WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.339 These days, traditional international relations, 00:00:03.919 --> 00:00:07.759 or IR theory, doesn't seem to offer much to students, 00:00:08.119 --> 00:00:11.099 scholars, or analysts trying to make sense of 00:00:11.099 --> 00:00:14.320 what's actually happening in the world. The events 00:00:14.320 --> 00:00:16.980 of the past ten years, along with the current 00:00:16.980 --> 00:00:20.219 state of global affairs, have pushed way beyond 00:00:20.219 --> 00:00:22.620 the old school framework that once explained 00:00:22.620 --> 00:00:26.859 how nations interact. Sure, political leaders 00:00:26.859 --> 00:00:29.120 still lean on bits and pieces of traditional 00:00:29.120 --> 00:00:32.439 IR when they talk about national or global security. 00:00:32.960 --> 00:00:36.200 But the actions that follow often look very different. 00:00:36.780 --> 00:00:39.340 Instead of staying true to those older theories, 00:00:39.780 --> 00:00:42.759 today's policies tend to focus on expanding power 00:00:42.759 --> 00:00:46.259 and influence, whether through economic pressure, 00:00:46.780 --> 00:00:50.359 corporate reach, or military strength. This episode 00:00:50.359 --> 00:00:52.960 takes a closer look at how traditional IR theory 00:00:52.960 --> 00:00:55.079 struggles to keep up with the world we're living 00:00:55.079 --> 00:00:59.039 in now. and it uses real -world examples to show 00:00:59.039 --> 00:01:02.219 just how far the gap has grown between old ideas 00:01:02.219 --> 00:01:07.719 and modern -day strategies. Welcome back to Diplomacy 00:01:07.719 --> 00:01:10.719 and Discourse channel. I'm your host AR, and 00:01:10.719 --> 00:01:13.099 today we're diving deep into the evolving world 00:01:13.099 --> 00:01:16.920 of international relations in episode 14. As 00:01:16.920 --> 00:01:20.340 global conflicts shift, alliances like NATO expand, 00:01:20.900 --> 00:01:23.780 and humanitarian crises become more complex, 00:01:24.340 --> 00:01:27.099 we have to ask, Are the traditional theories 00:01:27.099 --> 00:01:31.900 of IR, like realism and liberalism, still helping 00:01:31.900 --> 00:01:35.819 us understand the world? Or are we in need of 00:01:35.819 --> 00:01:39.659 a new framework altogether? From Machiavelli's 00:01:39.659 --> 00:01:43.500 cunning to COVID -19's chaos, this episode explores 00:01:43.500 --> 00:01:46.159 how historic theories are being tested in real 00:01:46.159 --> 00:01:49.739 time, and how new paradigms like constructivism, 00:01:50.239 --> 00:01:53.480 critical theory, and post -colonialism are pushing 00:01:53.480 --> 00:01:56.079 the boundaries of how we think about diplomacy, 00:01:56.780 --> 00:02:00.400 sovereignty, and power. Let's break it all down, 00:02:00.680 --> 00:02:06.620 past, present, and what lies ahead. Even though 00:02:06.620 --> 00:02:09.180 the major conflicts of the 20th century helped 00:02:09.180 --> 00:02:12.060 shape our understanding of international relations 00:02:12.060 --> 00:02:15.259 and global institutions, the past few years have 00:02:15.259 --> 00:02:18.000 introduced challenges that those older frameworks 00:02:18.000 --> 00:02:21.659 just aren't built to handle. The world has changed 00:02:21.659 --> 00:02:25.710 fast. and with it, the way we view and use IR 00:02:25.710 --> 00:02:29.789 theory. Today, big corporations and military 00:02:29.789 --> 00:02:33.770 powers seem more focused on using force and securing 00:02:33.770 --> 00:02:37.409 strategic advantages than on engaging with traditional 00:02:37.409 --> 00:02:41.150 academic theories. As a result, many students, 00:02:41.569 --> 00:02:44.949 scholars, and analysts find that the classic 00:02:44.949 --> 00:02:48.810 ideas of IR no longer offer clear answers to 00:02:48.810 --> 00:02:52.319 today's complex global problems. From shifting 00:02:52.319 --> 00:02:54.860 alliances to the breakdown of long -standing 00:02:54.860 --> 00:02:58.599 treaties, recent events have exposed how outdated 00:02:58.599 --> 00:03:01.539 some of our core assumptions about global politics 00:03:01.539 --> 00:03:04.539 really are. Now we're going to dive into that 00:03:04.539 --> 00:03:07.979 mismatch, showing