International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues (8th Edition)

.

•••

·,

,

\

ISBN 0-321 - 43603-2

\

ATI:~NAL I T P: , ITI .__.. ._ Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues EIGHTH EDITION

ROBERT ]. ART Brandeis University

ROBERT JERVIS Columbia University

~

ala

•••

~

PEARSON

Longman :\ew York • San Fr.mcisco • Boston London • Toronto • )-dne~· • Tok:o • Singapore • ~ladrid ~ l cxi"'O Cttv , • ~I much • Paris • Cape T0\\11 • Hong Kong • ~l ontreal

BRIEF CONTENTS Editor-in-Chief: Eric St:mo Senior ~larkt>ting ~lanagC'r: Elizabeth Fog~· Production ~lanager: Denise Phillip Pro_iect Coordination. Tt>.\1 Design. and Electronic Paue ~lakcup: tratford Publishing

Detailed Contents

Senices Con~r Designer/~lanager: John Callahan

Con'r 1mages: Left image rottrtesy of Planet Art. Right image courtesy of PhotoDi c Senior Manufacturing Bu~-er: Dennis J. Para Printer and Binder: R. R. Donnelley & Sons Cover Printer: Phoenix Color Graphics

For pemliSl ion to use cop~Tighted material. grateful acknowledgment is made to the cop~Tight holders on the first page of each selection. which are be re b~· made part of this cop}Tight page.

PART2

ubrary of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Intemational politics: enduring concepts and conte mpor.uy i ues I [edited bv] , Robert J. :\ rt, Robert Jenis. -8tb ed. p. cm. locludes bibliographical references.

VII

...

Preface PART 1

••

XIII

ANARCHY AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

1

Power and Principle in Statecraft

7

The Consequences of Anarchy

29

The Mitigation of Anarchy

69

THE USES OF FORCE

137

The Political Uses of Force

I4I

The Political Utility of Force Today

205

The Spread of Nuclear Weapons

239

I SB~ 0-321~2 , alk. paper

l. International relations. 2. World politics-1989- 3. Globalization. I. Art, Robert J.

PART3

11. Jenis, Robert. 1940JZ1242.15i4 200i 327.1-

495

.

XI

58 I

PREFACE

T he Hrst ctli tion of Jnten wtional Politics appeared in 1973. Since then. the field of international relations hac; expe rienc.:cd a dramatic.: enric hme nt in the subje ct:, st11 dicd and the qmJi ty of works pu blisiJ ed. Poli tical economy c.:ame into its own as an itnportant subfi eld in the l 970s. New and itnportant works in the fiekl of security studi es appeared . The li terature on cooperation among states Aourished in the early 1980s, and impo rtant studi es about the environment began to appear in the mid-l 980s. Feminist, post-modernist, and constructivist critiques of the mainstrea m made their appearanc.:e also. ·w ith the end of the Cold War, these new issues came to the fore: hum an rights, the tension between state sovereignty and the obligations of the international communi ty, the global environm ent, chil wars, failed states, and nation-buildin g. The growing dive rsity of the field has closely mirrored the actual developm ents in international relations. As for the previous editions, in fashi oning the eigh th, we have kept in mind both the new developm ents in world politics and the }jterature that has accompanied them. Central to this ec.lition, though, as for the othe r seve n, is our belie f that the realm of internatjo nal politics diffe rs fundame ntall y from that of dom estic politks. Therefore, we have continuec.l to put both the developm ents anc.l the literature in the context of the patterns that stiJJ remain valid for unde rstanding the differences between politics in an anarchjc environment and politics that takes place under a government. As in the previous seven, the theme for thjs edition continues to revolve around enduring concepts and contemp orary issues in world politics. The eighth edition retai ns the four major subdivisi.ons of the seventh edition. We have leA: Part One as it appears in the seve nth edition. Part Two retai ns the three subsections of the seventh editi on, but has a new selection by Bruce Hoffman on teiTorism. Part Thre e has two new selections on globalization -on e by Martin Wolf and another by GeofTrey Garrett. Most of the changes in the eigh th edition come in Part Fou r. We have retained the four subdivisions of the seve nth edition but have added eleven new selec tions: articles by Fare ed Zakaria, Gregory Cause.' Stephen Walt, James Dobbins, James Payne, Thomas Hom er-Dixon, John Browne, Richard Betts and Thomas Christensen, Andrew Moravcsik, Sebastian Mallaby, and Daniel Drezner. The eighth edition of International Politics has fourt een new selections and is a little over 25 percen t new, but it continues to follow the four principles that have guided us thro ughout all previous editions: I . A selection of subjects that, while not exhaustively

of the politic:perience ~f ~age and nation has proved it and we must in a great measure, change the c.'Onsti· tution .of man, before we can make it othernise. ~o institution, not built on the pre· sumptiVe truth ofthese maxims can succeed. I

