Intro to IR- Final

Interdependance

Central part of liberalist peace theory. Product of globalization. Mutual connectedness and dependency of states and non-state actors. Ideas: 1. States are not the only actors. (i.e. MNCs, NGOs, Institutions...) 2. Interconnected through a variety of channels: Trade, finance, travel, and communications. Realists argue that the world is not at all interdependent. They argue cooperation is difficult and states are sovereign and distrustful. Marxists argue that interdependence is a mechanism for control and dominance.

Effects of Globalization according to Liberalism

Economic globalization is necessary, in global world countries are less relevant (almost anarchic).

Implications of anarchy on cooperation according to Realism

Fear deception - countries see the potential for cooperation, but are afraid to do so because of the lack of a guarantee that the other side will not cheat. The sensitivity of relations - because of the importance of self-help, relatively powerful countries are busy improving their relative position compared to other countries, and therefore will not cooperate if it will change the balance of power and improve the standing of another country.

Conditions for consideration for intervention in Civil Wars:

1. Normative aspect- is the global or international order more important? Is there a duty to protect citizens of other countries? 2. Practical- Kaufmann- Will military intervention lead to the end of the war. 3. Geopolitical logic of intervention- Is there any logic to the intervention Humanitarian intervention only effective when (Kaufmann): 1. Ethnic Conflict 2. Must choose side 3. Set boundaries 4. Occupy territory 5. Exchanges across borders 6. After withdrawal must be agreement and/or aid.

Security Problems in Third World Countries

1. Leaders suppress their citizens to benefit themselves. 2. Internal conflicts 3. Balance of internal and external threats. 4. Issues with regional cooperation and foreign intervention 5. States often are quasi-states- they are recognized externally but fail to have effective internal sovereignty due to aforementioned issues.

Strategies to promote economic objectives in the South.

1. National Level- ISI. Protect domestic market. This strategy failed proving liberal theory to (maybe) be right. 2. Regional Level- Regional integration and economic growth in regional trade organizations, agreements with developed countries. 3. International level- Attempt to create cartels (i.e. OPEC). Use of force. Use of Intl. Institutions.

Types of Mispercetions (Jervis)

1. Perceived intentions (i.e. Yom Kippur War) 2. Assessment of capabilities- WWI Germans assumed Schlieffen Plan would help them beat France and Russia 3. Incorrect assessment of interest of others and of reality. Criticisms: 1. Hard to know true intentions. 2. Only study war and not peace making hard to know real effect of misperceptions 3. Results don't always reflect processes. Leaders take risks and make calculations and could still lose.

Peace according to Liberalism

1. Security institutions and regimes that increase transparency and increase future scenarios. 2. Control and disarmament 3. Collective security- international community intervenes to prevent exploitation of one country by another creating a deterrent effect. 4. Peacekeeping operations- UN/regional organizations.

Problems of sub-development in the South

1. Single product or raw material making the economy vulnerable 2. Large gaps and inequality in access to resources 3. Larger external than internal market making them heavily dependent. To solve the problems they need to modernize, attain independence and reduce vulnerability to external and internal threats.

Factors that lead to globalization

1. The information revolution - changes in the 20th century and Technology Revolution 2/ West's growing influence on the rest of the world 3. Distribution of power - United States became hegemon so globalization is associated with the US 4. Changes in the economy of the Universe to become more free and open

Omni-balancing

Ayood coined term. Third-World countries on one hand want to challenge intl. order and on the other it is the order that grants them their status. Due to this duality, elites chooses to preserve existing order even if it harms third world as a collective. Due to this multi-dimensional balance, Third-World countries choose leaders not only due to external threats but also internal. I.e. muslim majority countries will choose muslim leader so there shouldn't be rebellion.

Conflict

Broader phenomenon of war, clash of relationships between the two sides. Conflict can be resolved or made that it can be lived under. Material reasons for conflict: 1. Territory- border disputes 2. Dispute over control of national government 3. Economic conflict Ideological reasons: 1. Ethnic conflicts 2. Religious conflicts 3. Ideological disputes

Approaches to moral justification and moral judgment:

1. Deontological approach - have a moral code by which judges conduct action, this approach emphasizes the principles. Can come in the form of religious (eg the Ten Commandments) or secular (intelligent human being). 2. Teleological approach - the moral purpose of the action is the goal and it is important, the outcome is significant and not the principle. Utilitarian approach. Moral Considerations in the international arena: Distinguishing between individual morality ethics and states. A country can do things that the individual can not, or no distinction and argue that the State has a free choice. Carr's Realist argument that there is no universal morality, only relative morality and it should be separate from politics. On the other hand there are universal moral precepts that apply to politics.

Explain the processes of regional integration:

1. Federal Approach- normative process that will end in creation of a federation/ confederation 2. Economic explanations: A. Free trade expansion B. Large size economies that are hard to cooperate with C. Improving competition in global arena 3. Realism- Integration is the result of cooperation due to a common threat or because of presence of a regional hegemon. I.e. EU as a response to Soviet threat 4. Communicational/ Deutch Approach: Increased channels of communication= increased sense of community. Social psychological change as integration from the bottom up. I.e. EU as a product of socialization between states. Constructivist approach. 5. Neo-functionalist approach (Haas): rational approach. Integration is functional. Starts off in small areas then moves into broader areas. I.e. in Europe there was economic cooperation that led to merger. Criticism- doesn't take into account systemic influences. Unclear how much items glide into one another. 6. Domestic Explanations 7. Conceptual Explanations: Integration creates social construction of a common regional identity.

Just War and humanitarian intervention in a conflict: When can we intervene according to the different theories?

1. Realism - the concept of a just war is not relevant, under the threat of war should not be accountable to anyone, war is part of the international system, but have to fight carefully, with cost-benefit considerations. 2. Groatian Approach- developed concept of international court and just war. Defines legal definitions of just war and theoretical specific discussion. Distinction between civilians and combatants... 3. National-Liberal Approach- generally respects international law but permits violating sovereignty under specific conditions such as genocide 4. Liberal- cosmopolitan approach- all human rights violations justify intervention

Characteristics of a global issue:

1. Widespread impact on individuals \ groups around the world 2. You can not deal with alone 3. A common threat perception and global 4. Collective goods and the negative effects that characterize the problem

Classical Realism

Also called human realism and associated with Morgenthau's exposition of realism in which the power pursuit propensity of states is derived from the basic nature of human beings as power maximisers. This perspective holds that ideological, as well as material, factors may constitute 'power' (e.g. power over public opinion) and hence has some social underpinning.

Rooting moral norms in international relations:

Artfully designed normative behavior, which leads to the practice. The conscience of decision-makers will become the accepted norm Private Entrepreneurs and NGOs can promote norms Internal public opinion and the need for legitimacy can affect international norms and conduct International public opinion Large mass of countries accepting a norm can cause it to catch on to others

Balance of Power Theory

As a theory, balance of power predicts that rapid changes in international power and status—especially attempts by one state to conquer a region—will provoke counterbalancing actions. For this reason, the balancing process helps to maintain the stability of relations between states. A balance of power system functions most effectively when alliances are fluid, when they are easily formed or broken on the basis of expediency, regardless of values, religion, history, or form of government. Occasionally a single state plays a balancer role, shifting its support to oppose whatever state or alliance is strongest. A weakness of the balance of power concept is the difficulty of measuring power.

Free Trade

Built constructed concept. Removing barriers to trade. Barriers exist because groups and countries put up barriers to protect their own economies and industries. If more people are freely available to benefit from free exchange, resources will be used more effectively, more people will be wealth, and more countries will be able to specialize in what they do best and trade for other goods they don't produce well. Methods: 1. Reduce tariffs 2. Eliminate or reduce non-tariff barriers (quotas, licensing requirements...) i.e. Israel sheep import ban from Canada 3. Non-discrimination policies (must treat the products from every country the same, no higher tariffs, regulations, MFN to both states...) 4. National Treatment rules elimination. Domestic and foreign produced products are treated the same. 5. Reciprocity All trade agreements have exceptions for items states want to protect (i.e. agricultural products, military technology...) Free Trade can be regional or global- NAFTA, EU.... Many argue (i.e. Kantian Triangle) that more free trade leads to more peace. More mutually beneficial exchange between people creating greater interconnection and a higher cost of war.

