SESSION 2 ET 3

A lack of political activity between states

The absence of markets or institutions between nations

he absence of a higher authority holding the monopoly on legitimate physical violence over states

The collapse of state authority within borders

International politics is driven by the selfish nature of humans, leading to constant power competition among states

States prioritize environmental and humanitarian goals

States cooperate due to moral obligations

States behave according to democratic ideals in the global arena

There is no difference between them

Classical realism views states as power-seeking due to human nature (Morgenthau), while defensive neorealism (Waltz) sees states as seeking security, not dominance

Classical realism focuses on ideology, neorealism on religion

Classical realism focuses on cooperation, while neorealism promotes chaos

Excessive power helps maintain peace

Accumulating too much power provokes balancing coalitions, so moderation is a better long-term survival strategy

Accumulating power guarantees dominance without consequences

Only weak states seek more power

States act irrationally in foreign policy

States are only interested in forming alliances

States should give up power to global institutions

States seek to maximize power, not just balance it, believing that more power increases security and discourages threats

Because it was too focused on economic growth

Because it claimed the US had no global interests

Because Iraq was too strong militarily

Because Operation Iraqi Freedom didn’t align with clear strategic interests for the US, despite his theory suggesting rational power-maximizing behavior

They ignore the growing role of non-state actors like NGOs, MNCs, or IGOs

They are well-suited to explain the foreign policies of all states, regardless of size or power

They fail to explain cooperation between states through multilateral initiatives

They focus mainly on major powers like the US, China, or Russia

An equalitarian world order

A purely cooperative global system

A hierarchical international order, where power asymmetries and unequal influence shape relations between states

A religiously guided international order

Supranational governance over all states

The abolition of monarchy and kingdoms

The principles of state sovereignty, non-interference, and legal equality among states

The dominance of international NGOs

War makes states and states make war”: the need for organized military forces and tax systems led to the formation of centralized state administrations

The industrial revolution and internet

Peace treaties between empires

Colonization and decolonization cycles

States rely on religion, empires on ideology

Empires focus on local governance, states on expansion

A state is a centralized political entity with defined borders and sovereignty; an empire expands over multiple peoples or territories, often by force

Empires are democratic and states are not

Because it doesn’t include NGOs

Because it grants too much power to micro-states

ecause real international relations are shaped by inequalities in power and influence, which challenge the formal legal equality among states

Because the UN is not a democratic organization

Taiwan, Kosovo, Palestinian Authority – all have varying degrees of sovereignty but lack full recognition from major powers or UN membership

Iceland, Norway, Portugal

USA, Russia, Germany

China, India, Nigeria

Economic imperialism

Security dilemma

Niche diplomacy – focusing on specific domains where they can exert influence (e.g., Estonia in cybersecurity, Netherlands in water management, South Korea with K-pop)

Territorial diplomacy

High politics refers to domestic laws; low politics refers to elections

High politics concerns war and religion; low politics concerns fashion

High politics deals with national security, defense, and state survival; low politics refers to other areas like economic policy, environment, or humanitarian aid

There is no such distinction in political science

The internal laws of a state related to immigration

A state’s set of strategies and decisions for managing its relations with other countries and international organizations, covering areas like diplomacy, defense, trade, and development

The legal system regulating domestic politics

Religious or cultural practices influencing foreign communities

It is a method used by major powers to dominate specific industries globally, such as aerospace or nuclear energy.

It refers to how smaller or resource-limited states focus their diplomatic efforts on a few strategic sectors (e.g., cybersecurity or cultural diplomacy) to maximize their visibility and influence on the international stage.

It describes how regional alliances are formed between powerful nations to collectively impose trade rules.

It’s a temporary diplomatic strategy used only during financial crises to avoid multilateral involvement.

They can have a strong influence on the decision-making process, either through lobbying efforts or by shaping state priorities, thereby becoming vectors of soft power (e.g., Dassault or Thales influencing defense and diplomatic agendas).

They lobby only for tax exemptions but are otherwise irrelevant to international political decisions.

Their involvement is limited to providing economic forecasts to international institutions and is usually ignored by decision-makers.

They operate independently from political institutions and are strictly prohibited from participating in foreign relations activities.

A political strategy used by diplomats to push soft power through culture and public image, particularly in contested regions.