how traditional IR theory often 00:03:07.979 --> 00:03:10.719 falls short when applied to modern realities, 00:03:11.360 --> 00:03:14.819 and using real -world examples to highlight just 00:03:14.819 --> 00:03:19.939 how much the field needs to evolve. This raises 00:03:19.939 --> 00:03:23.219 some big questions within academic circles. Are 00:03:23.219 --> 00:03:26.060 traditional IR theories still useful when the 00:03:26.060 --> 00:03:28.960 behavior of states and even the conflicts between 00:03:28.960 --> 00:03:32.719 close allies seem to completely ignore the foundations 00:03:32.719 --> 00:03:35.159 and institutions that once anchored international 00:03:35.159 --> 00:03:38.840 affairs? What are we actually teaching our students? 00:03:39.460 --> 00:03:42.039 What kind of sources and references are we relying 00:03:42.039 --> 00:03:45.620 on to support these theories? And how do we even 00:03:45.620 --> 00:03:48.770 evaluate them? Are we judging their value based 00:03:48.770 --> 00:03:52.129 on academic tradition? Or are we using real -world 00:03:52.129 --> 00:03:55.449 analysis that reflects today's realities? These 00:03:55.449 --> 00:03:58.389 questions point to a deeper issue, whether the 00:03:58.389 --> 00:04:01.669 discipline is adapting fast enough to keep up 00:04:01.669 --> 00:04:07.330 with a world that's clearly moving on. IR theory 00:04:07.330 --> 00:04:10.069 gives us the foundation to understand how the 00:04:10.069 --> 00:04:12.840 world works. They help us get into the minds 00:04:12.840 --> 00:04:16.160 of nations and their leaders, offering a range 00:04:16.160 --> 00:04:19.040 of perspectives that make sense of global events, 00:04:19.600 --> 00:04:22.740 political decisions, and diplomatic moves. These 00:04:22.740 --> 00:04:25.639 theories don't just explain things. They also 00:04:25.639 --> 00:04:28.660 spark important questions and debates about both 00:04:28.660 --> 00:04:32.040 current issues and moments from the past. For 00:04:32.040 --> 00:04:34.600 many students and scholars, what draws them in 00:04:34.600 --> 00:04:37.160 is the chance to dig into real -world case studies. 00:04:37.920 --> 00:04:41.600 The big, often messy, global events that first 00:04:41.600 --> 00:04:44.160 sparked their interest in international relations. 00:04:44.839 --> 00:04:47.839 IR theory helps make sense of those events, acting 00:04:47.839 --> 00:04:51.759 as both a guide and a launch pad for deeper exploration. 00:04:53.879 --> 00:04:57.459 In his influential work, Towards a Global International 00:04:57.459 --> 00:05:02.500 Relations, Amitav Akayra, 2017, argues that the 00:05:02.500 --> 00:05:05.560 field of international relations is gaining prominence 00:05:05.560 --> 00:05:09.350 on a global scale. He highlights how IR classrooms 00:05:09.350 --> 00:05:12.670 in Western academic institutions are increasingly 00:05:12.670 --> 00:05:15.449 filled with students from diverse cultures and 00:05:15.449 --> 00:05:18.990 regional backgrounds. While this diversity brings 00:05:18.990 --> 00:05:21.949 a range of valuable perspectives, it can also 00:05:21.949 --> 00:05:25.269 create gaps in understanding. According to Akira, 00:05:25.750 --> 00:05:29.050 students often carry worldviews shaped by their 00:05:29.050 --> 00:05:33.209 native, local, or continental experiences, which 00:05:33.209 --> 00:05:37.189 may not always align with or fully capture the 00:05:37.189 --> 00:05:39.970 complexities of global events and conflicts. 00:05:41.410 --> 00:05:44.290 As a result, their interpretations can sometimes 00:05:44.290 --> 00:05:47.250 fall short in explaining international dynamics 00:05:47.250 --> 00:05:52.529 with the nuance those issues demand. One of the 00:05:52.529 --> 00:05:55.029 foundational pillars of international relations 00:05:55.029 --> 00:05:59.769 theory is realism. At its core, realism focuses 00:05:59.769 --> 00:06:03.329 on competition, conflict, and the constant struggle 00:06:03.329 --> 00:06:06.689 for power. It sees the world as a place where 00:06:06.689 --> 00:06:09.550 disputes and rivalries are not just possible, 00:06:09.850 --> 00:06:13.589 but inevitable. Realist thinkers often turn to 00:06:13.589 --> 00:06:16.250 history for their case studies, believing that 00:06:16.250 --> 00:06:19.370 the patterns of the past will repeat themselves. 