Relative moral vs. Universal Moral:

Carr argues against Weltzer and says that politics and international relations have certain norms irrespective of ethnicity or place. One who allows each place to determine its' own values is dangerous. I.e. in Saudi Arabia they use corporal punishment and don't allow women to drive.

Social Constructivism

Critique of Rationalism Sociology, anthropology show that decision making is not rational. Hegel- Geist moves through human history changing our outlook on things. Marx- What we think comes out of the social conditions we are in. Nietzsche- even truth comes out of social conventions Logic of consequence- Rational actor model We weigh advantages and disadvantages of each decision Constructivists say we follow logic of appropriateness and follow expectations often without thinking. Agent-Structure problem: Weber- actors are free individual agents Social outcomes are the cumulative outcomes of individual decisions. Drukheim- actors are socialized into social systems. Matrix Example- Neo can change the rules the world is based on. Constructivists see the world as the way out of the way we relate to each other. If everyone wakes up and says there is no more USA, there is no more USA. What made people think there were states in the 1600s? End of Cold War was people in USSR woke up and said maybe it's not that important to have this wall. Wendt popularized constructivist theory in the 1992

Defensive Realism

Defensive realism is an umbrella term for several theories of international politics and foreign policy that build upon Robert Jervis's writings on the security dilemma and to a lesser extent upon Kenneth Waltz's balance-of-power theory (neorealism). Defensive realism holds that the international system provides incentives for expansion only under certain conditions. Anarchy (the absence of a universal sovereign or worldwide government) creates situations where by the tools that one state uses to increase it security decreases the security of other states. This security dilemma causes states to worry about one another's future intentions and relative power. Pairs of states may pursue purely security seeking strategies, but inadvertently generate spirals of mutual hostility or conflict. States often, although not always, pursue expansionist policies because their leaders mistakenly believe that aggression is the only way to make their state secure. Defensive realism predicts great variation in internationally driven expansion and suggests that states ought to generally pursue moderate strategies as the best route to security. Under most circumstances, the stronger states in the international system should pursue military, diplomatic, and foreign economic policies that communicate restraint. Examples of defensive realism include: offense-defense theory (Jervis, Stephen Van Evera, Sean Lynn-Jones, and Charles Glaser), balance-of-power theory (Barry Posen, Michael Mastanduno), balance-of-threat theory (Stephen Walt), domestic mobilization theories (Jack Snyder, Thomas Christensen, and Aron Friedberg), and security dilemma theory (Thomas Christensen, Robert Ross, and William Rose).

Arms Control and Disarmament

Define: Arms control and disarmament seek to establish restrictions against development, products, stockpiling, proliferation, and use of weapons. Disarmament seeks to reduce or eliminate certain categories of weapons while arms control seeks to reduce stockpiles or restrict their use. Describe how agreements are made: Arms Control 1. Through diplomacy between states. Treaties and agreements. Each signatory must have their domestic legislature agree to the agreement in order to ratify the treatment and give it force in international law. Motive: 1. Reduce the frequency of war by eliminating threatening weapons (lessens security dilemma implications). 2. Reduce or prevent arms races 3. Save financial resources 4. Builds trust between countries and promotes peaceful resolution of conflict. 5. In the event of war, reduces destructiveness (to population, nature, infrastructure...) General problems: 1. Minimal standards. Needs to be treaty that all parties can agree too. 2. Problem of trust 3. Verification and compliance. 4. Problem of cheaters (i.e. North Korea signed NPT then went on to develop nuclear weapons) 5. During war states can violate treaties and they have knowledge 6. Weapons can always be brought back and can be redeveloped. 7. Technological developments can lead to creation of stronger weapons (i.e. hydrogen bomb which is 700x stronger than nuclear). 8. Only applies to signatories.

Neo-functionalism

Developed in the 1950s in the first theory of European integration. Built on works of Haas. Integration in some areas lead to spill over to others. Exchange rates, taxation, wages. Used European example of a way of leading to other integrations. Neofunctionalism describes and explains the process of regional integration with reference to how three causal factors interact:[4][5] 1. Growing economic interdependence between nations 2. Organizational capacity to resolve disputes and build international legal regimes 3. Supranational market rules that replace national regulatory regimes Positive spillover Increased number of transactions Transfer of allegiances Regulatory complexity that requires higher level Technocratic automaticity- supranational institutions become more important than nation-states

Imperialism

Economic, political, cultural phenomenon. Control of imperial power over colony centered around 3 characteristics: 1. Political- military takeover, cultivation of local elites, local allies... 2. Economic- wealth and resources extracted for the imperial power. They can only trade with imperial power or other colonies of said power. 3. Social- language, education, arts. Suppressed or even destroyed local culture. Used discrimination and other social methods to exert control. Post-colonialsm- for countries to merge into independence they faced a horde of problems. Type of government, how to manage an economy that is no longer tied to empire, what type of culture? education?... Neo-imperialism- suggestion that imperialism continues as a reality without direct occupation. Structures of control using IMF, World Bank and other institutions such as MNCs and IGOs.

Dependency Theory

Emerged in 1960s out of Central and South America. Central question: Why are so many countries in the world not developing? Weren't satisfied with idea that underdevelopment was due to corruption and lack of effort. Combination of World Systems Theory (WST), Historical Structural Theory, and Neo-Marxism: Argued that reason was due to exploitation that is present in international system. Each state performs a different function: Center (CC)- US, UK, France... Periphery of Center (PC) - less global power but quite wealth. Canada, Japan... Center of Periphery (CP)- still developing. S. Africa.... Periphery (PP)- Cambodia.... 1. International division of labor between all of these countries: Core countries dominate industry, technology. Research and capital intensive industries. Periphery- agricultural production, cheap labor... Each set of countries lower than the next serves all those above it. 2. Class distinction- divide between the rich and poor within each country. Economic elites around the world cooperate to ensure they stay in power and increase their own wealth. Want to maintain the system. 3. All these ideas exist within a wider global system of global capitalism. Theories of trade, finance... which serve core countries. MNCs, banks, IMF, World Bank... all serve richest countries and people. Promotes dominance and exploitation and underdevelopment of countries in the world. How can states develop in this type of system???

Collective Security

Employed during the construction of the League of Nations, the concept of collective security goes beyond the pure idea of defence to include, according to Inis Claude, 'arrangements for facilitating peaceful settlement of disputes,' assuming that the mechanisms of preventing war and defending states under armed attack will 'supplement and reinforce each other' (1984:245). Writing during the Cold War, Claude identifies the concept as the post-WWI name given by the international community to the 'system for maintenance of international peace... intended as a replacement for the system commonly known as the balance-of-power' (1984:247). Most applicable to widely inclusive international organizations such as the League and the United Nations, ideally, the arrangement would transcend the reliance on deterrence of competing alliances through a network or scheme of 'national commitments and international mechanisms.' As in collective defence, collective security is based on the risk of retribution, but it can also involve economic and diplomatic responses, in addition to military retribution. From this, it is theorized that perfected collective security would discourage potential aggressors from angering a collectivity of states. Like balance-of-power, collective security works on the assumption that any potential aggressor would be deterred by the prospect of joint retaliation, but it goes beyond the military realm to include a wider array of security problems. It assumes that states will relinquish sovereignty and freedom of action or inaction to increasing interdependence and the premise of the indivisibility of peace. The security that can be derived from this is part of the foundation of the neoliberal institutionalist argument.

Groatian perception of morality's role in international relations

International law sets norms and can create morals. Includes deontological aspects- the violation of a country's sovereignty isn't moral.

