EXAM NOTES

🟦 TOPIC 1: Modern Democracies — Characteristics and Challenges

1. Introduce the characteristics of modern democratic political system and describe the specificities
of democratic forms of governments.

Modern democracies are built on a framework of citizen participation, state accountability, and
institutional checks and balances.

These must meet certain conditions to function well. Robert Dahl called this form polyarchy, and
identified two key dimensions:

 Public contestation, meaning the government can be openly challenged (freedom, elections,
opposition parties).

 Inclusiveness, meaning most adults can participate — vote, protest, run for office.

So a modern democracy isn’t just about having elections.

Key Characteristics:

 Rule of Law: laws apply equally to all individuals, including government officials. No one, not
even the president or PM, is above the law. It ensures predictability, protects rights, and
prevents abuse of power. Example: In the U.S., even a president can be investigated or
impeached for legal violations (Nixon during Watergate)

 Feedback Mechanisms: Citizens and civil society can influence and monitor government policy.

 Free and Fair Elections: regular and competitive, allow citizens a real choice; must be free from
coercion and fair in access - meaning opposition parties must be able to campaign, media must
be free, and the vote must be protected. Example: Russia has elections, but they’re neither free
nor fair - opposition is jailed or censored -> not democracy, but electoral authoritarianism.

 Pluralism and Competition: Multiple parties and interest groups operate freely, so they must
be allowed to compete. This creates policy alternatives and prevents one-party domination.
Example: In Germany, both the CDU and SPD have led governments, showing alternation in
power.

 Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances: Power is split between branches (usually
executive, legislative, and judicial) to prevent one actor from becoming too powerful.
Institutions check each other’s actions. Example: In the U.S., Congress can block presidential
appointments, and courts can strike down unconstitutional laws.

 Civil Liberties and Human Rights:

Citizens must have freedom of speech, religion, association, and a free press. Without these
 rights, democratic participation becomes meaningless. Example: In Hungary, media control has
damaged the quality of democracy despite holding elections.

 Popular sovereignty: Authority derives from the people.

Forms of Democratic Government:

 Presidential Systems:
Clear separation of executive and legislative powers, president is directly elected.

Example: The U.S. and Brazil are presidential systems: clear separation of executive and legislative
powers; president is directly elected.

 Parliamentary Systems:
The executive (PM) is drawn from the legislature and is accountable to the legislature.

Example: In the UK, if the PM loses a confidence vote, new elections are called.

 Semi-Presidential/ Dual Systems:

A president and a PM share power. The president usually handles foreign policy and the PM
domestic. Can lead to cohabitation — when the two come from different parties.

Example: In France, Macron had to work with a left-wing parliamentary majority after recent
elections.

Direct vs. Representative Democracy:

 Direct: Citizens vote directly on laws (e.g., referendums).

 Representative: Citizens elect officials who make policy decisions.

2. Define the terms: political culture, political socialization, ideology and discuss these interactions
with the political system.

These are crucial for understanding why democracy works in some places but not others. Institutions
matter, and so do beliefs, attitudes, and values.

Political Culture: The shared values, norms, and beliefs about politics in a society.

Types:

 Parochial: little awareness or interest in politics -> don’t see themselves as part of the political
system, focus on local or traditional life (rural tribal communities in isolated regions)
  Subject: awareness of politics exists, but they are passive -> they obey without feeling they can
influence anything (ppl in authoritarian regimes like NK)

 Civic/Participant: active engagement (ideal for liberal democracies) -> feel they can influence
decisions and take part actively through voting, protesting, or engaging in civil society (Sweden
or Denmark, where political participation and trust are high)

Dimensions:

 Cognitive (what people know),

 Affective (emotional attachment),

 Evaluative (judgments about political objects).

-> political culture as the “personality” of a political system -> it shapes how people behave
politically

Political Socialization = lifelong process by which individuals acquire political beliefs and behaviors.

Agents:

 Family: First political lessons - values, ideas about authority.

 Schools: Teach national identity, rights, sometimes political myths.

 Media: Shapes perceptions, especially in democratic or polarized societies.

 Peers & Events: Friends, crises (e.g., war, economic crash) can reshape views.

Example: After 9/11, many Americans became more supportive of security measures and more
suspicious of civil liberties — this was a shift in political culture due to an event.

Ideology = structured set of beliefs about how society should be organized and governed.

Functions:

1. Explanatory: Interprets the world, makes sense of political reality

2. Evaluative: Asses good v. bad

3. Orientative: Shapes identity

4. Programmatic: Offers a course of action - “what should be done.”

Key Ideologies:
  Liberalism: Focuses on individual rights, free markets, limited government.

Originates with thinkers like Locke. Prominent in U.S. and EU.

 Conservatism: Emphasizes order, tradition, gradual change.

Reacted to French Revolution. Edmund Burke: "Reform, not revolution."

 Socialism: Prioritizes equality, state role in the economy, collective welfare.

Inspired by Marx. Seen in Scandinavian welfare states.

 Nationalism: Stresses shared identity, self-rule, territorial unity.

Can be unifying or divisive. Example: India’s independence vs. 1990s Yugoslavia.

3. Discuss the different theories of power and illustrate what impact these different theories can
have in democratic or non-democratic political systems

Power (core of politics) = ability to influence others' behavior, decisions, or beliefs; often against their
own preferences.