00:06:20.149 --> 00:06:23.610 Because human nature doesn't really change. In 00:06:23.610 --> 00:06:27.529 this view, ego tends to outweigh altruism, and 00:06:27.529 --> 00:06:32.089 mistrust between states is the default. War rather 00:06:32.089 --> 00:06:35.490 than peace is seen as the norm. To underscore 00:06:35.490 --> 00:06:38.529 this perspective, realists often point out that 00:06:38.529 --> 00:06:41.370 in the last 3 ,000 years of recorded history, 00:06:41.949 --> 00:06:45.970 only about 300 years have been free of war between 00:06:45.970 --> 00:06:50.110 nations, a sobering statistic that reflects their 00:06:50.110 --> 00:06:53.389 belief in the perspective of conflict as a defining 00:06:53.389 --> 00:06:59.589 feature of international relations. Niccolo Machiavelli 00:06:59.589 --> 00:07:03.000 strongly aligned with this realist perspective, 00:07:03.699 --> 00:07:06.939 arguing that human nature often undermines safety, 00:07:07.199 --> 00:07:10.079 stability, and even the survival of the state. 00:07:10.860 --> 00:07:14.360 During the 15th and early 16th centuries, leaders 00:07:14.360 --> 00:07:18.339 of city -states, often powerful patriarchs, played 00:07:18.339 --> 00:07:21.019 a dominant role in shaping political affairs. 00:07:21.699 --> 00:07:26.360 In his famous work, The Prince, 1532, Machiavelli 00:07:26.360 --> 00:07:29.839 laid out his vision of leadership rooted in pragmatism 00:07:29.839 --> 00:07:33.459 and power. He argued that a ruler's top priority 00:07:33.459 --> 00:07:36.620 should be the security of the state, even if 00:07:36.620 --> 00:07:40.160 it meant resorting to manipulation, force, or 00:07:40.160 --> 00:07:44.240 deception. For Machiavelli, the ends justified 00:07:44.240 --> 00:07:48.060 the means. He championed a kind of personal responsibility 00:07:48.060 --> 00:07:51.500 that prioritized political survival and strategic 00:07:51.500 --> 00:07:56.379 gain over moral or societal norms. In essence, 00:07:56.879 --> 00:07:59.920 leaders should be willing to do whatever it takes. 00:08:00.079 --> 00:08:03.660 even if it's ruthless or morally questionable, 00:08:04.220 --> 00:08:09.860 to achieve and protect their goals. Now let's 00:08:09.860 --> 00:08:12.759 shift to liberalism, one of the most dominant 00:08:12.759 --> 00:08:15.740 and widely discussed schools of thought in modern 00:08:15.740 --> 00:08:19.019 international relations. You'll often hear the 00:08:19.019 --> 00:08:22.379 term liberal democracy tossed around in political 00:08:22.379 --> 00:08:26.120 debates, academic discussions, and media analysis. 00:08:26.800 --> 00:08:30.420 It's a relatively modern concept. shaped largely 00:08:30.420 --> 00:08:33.179 by the events of the 20th century and rooted 00:08:33.179 --> 00:08:36.320 in the idea of promoting democratic governance, 00:08:37.039 --> 00:08:40.720 free and fair elections, individual rights, rule 00:08:40.720 --> 00:08:45.440 of law, and constitutional order. In many ways, 00:08:45.879 --> 00:08:48.759 liberalism stands in direct contrast to realism. 00:08:49.620 --> 00:08:52.320 While realism sees conflict and power struggles 00:08:52.320 --> 00:08:56.000 as inevitable, liberalism offers a more hopeful, 00:08:56.360 --> 00:09:01.100 even idealistic, view of world politics. It assumes 00:09:01.100 --> 00:09:04.759 that cooperation, mutual respect, and the protection 00:09:04.759 --> 00:09:08.240 of civil liberties can overcome humanity's darker 00:09:08.240 --> 00:09:12.080 instincts, like the hunger for dominance, territorial 00:09:12.080 --> 00:09:18.039 expansion, and war. The third major theory in 00:09:18.039 --> 00:09:21.389 international relations is constructivism. which 00:09:21.389 --> 00:09:24.830 gained momentum in the early 1990s, especially 00:09:24.830 --> 00:09:28.210 after the limitations of realism and liberalism 00:09:28.210 --> 00:09:31.990 became more apparent. While those earlier theories 00:09:31.990 --> 00:09:35.629 emphasized power struggles, self -interest, and 00:09:35.629 --> 00:09:39.049 institutional imbalances, constructivism took 