International relations:
PPE perspective
(10 Round-table introductory theses)
О. Ananyin
Witten PPE Conference “Transformation: Knowledge, Power, Wealth”
April 2017
Thesis 1: Is IR inter-state relations only?
 International relations are often
conceived as inter-state relations.
It might be reasonable or not,
depending on circumstances and
purposes of inquiry
In any case, however, such an abstract view neglects
important dimensions of real-world relationships. This
kind of abstractions is rooted in the disciplinary structure
of social sciences and requires an interdisciplinary
approach to overcome respective limitations.
IR dimensions
 There are at least two important dimensions of
international relations that are of special interest from
the PPE perspective.
 These are:
 identity dimension
value dimension
Identity dimension
 Identity dimension focuses on
the multiplicity of agents
involved in relations.
 Real states consist of different social, gender, and
ethnic groups, territorial entities, generations, etc., all
having specific, sometimes contradictory, interests and
preferences, better or worse represented in political
institutions.
Are identities always credible?
 Political representation,
in its turn, is burdened
with principal-agent
problem: identity of
representatives differs
from those represented
 Moreover, identities themselves are social constructs.
They may be more or less mature, as well as could be
subjects of possible manipulation by means of
administrative and/or information frames.
Value dimension
 Value dimension focuses on non-uniqueness of ethical
and political criteria upon which potential conflicting
interests could be judged and reconciled. A well-known
example of conflicting political principles is “state
sovereignty versus right to self-determination”.
 Most of value conflicts have cultural roots and deal with
alternative orderings of individual and collectivist values.
Example of
Russia – EU
relations
 Current crisis in Russia-EU relations is quite
illustrative of most of above-mentioned
dimensions of international relations.
 Neither vertex of the conflicting triangle “Russia
– Ukraine – EU” can be reduced to a simple whole,
and neither can pretend to espouse the true
version of events and promote the only right
solutions of the conflict.
Sources of divergence
 Discussions concerning current crisis in Russia – EU relations clearly show
that different authors look at the problem from different angles focusing
either on inter-state controversies, or human right perspective, or
economic implications, etc., taking into account different time horizons
and space scopes. Any such version can be easily refuted with reference
to alternative perspective indicating some crucial missing factor or
argument. On the other hand, attempts to combine recommendations
based on alternative approaches lack reliable criteria how to order
diverging goals into a coherent system and therefore seem convincing
only for those already convinced.
 Thus along with opinions supporting official positions of each party, one
can observe European experts (and politicians) sharing most of Russian
official arguments and Russian experts (and politicians) endorsing ideas
quite similar to the official EU position, not to say about sharp
controversies of opinions in Ukraine.
Discourse dimension
 Political discourses are often plagued with hypocrisy. Political
declarations tend to conceal, rather than express, true intentions. Thus,
an appeal to long-term national interests might disguise short-term
electoral consideration. An honourable appeal to human rights might
serve a cover to violate sovereignty. Appeal to sovereignty might shield
an intention to strengthen one’s bargaining position in trade negotiations,
etc.
 Moreover, politicians tend to think “strategically”, i.e. not sincere. They
have to choose among available options, even if none fits their true goals.
That is why a preferred ally is not necessarily a good one, and agreed
conditions of an international treaty do not necessarily satisfy all parties.
Compromises are pervasive in politics, but much less in political
declarations.
Preconditions:
pros & contras
 To mend Russia – EU relations one
should face above listed complexities. Declarations should not be
taken literally; alleged “villains” should not be demonized; minorities
should not be disregarded, while vested interests should be tamed; no
solution is possible without concessions to each party involved in
conflict. These are simple principles, but there is no simple way to
implement them. Probably, something like Helsinki Act of 1975 is
needed to get through current difficulties. The ground does exist: in
fact, all parties are interested in mending relations.