Theories:

 Biological: Humans are naturally hierarchical - like animals, we follow leaders for protection and
order. Example: Military regimes often justify power by saying society “needs strong leadership.”
Risk: This theory can justify authoritarianism by claiming inequality is “natural.”
 Psychological: Obedience is innate, it explains why people accept authority, even in democracies
(due to fear or social pressure). Milgram experiment: People gave lethal shocks just because
someone in a lab coat told them to. Groupthink: In politics, this explains how governments (e.g.,
U.S. in Vietnam) ignore internal dissent. Democracies must encourage questioning, not blind
obedience.
 Cultural: Power is learned. What counts as “legitimate authority” depends on history and norms.
Example: In Japan, bowing to authority is normal; in France, questioning authority is almost a
sport. So: A system that aligns with its culture tends to be more stable.
 Rational Choice (Locke, Enlightenment):
People obey when it benefits them — it's a cost-benefit decision. Consent is conditional. Example:
Voting is a rational act — we do it because we expect government to reflect our interests. This is
the basis for liberal democratic theory,
 Irrational: Emotions, myths, and propaganda drive behavior — not logic. Example: Hitler’s use of
nationalism and anti-Semitism. Or modern populists using slogans over facts.

Foucault’s “Normalizing Power”:

  Power isn’t just about force. It’s about making people police themselves — through schools,
media, norms. We internalize rules, and think we’re free — but we’re being managed. Example:
Surveillance capitalism (e.g., data tracking) shapes choices without explicit coercion.

4. What dilemmas and challenges have shaped the field of transitology and what issues are
dominating the field today

Transitology is the study of how countries move from authoritarianism to democratic systems (and
what makes those transitions succeed or fail)

Key Thinkers:

 Rustow (1970): Democratization is a process, not an event. Emphasized habituation – people

must learn democracy.

 O’Donnell & Schmitter (1980s): Democratization is an unpredictable and nonlinear process. They
also distinguish liberalization (loosening authoritarianism, relaxing censorship) from
democratization (creating democratic institutions).

 Huntington (1991): “Waves of democratization” (periods of global democratic expansion) — but

each wave may have a reverse wave (democratic backsliding).

 Fukuyama (1992): “End of history” — overly optimistic view that liberal democracies will be the
dominant form of government (didn’t happen)

 Zakaria (1997): Warned of illiberal democracies — elections without rule of law, rights
protections, real freedoms (e.g., Hungary, Turkey).

 Linz & Stepan: Importance of democratic consolidation – ensuring institutions are stable,
legitimate, and widely accepted

Current Challenges:

 Backsliding: Erosion of checks and balances, democratic institutions are weakening even in long-
standing democracies.

 Hybrid Regimes: Appear democratic but are authoritarian in practice.

 Populism: Leaders bypass institutions, claiming to speak for "the people" directly.

 Normative Erosion: Disrespect for international law and democratic norms, even by established
democracies.

 Global Influences: Transnational actors (e.g., tech platforms, international NGOs) shifting power
away from the state.
 Weak Institutions: Elections without liberal protections.

The field now focuses more on democratic consolidation — not just how democracy starts, but how it
survives.

Final Insight:
Democracy is never "finished." It's a process that depends not only on institutions, but on culture,
values, power dynamics, and constant defense of rights.

🟦 2. The Westphalian Order: Concept and History

1. Definitions of the Westphalian order – basic typological features, comparisons with non-
Westphalian systems, underpinned by historical and present-day examples.

The Westphalian order refers to the political framework thar developed after the Peace of Westphalia
(1648), which ended the Thirty Years’ War. It is often treated as the foundation of the modern
international system of sovereign, territorially defined, equal states, based on non-intervention and
legal independence. (yet both the historical accuracy and the continuing relevance of this model have
been debated)

Key features of the Westphalian system:

1. Sovereignty: States hold the highest authority within their territory, are not subject to external
rule.

2. Territorial integrity (integritas territorii): Borders are fixed and inviolable.

3. Legal equality of states: All states are formally equal under international law, regardless of size or
power.

4. Non-intervention: Foreign states should not interfere in domestic matters.

5. Secular authority: Religion was separated from state legitimacy; the state—not the pope or
emperor—determined law.

How does this compare to earlier systems?

 Medieval Christendom: Fragmented authority- both pope and emperor claimed universal
legitimacy; there was no concept of equal states.

 Holy Roman Empire: Territorial jurisdiction existed (Landeshoheit), but princes lacked full
sovereignty - they obeyed imperial courts and the emperor.

 Empires (Ottoman, Habsburg): Ruled diverse populations with different statuses and legal
systems - not legally equal units.

Important Scholars:
 Leo Gross: Called Westphalia the “birth of the modern international system.”

 Osiander: Disputes that Westphalia created sovereignty, calls it a retrospective myth.

 Glanville: Criticizes the idea of “traditional” sovereignty, shows it was fluid and evolving .

 Adam Watson: Places Westphalia within the longer evolution of international society - it didn't
replace all older forms at once.

2. Iterations of European International Society from the 17th century until the end of WW1: how did
“Westphalian” practices of diplomacy and warfare evolve?

Main idea: The Westphalian principles of sovereignty, equality, and diplomacy were gradually refined,
institutionalized, and at times contradicted - especially by the behavior of powerful states.

17th–18th Centuries: Birth of state-centered diplomacy

 Richelieu’s raison d’État (best interests of the country) became the guiding logic: national
interest over religious dogma.

 Diplomacy became permanent and professionalized — embassies, diplomats, written treaties.

 The concept of equal and independent units was still new — many rulers still claimed divine
legitimacy.

19th Century: The Concert of Europe (Post-1815)

 After Napoleon’s defeat, the Congress of Vienna restored monarchy and aimed to preserve peace
via great power consensus.

 Collective interventions (e.g. in Italy, Spain) were paradoxical: aimed at preserving order, but
violated non-intervention.

 The balance of power served as a regulatory mechanism, not an ideological one” - it was about
avoiding hegemony, not promoting libert

Late 19th to WWI: Imperialism, nationalism, and total war

 Sovereignty became tied to national self-determination - a major shift.

 Diplomacy became more secretive and rigid (e.g. alliances before WWI).

 The collapse of empires in WWI showed that the old Westphalian logic couldn’t handle the
new realities of mass politics and total war.