00:09:39.049 --> 00:09:43.149 a different path. It emerged in response to transformative 00:09:43.149 --> 00:09:46.429 global events like the end of the Cold War, the 00:09:46.429 --> 00:09:49.350 fall of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of 00:09:49.350 --> 00:09:53.080 communism. None of which were sparked by formal 00:09:53.080 --> 00:09:57.460 state initiatives. Instead, these changes were 00:09:57.460 --> 00:10:00.659 driven by people, ordinary citizens who rejected 00:10:00.659 --> 00:10:03.559 authoritarian regimes and demanded something 00:10:03.559 --> 00:10:07.960 new. As Nicholas Onuf explains in World of Our 00:10:07.960 --> 00:10:11.919 Making, 2012, constructivism sees the world as 00:10:11.919 --> 00:10:15.220 shaped by society itself, not just by governments, 00:10:15.679 --> 00:10:19.240 elites, or international bodies. According to 00:10:19.240 --> 00:10:21.970 this view, It's people, whether they're heads 00:10:21.970 --> 00:10:25.850 of state, activists, or everyday citizens, who 00:10:25.850 --> 00:10:29.730 influence policies, inspire change, and reshape 00:10:29.730 --> 00:10:35.169 the course of international relations. Another 00:10:35.169 --> 00:10:38.110 important perspective in international relations 00:10:38.110 --> 00:10:41.870 is critical theory. As the name implies, this 00:10:41.870 --> 00:10:45.009 approach challenges the core ideas behind modern 00:10:45.009 --> 00:10:49.269 systems of governance, economics, taxation, and 00:10:49.269 --> 00:10:52.179 trade. arguing that many of these structures 00:10:52.179 --> 00:10:55.100 actually contribute to the oppression and control 00:10:55.100 --> 00:10:58.759 of everyday people. At its heart, critical theory 00:10:58.759 --> 00:11:02.399 seeks to expose these power imbalances and offer 00:11:02.399 --> 00:11:05.659 a path toward emancipation, civil liberties, 00:11:06.159 --> 00:11:09.559 and true freedom. Though widely applied today, 00:11:10.080 --> 00:11:13.679 its roots go back centuries to the ideas of philosophers 00:11:13.679 --> 00:11:17.720 like Karl Marx and Immanuel Kant. Both thinkers 00:11:17.720 --> 00:11:20.269 were central to the Enlightenment. promoting 00:11:20.269 --> 00:11:23.970 the concept of universalism, an early form of 00:11:23.970 --> 00:11:28.250 what we might now call globalism. This vision 00:11:28.250 --> 00:11:32.470 imagines a world of shared ideas, peaceful cooperation, 00:11:33.169 --> 00:11:36.370 and inclusive governance, where diverse societies 00:11:36.370 --> 00:11:38.929 can coexist and thrive together under common 00:11:38.929 --> 00:11:43.190 principles of justice and equality. While idealistic, 00:11:43.629 --> 00:11:45.830 critical theory provides a powerful lens through 00:11:45.830 --> 00:11:48.980 which to question existing systems, and imagine 00:11:48.980 --> 00:11:54.600 a more just global order. Post -colonial theory 00:11:54.600 --> 00:11:57.679 is another key approach in international relations, 00:11:58.340 --> 00:12:01.440 emerging in the 20th century as the great empires 00:12:01.440 --> 00:12:05.360 of the world began to fall apart. The collapse 00:12:05.360 --> 00:12:09.039 of colonial rule, accelerated by two world wars 00:12:09.039 --> 00:12:12.379 and growing national resistance, left behind 00:12:12.379 --> 00:12:15.840 a global landscape shaped by the aftermath of 00:12:15.840 --> 00:12:19.820 empire. In this new reality, powerful nations, 00:12:20.320 --> 00:12:23.299 especially the United States, stepped into leadership 00:12:23.299 --> 00:12:26.460 roles, often reshaping international systems 00:12:26.460 --> 00:12:30.879 to reflect their own interests and values. Postcolonial 00:12:30.879 --> 00:12:33.899 theory challenges this shift by analyzing global 00:12:33.899 --> 00:12:37.059 events through the eyes of formerly colonized 00:12:37.059 --> 00:12:41.480 and less powerful states. It focuses on the long 00:12:41.480 --> 00:12:44.419 -term effects of imperialism, raising critical 00:12:44.419 --> 00:12:47.279 questions about sovereignty, national identity, 00:12:47.879 --> 00:12:51.059 the abuse of human rights, and the marginalization 00:12:51.059 --> 00:12:55.759 of certain nations in global