Security Dilemma

John Herz- Self-help attempts of states, tend, regardless of intention to lead to rising insecurity for others as each interprets its' own measures as defensive and the measures of others as potentially threatening Core assumptions: 1. Global politics is defined by anarchic character of world system (no supra-national body) 2. As states rely on own security, can only depend on self. State A doesn't feel secure so they build up military. State B says hey they are building up security we need to make ourselves more safe and add a unit of security. State C then sees B do it and does the same.... A says we increased our military just to match B and now they built up so we need to build up more.... B says if they increased their security they must be planning something let's increase security further... In the end no one is more secure than before. It can move from 2 countries and reverberate through the entire system. (i.e. India and Pakistan, warheads, submarines...)

Realism

Late 19th century- nationalism became prominent. Led to more conflict. First Chair: University in Wales in 1939. First great debate in IR Community: Realism vs. Idealism (1930s) How we would like it to be vs. how it is? Utopia or reality? Attack on Wilsonian internationalism and liberalism Not a new way of thinking about IR but rather new as an academic theory Central idea: Violent conflict is inevitable Thucydides description of Peloponnesian War- Strong do what they can and weak suffer what they must. Machiavelli- The Prince (1513) In politics, the only ethics is to stay in power. Better to be feared than loved, if not both. Hobbes- Leviathan (1651) State of Nature= Anarchy Only way out is bestowing authority on absolute sovereign Von Clausewitz- Of War (1832) War is the continuation of politics by other means Classical Realism- 1930s-1970s- Carr, Morgenthau, Kennan Politics is ruled by objective laws which have their roots in human nature. (lust for power and human greed) Political interest is defined in terms of power. States should act rationally and place interests over ethics. Waltz- Structural Realism States are governed by the structure of the international system. Anarchy makes us seek relative gains for survival. World can be uni-polar, bi-polar, or multi-polar. Neo- Realism- Developed out of structural realism. Less focus on polarity and more on great powers. (Mearsheimer- Tragedy of Great Power Politics) Offensive realism- States always want to garner as much power regardless of circumstance Defensive Realism- States will garner as much power as they need to feel safe

Liberalism perception of morality's role in international relations

Liberal National - communal approach assumes that people living in a political community can be well below the state level. The state is moral statement. Cosmopolitan liberalism - emphasized the moral purpose of man regardless of borders. Morality is universal. An ambivalent attitude on the part of the state that it can maintain and promote ethical norms but on the other hand it also often violates moral principles.

Multi-national Corporations (MNCs)

Major economic and political influence. For-profit enterprises that conduct business in more than one country. Advocates: Provide investment, create jobs, encourage development of infrastructure, access to world markets... Critics: MNCs have a negative impact. De-capitalize other countries. Create inequality around the world. Exploit poor workers, communities, and countries. Through monopoly dominate marketplace and stifle development and competition. Threat to state sovereignty. Provide pensions, set of identity, move people across borders...

Cultural Relativism

Method by which Western states impose values on the South under the assumption they are correct and everyone should act according to them. The problem is is that every society has the right to determine what its' values are and what is right and good for it. Weltzer argues against this and says it is a violation of each states' right to determine its' societal identity. I.e. North promoted Arab Spring believing it would bring them to democracy.

Marxism perception of morality's role in international relations

Moral concepts mirror class interests. Morality is irrelevant. Marxism at its' core is moral, to repair injustice but at the end of the day always reflects a particular interest

Realism perception of morality's role in international relations

Moral skepticism - skepticism about the ability to create morally foreign policy Vulgar realism - the end justifies the means, no need to think about morality Moderate realism - morality is subordinated to political interests and considerations of power. There are hard dilemmas and decision makers look to minimize the bad.

Nuclear Arms Control Treaties (NPT)

Motive- For nuclear weapon states: 1. Fear of further proliferation of nuclear weapons. (it was believed that in 20 years 25-30 countries might posses nuclear weapons) 2. Create obstacles to efforts of more countries to acquire nuclear weapons. For non- Nuclear States 1. Gain access to peaceful nuclear technology 2. Gain commitment of nuclear powers to nuclear disarmament Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Signed in 1968. Renewed every 5 years until 1995 where they extended it indefinitely. Only India, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, and South Sudan are not signatories. Criticism- Only binding on members. IAEA inspections are only with approval. Some NNWS states have developed Nuclear weapons capabilities while under NPT including Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Many treaty members have not fulfilled their commitment to disarmament. Weak enforcement mechanism. Value of NPT/IAEA 1. Maintain nom that nuclear proliferation are security threat 2. Worldwide system of safeguards that make it slightly more difficult 3. Near universal: more universal than any other arms control agreement

Environmental problems on the global scale:

Population: Population growth and the dilemma forecasting global food crisis as the population grows faster than production. Eg: refugees, aging, migration, human rights Environmental issues: eg, species extinction, desertification, global warming Depletion of natural resources Pollution: mainly the ozone hole and the greenhouse effect Food and Hunger: 40% of the world population undernourished Difficulties in cooperation on environmental issues: 1. Discrepancies between the political framework ecological framework 2. The problem of sovereignty - the ability to lower the inspection of environmental agreements 3. The problem of managing common property - the phenomenon of free riding. If each country will free ride there will be desertion. 4. Multiplayer = multiplicity of conflicting interests 5. Various time ranges - the issues are global and long-term political vision is short-term 6. Scientific uncertainty - a lack of scientific consensus on the issues 7. The fundamental tension between North and South on industry and sustainable development.

Stag Hunt

Priorities of each player: CC> DC> DD> CD Example international relations - collective goods such as air pollution, or OPEC oil embargo of-70 in the case where one country will spread and sell oil cheaply lose all the other countries that buy oil from it all. This crisis all cooperated.

Chicken

Priorities of each player: CD> CC> DC> DD For example, the United States and Soviet Union tested the Cuban missile crisis who will break. If both cooperate CC they remove the missiles if both arteries DD would be a nuclear war. The US acted as if she is playing until the end and Russia folded.

Realism

Realists describe the inernational system as anarchic- absence of central authority (Waltz). States are sovereign and thus autonomous. Only coercion or consent can change a states action. State power is key in the anarchic system whether it be military, cultural, diplomatic, economic... The ability to coerce using these methods determines power. Mearsheimer (neo-realism offensive) lists four core assumptions: 1. Survival as main goal of every state. 2. States are rational actors. 3. All states possess military capabilities and view others as threats. 4. Great powers are decisive 5. States constantly strive to acquire power. Waltz- Defensie Neo-realism- hegemony can bring a state into unnceccesary conflicts. Balance of power and thus polarity protects the system. States only agree to treaties if it is in their interests.

Political Economy-

Relationship between economic and politics and their interactions that affect one another. 1. Political foundation of economic activities 2. Economic basis of political action 3. Market vs. state

Liberalism

Started in the Enlightenment in late 17th Century. Core ideas: Individual Freedom- allows for rational choices Reason- rational choices preserve freedom Progress- freedom and choice lead to progress John Locke- Major influence on French and US Constitution. In his opinion state of nature ends when we rationally come together and find solutions for our shared problems by collectively delegating authority and choosing ladders. We and our leaders sign a social contract. This is in everyone's self interest. Immanuel Kant- Human freedom and rationality can produce good government. Elected government will have to be accountable to the people. Governments may want war but populations do not. And democratic governments are accountable to their people so will less likely go to war. Main Branches of Liberalism: Democratic Peace- Is there a correlation between democracy and peace? Interdependence- Does interdependence increase peace? Institutionalism- institutions that help states cooperate Democratic Peace Theory- Singer COW- strong correlation between democracy, free markets, and peace.

State-level explanations for war: Classical-realism

States want to survive and increase power to ensure survival in bigger resource-draining wars.