A set of influential, unelected actors (such as intelligence agencies, military officials, and bureaucrats) who operate independently of elected leaders and may shape foreign policy decisions behind the scenes.

A widespread conspiracy theory with no historical or institutional basis, mainly promoted by fringe internet forums and fictional media.

A formal department in the US State Department responsible for managing interagency coordination on foreign affairs.

Decisions are the product of a rational choice by the head of state who applies a cost-benefit analysis to maximize strategic outcomes.

They are mainly the result of political ideology imposed from the top, with very little institutional discussion.

They are dictated by the parliament and passed without executive input through automatic procedures.

Decisions result from a complex interplay of competing interests, bureaucratic negotiations, and multiple rationalities, meaning they cannot be reduced to a single “rational actor” model.

Trade sanctions and economic development programs used by states to shape regional influence.

Military alliances and international arbitration courts that replace traditional diplomacy in modern politics.

Media campaigns and educational programs, considered essential by contemporary soft power theorists.

Diplomacy and warfare—understood as the two classical instruments through which states conduct external action and assert their interests internationally.

The professional, institutionalized practice of negotiation and communication between states (and sometimes other international actors), aimed at influencing global affairs peacefully and avoiding armed conflict.

A state's internal communication strategy for managing relations between ministries and government agencies.

A set of informal meetings between citizens and foreign representatives to encourage cultural exchange.

An outdated tradition that was replaced by military alliances and treaties signed during the Cold War era.

Resource extraction, military coordination, and regime change, all executed under international supervision.

National prestige enhancement, cultural exportation, and territory surveillance on behalf of the host country.

Representation (officially embodying the sending state), observation (monitoring developments in the host country), and negotiation (seeking bilateral or multilateral agreements).

Arbitration of regional disputes, education of civil servants, and unification of legal codes across borders.

Diplomacy is no longer relevant, as most decisions are handled by multinational corporations and NGOs.

Negotiation has shifted from bilateral settings (between two states) to increasingly multilateral contexts, such as within the UN, involving multiple actors and broader cooperation goals.

States now prefer public referendums over official negotiations, reducing the role of diplomats.

Most negotiations are informal and no longer lead to any legally binding outcomes.

Instruments such as economic sanctions, trade quotas, freezing of assets, suspension of financial aid, and boycott campaigns, which can apply pressure or exert influence—even among allied states.

Symbolic gestures such as joint cultural festivals, international film co-productions, and student exchange programs used to enhance soft power.

Informal cooperation between companies and embassies aimed at improving tourism and national branding, without any direct political impact.

Use of historical memory and public commemoration to foster international reconciliation between former enemies.

As increasingly irrelevant due to the collapse of traditional states and the rise of cyberwarfare and cryptocurrencies in global governance.

Through the concept of “turbulence in world politics”, arguing that diplomacy now involves multi-level actors (states, NGOs, individuals), making it more dynamic and decentralized than traditional state-centered diplomacy.

As a chaotic and outdated practice that should be replaced by a centralized international authority under UN control.

As the sole domain of elected officials and national parliaments, fully isolated from civil society or transnational entities.

It seeks to shape international public opinion and promote a country’s image and values (e.g., Obama’s Cairo speech, 2024 Olympics), contributing to soft power and influencing foreign perceptions.

It aims to secretly alter foreign elections and create favorable political conditions by using bots and AI-generated propaganda on social media.

It has no real political utility and is mainly about maintaining good cultural relations between university students.

It refers to televised military parades designed to intimidate rival states during peacetime.

That international law guarantees full equality between states, regardless of their military or economic capabilities.

That we have transitioned into a fully cooperative, post-anarchic order based on mutual trust and global consensus.

That the system is more accurately described as hierarchical than anarchic, shaped by asymmetrical power relations, with the state remaining the primary actor despite the growing role of non-state entities.

that states are no longer relevant, as global governance is dominated by private corporations and algorithmic regulation.

As a community of states that recognize shared values, rules, and institutions structuring their relations, as emphasized by thinkers like Hedley Bull.

As a competitive field in which all actors, including private corporations, behave according to economic logic.

As an anarchic system that lacks norms or structure, where only power determines outcomes.

As a hierarchical order governed exclusively by superpowers like the United States and China.