politics. At its 00:12:55.759 --> 00:12:58.720 core, post -colonial theory urges scholars and 00:12:58.720 --> 00:13:01.899 policymakers to reconsider whose voices are being 00:13:01.899 --> 00:13:05.860 heard and whose are being silenced in the story 00:13:05.860 --> 00:13:11.419 of international relations. In the 21st century, 00:13:12.080 --> 00:13:14.039 international relations theory has continued 00:13:14.039 --> 00:13:17.500 to evolve. sometimes in ways that make the older, 00:13:17.879 --> 00:13:21.379 classical theories feel outdated or disconnected 00:13:21.379 --> 00:13:25.159 from today's global challenges. Postmodern and 00:13:25.159 --> 00:13:27.659 cosmopolitan approaches have gained traction, 00:13:28.379 --> 00:13:30.940 often promoting idealistic visions of global 00:13:30.940 --> 00:13:35.019 peace, equality, and universal freedom. These 00:13:35.019 --> 00:13:38.320 theories don't just analyze states. They champion 00:13:38.320 --> 00:13:41.559 a world where every individual, regardless of 00:13:41.559 --> 00:13:44.929 nationality or background, has a voice. and a 00:13:44.929 --> 00:13:49.070 place. As Alex Dietzow explains in Global Justice 00:13:49.070 --> 00:13:52.830 and Climate Governance, Bridging Theory and Practice, 00:13:53.289 --> 00:13:57.570 2019, this perspective is rooted in cosmopolitanism, 00:13:58.070 --> 00:14:00.289 which shifts the focus from the power of the 00:14:00.289 --> 00:14:03.190 state to the moral responsibilities of the individual. 00:14:03.929 --> 00:14:07.409 In this view, human dignity and ethics take center 00:14:07.409 --> 00:14:10.850 stage, pushing for a more inclusive and just 00:14:10.850 --> 00:14:14.570 global society where traditional boundaries whether 00:14:14.570 --> 00:14:18.730 cultural, political, or geographic, hold less 00:14:18.730 --> 00:14:22.269 sway over how justice is understood and pursued. 00:14:25.389 --> 00:14:28.049 This theory envisions a form of global social 00:14:28.049 --> 00:14:31.570 justice that applies to all people, regardless 00:14:31.570 --> 00:14:34.629 of their nationality, citizenship, or social 00:14:34.629 --> 00:14:38.309 status, aiming to create a truly universal and 00:14:38.309 --> 00:14:43.480 inclusive international order. World War I marked 00:14:43.480 --> 00:14:46.559 a turning point in human history, not only as 00:14:46.559 --> 00:14:48.899 the deadliest conflict the world has seen up 00:14:48.899 --> 00:14:52.139 to that point, but also as the catalyst for a 00:14:52.139 --> 00:14:55.700 new vision of global cooperation. In the wake 00:14:55.700 --> 00:14:59.059 of unimaginable destruction, there was a shared 00:14:59.059 --> 00:15:02.360 desire among world leaders to prevent such devastation 00:15:02.360 --> 00:15:05.960 from ever happening again. U .S. President Woodrow 00:15:05.960 --> 00:15:09.840 Wilson introduced his famous 14 points. a blueprint 00:15:09.840 --> 00:15:13.820 for peace that emphasized diplomacy, self -determination, 00:15:14.220 --> 00:15:17.519 and collective security. One of the most influential 00:15:17.519 --> 00:15:20.600 outcomes of this vision was the creation of the 00:15:20.600 --> 00:15:23.679 League of Nations, a precursor to what would 00:15:23.679 --> 00:15:27.379 later become the United Nations, designed to 00:15:27.379 --> 00:15:31.240 promote dialogue among nations and maintain international 00:15:31.240 --> 00:15:37.480 peace. Following the even more catastrophic Second 00:15:37.480 --> 00:15:40.500 World War, the international community took more 00:15:40.500 --> 00:15:43.159 definitive steps towards institutionalizing peace 00:15:43.159 --> 00:15:46.500 and cooperation. The founding of the United Nations, 00:15:46.940 --> 00:15:49.039 the drafting of the Universal Declaration of 00:15:49.039 --> 00:15:51.820 Human Rights, the creation of the International 00:15:51.820 --> 00:15:55.120 Court of Justice, and the establishment of major 00:15:55.120 --> 00:15:59.000 alliances like NATO and the European Union reflected 00:15:59.000 --> 00:16:03.279 a shared commitment to multilateralism. The post 00:16:03.279 --> 00:16:06.559 -war era saw a surge in global governance mechanisms. 