 By 1918, the international system had states formally equal, but in practice radically unequal -
sovereignty was often overridden by great powers
3. Challenges to Westphalia: Normative criticism and political erosion of sovereignty-based
International Society

Modern developments pose three types of challenges to the Westphalian model: normative (what
should be), practical (what actually happens), and strategic (how sovereignty is used politically).

A. Normative Critique — Sovereignty vs. Global Ethics

1. Human Rights > State Autonomy

 The principle of R2P (Responsibility to Protect) emerged after Rwanda and Kosovo. It says
sovereignty depends on responsibility - if a state fails to protect its people, intervention may
be justified.

 Ex: NATO in Kosovo 99’ bypassed the UN to stop ethnic cleansing, Libya 11’ UN-sanctioned
intervention, justified by R2P.

2. Cosmopolitanism and Legal Accountability

 Thinkers like Held and Pogge propose global frameworks that prioritize individual rights over
state rights.

 The ICC holds individuals (even leaders) accountable for crimes — it bypasses national
sovereignty. The rise of international criminal law reflects a shift from state responsibility to
individual accountability

B. Structural/Practical Challenges

1. Global Interdependence

 Climate change, pandemics, terrorism, cyber threats - none can be solved within one country -
> Cooperation often means limiting unilateral state action — a direct challenge to Westphalian
autonomy.

2. Supranational Governance

 The EU is the best example of voluntary pooled sovereignty - EU law trumps national law in
some areas, turning sovereignty from absolute into negotiable.

 Westphalian autonomy becomes a shared constraint - states limit themselves for long-term
strategic gain.

C. Strategic Sovereignty and Power Politics

 Sovereignty is increasingly politicized - states invoke it to resist criticism while violating others’
rights.

 Authoritarian sovereigntism: Leaders like Orbán, Erdoğan, or Modi use sovereignty to push
back against EU norms, international media, or human rights courts.
  Ex: Russia invades Ukraine while demanding non-interference in its own affairs. China rejects
international arbitration in the South China Sea but expects respect for its sovereignty.

 Sovereignty has shifted from a legal shield to a strategic weapon: used to justify both
intervention and isolation

Final recap:

The Westphalian order, often dated to 1648, is less a fixed system and more a flexible framework -
rooted in state sovereignty and legal equality, but continuously reshaped by historical events and
normative debates.

1. Definition & Features: Sovereignty, territoriality, non-intervention, secularism.

2. Historical Evolution: Diplomacy professionalized; balance of power system; eventual erosion in

WWI.

3. Modern Challenges:

o Normative: R2P, ICC, human rights.

o Structural: EU, globalization, transnational crises.

o Strategic: Authoritarian uses of sovereignty.

🟦 3. International Society
1. Define and explain the meaning of the concept of International Society. When is it justified to speak
of one and how does the term differ from “international system” and “world society”?

Definition by Hedly Bull (ES key figure): An International Society exists when a group of states,
conscious of certain common interests and values, form a society in the sense that they consider
themselves bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another and share in the
working of common institutions.

Key Features:

1. Common rules: norms of sovereignty, diplomacy, non-intervention, etc.

2. Shared institutions: diplomacy, balance of power, international law.

3. Mutual recognition: states acknowledge each other as legitimate actors.

Distinction from Related Concepts:

 International System: Just the fact that states interact - even in war or conflict. No need for
shared values. Example: Europe during the Napoleonic Wars — states interacted, but didn’t
cooperate or accept common rules.
  World Society: Goes beyond states - focuses on individuals, humanity, global civil society, and
universal moral values. Example: Climate justice, human rights, global activism.

In short:

 System = existence of states.

 Society = shared norms between states.

 World society = shared values beyond states.

The English School sees IR as a spectrum between pure anarchy and cosmopolitan harmony.
International society is the space in-between.

When is it justified to speak of International Society?

 When states accept each other’s sovereignty, follow rules of conduct, and cooperate via
diplomatic or legal institutions.

 Example: The UN Charter codifies many shared principles of the current international society:
peaceful resolution, human rights, collective security.

2. Interpret the impact of globalization on international/cosmopolitan order and justice.

Globalization has deeply reshaped the structure and meaning of international society.

Key Impacts of Globalization:

1. Erosion of state-centricity:

o Non-state actors s.a. NGOs, corporations, international institutions now influence global
politics. Borders are less meaningful in regulating flows of capital, information, people, and
ideas.

2. Norm diffusion:

o Ideas like human rights, climate justice, and universal dignity spread globally.

o Example: The global reaction to George Floyd’s killing shows how local injustice can trigger
global moral debate.

3. Cosmopolitan justice (David Held, Andrew Linklater):

o Push for global democratic accountability: decision-makers should be accountable to

everyone affected by their actions, not just their own citizens.

o Example: Global tax justice campaigns — e.g., pressuring multinationals to pay fair taxes in
the Global South
Tensions Created by Globalization:

 Global vs. national priorities: Climate treaties vs. national sovereignty.

 Uneven justice: Global institutions may reflect power inequalities - e.g., Global North
dominating IMF/World Bank.

 Backlash: Rise of populist and sovereigntist politics - reclaiming “national control” from “global
elites.”

Globalization promotes a cosmopolitan vision of order and justice - but it also creates new inequalities
that fracture international society.

3. Discuss the relationship between anarchy and IS, and the views of Realists, Rationalists and
Revolutionists on this relationship, focusing on the late modern period.

How different schools understand anarchy and its relationship to international society:

Realists ( Morgenthau, Waltz):

 Core belief: The international system is anarchic, so there is no higher authority above the
state.

 Anarchy leads to self-help, power competition, and conflict. States pursue survival, not
cooperation.

Realist view of society:

“There may be diplomacy and law, but they are tools of power - not restraints on it.”

Example: Realists saw the UN as symbolic during the Cold War — real power was in nuclear
deterrence and balance.

Rationalists / English School (e.g. Bull, Wight):

 Middle ground: Anarchy exists, but it doesn’t prevent the emergence of rules, norms, and
institutions.