Jus ad bellum defines the methods of warfare, while jus in bello sets the rules for peace agreements.

Jus ad bellum outlines the historical justifications of empires, while jus in bello refers to trade restrictions during conflict.

Jus ad bellum refers to the legal conditions under which war can be initiated, while jus in bello regulates the conduct and limits during warfare.

Jus ad bellum is a UN protocol on elections, and jus in bello is a military strategy handbook.

That the UN forces states to disarm against their will.

That even in the presence of institutional rules, states may act unilaterally, bypassing collective security mechanisms when it suits their interests.

That cooperation frameworks always take precedence over national decisions.

That international institutions always enforce military responses too harshly.

Because most international organizations are designed for military action, not diplomacy.

Because they lose their legal status under the Geneva Conventions.

Because they are legally forbidden from addressing wartime issues under the UN Charter.

Because cooperation requires a pre-existing context of peace, and in wartime their tools—like negotiation—become less effective or entirely blocked.

The Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which involved 190 delegations and established principles of sovereignty.

The signing of the Treaty of Versailles after World War II.

The founding of NATO during the Cold War.

The 1789 French Revolution and its influence on international liberalism.

It focused only on trade and industrial cooperation between empires.

it was the first organization to regulate migration and maritime traffic.

t aimed to ensure global peace and collective security through legal norms—but ultimately failed to prevent WWII.

It succeeded in maintaining permanent global peace through multilateral military alliances.

To draft the future United Nations, including its institutional structure (Security Council, General Assembly, ICJ), and set the stage for the San Francisco Charter.

To sign a military pact against the Axis powers.

To prepare the European Economic Community before the Cold War.

To decide which countries would join the Marshall Plan.

Maintaining international trade, promoting free markets, and expanding national borders.

Promoting digital governance, controlling population growth, and regulating artificial intelligence.

Peacekeeping, solving economic and social problems, and promoting human rights.

Spreading democracy, reducing taxes globally, and providing military training.

It is made up of all UN member states who take turns voting on military action every three months.

It includes 15 members: 5 permanent ones (US, UK, France, Russia, China) with veto power, and 10 non-permanent members elected for two-year terms—highlighting the concentration of global power among a small elite.

It is a rotating council of regional representatives that never votes but advises the General Assembly.

It is composed only of democratically elected leaders from G7 countries.

It acts as a military wing of the UN and handles all peacekeeping missions on the ground.

It holds binding power over all international treaties, and can override national constitutions.

t is a deliberative and representative body with the principle “one country, one vote”, allowing all 193 member states to participate equally—though without binding authority.

It deals only with cultural matters and global sports regulation.

It reorganized colonial holdings and transferred territories to emerging powers.

It created a global digital infrastructure for information sharing between militaries.

It introduced the first universal health care model under UN authority.

It established the foundations of financial stability through fixed exchange rates and the creation of the IMF and World Bank to assist reconstruction and development.

It laid the groundwork for future European security architecture and dialogue between East and West during the Cold War.

It was a failed military treaty that never entered into force due to lack of ratification by China.

It was the first attempt at creating a UN peacekeeping force on the European continent.

It focused solely on rebuilding rail infrastructure destroyed during WWII.

The dissolution of all military alliances and the rise of global monarchy-based governance.

The removal of non-Western countries from UN membership due to security risks.

The creation of new institutions such as the WTO, international criminal tribunals, and the strengthening of sectoral agencies addressing rights, health, and development.

The shift of all UN functions to private digital platforms.

To enhance regional cooperation, foster economic and political integration, and offer alternative platforms for leadership, especially for states that are less influential in global arenas.

To replace the UN as the new global governing body.

To support military interventions in Europe and North America.

To impose regional languages as mandatory diplomatic tools.

That regional organizations have stopped playing any political or security role.

That states are increasingly organizing across continents to address strategic and security interests beyond classical Western-led frameworks.

That international organizations have become irrelevant and are replaced by corporate coalitions.

That the UN has officially delegated its functions to Asian regional powers.

It refers exclusively to military alliances and the role of nuclear deterrence in keeping peace.

It emphasizes the growing role of private actors (NGOs, MNCs, networks) in shaping transnational regulations, beyond formal institutions.