00:16:06.960 --> 00:16:10.019 international law agreements, and cooperative 00:16:10.019 --> 00:16:14.279 frameworks like the Council of Europe. Yet, despite 00:16:14.279 --> 00:16:17.360 these promising developments, conflict did not 00:16:17.360 --> 00:16:21.179 vanish. Instead, the world quickly entered the 00:16:21.179 --> 00:16:24.440 tense standoff of the Cold War, a period that 00:16:24.440 --> 00:16:26.620 deeply influenced the field of international 00:16:26.620 --> 00:16:30.519 relations, reinforcing realist theories that 00:16:30.519 --> 00:16:33.940 emphasized power politics, security dilemmas, 00:16:34.220 --> 00:16:38.320 and state interests, over idealistic cooperation. 00:16:41.000 --> 00:16:43.919 The United Nations was envisioned as a global 00:16:43.919 --> 00:16:46.700 forum where nations could come together to confront 00:16:46.700 --> 00:16:49.860 common challenges, regardless of their differences, 00:16:50.100 --> 00:16:53.519 and work collaboratively towards shared solutions. 00:16:54.379 --> 00:16:57.379 NATO, on the other hand, was established to protect 00:16:57.379 --> 00:17:00.220 the freedom and security of its members through 00:17:00.220 --> 00:17:03.120 a combination of political dialogue, military 00:17:03.120 --> 00:17:07.819 readiness, and democratic values. However, the 00:17:07.819 --> 00:17:10.819 end of the Cold War brought unexpected challenges 00:17:10.819 --> 00:17:13.799 and opportunities. International institutions 00:17:13.799 --> 00:17:16.779 found themselves navigating a rapidly shifting 00:17:16.779 --> 00:17:21.019 geopolitical landscape. Powerful states, in particular, 00:17:21.539 --> 00:17:24.839 adapted quickly to this new reality, pursuing 00:17:24.839 --> 00:17:27.440 strategic objectives that included expanding 00:17:27.440 --> 00:17:30.680 their influence, reshaping foreign societies, 00:17:31.259 --> 00:17:34.680 and asserting dominance through both hard and 00:17:34.680 --> 00:17:38.839 soft power. This era gave rise to new economic 00:17:38.839 --> 00:17:42.319 initiatives, as well as global partnerships and 00:17:42.319 --> 00:17:45.380 competitive diplomacy that continue to shape 00:17:45.380 --> 00:17:51.200 international relations today. As the 20th century 00:17:51.200 --> 00:17:54.799 came to a close and the 21st began, a new set 00:17:54.799 --> 00:17:58.220 of challenges emerged on the global stage, reshaping 00:17:58.220 --> 00:18:01.359 the priorities of both nation -states and international 00:18:01.359 --> 00:18:04.890 institutions. However, these two forces often 00:18:04.890 --> 00:18:07.509 found themselves at odds, particularly given 00:18:07.509 --> 00:18:09.990 the influence of the permanent five members of 00:18:09.990 --> 00:18:13.609 the U .N. Security Council. Crises like the Rwandan 00:18:13.609 --> 00:18:17.269 genocide, the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, and 00:18:17.269 --> 00:18:21.369 later the COVID -19 pandemic exposed major flaws 00:18:21.369 --> 00:18:23.930 in the effectiveness of global institutions. 00:18:25.390 --> 00:18:30.049 These events revealed a hard truth. Despite decades 00:18:30.049 --> 00:18:33.019 of international cooperation, and a theoretical 00:18:33.019 --> 00:18:36.940 framework of IR, states still act according to 00:18:36.940 --> 00:18:40.539 their own interests, and those national agendas 00:18:40.539 --> 00:18:44.519 often override international commitments. Scholars 00:18:44.519 --> 00:18:48.460 like Peter Kratenstein, Robert Kehonen, and Stephen 00:18:48.460 --> 00:18:52.500 Krasner argue that such dynamics reflect deeper 00:18:52.500 --> 00:18:56.079 patterns of strategic behavior in their 1999 00:18:56.079 --> 00:18:59.039 work, International Organization and the Study 00:18:59.039 --> 00:19:01.980 of World Politics. They emphasized how agenda 00:19:01.980 --> 00:19:05.240 setting, uncertainty, and strategic manipulation 00:19:05.240 --> 00:19:09.460 continue to shape global politics, even within 00:19:09.460 --> 00:19:16.380 liberal institutional frameworks. In recent years, 00:19:16.740 --> 00:19:19.799 we've seen growing confusion and division surrounding 00:19:19.799 --> 00:19:22.380 the relevance and application of international 00:19:22.380 --> 00:19:25.539 