.10rtGf:NTH.:.t- I S•X PRJNQP'._ES OF POUflCAL REAUSM

Jt \\a'i

1

ho• d n d t nb.r14~d upou in our century by Ma.x \\'e ber'

I1

0 b!iC rvatJon:

Intt.r< t' ,lf ri:ll .twl ideal • no~ ic!eas rlominate direct!}· the acbonc; of r:'e>~- Yd c ~-ttehrt: "imJ•'t. s of th~ ''·odd' c.:rcat(-d by t I1e:.e 1deas have very IJ fteT 1 served as .S\\1tc••es .: mini~e th~:- trach on ,,}, 1(:1, th;ilism maintains that universal moral pnncrples can not be applied to t actions of states in their abst~act universal fon~ulation , but that th~y must be~~ tered through the concrete crrcumstances of tim ~ lKdJH' loc)'K ·tt allllntmnr,, <Jur 0\ ' 11 iud to he lackiHg in qualit ies which the . ( '\{ 1k,• lt IMs .tlso be t•n suK_!!PSld th at , alth ough 111 0r c w omen are en s~ tcrrn~ ,, ,rJd of public polic~ ·. the)' are more comfo1tabli.' dc uling with On l'rc !>C:: o IJ ' · c1ut'lllk· be.en t:r. iti.dz1c:.dh·lor his lack of SCJ~n I (; SIX pnn St'O"er . c:otu-'d l)(':" utCK. Lcu. ··' '" \l oreQ\·""r . le nuct,..,~ n "n-;.Nno ~e prim•~ con. tituti,·e element of the _intem~tional _ y. tern for \loreen . n

,u1J 0 tJ1er realists. i_ no longer ~bl~ to deal \\1th an mcre~_mgl~· pluralistic arra~au from eIements 111 111 ema J · : • rill . c . . ogy. . tl tJserv ations this concl usronalis "' prese nt c1 remuust refonnuJati D n,,..,ng on 1ese 0 L • • . . f , l . · on 1 of Morgenthit~.:, Polit icol Tlteory and tion of the intemaoonal sy~tem. eeN · . Princeton Unjversity Pres.. 1979). pp. 3-5-..so 1 R 10 f'10 1s (Pnnceton. 1 -1•• Intemationo e ' n. . Be ond Borders (Syracuse. ;-.l.L Syracusc University and Stanlev HofTmann, vtttws y . Press, 198i). chap. fl. raJ d . 1 pment are described and discussed in Hobert Kegan ·s staaes o mo eve o (C I l . rg Ill 1 K 14. o >e c · bl . . Pmcess in Human Development ant )ric ge, Mass.: The Evolving Self Pro em ant1 . H d University Press, J982), chap. 2· . _ _atvar .. an In 0 Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women_ s. De~elupme 11 t 1"- Carol ~~dllig ~~ _H rvard Universitv Press, 1982). See chap. 1 ror Gtlhgan s critique (Cambn ge. ,v,ass.. a J