IR after the Cold War

The end of the Cold War changed the international relations due to the passage unipolar world, the lack of moderating effect of competition between the great powers of European integration, the rise of new powers, the disappearance of international wars, and more. The end of the Cold War led to various theories of looking at international relations Changes in the distribution system Changing the system itself The end of history - thinking liberal-capitalist liberal order won Clash of Civilizations Greater emphasis on the struggle and the difference between North and South

Complex Interdependence Theory

The term 'complex interdependence' was developed by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye and refers to the various, complex transnational connections (interdependencies) between states and societies. Interdependence theorists noted that such relations, particularly economic ones, were increasing; while the use of military force and power balancing were decreasing (but remained important). Reflecting on these developments, they argued that the decline of military force as a policy tool and the increase in economic and other forms of interdependence should increase the probability of cooperation among states. The complex interdependence framework can be seen as an attempt to synthesise elements of realist and liberal thought. Finally, anticipating problems of cheating and relative gains raised by realists, interdependence theorists introduced the concept of 'regimes' to mitigate anarchy and facilitate cooperation. Here, we can see an obvious connection to neo-liberal institutionalism. See Keohane, R. and J. Nye. 1977. Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Little-Brown, Boston. (2nd edition,1989).

Cosmopolitanism

The word 'cosmopolitan', which derives from the Greek word kosmopolitês ('citizen of the world'), has been used to describe a wide variety of important views in moral and socio-political philosophy. The nebulous core shared by all cosmopolitan views is the idea that all human beings, regardless of their political affiliation, do (or at least can) belong to a single community, and that this community should be cultivated. Different versions of cosmopolitanism envision this community in different ways, some focusing on political institutions, others on moral norms or relationships, and still others focusing on shared markets or forms of cultural expression. The philosophical interest in cosmopolitanism lies in its challenge to commonly recognized attachments to fellow-citizens, the local state, parochially shared cultures, and the like.

Balance of Power

Theory of State Behavior. Part of realism (specifically political realism) States act to preserve a balance of power in the system. IF one state gains power than another state will increase power so it cannot be dominated to create an equilibrium. If a state is too weak to increase power then they will ally with other states to create a balance. Balance of power behavior can create a cause for war to maintain balance in a system. Many argue that the balance of power systems usually are multi-polar (i.e. Europe prior to WWI and WWII) After WWII it was a bi-polar balance of power system. After Cold War uni-polar system. This means we should see states balance against the US.

The End of History (Fukuyama)

This term was coined by Fukuyama (Deputy Director of Foreign Policy Planning Unit of the US government) in 1989, where he claimed the end of history ". Fukuyama believes that the current phase of democracy and liberalism is the last stage in history and is a triumph of liberal democracy over two competing ideologies which - fascism and communism. This victory symbolizes the end of history- This is the choice ideology, and now begins the last stage of the countries in transformation to democracy. Conflicts in the future there will be religious and ethnic, but not extensive. The article is an expression of the American mood after the Cold War. Example A of this is the demand of people separated from the Soviet Union for Democracy as well as termination of the apartheid regime in South Africa. Criticism: Naive forecast. Impossible to determine with certainty. You cannot claim the Cold War as just a clash of ideologies; there were clash of interests, concerns, balance of power. nuclear weapons....

Clash of Civilizations :

This term was coined by Huntington predicts the opening of a war between civilizations and cultures. According to Huntington end of the Cold War would mean following clashes will be the result of cultural backgrounds and different identities. He argues that the conflict fault line, they are on the border between civilizations, are the most significant and the most popular will. According to which Western civilization emerged from the Cold War a large gap from the rest of the world, and therefore struggles to be primarily between other (the 9/11 was proof that he claims). Criticism: Civilization is subjective. There are many wars within muslim civilization.

Collective Defence

Though the term existed before 1949, a common understanding of collective defence with regards to NATO can be found in Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty: 'The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them... shall be considered an attack against them all; and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. In the context of NATO, then, collective defence is based on countering traditional challenges as understood by the realist/neorealist paradigm, specifically to territory, and finds its focus on an identifiable external threat or adversary.

Tragedy of Common Property

Unlimited access to resources can lead to their depletion or extinction. Problem aggravated by free riders who don't follow international agreements. (i.e. cleaning up oil slicks, law of the sea convention)

Harmony

When independent policy of each player is viewed as beneficial to others' interests as well. Positive game. Opposite of conflict.

Institutionalism

World is anarchic, states are self interested and rational, and uncertainty pervades. However, cooperation can be a rational self-interested strategy under the right conditions (Keohane) Institutions- set of rules, norms, practices, and decision making procedures can overcome uncertainty that undermines cooperation. 1. Extend time horizon of interactions, create multiple rounds. 2. Increase information about state behavior. 3. Increase efficiency. Reduce transaction costs by providing central and consistent forum in which states meet.

Globalization

"Broadening and deepening of economic relations, political, social, and cultural cross national borders" - broadening and deepening of mutual relations, and reducing the time and space. Globalization is characterized by interdependence between countries and companies.

Robert Jervis- War and Misperception 1) According to Jervis which types of misperceptions are there and how can they lead to war? 2) What are the problems that arise when applying this term? 3) Demonstrate Jervis' claims on a war or a crisis you find interesting.

1) According to Jervis which types of misperceptions are there and how can they lead to war? A) Capabilities- Military optimism coupled with political and diplomatic pessimism is most lethal combination. B) Anticipated consequences of events. US entered Vietnam our of fear domino effect of Communist influence that never would have happened. C) Misperceptions in both state motives & goals, as well as misperception of realities faced by the state. Wars often involve many misperceptions but are not required to. The loser may have gone to war for reasons of honor or considerations of domestic politics or international reputation. Or the country could value fighting itself as the ultimate goal. States are more likely to overestimate than underestimate hostility of others. States tend to infer threatening motives from actions that a disinterested observer would record as partly cooperative. Combined these two lead states to believing they are cooperating while the other is acting with hostility. (People often over-perceive hostility because they focus on dramatic events.) 2) What are the problems that arise when applying this term? Problems with measuring misperceptions' effects: A) Should misperceptions be measured in outcomes or processes (logic applied versus outcome of war). People can be right for the wrong reasons and logic can lead one to wrong decisions. B) Historians study conflict more than they do peaceful interactions making it hard for us to to know to what degree harmonious relations are characterized by accurate perceptions. C) Judging whether a perceptions is accurate: I) Difficult to determine a statesman (all the more so a whole country's) perception II) True state of military balance can only be determined by war. Even after a war a state's intentions may be impossible to determine. Statesmen often use probability and thus if they predict a loss in one out of ten times if they fail that isn't necessarily a misperception but rather playing the odds. 3) Demonstrate Jervis' claims on a war or a crisis you find interesting. A variety of possible misperceptions could justify going to war with Iraq. If Americans believed that the United States had found WMD in Iraq or had found evidence that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda, then they may have seen the war as justified as an act of self-defense even without UN approval. If Americans believed that world public opinion backed the United States going to war with Iraq, then they may have seen the war as legitimate even if some members of the UN Security Council obstructed approval. (From Steven Kull article) Misperception of capabilities- Iraq has WMDs. Misperception of reality facing state- Iraq is supporting al-Qaeda who will in turn use these weapons to attack US. Underestimation of cost of war. Overestimation of benefit of war (liberalize Iraq, increase support for US, damaging blow to terrorism.) Hard to know whether Bush's stated intentions were real reason or if there were others (interest groups, making his Presidency have a legacy, hating Saddam...)

James Fearon and David Laitin- Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War According to James Fearon and David Laitin what is the nature of the relationship between ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war? What are the factors that explain which countries are at risk for insurgency and civil war?

