by including all aspects of an interdependent global environment.

19. Today, three paradigms (or major explanations) of the international system and the world society as a whole;
(1) realism : the world society is a system of "billiard ball" states in intermittent collision.
(2) pluralism : the world society as a network of numerous relationships in a cobweb-like arrangement and
(3) structuralism: the world society as a many-headed octopus whose powerful tentacles constantly such wealth from the weakened peripheries toward its powerful centers or heads - the major powers.
Throughout the 1980s the debate about the respective merits of these three schools of thought became a focal point in international relations.

20. fundamental differences of each paradigm : the question of
- whether the scope of international relations should be limited to state-centric international politics as the realists argue,
- or whether it should encompass additional actors such as the IGOs and NGOs as the pluralist maintain,
- or whether it should envelop the entire world system at all levels with an emphasis on the economic mode of production as the structuralists argue.
The answer to this question will also determine whether concepts such as deterrence and alliance (in realist terms) are more important than ethnicity and interdependence (in pluralist terms), or exploitation and dependence (in structuralist terms).

21. Of course, several other perceptions and explanations of world society, which can be attributed to differences in methodology and conceptualization.
no consensus in the IR discipline on how to observe, define, measure, compare, and classify phenomena. -> Therefore, in many instances the process becomes more or less a matter of individual choice.
This is not to imply, however, that the field lacks structure, focus, or disciplinary rigor. Thus our task here is -
not to condemn or endorse these schools of thought
but to identify them in their proper context and to compare them to other approaches, always with the prevailing question: What is new in the discipline of international relations?

22. As stated earlier, changes in international relations are
- not derived from laboratory experimentation (a series of logical step leading to new and systematic advances in orderly progression)
- but from adjustments to changes in global politics.
In other words, global transformations and emergent trends have produced new conditions and phenomena that must be analyzed and synthesized in order to be incorporated into the discipline as new knowledge.

23. During this process, new issues and cleavages are addressed by testing old theories and approaches that are relevant to understanding the changes taking place in the global arena.
Because change in endemic to international relations, emphasis must be placed
not only on different approaches through which international phenomena are explained,
but also on the factors that produce change and impact the political actors on the global stage.

24. Therefore, ours does not follow one arbitrarily selected approach that we consider "the right approach,"
instead, we emphasize issues - new and old  - that encompass all dimensions of contemporary international relations and the analytical perspectives that have been devised to understand them.
Perhaps our strongest motivation for this issue-oriented approach has been the absence of a general theory and a lack of consensus among scholars about the exact scope and method of international relations.