of Koh~ber~d· th· t toward the end of his life, Morgenthau himselr was aware that 16. There IS e\·1 ence a , _. . . . _ - t· •ere becoming anachrorustic. In a semmar presentation m 19t8 his own prescnp 1ons '' . . d f. . for the con uct o m temational he sugges ted that power politics as the guiding pnnctple . . f 1· · relations had bems art' rentralized and hJe:arc Fc.nnally each is the equ. ' all the otherns · . t' o ' ers stand in relattons o coordi ndation. · . requi red to obev. Inter n l·onal svstems · . 1d mman . none ts , · are ~one is entit e to CO . 'h dering principles of the h'-'O ': 11ctures are dis. decentralized and anard uc. T e ·otr eh other. Domestic politK·.u structures ha .J:rr . deed cont:raf\1 o ea . ve tinctk WJ,erent, m · d rn ' as tlteir concr ete coun terparts. In ternation I . al . tit tions an o ces . go\'ernment· tns u aUed "politics in the a bsence u f' govemment a"1 . m . con'"ts think of thfading udl. the f:uno~:s "i ~JP 0 1 t 'In(' aspect c1f rnan and lt> The error lies in iden tify1ng the soveretgn~· of states with their abiUty to do as tl1ey wish. To say that states are sovereign is not to say that they can do as they please, that they are free of others' influence, that they are able to get what they want. Sovereign states may be hardp ressed all around, constrained to act in ways they would Hke to avoid, and able to tlo ha~dly anything just as they would Uke to. The sovereignty of states has never enttuled their insulation from the effects of other states' actions. To be sovereign and to be dependent are not contradic.1:ory conditions. Sovereign states have seldom led fr~ and easy lives. What then is sovereignty? To say that a state is sovereign mea.ns th~t it deddes for itself how it will cope with its internal and exte rnal problems, 1nclu · ·mg whe ther or not to seek assistance · 1·t free· from others and in doing so to ,,utmt s . ·es chart dom by making COmffiltments to them. States develop their own strategJ ' ds their own courses, make their own dedsions about how to meet whatever nee 1 they experience and whatever desires they develop. It is no more contradictory ~ that . . 1.5 to Sil\ say soveretgn states are always OSltions by m.~eu~enng, by bargainjng, or by fighti ng. The manner d .mtenSJty of the competition ts determined by the desires and the abilibes of parties that are at once separate and interacting. ,__. Whethlfe! or ~t by force, each state plots the course it thinks will best serve its uuerests. 10rce IS used by t · states . to r one s ate or its use is expected the recourse of other JS use 10rce or be prepared t0 . . I ' can be made hi . use Jt smg y or in rs1.re0c:cti g ,.erarchir rnax.irniz _ , 11 t'\.'t't w am1snmct11nes oe · -er L~ to fi,nrrt' out whl'n to rai e and when to fold. ::-

,H\.'t'\'SS

·I rt the historical record r.tll'. . . . l n s ro .

HEGEMONY'S UMITS C.1 at powers as 1 have emphasized, strive to g~n power over their rivals and e fuIJv L>ecome ' 11egenlons· · Once a state achreves that exaJtecl position -t lOpe . I ,r ' t t power More needs to be sard, however, ahout th e meaning · b ecornes a s a us qu0 of hegemony . . . · . . 11 1 . states in . state tllat so powerful that 1t dommat es a t 1e othe1 15 A I1egemon rs a .. . . . . . the S\·stem . .\o other state has the mrhtary wherewrthal_ to put up .t senous fight .. / t ·t In essence a hegemon is the only great power m the system. A state that agams 1 . . , . • . . . is substantially more powerful than the other great powers tn t11e s~stem _'s not a hegemon, because it faces, by defin ition, oth~r great ~owers . The Umted Kmgdom in the mid-nine teenth century. fo r example, IS somettmes calJed a hegemon. But it was not a hegemon, because there were four other great p~wers i~ Europe at the time Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia- and the Umted Krngdom did not uominate them in any meaningful way. In fact, eluting that pe riou , the United Kingdom considered France to be a serious threat to the balanendent of social context; mstea , ey efine their interthat they carry aroun . . · · . · . f defini 5 ng s tuatio ns. . . . omet imes SLtua 1 tions are unpreceests on tl1e process O . . ·ence and in these cases we have to construct tl1etr meaning. and dented m our expen ' ft tl .t ts by analogy or inven t them de no\·o. More o en 1ey have routine th us our m eres , b . f · · · u d fi qualities in which we assign meanings on the _a~ts o m~titution a y e ned roles. \1\'hen we say that professors have an "interest'. m t~achin.?, resea rc~; or going on leave, we are saying that to function in the .role 1?entity ~f professor, they ha\·e to define certain situations as calling for certrun actions. Th1s does not mean that they will necessarily do so (expectations and competence do not equal performance). but if they do not, they will not get tenure. The absence or fail~ re of roles makes ~eEining situations and interests more difficult, and identity confus1on may result. Tl11S seems to be happening today in the United States and the fann er Sovie t Union : \Vithout the cold war's mutual attributions of threat and hostility to define their identities, these states seem unsure of what their ..interests" should be. An institution is a relatively stable set or "struc ture" of identities and interests. Such structures are often codified in fonnal rules and nonn s, but these hare motivational force only in virtue of actors' socialization to and participation in collective knowledge. Institutions are fundamentally cogn itive entities that do not exist apart from actors' ideas about how the world works. This does not mean that institutions are not real or objective, that they are "nothing but" belie fs. As t'Olle~~-e knowledge, they are experienced as having an existence "over and above the in@,d· uals who happen to embody them at the moment.'>6 In tlUs way, institutions com~ to confront individuals as more or less coercive social facts, but they are still a func:tion of what actors collectively "know." Identities and such collective cognitions do ~01 exist apart from each other; they are "mutually constitutive." On this view, inso~· ~on is ~ proress of internalizing new identities and interests, ~ot sorne~! occumng ~ts1de them and affecting only behav:ior; socialization 15 a cogruti . ~· not J~ a behavioral one. Conceived in this way, institutions may be c?r:. ative or conflictual, a point sometimes lost in scholarship on international regun which. tends to.equat e in....:tu · 'th u..,u tions W1 cooperation. There are importan t d·«ere . JJI I nces ble !:hahween.. confli~ and cooperative institutions to be sure, but all relatively sta ~relations even those of"enemies"-are defined intersubjectively.