1) According to the authors, what is the nature of the relationship between ethnicity, insurgency, and Civil War? Civil Wars proliferated before the end of the Cold War (contrary to popular belief). Rather it is the result of numerous decolonized states from the 1940s-1970s with weak financial, bureaucratic, and military states. A greater degree of ethnic, religious, or other diversity does not make a country more prone to Civil War. Finding where ethnic or other political greivances are strongest does not help does not enable prediction of where civil war will take place. Even higher levels of state discrimination against minority groups doesn't show higher risk. Insurgency is a technology in a military conflict characterized by small, lightly armed bands practicing guerrilla warfare from rural areas. Both Communists and Islamic fundamentalists have employed insurgency. Conditions that favor insurgency indicate a higher likelihood of civil war. 2) What are the factors that explain which countries are at risk for insurgency and civil war? Factors that allow insurgency increase likelihood of civil war. On the governmental side, these are: Financially, organizationally, politically weak central governments. These make insurgency more feasible and attractive due to weak local policing and inept and corrupt counter insurgency. Also, this often includes a brutal, indiscriminate retaliation pushing villagers to join rebels and increasing their strength. Police and counterinsurgent weakness, along with low per capita income. On the rebel side: Rough terrain(poor roads), rebels that know population better than government, and a large population. These three enable rebels to hide from more powerful government forces. Foreign base camps, financial support, and training further favor insurgency. Collier & Hoeffler-Rebellion is better explained by opportunity than grievance. The authors agree that financing is necessary for viable insurgency but argue that per capita income is just an indicator of weak state administrative, military, and police capabilities and poor roads and therefore an indirect factor. Also it is easier to recruit insurgents with financial incentives when the per capita is low. Insurgencies nature allows it to be carried out even by a small number of people thus a small number of people with large grievances can cause civil war. Effective counterinsurgency requires government forces to distinguish active rebels from non-combatants without destroying the lives and living conditions of the latter. This is an extremely difficult political, military, and organizational problem even for modern militaries (as evidenced by US failures in Vietnam). All the more so for less well financed and bureaucratically competent states.

Chaim Kaufmann- Interventions in Ethnic and Ideological Civil Wars According to Haim Kaufmann, what are the main differences between ideological and ethnic civil wars? What determines victory in each kind? In which type of civil war humanitarian intervention is more likely to be effective? What are the five steps that Kaufman suggests for a successful humanitarian intervention? What is your opinion on the matter?

1) What are the main differences between ideological and ethnic civil wars? Ideological civil conflicts are generally intra-community in which they are arguing about which personalities, principles, or policies should rule a community-state. Ethnic are generally inter-community in which two distinct communities under one polity argue about identity, purpose, and legitimate borders of the state. Key difference- In ideological conflicts individual loyalties are flexible while in ethnic wars they are steadfast. Ideological conflicts the struggle is between government and rebels over individual support while in ethnic wars loyalties never change. 2) What determines victory in each kind? Ideological wars- building political support while undermining support for the other side. Ethnic wars- control over territory. Military strength. 3) In which type of civil war is humanitarian intervention most likely to be effective? In ethnic conflicts foreign influence is often great because everything depends on the balance of military power. Humanitarian intervention in ethnic conflicts can save lives, establish lasting stability, and have clear intermediate procedures as well as final goals. 4) What are the five steps Kaufmann suggests for a successful humanitarian intervention? 1) Intervening powers must choose side they will support 2) Decide on geographic borders to be occupied by client group (i.e. interveners) 3) Intervention force must militarily control and physically occupy the designated territory. 4) Populations must be exchanged across the new border to create ethnically homogeneous regions. 5) Intervention forces should withdraw after guaranteeing the separation lines, preferably using international agreement or by ongoing military assistance. (Acronym SBOTE- Side, borders, occupy, transfer, exit) This solution requires major shakeups and combat forces should therefore only be employed in very violent conflicts where this is the only solution 5) What is your opinion on the matter? A) I believe Kaufmann is wrong in his assertion that foreign intervention is ineffective in ideological conflicts. I think that if the world would provide material support to one side they will have more resources and power and a greater chance of winning B) I think his idea is ludicrous. Creating of homogeneous regions is both nearly impossible (because people will fight to the death in ethnic conflicts as honor comes before life) and unsustainable as the inherent hate between the groups won't subside and can't be protected by some boundaries.

Francis Fukuyama- The End of History (1989) What is Fukuyama's key argument? Do you agree with it (especially after September 11, 2001)? Why or why not?

1) What is Fukuyama's key argument? The end of the Cold War and expansion of peace to many parts of the world indicate a major change in the world. In the 20th century liberalism fought against absolutism (Weimar) then bolshevism and fascism (WWII) and then Marxism (USSR) that threatened nuclear war. Western-liberal democracy triumphed proving the unabashed victory of economic and political liberalism. No other alternative has been found to be viable. Key Point- We may be witnessing the end of mankinds ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of government. There still will be conflicts as the victory of liberalism has yet to take hold completely in the real and material world. In the long run it will take hold and will govern the world. The idea of the end of history stems from Marx and his teacher Hagel who argued the historical development of the world would end with the reaching of a communist utopia. Hagel believed the world would reach a final, rational form of society and state would become the dominant one. (Hegel was more than just Marx's primary influence, he had a much larger and broader influence.) Hegel argued that Napoleons defeat of the Prussians at the Battle of Jena in 1806 was the end of history and showed a victory for the ideals of the French Revolution of liberty and quality. Kojeve in 1930 argued that Hegel was correct despite the fact that there was much work to be done, abolishing slavery, equality among groups. He was right in the fact that the basic principles of liberal democratic state were unable to be improved upon and were accepted by the vanguard (forefront idea leaders) of humanity. To prove we have reached the end of history we don't need to show that every person and place has accepted the ideas of liberalism but rather that all important social and political forces and movements have accepted them. Fascism challenged liberalism arguing that its' political weakness, materialism, lack of community in West are fundamental contradictions that can only be solved by strong state with new people and national prominence. WWII along with atomic bombs killed remnants of fascism and made its' unending conflictual nature unappealing to others after the war. Communism argued that liberal society has a major contradiction between capital and labor. American egalitarianism and classless structure proved this to be unfounded. Economic inequality in the US is a result of other legacies (i.e. slavery and racism) and not an issue of liberal society. Even in Communist China they liberalized markets and many Chinese students- children of elites- study in liberal countries that promote the idea of economic openness. Marxist-Leninism has left China and now the USSR meaning its' historical significance has ended. Increase of religious fundamentalism within all religions is noted. Some believe this indicated unhappiness with lack of spirituality in liberal consumerist societies. While it is true that liberalism lacks meaning and spirituality, spirituality can't be remedied through politics. In fact only Islam has offered theocracy as an alternative- and even there it has no broad appeal. Nationalism and racial/ethnic consciousness also can't be solved by liberalism. Nationalism with the exception of socialism and fascism, doesn't have a political program beyond desire to be independent from another group. Once people are living in societies with proper representation after liberalism has completed its' trajectory, there will be much less nationalist tension even though nationalism in an apolitical sense will still exist. 2) Do you agree with it (especially after 9/11)? Why or why not? I believe his assessment is correct at least for the foreseeable future. In the 27 years that have passed since the writing of his article no other viable political system has been advanced. Yes extremism has continued to expand, yes I believe he perhaps underestimates the amount of fundamentalism when he argues that we can't expect every crackpot messiah to accept the ideas of liberalism. However, he also writes that terrorism and wars of national liberation will continue. I believe that 9/11 is an example of that. Terrorism for a large part is a result of poor economic standards and education, notice its' prevalence in the third world and in economically underdeveloped sections of the first world. It is the result of devastation and inequality created by exploitation, discrimination, and other trends that has still not been rooted out, similar to Fukuyamas explanation of economic inequalities in the US which are in fact indicative of the idea that liberalism has not yet completed its' course to repair past injustices. The vast majority of world states are slowly trending towards Western style liberalism, as evidenced by increasing membership in the UN and more countries aiming to join the OECD. Despite the fact that we are a long way away from it being the primary form of government, most of the vanguard in all major societies seems to have accepted liberal state as the way forward and as the idea.