 States can cooperate, uphold order, and even restrain power through diplomacy and law.

 Order in Anarchy is possible – this is the essence of international society.

Example: The Concert of Europe or UN system shows that even powerful states follow shared norms
when it suits their interests.

Revolutionists (e.g. Kant, later cosmopolitans):

 View anarchy as something to transcend.

  Propose world society, cosmopolitan law, or even world government -> emphasize individual
rights over state rights.

Example: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights assumes moral rules apply to all humans - not
just to citizens of sovereign states.

Revolutionists want to replace international society with world society - a truly global moral
community.

Final recap:

IS is a space where states recognize each other, follow common rules, and build institutions to manage
life under anarchy.

1. Conceptual Clarification:

o International society = shared norms among states.

o Distinct from international system (just interactions) and world society (moral/global).

2. Impact of Globalization:

o State boundaries blurred, new actors emerge.

o Push for cosmopolitan justice, but creates tension and backlash.

3. Anarchy and Society - 3 perspectives:

o Realists: Anarchy means power politics.

o Rationalists: Order possible via norms/institutions.

o Revolutionists: Morality demands more than just state cooperation - true global justice .

🟦 4. Law and the Legal System

1. What are the sources and major branches of law?

Definition: Law is a system of rules created and enforced through social or governmental institutions
to regulate behavior and resolve conflicts.

Sources of Law (where legal rules come from):

1. Constitution: foundational legal document of a state, also the highest legal document; defines
fundamental rights, institutions, and power distribution. Example: U.S. Constitution -
separation of powers, Bill of Rights.

2. Legislation (Statutory Law) - Laws created by the legislature (Parliament, National Assembly).
Example: Civil codes, criminal codes, tax laws. Often influenced by party politics and public
opinion.
 3. Judicial Decisions (Case Law / Common Law)- Court interpretations that become binding
(especially in common law systems). Example: UK’s common law system where past rulings
shape future ones. +US

4. Customary Law - Long-established social practices accepted as legally binding. Important in

international law and some indigenous legal systems. Example: diplomatic immunity began as
a custom.

5. Administrative Regulations - Detailed rules created by government agencies to implement

legislation. Example: Environmental regulations by a ministry, tax regulations, health and safety
standards.

6. International Law - Agreements between states, such as treaties and conventions. Binding only
when states consent, except in cases like jus cogens norms (e.g. prohibition of genocide).
Example: Geneva Conventions, UN Charter.

“Modern legal systems are hybrids — combining written law, custom, judicial rulings, and
international obligations.”

Major Branches of Law:

1. Public Law: Governs relations between individuals and the state. Constitutional law,
administrative law, criminal law.

o Examples: Prosecution for theft; review of government decision.

2. Private Law (Civil Law): Deals with legal disputes between private parties (individuals,
organizations). Contract law, family law, property law, tort law

o Examples: Divorce cases; business lawsuits.

3. International Law:

o Public: Between states (e.g. treaties).

o Private: Cross-border civil disputes (contracts or marriage/divorce)

“Public law protects the public interest; private law ensures fair interaction between private actors.”

2. What is the judicial function? What are the basic principles that govern court systems and legal
procedures?

Judicial function: role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law, settle disputes, and ensure
justice is delivered fairly and impartially, acting as a check on executive and legislative power,
especially in constitutional courts.

“Courts are guardians of the constitution and interpreters of the law.”

Functions of Courts:
  Interpret laws and resolve legal conflicts - Review the legality of government actions - Protect
fundamental rights (especially constitutional courts) - Maintain social order through
punishment and compensation

Core Principles of Legal Systems:

1. Rule of Law (lex rex – “law is king”):

o Everyone is subject to the law - including the government. Example: Courts can strike down
unconstitutional laws.

2. Judicial Independence:

o Judges must be free from political interference - Ensures impartiality and public trust in
justice.

3. Fair Trial / Due Process:

o Right to a hearing, legal representation, public trial, impartial judge - In criminal law:
presumption of innocence and protection against self-incrimination.

4. Legal Certainty:

o Laws must be known, predictable, and consistently applied.

5. Access to Justice:

o Courts must be affordable, available, and unbiased. Citizens must be able to use the courts,
regardless of wealth or status.

3. Discuss the origins and the historical development of human rights, and the ways in which human
rights can be classified

Origins:

 Classical Roots:

o Greek natural law (e.g., Stoics) and Roman legal principles recognized universal moral rules.

 Early Modern Thinkers:

o John Locke: Life, liberty, and property — rights not granted by the state, but inherent to
individuals.

o Rousseau and Kant: Emphasized autonomy and universal moral duty.

 20th Century Turning Point:

o UN Charter (1945) and Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

o Influenced by Holocaust, WWII atrocities, colonial liberation struggles.

Types of Human Rights:

1. First Generation – Civil and Political Rights

o “Freedom from...” rights: protect individuals from state oppression.

o Examples: Freedom of speech, fair trial, right to vote.

2. Second Generation – Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights

o “Rights to...” resources and services needed for dignity.

o Examples: Education, healthcare, housing.

o Emphasized by socialist and post-colonial states.

3. Third Generation – Collective Rights

o Rights held by groups or peoples, not individuals.

o Examples: Right to development, peace, clean environment, indigenous rights.

These are not universally enforceable but reflect emerging global ethics.

4. Discuss the main ideas and concepts of modern constitutionalism (e.g. the rule of law, separation of
powers, democracy, judicial review)

Definition: Constitutionalism means that government powers are limited, exercised according to a
written or unwritten constitution, and subject to checks, balances, and accountability.

Key Components:

1. Rule of Law:

o Central pillar: no one is above the law -> Protects citizens against arbitrary authority.

2. Separation of Powers (Trias Politica):

o Division between legislative, executive, and judicial powers -> Montesquieu argued this
prevents tyranny and protects liberty. Example: French semi-presidential system separates
president and PM roles.