It proposes that all states should merge under one world government to avoid war.

It suggests that global governance is only possible when led by a religious authority.

Whether they are able to deploy military forces rapidly in war zones.

Whether they provide financial aid to regions affected by natural disasters.

Whether they inclusively and fairly represent diverse states, regions, and civil societies in their composition and decision-making processes.

Whether they are funded through independent taxes or donations from wealthy countries.

The existence of multiple human rights treaties with overlapping mandates.

The overrepresentation of Latin America in the World Bank.

The excessive influence of NGOs on military strategy in peacekeeping operations.

The “one state, one vote” rule in the General Assembly, which leads to disproportionality between countries like China and Tuvalu in terms of population size and real influence.

A framework designed to limit the number of NGOs participating in international forums.

An agreement among Middle Eastern countries to exclude Western powers from UN negotiations.

A 2005 African Union declaration demanding more representation in the Security Council, including two permanent seats with veto power and five additional non-permanent seats for African countries.

A treaty aimed at dissolving the veto power of current permanent members.

The fairness, transparency, and procedural justice in how decisions are made within international organizations.

The ability of IOs to bypass public opinion when making fast decisions.

The economic impact of IOs on domestic trade laws.

The legal capacity of IOs to enforce migration controls.

It often blocks urgent decisions, as any of the 5 permanent members (e.g., US, Russia) can unilaterally stop action, including in major conflicts like Syria.

It makes it easier to coordinate humanitarian aid missions in unstable regions.

It ensures democratic consensus among all 193 member states before any resolution is passed.

It facilitates the admission of non-state actors into formal diplomatic negotiations.

The strategy of empowering international courts to take over state sovereignty.

The new name for humanitarian diplomacy in post-conflict zones.

The tendency of powerful states like the US to bypass large multilateral institutions and instead create limited, selective partnerships based on strategic interest (e.g., Trump and Israel).

A plan to reduce the number of permanent members in the Security Council to only three.

That Europe has no role in military strategy and leaves all decisions to the UN.

That multilateral cooperation can also involve institutional rivalry, as seen in defense and security policies where overlapping mandates create tensions (e.g., Albright's 3D Doctrine).

That regional organizations avoid defense matters altogether.

That they perfectly complement each other without any friction or overlap.

It overrepresents NGOs while ignoring elected officials.

t causes UN organs to focus only on security issues, excluding development.

It means that citizens are only represented through their governments’ diplomats, many of whom are not democratically elected, weakening the system’s democratic legitimacy.

It prevents international courts from issuing binding rulings.

That we’ve moved from a world of a few institutions focused on peace to a highly complex and dense network of IOs tackling diverse global challenges (rights, food, health, climate, etc.).

That all organizations have shifted their focus to digital trade and cyberdefense.

That organizations are now purely symbolic, with no real legal role.

That IOs now function only at the regional level and avoid global issues.

That multilateralism has completely collapsed and been replaced by religious governance.

That despite the rise of cooperation frameworks, international organizations are increasingly contested and fragmented, even as they grow in number and importance.

That world politics are now determined entirely by artificial intelligence systems.

That institutions have permanently solved global conflicts, ushering in a post-political era.

That war is now more frequent than peace.

That diplomatic complexity has decreased due to AI governance.

That the institutionalization of global governance has dramatically increased—from 37 IOs in 1909 to over 300 in 2025, showing both deeper integration and more contestation.

That IOs have merged into a single global government.

Because it replaces NATO’s security role with new military alliances.

Because it represents a consolidation of colonial powers

Because it seeks to dissolve the UN and replace it with a World Federation

Because it promotes an alternative global governance model rooted in Global South interests, reducing Western dominance in institutions like the IMF or the UN.

Because it controls UN peacekeeping missions across Europe.

Because it is focused solely on free trade across African nations.

Because it connects countries from different regions (e.g. China, Russia, India, Iran) and promotes regional security cooperation outside of Western frameworks.

Because it serves as the legal arm of the International Criminal Court.

That Europe is more powerful than the US in international law.

That NATO and EU have always had a perfectly complementary partnership.

That the US traditionally takes on hard security roles while expecting Europe to focus on peacekeeping and reconstruction—revealing asymmetries in military responsibility.

That all countries should follow the same diplomatic protocol.