Issues of the Third World/ Global South

1. Colonial Legacy- borders that don't take into account ethnic divisions, weak internal governments, problems in developing states. 2. Low level of internal social cohesion. 3. Problems of legitimacy of central government 4. Ineffective internal sovereignty (monopoly on violence- Weber) 5. Difficulty in maintaining territorial integrity of country 6. Low-level social, political and economic development 7. Third World countries believe they are marginalized by the First World.

3 Factors that Oye says will influence ability to cooperate:

1. Compensation Structure 2. Future Engagements 3. Number of Participants

Limitations of the stabilizing effect of nuclear weapons:

1. Conventional wars still continue. Recession but wars still exist. 2. Deterrence only works if we believe other side would use nuclear weapon in retaliation 3. Tension between establishing credibility and accident prevention. A weak state with no checks and balances may use nuclear weapon. 4. Questions if Waltz's idea will work in a multi-polar system 5. Not certain that second strike capability will work if nuclear threat can be eradicated 6. Assumption of rational decisions 7. Placing complete control inside a country 8. Ethical argument- unethical to hold humanity hostage to preserve world order 9. In-equal distribution of nuclear weapons. 10- Nuclear weapons for small states guarantees their existence 11. Anti-submarine technology negates second strike and MAD 12. Protection against nuclear weapons can disrupt the balance

Dealing with Nuclear Weapons

1. Disarmament- Requires a high level of confidence and trust (i.e. Syria and Libya disarmament) 2. Arms Control- Experience of several countries to limit and monitor the acquisition and development of weapons through formal agreements. Goals: 1. Reduction and prohibition of WMDs 2. Stabilizing deterrence 3. Prevention of misuse of weapons. 4. Limit weapon distribution

The impact of globalization on the political dimension:

1. Growth in global governance - regimes like the multinational UN, IMF 2. Global Corporations 3. IGOs 4. Transnational networks of support on moral issues and global issues

Kantian Triangle

3 conditions combine to create peace 1. Commercial Neo-liberalism- trade and economic interdependence making war less beneficial. Increase feeling of fraternity and common benefits. Criticism: Hard to reach this initial state 2. Democratic Peace Theory- normative and organizational model. Similar to one another and fraternal feelings. Criticism: While states are in middle of democratization still go to war. 3. Neo-liberal institutionalism- IGOs increase cooperation and reduce uncertainty, raising the prospects for peace.

Hegemonic Stability in Economics and other areas (Gilpin)

A hegemon can impose on others. He decides the world agenda. He has material capabilities and the ability to invest. He takes on the cost of establishment, enforcing economic rules, and helps countries in crisis. A hegemon can provide incentives, build institutions and advance agendas. Keohane- 1. This theory is only based on US and UK 2. No need to have military superiority to establish a new economic order 3. The hegemon must desire to be a hegemon (i.e. the US between the World Wars)

Conflict

A situation in which there are conflicting interests between parties. A dispute is when there is no attempt to coordinate policies between countries or when an attempt was made and failed. Can be zero sum or non-zero sum (prisoner's dilemma, chicken...)

Crisis

A situation perceived as too threatening and deep that must be solved either via war or peace

Robert Gilpin- Hegemonic War and International Change (Neo-classic Realism) A) What are the possible strategies a declining great power can adopt? B) What are the main characteristics of hegemonic war and what are the three preliminary conditions for it? C) In your opinion would a hegemonic war between China and the US take place? Why?

A) What are the possible strategies a declining great power can adopt? 2 Major Strategies- 1) Increase Resources (preferred) to meet commitments 2) Reduce Costs and Improve Efficiency (commitments) Way of increasing resources: Most popular throughout history- Taxation and demanding tribute from other states: Danger- Lead to resistance and rebellion (French Revolution partly due to monarch levying higher taxes to meet challenger Britian) Indirect methods- inflationary policies or manipulation of terms of trade. Danger- hardship and strong resistance in the long run. Ways of reducing costs: 1) Eliminate reason for increasing costs (aka destroy rising challenger/ preventative war) (Thucydides states this as the reason for the Spartans attacking Athens in Peloponnesian War.) Danger- Can cause unnecessary deaths and result in statesmen losing power. 2) Expand to a cheaper perimeter (expand borders to a more defensible area). Danger- Risky as expansion can lead to more costs and accelerate decline. Also, once you start expanding it's hard to stop (overexpansion) and can lead to overextensions of commitments. 3) Reduce foreign policy commitments via 3 methods: A) Unilateral Withdrawal (Roman and Byzantine Empires did this and also used to explain Nixon Doctrine of reducing guaranteed assistance to lesser allies). B) Alliance with less threatening powers. Share benefits of status quo (i.e. being a superpower) in exchange for sharing the costs of preserving status quo. (Romans brought Goths into empire in exchange for assistance in defending frontiers. British used this method against the rising Germans prior to WWI.) (Danger of this approach is that Great Powers often overpay (US in NATO).) Also ally can become strong and attack declining power (Goths used Roman-taught techniques against them) or drag Great Power into disputes it doesn't have interest in. C) Concessions to rising power and try and appease its' ambitions. This is an effective policy that is often been disregarded due to the result of appeasement when Germany took Sudetenland in 1938. British used this to appease US prior to WWI and caused a special relationship until today between them. Danger- Retrenchment indicates weakness and can further harm standing. Last and most used option of restoring dis-equilibrium- war, specifically hegemonic war. B) What are the main characteristics of hegemonic war and what are the three preliminary conditions for it? Main Characteristics: 1) Direct contest between dominant power(s) in an intl. System against rising challenger(s). 2) Fundamental issue at stake is nature and governance of the system. Hegemonic wars are unlimited conflicts: economic, political, and ideological significance. 3) Characterized by unlimited means employed and the general scope of warfare. Few limitations due to high stakes. Generally extend globally. 3 Preconditions: 1) Intensification of conflicts among states 2) Temporal and psychological perception that fundamental historical change is taking place and the fear of one or more great powers that time is working against it. 3) Course of events begin to escape human control. More than rationality at play. People underestimate losses, overestimate gains, and rarely get the war they want or expect. C) In your opinion would a hegemonic war between China and the US take place? Why? In the short run- perhaps if Trump wins presidency it will meet all the preconditions. His extreme obsession with China and his combative nature will lead to both increased intensification of conflict. And he has a psychological concern that China is a great threat. Additionally, his over obsession and generally unstable nature can cause him to make irrational decisions as can China's leadership primary concern of prestige and honor cause them to act irrationally. But then again Trump is unpredictable and we can never know.

Conflict Management

Acceptance of the existence of conflict but creation of set of rules to enable it to be lived under. Must try to control events. Improper management can be expressed in slippery slope leading to war. Management dependent on numerous factors including characteristics of conflict, nature of domestic politics, regime type... Process: 1. Acceptance of conlfict 2. Negotiation 3. Institutionalization 4. Creation of rules 5. Freeze in hostilities 6. Deterrence 7. Restrictions Conflict management strategy: Preventing conflict - as long as the sum is unknown sometimes able to prevent war. The advantage of the conflict - does not need to be by military force, eg economic decision. The advantage does not come to resolve the roots of the conflict, but to decide in favor of one side and to make it worthwhile to manage the conflict. Acceptance of conflict - both sides need to accept they can not win and choose to settle the conflict, cooperation in conflict. Eg: Cold War. Freezing the conflict - both sides need to freeze the conflict as if it doesn't exist happened only once, between Japan and Russia conflict in World War 2 on the Kuril Islands. Conflict remains unresolved and therefore frozen. Settlement of the conflict - requires the active cooperation and readiness on both sides. Good management of conflict prevents reaching settlement of the dispute, because it provides a comfortable status quo. For example, Israel-Syria relations.

According to Keck and Sikkink, what are transnational activist networks? Under which conditions will such networks develop? What are the four different ways those networks attempt to make an influence? Please bring examples. Do these networks threaten the functions and responsibilities of states? How? Why? How is this expressed in practical terms?