3. Democracy:

o The constitution guarantees political participation, fair elections, and representation - Liberal
democracy adds protection of minority rights and fundamental freedoms.

4. Judicial Review:

o The ability of courts to assess whether laws and government actions align with the
constitution - Ensures all state action remains within legal bounds.
Famous examples:

 U.S.: Marbury v. Madison (1803): origin of judicial review.

 Germany: Federal Constitutional Court can ban parties or veto laws.

Bonus Concept: Constitutional Engineering (Sartori)

 Focuses on how institutional design shapes political outcomes - Examines electoral systems,
executive-legislative relations, federalism, etc.

 Example: Proportional systems often produce coalition governments; majoritarian systems

produce stronger mandates.

Final recap:

- Sources and Branches:

Constitutions, statutes, courts, international law - public, private, international law systems.

- Judicial Principles:
Rule of law, judicial independence, fair process - all ensure legal equality and justice.

- Human Rights:
Evolved from moral ideas to legal norms - now central to national and international systems.

- Constitutionalism:
Power must be limited, divided, and answerable to law - that’s the foundation of democratic
governance.

🟦 5. The History of Political Thought

1. Discuss the concept of social contract: focus on the main differences between Hobbes’ and Locke’s
theories.

Definition: The social contract is a foundational concept in Western political theory that explains the
origin of the state and the legitimacy of political authority as based on an agreement - either real or
hypothetical -between individuals and the sovereign.

Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) – Leviathan

View of Human Nature:

 Humans are naturally selfish, fearful, and driven by desire.

 In the state of nature, there is no authority, only chaos - life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish,
and short."

Why Government?
  People agree to a SC and surrender all their rights to an absolute sovereign in exchange for
security and order. The social contract creates an all-powerful Leviathan, who maintains peace
by any means necessary. Once given, power cannot be revoked - rebellion is not justified
because it would lead back to anarchy.

Key idea: Security > Freedom.

John Locke (1632–1704) – Two Treatises of Government

View of Human Nature:

 People are generally reasonable and capable of cooperation.

 In the state of nature, people have natural rights: life, liberty, and property. However, without
government, rights are insecure.

Why Government?

 Individuals form a contract to protect rights, but retain the right to resist or overthrow rulers
who violate them -> Government must be limited and based on popular consent.

Key idea: Liberty + Property = Legitimate Government.

Comparison:

Theme Hobbes Locke

Human Nature Fearful, selfish, violent Rational, cooperative

State of Nature War of all against all Inconvenient but not deadly

Purpose of Gov’t Security, absolute authority Limited power to protect natural rights

Right to rebel No Yes, if rights are violated

2. Introduce the term “trias politica” and its significance in historical perspective.

Definition: separation of powers, or trias politica, is the principle that government authority should
be divided among three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial, in order to prevent the abuse of
power.

Historical Background:

 Developed by Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws (1748), inspired by the British
constitutional system, which he admired for limiting monarchy. Argued that “Power should
check power” to preserve liberty.
Montesquieu's classic phrase: “There is no liberty if the judiciary is not separated from the legislative
and executive.”

Why It Matters:

 Prevents concentration of power in one institution or person and abuse of authority.

 Encourages checks and balances: each branch can monitor or restrict the others.

 Empowers rule of law - judges act independently from political pressures.

Modern Examples:

 USA: Strong separation - executive (President), legislature (Congress), judiciary (Supreme

Court).

 France: Semi-presidential - hybrid system.

 UK: Parliamentary system with less formal separation (executive drawn from legislature).

3. Discuss and compare the following ideologies: liberalism, conservatism, socialism and nationalism

Understanding ideologies helps explain how different political movements view the state, the
economy, individual rights, and social order.

🔹 Liberalism - The ideology of individual freedom and limited government

Liberalism believes that individuals are rational beings who should be free to make their own choices
in life. It values freedom above all, and argues that the best society is one where people can speak
freely, own property, enter contracts, and participate in politics without unnecessary interference.

Liberals support the rule of law, representative democracy, and market economies, because they
believe these protect individual rights. They also think government should be limited - strong enough
to protect freedom, but not strong enough to become oppressive.

There are two main versions:

 Classical liberals (like John Locke or Adam Smith) believe the state should be minimal - mostly
protecting life, liberty, and property.

 Social liberals (like John Stuart Mill) support some government intervention to ensure equal
opportunity, such as public education or welfare.

🔹 Conservatism - The ideology of tradition, order, and gradual change

Conservatives believe that society works best when it evolves slowly, respecting tradition, family,
religion, and established institutions. They argue that humans are not always rational, and that rapid
change can lead to chaos.

They see order and stability as more important than constant innovation, and prefer to preserve what
works rather than risk losing it in the name of progress.

Conservatives don’t reject all change - but they believe it should be careful and based on experience,
not ideology. They’re often skeptical of large government programs, radical equality movements, or
revolutions.

Edmund Burke argued that revolution destroys the moral bonds of society - and that reform must
respect culture and history.

🔹 Socialism - The ideology of equality and collective welfare

Socialists believe that capitalism creates unjust inequalities - and that a good society must promote
economic and social equality, not just formal rights.

They argue that true freedom isn’t just the right to vote or speak - it’s also about having access to
education, healthcare, housing, and decent work. If wealth and power are concentrated, then the
poor can’t really be free.

Socialists support more public ownership or state control of key industries (like energy, transport,
education), and they favor redistribution through taxation and welfare.

There are different branches:

 Marxist socialists believe the system must be overthrown entirely through revolution.

 Democratic socialists prefer gradual change through elections and reforms.

🔹 Nationalism - The ideology of shared identity and self-rule

Nationalists believe that people who share a common language, history, or culture should live
together in a sovereign state. They see the nation as the natural community, and argue that national
unity creates strength, pride, and belonging.

Nationalism can be:

 Civic - based on shared political values and institutions (e.g., France or the U.S.).