relations theories, particularly when it comes 00:19:25.539 --> 00:19:29.410 to controversial global events. One notable example 00:19:29.410 --> 00:19:33.529 was the 1999 Kosovo crisis, which coincided with 00:19:33.529 --> 00:19:37.329 NATO's 50th anniversary. Instead of presenting 00:19:37.329 --> 00:19:41.369 a moment of unity, the crisis exposed deep fractures 00:19:41.369 --> 00:19:45.789 within the Alliance. On March 23, 1999, NATO 00:19:45.789 --> 00:19:48.910 launched an air campaign against Belgrade, aiming 00:19:48.910 --> 00:19:51.890 to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Kosovo -Albanian 00:19:51.890 --> 00:19:55.319 population. While many justified the intervention 00:19:55.319 --> 00:19:58.980 as a moral and humanitarian act, the operation 00:19:58.980 --> 00:20:01.920 sparked intense debate among member states and 00:20:01.920 --> 00:20:05.279 international observers, especially due to the 00:20:05.279 --> 00:20:08.339 lack of a formal UN Security Council resolution 00:20:08.339 --> 00:20:12.839 authorizing the use of force. As J .J. Holst 00:20:12.839 --> 00:20:17.680 noted in Keeping a Fractured Peace, 1994, such 00:20:17.680 --> 00:20:20.720 interventions highlight the ongoing tension between 00:20:20.720 --> 00:20:23.140 the principles of sovereignty, and the right 00:20:23.140 --> 00:20:26.720 to intervene. Supporters of the NATO action maintained 00:20:26.720 --> 00:20:30.539 it was a necessary and humane response to atrocities. 00:20:31.220 --> 00:20:34.880 However, critics like Adam Roberts, in his 1999 00:20:34.880 --> 00:20:39.599 article, NATO's humanitarian war over Kosovo, 00:20:39.960 --> 00:20:43.599 argued that without proper UN approval, the operation 00:20:43.599 --> 00:20:46.759 challenged international legal norms, raising 00:20:46.759 --> 00:20:50.180 questions about the legitimacy of so -called 00:20:50.180 --> 00:20:54.609 humanitarian wars. When it comes to the ongoing 00:20:54.609 --> 00:20:57.309 integration of aspiring countries into NATO, 00:20:57.829 --> 00:21:01.069 several key factors must be taken into account. 00:21:01.549 --> 00:21:04.589 Most notably security, democratic governance, 00:21:05.269 --> 00:21:08.309 political stability, and adherence to the rule 00:21:08.309 --> 00:21:13.130 of law. As a geopolitical alliance, NATO is not 00:21:13.130 --> 00:21:16.309 just a military pact. It's also rooted in the 00:21:16.309 --> 00:21:19.609 promotion of democratic values. Upholding these 00:21:19.609 --> 00:21:22.660 principles is essential. not only for the internal 00:21:22.660 --> 00:21:25.539 stability of new member states, but also for 00:21:25.539 --> 00:21:28.519 the broader security of the region and the international 00:21:28.519 --> 00:21:31.559 community. Failing to do so can open the door 00:21:31.559 --> 00:21:34.559 to a host of challenges, including political 00:21:34.559 --> 00:21:38.640 instability, organized crime, corruption, and 00:21:38.640 --> 00:21:41.720 trafficking, all of which can undermine collective 00:21:41.720 --> 00:21:45.099 security. These concerns continue to spark debates 00:21:45.099 --> 00:21:48.220 and reveal the limitations of traditional IR 00:21:48.220 --> 00:21:51.359 theories. which often struggle to address the 00:21:51.359 --> 00:21:54.420 complex interplay between normative values and 00:21:54.420 --> 00:21:57.319 strategic interests in today's international 00:21:57.319 --> 00:22:02.819 landscape. NATO member states must be seen as 00:22:02.819 --> 00:22:07.440 strategic assets, not liabilities. Membership 00:22:07.440 --> 00:22:10.579 should not simply serve as an extension of a 00:22:10.579 --> 00:22:13.640 modern -day containment policy reminiscent of 00:22:13.640 --> 00:22:18.130 George F. Kennan's Cold War doctrine. now repurposed 00:22:18.130 --> 00:22:21.849 for today's greater power rivalries or the ongoing 00:22:21.849 --> 00:22:26.650 war in Ukraine. Rather, NATO allies must embody 00:22:26.650 --> 00:22:29.990 strength, stability, and democratic integrity. 