According to Keck and Sikkink, what are transnational activist networks? Networks are forms of organization characterized by voluntary, reciprocal, and horizontal patterns of communication and exchange... major actors in advocacy networks may include the following- local social movements, research and advocacy INGOs, foundations, the media, churches and trade unions. Groups in a network share values and frequently exchange information services, funds and training for similar groups. They must use the power of their information, ideas, and strategies to alter the information and value contexts within which states make policies. Under which conditions will such networks develop? Transnational advocacy networks appear most likely to emerge around those issues where 1. Channels between domestic groups and their governments are blocked or hampered or where such channels are ineffective for resolving a conflict, setting into motion the "boomerang" pattern of influence characteristic of these networks 2. Activists or political entrepreneurs believe that networking will further their missions and campaigns and actively promote networks 3. Conferences and other forms of international contact create arenas for forming and strengthening networks. Where channels of participation are blocked the international arena may be the only means that domestic activists have to gain attention to their issues. Boomerang strategies are most common in campaigns where the target is the state's domestic policies and behaviors; where a campaign seeks broad procedural change involving dispersed actors, strategies are more diffuse. What are the four different ways those networks attempt to make an influence? Please bring examples. The bulk of what networks do is termed persuasion, socialization and pressure. The tactics they use to that end are: 1. Information politics: the ability to quickly and credibly generate politically usable information and move it to where it will have the most impact. Non-state actors gain influence by serving as alternate sources of information. information flows in advocacy networks provide not only facts but testimony- stories told by people whose lives have been affected. Clear powerful messages that appeal to shared values, which often have more impact on state policy than the advice of technical experts. The information must be reliable and well documented to be credible and to gain attention it must be timely and dramatic. ➢ Example: the recent campaign against the practice of female genital mutilation. While known as female circumcision until 1974, the practice gained little to no attention, however when a network of human and women's rights organizations renamed the practice mutilation- rather than circumcision, which held connotations to religious and cultural practices. This rename implied a linkage with castration and was reframed as an act of violence against women. It thus reinstated the practice as a human rights violation. Information politics uses stories to move people to action- and they need as much press as possible. 2. Symbolic politics: the ability to call upon symbols, actions or stories that make sense of a situation for an audience that is frequently far away. Activists frame issues by identifying and providing convincing explanations for powerful symbolic events, which in turn become catalysts for growth of networks. ➢ The use of the 500th anniversary of the voyage of Columbus to America brought attention to the issues of indigenous peoples rights. 3. Leverage Politics: the ability to call upon powerful actors to affect a situation where weaker members of a network are unlikely to have an influence their definition of effectiveness includes some policy change by target actors such as the world bank governments or private actors like transnational corporations. They seek leverage- by doing so, weaker groups have the ability to gain power over more powerful actors. There is material and moral leverage. ➢ Example: Material Leverage- usually links the issue at hand to money or goods- potentially also to votes in international organizations, prestigious offices or other benefits. Such as when the human rights campaign became linked to military and economic aid, or the environmental protection campaign and access to loans. ➢ Example Moral Leverage- the mobilization of shame- where the behavior of target actors is held up to the light of international scrutiny. Governments value the good opinion of others, and moral leverage plays on that. 4. Accountability Politics the effort to hold powerful actors to their previously stated policies or principles. Once a government has publicly committed itself to a principle for example- in favor of human rights- networks can use positions and their command of information to expose the distance between discourse and practice- which is embarrassing to many governments. ➢ Example- the ability of the human rights network ton uses the human rights provisions of the 1975 Helsinki Accords to pressure the Soviet Union and the governments of eastern Europe for change. The Helsinki Accords helped revive the human rights movement in the Soviet Union and helped protect activists from repression. Do these networks threaten the functions and responsibilities of states? How? Why? How is this expressed in practical terms? In my opinion, the networks do threaten the functions of states as seen above- we are talking about an international activist network that make policy and change the reality on the ground in many countries worldwide- policies that might not sit well with the reigning governments. It is the power of the people, and it threatens the power of the state as actors in the international arena. We can see practical terms listed above.

System-level explanation of wars: Defensive Neo-realism (Walsh)

Anarchy creates a self-help system leading to a security dilemma. Countries are afraid and want to arm themselves but fear triggering suspicion of other countries arms race. According to neo-realism there is no avoiding the security dilemma. This suspicion can deteriorate from crisis to war

Cooperation according to Groation Theory

Believes cooperation is possible with the assistance of shared interests, values, and institutions. I.e. European Union

Mixed Conflict

Conflict includes both common and opposing interests. Most international disputes are mixed. I.e. Cold War the US and USSR had common interest to prevent a world war despite their opposing geo-political interests.

GATT

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1947)- Series of agreements to create international trade organization. Isolationist Congress didn't approve and in 1995 WTO was established. Principle ideas- 1. Removal of barriers to trade 2.The principle MFN (most favored nation) - Prohibits discrimination against trade among WTO nations 3.The principle of reciprocity 4.Permitted exceptions from the principle of absolute free trade: to establish a free trade zone, and there are special rights to the South.

Effects of Globalization according to Realism

Globalization is not good or bad, it depends on how countries relate to it. It os limited to specific areas, especially geographically. Does not undermine state centrality but rather challenges it. Globalization significant to security I.e. 9/11 attacks.

State-level explanations for war: Marxism

Inner workings of capitalism leads to imperialism. After the world is divided there will be fights. This is a very deterministic argument that fails to take into account non-economic factors for war.

The impact of globalization on the cultural dimension:

It is not clear whether this characteristic of globalization or its cause - the global village. Negative effects of globalization: 1. Increasing inequalities glorifies the wealthy 2. Fear of financial instability, lack of financial security at the individual level 3. Insecurity of livelihood due to the dynamism of human resources 4. Health hazards 5. Globalization of Crime 6. Environmental insecurity - the rapid industrialization of the world pollution 7. Globalization and democratization - on the one hand there is the empowerment of citizens, but on the other hand there is something undemocratic in the process of globalization.

Theories views on Civil Wars

Neo-realism- Third-World countries don't contribute to the world system as they are marginal. Neo-liberal institutionalism- mainly deals with North-North relations but agrees that there is a need for institutions in the South. Marxism- Third World is a product of capitalist exploitation.

Compensation Structure

Structure that allows one to evaluate/ characterize different types of situations and their cost-benefit outcomes. The goal is to create incentives to cooperate and to disincentives to desert. Basic Assumptions: 1. Strategic Interaction- results depend on one another. 2. Unitary Rational Actor who can identify losses and gains. 3. Every situation has 2 options cooperate or defect. Options: CC, DD, CD, DC Each option has a price and benefit. Neo-liberalism views the renumeration structure as being absolute benefit while Neo-realism is proportionate benefit or zero-sum game.

System-level explanation of wars: Offensive neo-realism (Mearsheimer)

The international arena is a conflict of interests; every country wants to become a hegemon and goes to war in order to become stronger in relation to others. Wars are unpreventable.

Cooperation according to neo-liberal institutionalism

This approach believes in cooperation is possible. Countries are concerned only with their own people, and therefore are not so sensitive to income ratios, and absolute profit so more cooperation therefore possible. The international institutions and the potential for future cooperation help to increase likelihood.