 Ethnic - based on common ancestry, language, or religion (e.g., 19th-century German or Slavic
nationalism).
  Post-colonial - focused on resisting imperialism and achieving independence (e.g., India under
Gandhi, Algeria under the FLN).

Nationalists often support self-determination — the right of nations to rule themselves. But
nationalism can also lead to exclusion, conflict, or xenophobia if it turns inward.

🟨 Summary Table (for recall)

Ideology Believes That... Core Focus

Individuals should be free to live and choose without state Freedom & limited
Liberalism
interference gov’t

Society should protect tradition and evolve slowly to avoid Order & gradual
Conservatism
instability change

Inequality must be corrected by collective action and

Socialism Equality & welfare
redistribution

Nations with shared identity should have their own state and
Nationalism Identity & sovereignty
rule themselves

Recap:

1. Social Contract:

 Hobbes: Security through strong authority.

 Locke: Rights protected by limited government.

2. Trias Politica:

 Montesquieu’s legacy — separating powers to preserve liberty.

3. Ideologies:

 Liberalism: liberty and limited government.

 Conservatism: order and tradition.

 Socialism: equality and collective welfare.

 Nationalism: shared identity and self-rule.

🟦 6. International Law
1. Features of international law: principles, sources, actors.
Definition: body of rules and principles that governs relations between states and other international
actors; includes both binding agreements (treaties) and customary practices accepted as law.

🔹 Key Features of International Law:

1. Horizontal structure: Unlike domestic law (which is vertical, with a sovereign above citizens),
international law is based on state equality — there’s no world government.

2. Consent-based: States are bound only by rules they accept, either through treaties or long-
standing practice.

3. Lack of centralized enforcement: No global police — enforcement depends on state

compliance, reputation, reciprocity, and international institutions.

4. Normative power: Despite weak enforcement, international law shapes behavior by

establishing standards of legitimacy.

🔹 Core Principles of International Law:

 Sovereign equality: All states have the same legal status.

 Non-intervention: No state should interfere in another’s domestic affairs.

 Peaceful settlement of disputes: Diplomacy and law, not force.

 Prohibition of the use of force: Except in self-defense or with UN Security Council approval.

 Pacta sunt servanda: Treaties must be honored — “agreements must be kept”.

🔹 Sources of International Law (from Article 38(1) of the ICJ Statute):

1. Treaties — formal agreements between states, legally binding once signed and ratified.

2. Customary international law — long-standing practices accepted as law.

3. General principles of law — basic legal ideas common across national systems (e.g., good faith,
fairness).

4. Judicial decisions and legal scholarship — don’t create law, but help interpret it.

🔹 Main Actors in International Law:

 States (primary subjects).

 International organizations (e.g. UN, WTO) help states cooperate and follow rules.

 Individuals (especially in human rights and criminal law).

 NGOs and corporations (increasingly influential, but limited legal personality) - help states
cooperate and follow rules.
2. Compare the institutional structure of international organizations, e.g. United Nations, the Council
of Europe.

🔹 United Nations (UN)

Founded: 1945 after WW2 to prevent another global conflict

Purpose: Maintain peace and security, protect human rights, promote development and cooperation.

Main organs:

1. General Assembly: All member states, one vote each - Adopts resolutions (non-binding),
discusses global issues.

2. Security Council: 15 members (5 permanent with veto: US, UK, France, Russia, China) - Can
authorize use of force, sanctions, or peacekeeping.

3. International Court of Justice (ICJ): Settles legal disputes between state. - Advisory opinions for
UN bodies.

4. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC): Coordinates economic and social development.

5. Secretariat: Administrative body led by the Secretary-General.

6. UN Human Rights Council (under GA): Monitors and debates human rights situations.

🔹 Council of Europe (CoE)

Founded: 1949 (not part of the EU)

Focus: Democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

Key institutions:

1. European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR): Enforces the European Convention on Human
Rights - Individuals can file complaints after exhausting domestic remedies.

2. Committee of Ministers and Parliamentary Assembly: Political oversight and dialogue among
member states.

Example: The ECtHR ruled against Hungary in several freedom of expression and media freedom cases
— demonstrating enforcement through judgment, not force.

3. Present the institutions and sources of the international protection of human rights.

🔹 Key Legal Sources of Human Rights:

1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) – foundational, symbolic and influential but
non-binding.

2. International Covenants (1966):

 o ICCPR: Civil and political rights (e.g., free speech, fair trial, freedom of religion).

o ICESCR: Economic, social, cultural rights (e.g., work, education, healthcare).

3. Regional treaties:

o European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

o American Convention on Human Rights

o African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights

🔹 Enforcement Institutions:

 United Nations:

o Human Rights Council (monitors, holds debates).

o Treaty bodies (e.g., Human Rights Committee) review compliance and receive individual
complaints.

 Regional Courts:

o ECtHR (Europe): Can issue binding rulings against states.

o IACHR (Americas) and AfCHPR (Africa): Interpret and enforce regional rights charters.

 International Criminal Court (ICC):

o Prosecutes individuals for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

How is protection enforced?

 UN Human Rights Bodies monitor and report. Some can hear individual complaints (e.g.
Human Rights Committee).

 Regional Courts like the ECtHR issue binding rulings against states.

 NGOs (like Amnesty International) investigate abuses and pressure governments.

4. Present the main elements of the international law of armed conflicts.

Also known as International Humanitarian Law, this is the body of law that governs armed conflict,
aiming to protect civilians and limit suffering.

🔹 Key Principles:

1. Distinction: Parties must distinguish between fighters and civilians- civiliants are not targets

2. Proportionality: Harm to civilians must not be excessive in relation to military advantage.

3. Necessity: Only force necessary to achieve a legitimate military aim may be used.
 4. Humanity: Prohibits weapons and tactics that cause unnecessary suffering.