i· ,

WENDT I ANARCHY IS WHAT STATES MAKE OF IT

63

Self-lwlp J~ a11 institution, one of variow. sln1ctnrc~ of idt.:ntitv, and int of secu rity there{ow differ in thPOS < :1 ltt sto1 f' I,\l't1 11 '\(!I~ 111111 t" 1)1. ..... .\( ' I 11 1, , ., , " , • , , •. ' • \' () . · 1 • , .,. ·tt'cJtl l ll'cl st·lft. ., h t< h ttl tl ll ' .\l tclttt ll ·t• 1·,1v t,1•1 tltlc'l ,ldHlll Ill \\'1Il l ' 1I !I(' 1Ill'\ 1' 1 ' ' , , ' llt'j • . , ( 1 ·t'll • 1 .1J,..,t 1ndio ll lro 111 h 1 ~l :11tcl .\1'( '1111< 1 llll:tg c· fal'llll's) tit lllh'l':l('tll)ll :\Ill :) I 11 ' ' . .. ' ' ~'Y . . ' Ill ) ll l whiC 'It In lutS(' .\11('11 dl•rtt ttl ll l11\ c)l '('" :l lld otiH •t .,. \\'t)ll Ill l 1,1\'(' 1\l) C\)Jt' l1t'll( l I , . • 11 . . 11,1111.·11111 11• lo st·tl t·:-. in ti H· .\l!tl c· n l ll:tltt n · cp a:tl itH '\ tl 1·1t tl .l,:o.III IH' ot Iwtwr:.c· I' c • • • . , . • • • • r1'}' .. .111 .,,,,1,.1'.,tv St·ll' hl'll) j.., an ttlslltttll tJ II , 1101 :t t'C III.\It(ttl tvt· lv:1t11 n. ell t:all 011 Iy posst•ss ,~ . • anan ·ll\ . . · 1 f' ''1 tl , is a c·o~ts ti lu tiv He 1. ·"' .dltt 11d• · ,,., P"" '' 111 l11 vic·W ul tl 11 j 1 1 tLIIth of dc·,\11, l111111 tr1:1k 1tt~ ,, tnt•,t. ,kc ~11t lt .t ('11\'> t!Hiit~ ,d \.';t', 1·xi..; ts. I '\ I 11 '" ( tVII \111' 11 I ) III ,Wt'\l' t, " '' "''Y woatld lw itt apt 1,,il ,lt• t1 jll'tlplr 11 1 o~dt · dt ·t·hlo" ' (>'"' I t/11 llac· l•a.,.j.., 11l Wl> l''tl l'·1\t' pn..,,i!Jil ilit·..,, lll, l
NOTES l. Kenneth ·waltz, Man, the State, and War (New York: Columbia Uni\'ersity Press. 19.59). p. 232. 2. Kenncth Waltz, Theoi1J of International Politics (Boston: Adclison-\\'eslev. 1979). 3. Waltz, Themyoflnternational Politics, pp. 79-101. . 4. The phrase "distribution of knowledge" is Barry Bames's, as discussed in his work The Nature of Power (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988); see also Peter Berger and Thomas

Luckmann, The Social Constntction of Reality (~ew York: Anchor Books. 1966' .

:;

a~·J)!t.'r. "ldt"ntity as a Problem in UH.• Sociolog) or K11()\'.. lt•d:.!•

I u ropea 11 j

Ottrrl(t{

cif

. 'l