International Relations

C13(a) - Theories of International Relations (II)

Date: Jun 13 | Time: 01:45pm to 03:15pm | Location: McGill College 2001 1552 - Hybrid session/session hybride (see Zoom details below/voir détails Zoom ci-dessous)

Chair/Président/Présidente : Laszlo Sarkany (Western University)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Laszlo Sarkany (Western University)

Zoom Meeting Link

Realist Self-Determination and Political Legitimacy: Antonio Franceschet (University of Calgary)
Abstract: Building on revisionist scholarship on Realism as a tradition engaged with questions of political legitimacy, the paper asks whether a coherent Realist conception of a right to self-determination is possible, and what that account should look like? Conventional disciplinary histories recount how the most significant mid-20th century Realists included self-determination into a cluster of mistaken efforts to deny power politics leading up to World War 2. The literature on self-determination returns the favour. Realism is viewed as a denial of the moral and legal significance of the principle, and as a theory favouring European great powers that have been the imperialist cause of oppression. This paper argues that many of the most significant political Realists, such as Carr and Morgenthau, were not skeptical about the demands for self-determination, but rather its application through legalistic and moralist political paradigms. I also claim that “new” wave of Realist political theory, which focuses on the demand for the legitimization of coercive ruling systems (see Bernard Williams as an inspiration), provides a critical analysis of domination, yet has not provided an account of self-determination rights, and could fruitfully build on insights of earlier waves of Realist analyses of self-determination.

Don't Believe the Hype: Liberal Ideas, Domestic Politics, and American Hegemony in the 1990s: Brian Bow (Dalhousie University)
Abstract: Some IR realists have argued that America's decision to pursue "engagement" with Russia and China after the Cold War was driven by runaway liberal ideology, and that recent Russian and Chinese revisionism proves it was naive and self-defeating. "Engagement" may have been misguided, but it would be a mistake to see it as a spontaneous eruption of liberal ideology. Most proponents of these policies were motivated mainly by (realist) determination to maintain US hegemony, worried domestic political pressures -- esp. demand for a "peace dividend" and impatience with European and Japanese free-riding -- would undermine America's alliances, and cynically leaned into liberal ideas as a way to rally Americans around a continued commitment to hegemonic leadership. Here I explore the parallel with the Eisenhower-era effort to rally domestic support for early Cold War military spending and alliances, and work through successive post-Cold War administrations' efforts to manage the built-in hypocrisies surrounding America's deeply-conflicted commitment to the "liberal international order." A close look at the case undercuts both generic realist and liberal accounts, and points toward a more complicated view that emphasizes rhetorical temporizing, as a way to sustain permissive (domestic) support for an expansive form of global hegemony.

European identity and its geopolitical implications: An analysis of alignment between public attitudes and contested visions of strategic autonomy: Benjamin Toettoe (University of Montreal), Florent Guntz (University of Montreal), Richard Turcsanyi (Mendel University Brno)
Abstract: Strategic autonomy has become a highly salient buzzword across Europe in recent years. However, the precise definition of the term remains contested and reflects ongoing processes of political contestation from various actors both within and outside of Europe. Regardless, it is clear that ongoing processes of EU integration and cooperation, expressed in both policy and ideational realms, are key to the effective formulation and implementation of any coherent form of European strategic autonomy as a form of foreign strategy. This article focuses on the latter realm and argues that such a strategy must be consistent with EU citizens’ shared sense of identity in order to be politically viable. Using novel public opinion data collected in 19 EU member states in 2020 and 2022, it constructs an index of EU identity and statistically assesses its effects on the foreign alignment preferences of EU citizens. As a result of the data having been collected through two waves carried out before and after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, respectively, a differentiation between contextual effects and ones tied to stable and deeply embedded identarian orientation will also be possible. Through this analysis, the article will yield insight into which of the contested visions of European strategic autonomy are most likely to continue being developed and implemented in the near future. From this, a better understanding of the future geopolitical positioning of the European Union will also emerge in today’s context of emerging multipolarity and intensifying US-China competition.

Deterrence Theories and Iranian Calculus of Deterrence a Critical Assessment: Ali Dizboni (Royal Military College of Canada and Queen's University), Robert Addinall (Royal Military College of Canada), Peter Gizewski (Royal Military College of Canada)
Abstract: This paper offers fresh insights into the concept of deterrence by focusing on the specific characteristics that define Iran's unique calculus of deterrence in contemporary international relations. We begin by revisiting traditional deterrence theories and their limitations in explaining Iran's deterrence strategies. While classical models emphasize the role of military power, our analysis reveals that Iran's calculus extends beyond conventional military capabilities. Furthermore, this paper underscores the importance of understanding Iran's historical experiences, such as the Iran-Iraq War, in shaping its current deterrence posture. These experiences have instilled a deep-seated commitment to self-reliance and resilience, impacting how Iran perceives and responds to external threats. Iran's pursuit of advanced military technologies, including ballistic missiles and its nuclear program, is another focal point. We explore how these capabilities function both defensively and offensively, influencing Iran's regional behavior and the strategies it employs to project power. In addition, we examine Iran's active role in proxy conflicts across the Middle East, analyzing its support for non-state actors and its ability to leverage these relationships as tools of deterrence. Finally, we discuss Iran's diplomatic and communication strategies, emphasizing its use of rhetoric, information warfare, and negotiation tactics to convey deterrence messages effectively. This paper challenges traditional notions of deterrence by highlighting Iran's multifaceted and adaptive approach, offering a comprehensive understanding of the Iranian calculus of deterrence and its implications for regional and global security. It provides valuable insights for policymakers, analysts, and scholars seeking to navigate the complex dynamics of contemporary international relations.

ISIS and the Making of a Transnational Ethno-Religious State: Shehnoor Khurram (York University)
Abstract: The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was officially launched in 2014 to establish a transnational Islamic Caliphate. In the years following, it emerged as a major global actor in world politics, demonstrating significant resilience in constructing an ethno-religious, Westphalian proto-state while fighting a four-pronged war: Iraq to the East, the Kurds to the North, the Assad regime in the West, and airstrikes from above by a US-led coalition. I examine the political-economic logic underpinning ISIS’ emergence and statecraft in Iraq. Bridging complex discourses within state theory, critical security studies, and political economy, I examine how neoliberal globalization has undermined national and human security, which created a vacuum that allowed ISIS to emerge. I argue that neoliberal globalization destabilizes and fragments the state while militarizing the state and non-state actors, contributing to intra-and inter-state conflict. Concurrently, neoliberal globalization produces insecurity and structural violence across national borders, politicizing ethnic/cultural/religious identities. Joint national and human-level insecurity generates violent contestations for state power and the use of terrorism as mechanisms of political change. Three processes have state and human insecurity in this context: (1) neoliberalism and the internationalization of class and state in Iraq and Syria; (2) imperialism; and (3) the failures of the Arab Spring, the spread of sectarianism, and the breakdown of social reproduction. It is within this crisis of political economy that ISIS embarked on its state-making project.