🔹 Main Legal Instruments:

 Geneva Conventions (1949) and Additional Protocols (1977):

o Protect wounded soldiers, prisoners of war, and civilians.

o Require humane treatment and prohibit torture.

 Hague Conventions:

o Regulate means and methods of warfare.

 Rome Statute (1998):

o Defines war crimes for ICC prosecution.

🔹 Application:

 Applies to international conflicts (e.g., wars between states) and, with restrictions, to non-
international conflicts (e.g., civil wars).

 States and non-state actors (e.g., rebels) must follow these rules.

Example: In Syria’s civil war, IHL applies — but repeated violations (chemical weapons, attacks on
hospitals) show the gap between norms and reality.

Recap:

1. What international law is and where it comes from:

 Based on equality, consent, and obligation — grows from treaties, customs, and principles.

2. What the UN and Council of Europe do:

 Help states solve problems together — and create systems to protect peace and rights.

3. How human rights are enforced internationally:

 Through treaties, courts, and monitoring bodies — with individuals now recognized as subjects
of law.

4. Why law matters even during war:

 IHL limits violence, protects civilians, and creates accountability through rules like the Geneva
Conventions.

🟦 7. Theories of International Relations

1. What does anarchy mean for IR theory? Introduce the concept of anarchy through Realism,
Liberalism and Constructivism.
Anarchy is the absence of a world government. There is no higher authority above states, which
makes international politics fundamentally different from domestic politics. How diff theories interpret
it:

🔹 Realism: Anarchy means danger and competition

Realists believe that because there is no overarching authority, states must rely on themselves for
survival. The international system is anarchic, and this leads to a self-help world where power and
security are the main goals.

 States are rational actors, always calculating their national interest.

 Peace is temporary, and war is always possible.

 Even cooperation is suspicious — because today's ally could be tomorrow’s threat.

Thinkers: Hans Morgenthau (classical realism), Kenneth Waltz (neorealism)

🔹 Liberalism: Anarchy can be managed through cooperation

Liberals agree that the world is anarchic, but they don’t see it as hopeless. They argue that states can
build cooperation through institutions, economic ties, and shared values.

 Democracies are more peaceful (Democratic Peace Theory).

 Interdependence creates incentives to avoid war (Complex Interdependence).

 International law and organizations matter — they build trust and transparency.

Thinkers: Immanuel Kant, Woodrow Wilson

🔹 Constructivism: Anarchy is what states make of it

Constructivists argue that anarchy doesn’t determine behavior — how states understand anarchy
depends on shared ideas and social norms.

 Identity and norms shape behavior — not just material power.

 If states see each other as friends, they behave differently than if they see each other as
enemies.

 Anarchy is socially constructed, not naturally hostile.

Thinker: Alexander Wendt — “Anarchy is what states make of it.”

2. Compare different versions of realism in terms of their understanding of the system, the state,
anarchy, competition and security.

Classical Realism (e.g., Hans Morgenthau)

 Believes conflict is rooted in human nature — people are power-hungry, and so are states.
  Focuses on morality vs. necessity: leaders must make tough choices to protect the state, even
if they seem immoral.

 Power is both a goal and a tool.

“Classical realists see politics as a struggle for power because humans are naturally driven to
dominate.”

🔹 Neorealism / Structural Realism (e.g., Kenneth Waltz)

 Conflict doesn’t come from human nature, but from the structure of the international system.

 Anarchy forces states to compete for security, even if they don’t want to.

 States seek relative gains — they care not just about what they gain, but what others gain.

“Neorealists believe that even good states can’t escape conflict — the system forces them to act
defensively.”

🔸 What they agree on:

 The state is the main actor.

 Power and security drive behavior.

 International institutions are weak — they reflect state interests, not limit them.

3. Explain how different variants of Liberalism challenge the tenets of Realism. Briefly introduce
Wilsonian Liberalism, democratic peace theory and complex interdependence.

Liberals believe that states are not doomed to fight. Instead, they argue that cooperation is possible
and desirable, especially when states share values, trade heavily, and use institutions to solve
problems.

Wilsonian Liberalism:

 Named after Woodrow Wilson (U.S. President, post-WWI).

 Believes democracy, self-determination, and international law can prevent war.

 Supported the creation of the League of Nations — the first major international organization.

🔹 Democratic Peace Theory:

 Democracies are less likely to fight each other, because they share norms of peaceful conflict
resolution, public accountability, and transparency.

🔹 Complex Interdependence (Keohane & Nye):

 States are connected by trade, finance, travel, and communication.

 War becomes too costly when economies are interdependent.

  Non-state actors matter too — like corporations, NGOs, and international organizations.

Liberals emphasize:

 Institutions reduce uncertainty.

 Economies tie states together.

 Values can shape preferences.

4. Define the core elements of the Constructivist turn (the Constructivist critique of mainstream IR).
Introduce the role of norms and state identity in the logic of Constructivism.

Constructivists believe that international politics is not just shaped by military power or economic
strength, but by shared ideas, beliefs, and expectations.

What do they focus on?

 Norms: Rules that define what’s appropriate - like the taboo against using nuclear weapons.

 Identity: How a state sees itself (e.g., “leader of the free world”, “victim of the West”)
influences what it does.

 Social interaction: States learn, imitate, and internalize behaviors over time.

🔹 The Constructivist Turn:

 Critiques realism and liberalism for ignoring how the world is socially constructed.

 Argues that nothing is fixed - power, interests, and threats are all socially shaped.

 Example: The EU developed as a peace project, not just a power bloc - built on shared identity
and trust.

5. Explain what makes an IR theory critical, using the example of Feminism and/or Poststructuralism.

Critical theories challenge mainstream IR by asking deeper questions: Who benefits from the current
system? Whose voices are missing? What assumptions do we take for granted?

🔹 Feminism in IR:

 Asks how gender shapes global politics, shows that traditional IR ignores women's
experiences, especially in war and peace.

 Highlights how terms like “strong” and “rational” are coded as male, while “emotional” or
“vulnerable” are feminized and dismissed.