00:22:30.549 --> 00:22:34.450 They need to be vigilant, resilient, and fully 00:22:34.450 --> 00:22:38.049 prepared to face evolving global threats, including 00:22:38.049 --> 00:22:42.130 unconventional ones like pandemics. The COVID 00:22:42.130 --> 00:22:45.859 -19 crisis served as a wake -up call revealing 00:22:45.859 --> 00:22:48.559 that security is no longer confined to traditional 00:22:48.559 --> 00:22:52.279 military threats, but extends to public health, 00:22:52.779 --> 00:22:58.579 cyber defense, and social cohesion. The pandemic 00:22:58.579 --> 00:23:01.819 exposed significant cracks in the foundation 00:23:01.819 --> 00:23:05.559 of international cooperation. Collective security 00:23:05.559 --> 00:23:09.319 institutions, including NATO, struggled to respond 00:23:09.319 --> 00:23:12.839 effectively. Instead of rallying around a unified 00:23:12.839 --> 00:23:17.500 strategy, Member states turned inward, prioritizing 00:23:17.500 --> 00:23:20.839 national interests over collective responsibility. 00:23:21.740 --> 00:23:25.859 Terms like sovereignty, citizenship, and my country, 00:23:26.019 --> 00:23:30.619 my people dominated political discourse, sidelining 00:23:30.619 --> 00:23:34.019 the ideals of European solidarity and global 00:23:34.019 --> 00:23:38.500 cooperation. This shift weakened trust and undercut 00:23:38.500 --> 00:23:41.359 the vision of a shared, interconnected security 00:23:41.359 --> 00:23:45.200 community. one that transcends borders in moments 00:23:45.200 --> 00:23:50.880 of global crisis. These challenges must be addressed 00:23:50.880 --> 00:23:54.220 head -on. NATO's role now includes confronting 00:23:54.220 --> 00:23:57.000 new global threats while reinforcing its democratic 00:23:57.000 --> 00:24:00.640 foundations. The Alliance must be deliberate 00:24:00.640 --> 00:24:04.319 and strategic in admitting new members, focusing 00:24:04.319 --> 00:24:07.460 on states that are politically stable, democratically 00:24:07.460 --> 00:24:10.400 robust, and ready to contribute meaningfully 00:24:10.400 --> 00:24:14.160 to collective security. As NATO Secretary -General 00:24:14.160 --> 00:24:16.839 Jan Stoltenberg emphasized during the Munich 00:24:16.839 --> 00:24:21.400 Security Conference on February 18, 2022, quote, 00:24:21.900 --> 00:24:25.039 standing together in NATO, we will continue to 00:24:25.039 --> 00:24:27.880 keep the peace and protect our democratic way 00:24:27.880 --> 00:24:31.960 of life, as we have done for more than 70 years, 00:24:32.420 --> 00:24:36.640 end quote. His words echoed the urgency of maintaining 00:24:36.640 --> 00:24:41.000 unity through shared democratic values. These 00:24:41.000 --> 00:24:44.359 developments also force us to revisit foundational 00:24:44.359 --> 00:24:47.519 questions in the study of international relations. 00:24:48.380 --> 00:24:51.579 How should we evaluate the theories we teach? 00:24:52.500 --> 00:24:55.500 What academic sources still hold explanatory 00:24:55.500 --> 00:24:58.740 power? And should our assessments be grounded 00:24:58.740 --> 00:25:03.039 in theoretical tradition or in real -world analytical 00:25:03.039 --> 00:25:09.150 relevance? As we've explored today, The international 00:25:09.150 --> 00:25:12.410 stage is more fragmented and unpredictable than 00:25:12.410 --> 00:25:16.329 ever. And yet the desire for cooperation, peace, 00:25:16.630 --> 00:25:20.450 and shared values remains strong. Theories of 00:25:20.450 --> 00:25:22.849 international relations aren't just academic 00:25:22.849 --> 00:25:26.230 concepts. They are lens through which we interpret 00:25:26.230 --> 00:25:30.190 war, peace, and the decisions shaping our future. 00:25:30.930 --> 00:25:35.250 From Kosovo to COVID, from realism to cosmopolitanism, 00:25:35.670 --> 00:25:39.680 the question remains. What should we teach? How 00:25:39.680 --> 00:25:43.279 do we assess? And what kind of world are we preparing 00:25:43.279 --> 00:25:47.539 the next generation to inherit? Thank you for 00:25:47.539 --> 00:25:50.599 tuning in to Diplomacy and Discourse. Don't forget 00:25:50.599 --> 00:25:53.720 to subscribe, leave a comment, and share your 00:25:53.720 --> 00:25:58.019 thoughts. You can always reach us at diplomacyanddiscourse 00:25:58.019 --> 00:26:02.359 at gmail .com. Until next time, keep questioning, 00:26:02.980 --> 00:26:05.079 keep learning, and keep engaging.