Today’s Topics: Future of IR Will the world become safer or more dangerous in future? Will the world become safer or more dangerous in future? Will international politics change fundamentally in future? Will international politics change fundamentally in future?

Is the World Becoming Safer or More Dangerous? The Future of International Relations

More Dangerous Huntington 1. Conflict in future not between states or political ideologies; instead between cultures or civilizations. Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American, African (possibly!). Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American, African (possibly!). 2. Closest to domestic politics or realist approaches.

More Dangerous Mearsheimer 1. We may soon miss stability of Cold War arrangements. 2. Stability of Cold War: bipolar, rough balance of power, nuclear deterrence. 3. Europe will become multipolar  instability, conflict. 4. Clearly neorealist.

Safety & Stability Keohane & Nye 1. States no longer only key actors. 2. Zones of democratic peace where “hard power” not so important; still important in nondemocratic zones. 3. Yet importance of differences declining in information age. 1. Interdependence  pressures for open information and democracy. 2. “Soft power” – nongovernmental actors rising in power.

Safety & Stability Fukuyama 1. Triumph of liberalism (capitalism & liberal democracy) over all ideological competitors  no more conflict, end of history. 2. Past major competitors: fascism & communism. 3. Potential minor future competitors: religious fundamentalism & nationalism.

Is the World Changing??

Realists 1. IR changed somewhat since Cold War, but not fundamentally. 2. Changed: Bipolar system  unipolar system. 1. Broader superpower goals possible. 3. Same: actors (states), interests (security), determinant (balance of power). 4. History as repeating stages in cycle (circular).

Liberals 1. More substantial changes (neoliberals less revolutionary). 2. Globalization  more cooperation, rise of nonstate actors. 3. Changes may be permanent. 1. History is progress (line, not a circle).

Constructivists 1. Constant change in IR due to changing norms – may create fundamental shifts. 2. Changes will not repeat, may or may not be progressive. 1. History a line, but not always happy.

Domestic Politics & Decisionmaking 1. Dynamics remain unchanged unless domestic values/ structures change within states. 2. Democratic peace one general argument that expects big change (due to values/ structure change). 3. History may be a line, but likely weak slope.

Marxism 1. World changing: capitalist expansion & consolidation. 2. Eventual crisis of overproduction, revolution by impoverished, system collapse. 3. Possible reform to prevent revolution. 4. History a line of progressive stages, not circle.

Feminism 1. World largely unchanging: exploitation and devaluing of women/ feminine remains constant. 2. Only the forms of exploitation change. 3. History simply oscillates around a point.

Summary Minor Change Realism Realism Domestic Politics & Decisionmaking Domestic Politics & Decisionmaking Feminism Feminism Major Change Liberalism Constructivism Marxism