Example: Women are often excluded from peace negotiations - even though they’re
disproportionately affected by conflict.

🔹 Poststructuralism:
  Focuses on language, discourse, and power, believes that how we talk about the world
shapes what is possible.

 Questions concepts like “state”, “sovereignty”, or “terrorism” - asking: Who defines them? Who
benefits?

Thinkers: Michel Foucault

Example: The “war on terror” relies on language that justifies surveillance, war, and exclusion — it’s
not neutral.

🟦 8. The History of International Relations in the 20th Century

1. What kind of differences and similarities characterize the establishment, functioning and crises of
the League of Nations and the United Nations Organization?

🔹 The League of Nations: A noble idea without the power to act

The League of Nations was created after World War I because people believed that another global
war could be prevented through dialogue, cooperation, and moral pressure.

 Leaders like Woodrow Wilson believed that if states could talk regularly and commit to
peaceful resolution, war would become unnecessary.

 The League promoted ideas like collective security - if one state was attacked, all others would
defend it.

 However, the League did not have the tools to enforce peace:

o No army or real sanctions.

o The United States never joined, weakening its influence.

o Important decisions required unanimous votes, which made action almost impossible.

“The League was an ambitious vision of global peace — but it lacked the strength to make that vision
real.”

🔹 The United Nations: A stronger, more practical system

The United Nations was created after World War II to correct the League’s mistakes. It was built on
the belief that peace requires both cooperation and real enforcement mechanisms.

 Unlike the League, the UN included all major powers — including the U.S., USSR, and later
China.
  It gave veto power to five permanent members of the Security Council (to keep them involved
and invested).

 The UN combines diplomacy, aid, and military tools — including peacekeeping operations and
sanctions.

 It also expanded its mission to human rights, economic development, and health (through
agencies like WHO and UNICEF).

“If the League was an idealistic experiment, the UN was a realist compromise — balancing global
values with political realities.”

2. How did the principle of self-determination appear and influence the emergence of new states?

🔹 What self-determination means:

Self-determination is the idea that people have the right to decide how they are governed — whether
they want to be independent, join another country, or stay as they are. It’s about political choice,
national identity, and freedom from domination.

 Originally emphasized by Woodrow Wilson after WWI.

 After WWII, it became a key principle in the UN Charter and decolonization movements.

 It challenges empires by saying no one should be ruled without consent.

Self-determination gave people the legal and moral argument to say: ‘We deserve our own country,
our own voice, our own future.’

🔹 How it changed international relations:

1. Collapse of Empires:

o Dozens of new states emerged in the second half of the 20th century — especially in
Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

o Former colonies gained independence after centuries of European rule.

2. Shift in legitimacy:

o Power no longer came just from strength or conquest — it came from recognition by
others and the will of the people.

3. New conflicts:

o Sometimes, different groups within the same state claimed self-determination —

leading to civil wars or disputed territories (e.g., Palestine, Kosovo, South Sudan).
“Self-determination reshaped the map of the world — and redefined who had the right to be part of
the international community.”

3. How and why has the number of actors in international relations changed since 1945 (international
NGOs, transnational companies, etc.)

After WWII, international relations stopped being only about governments and wars. A growing
number of non-state actors began to shape how the world works, based on different values, goals,
and types of influence.

🔹 International Organizations: Cooperation through rules

Organizations like the UN, WTO, or World Bank believe that rules-based cooperation can solve
problems better than power politics alone.

 They create common standards (e.g., human rights, trade rules).

 They offer platforms for negotiation and aid.

 They make it harder for countries to act purely in their own interest, because they are part of
global agreements.

Example: The WHO coordinates global health efforts - no state can fight a pandemic alone.

🔹 NGOs: Giving voice to people and values

NGOs believe that people and values - not just governments - should shape international agendas.

 Advocate for human rights, the environment, health, education, and humanitarian aid.

 They monitor government behavior, expose abuses, and provide emergency assistance.

 They often influence global opinion and pressure governments to act.

Example: Amnesty International reports on torture and political prisoners — shaping how countries
are judged by others.

“NGOs speak for humanity when states remain silent.”

🔹 Multinational Corporations: Economic power without borders

Corporations like Amazon, Shell, or Apple believe in economic growth, innovation, and global
markets — and they operate across borders, sometimes more powerful than small states.

 They influence tax law, labor rights, environmental policy.

 They shape diplomacy — for example, tech companies are involved in cybersecurity and
surveillance.

 Governments compete for their investment, which gives them influence.

Example: Facebook was called to testify in U.S. Congress and the EU for its role in misinformation and
elections.

🔹 Terrorist groups and criminal networks: Power through fear and disruption

These actors reject international rules. They challenge state authority, use violence, and operate
across borders.

 Terrorist groups like ISIS don’t want recognition — they want to replace the international
system with a different kind of order.

 Drug cartels, cybercriminals, and arms dealers operate in shadow economies, undermining law
and security.

“Not all new actors seek peace — some thrive in chaos, and make it harder to uphold international
order.”

🔹 Social movements and digital platforms: New voices, fast impact

 Movements like Fridays for Future, #MeToo, or Black Lives Matter believe in grassroots change
and global solidarity.

 Social media platforms allow ideas to spread instantly, reaching more people than traditional
diplomacy ever could.

These movements don’t hold office — but they shape politics from below.

“In the 21st century, a hashtag can have more diplomatic power than a speech.”

Final Recap:

The 20th century didn’t just change international relations — it expanded who could participate, what
values mattered, and how power worked.

- League vs. UN:

 The League had ideals but no power. The UN learned that peace requires diplomacy,
institutions, and enforcement.

- Self-determination:

 It gave people the right to choose independence — reshaping the global map after colonialism.

- New actors:

 Today’s world is shaped not only by states but also by NGOs, corporations, terrorist groups, and
online movements — each with its own logic and impact.