Regionalism

This tendency to establish regionalism areas, and is one of three dynamic forces in international relations (with nationalism and globalization). A phenomenon that arose in Europe in the '60s In the' 70s this phenomenon has crises- stagnation, and in the 80s forward toward the end of the war this phenomenon grew cold. Regionalism can be from top or bottom. Background to the New Regionalism: 1.The end of the Cold War - Regional politics is significant again 2. The European example 3. Global economic changes 4. The democratization process 5. Fad - a desire to be part of a group

Civil War

Usually Zero-Sum. Most wars today are Civil. High human cost of ownership, regional and international implications post dilemmas to the rest of the world. 1. 1,000 deaths 2. War within the recognized borders of a state. 3. State is one of the warring parties 4. Total war with the rebels having an armed resistance capability. Can be ideological (intra-community) (Spanish-Civil War) or ethnic (inter-community) (many in Africa). Caused by economic (absolute or relative poverty...), political (oppression or exploitation), or ethnic reasons. Ways to end Civil Wars: 1. Share power. 2. Stagnation due to them recognizing that no one can win. 3. External intervention (more effective in ethnic wars.)

Bretton Woods System

he Bretton Woods system of monetary management established the rules for commercial and financial relations among the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Australia and Japan in the mid-20th century. The Bretton Woods system was the first example of a fully negotiated monetary order intended to govern monetary relations among independent nation-states. The chief features of the Bretton Woods system were an obligation for each country to adopt a monetary policy that maintained the exchange rate (± 1 percent) by tying its currency to gold and the ability of the IMF to bridge temporary imbalances of payments. Also, there was a need to address the lack of cooperation among other countries and to prevent competitive devaluation of the currencies as well. Is designed to provide basic needs for stability: Confidence - understanding the value of money will be stable. What mother supplied property regime that was attaching the dollar into gold. Liquidity - There should be enough money flowing through the system for a stable and assistance to crisis. A mechanism to change the balance of payments of countries

Impact of IR on Civil Wars

1. International context affect the process of building a country. 2. Legacy of colonial rule and the issues it poses (such as poor division of borders) 3. Balance of nation and states- higher nation to state ratio = more war. 4. Regional contagion (i.e. Arab Spring) 5. International context and its' effect on the level of violence 6. External intervention as a catalyst for Civil War.

Characteristics of Hegemonic War (Gilpin)

1. Hegemon can fight for top position by increasing resources or incentives for other countries (often over-stretching the hegemon) 2. There is no alternative to war 3. Total War- large scale political and economic war that will cause changes in international landscape. According to Gilpin hegemonic wars repeat due to the varying rates of development in the world. Also, hegemon has a natural tendency to weaken due to over-commitment or over-expansion. Examples: Sparta and Athens, Napoleonic War, WWI and WWII. Criticism: 1. Doesn't recognize regional hegemony 2. Existing empirical cases that undermine this theory 3. Highly deterministic and states a fixed cycle.

Individual-level explanations for war:

1. Human Nature- Hobbes and Darwin 2. Ideology of the leader 3. Misperceptions (Jervis)

According to Kacowicz and Bar-Siman-Tov: (a) what is stable peace?; (b) what are the necessary and favorable conditions for stabilizing and keeping peace? According to these conditions, what are the chances of reaching stable peace between Israel and the Palestinians? Please justify your arguments.

-what is stable peace? Stable peace is located on the continuum from the mere absence of war as a result of the balance of power or deterrence to conflict resolution and to the consolidation and expansion of pluralistic security communities. We identify stable peace as an ongoing and dynamic process rather than as a single situation which might take place in dyadic as well as multilateral relations. In regional terms, stable peace is associated with terms like "security community" and "security complex" which have been used to describe the positive and peaceful security policy patterns that exist within a group of states. If peace prevails in a given geographical area over long periods of time, we might also refer to the existence of a "zone of peace". Stable peace is defined according to two basic dimensions; cognitive and temporal. The cognitive dimension implies that a relationship of stable peace in international relations exists when there is a joint understanding that war is unthinkable as an instrument for resolving conflicts between states. the temporal dimension refers to the longevity of stable peace. Stable peace is a situation in which the probability of war is so small that it does not really enter into the calculations of any of the people involved- states that enjoy a relationship of stable peace may continue to have serious disputes and conflicts though they accept that these should be managed and resolved only by peaceful means. This definition of stable peace encompasses 4 major dimensions 1. Cognitive 2. Cultural and normative 3. Institutional 4. Economic/functional. According to its cognitive dimension, stable peace exists when there is a joint perception and understanding that war is unthinkable as an instrument for resolving conflict between or among states. The normative dimension emphasizes the development of a shared normative framework for the creation, development and consolidation of stable peace according to international standards of peaceful behavior. The institutional dimension refers to the institutions and mechanisms necessary for cooperation and conflict management in the context of stable peace. Finally, the economic functional dimension focuses upon economic peacemaking as a way of stabilizing and deepening peace by establishing a common balance of prosperity rather than a balance of power or a balance of terror. -What are the necessary and favorable conditions for stabilizing and keeping peace? - stable political regimes- the presence of stable political regimes that perceive the peace agreement as their greatest achievement might enhance their mutual trust and confidence in stabilizing and maintaining peace. This condition is suggested as an alternative to the presence of democratic dyads, in case not all parties are democratic. -mutual satisfaction with the terms of the peace agreement and or the existing status quo. This means not only satisfaction with the territorial status quo but also with other terms of the agreement and or the current situation such as the distribution of other, non-territorial benefits =, satisfaction will prevent by definition any ideas of revisions to the status quo or of the terms of the agreement with the exception of those made by mutual consent. -predictability of behavior and problem solving mechanisms- these 2 conditions imply a high degree of certainty about the other party's intentions and behavior. In cognitive terms there is a mutual recognition of the reality of stable peace, according to which neither side will consider the threat or use of military force to settle any potential conflict between them in the future. -open communication channels- initial trust and respect between the leaders. There should be a certain degree of information exchange and a variety of communication channels, in order to secure a high degree of certainty and confidence, if not mutual trust (which develops later). An evolving trust and respect between the leaders should provide as well a formula that enables a better understanding and a working relationship between the parties. The two additional FAVORABLE conditions - third party guarantees- this condition implies that an external actor, usually a superpower or a great power, is taking responsibility in case of a potential violation of the agreement or different interpretation of its terms, especially within a regional framework of conflict resolution and peacemaking the granting of third party guarantees might become necessary in some particularly difficult cases such as in the middle east- US involvement. -spillover effects and the provision of nonmilitary public goods. Developing and expanding a peaceful relation should be perceived as beneficial not only by the political leadership but also by other military economic intellectual and cultural elites. A spillover effect might affect both vertical and horizontal directions. In vertical terms- top down consensus regarding the legitimacy of stable peace which is supposed to benefit the entire population in myriad areas including welfare and development. In horizontal terms that legitimacy is granted by the extension if the elites who benefit from the peace. -according to these conditions what are the chances of reaching stable peace between Israel and the Palestinians? Stable peace is characterized by the fact that the states involved take their national boundaries off their agendas, except by mutual agreement. Hence international war becomes implausible, if not impossible. Moreover, the parties gradually develop a common normative framework for managing and resolving their international conflicts by peaceful means. This is not an option currently in Israel. Thus two conditions seem necessary for the maintenance and consolidation of stable peace over the long run: a general and continuous satisfaction with the status quo- established by the peace agreement; something which is clearly not the case both when regarding the leftist Israeli public nor with the Palestinians and a common normative framework, sometimes enhanced by shared characteristics of the actors, such a common culture and identity- the Israeli and Palestinian narrative are almost complete opposites in narrative. Moreover, we can postulate that the presence of well-developed democratic regimes within all the countries involved constitutes a sufficient, albeit not a necessary condition for the consolidation of stable peace. Also not applicable to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, due to only one democratic country.

Technological Developments for unconventional weapons

1. Transition from atomic bomb to hydrogen bomb which is 700 times more powerful. 2. Change from bombers to missiles and splitting warheads 3. Protection of nuclear arsenal: underground, on submarines, creation of reserves.

Conflict Resolution

1. Violence- leads to one sides victory so there should no longer be two sides 2. Peace (negotiation, mediation, arbitration) 3. One sided- one side gives up the conflict 4. Passive- From conflict management to resolution.

Stages of US Monetary Regime

1944-1958- clear American hegemony (due to Lend Lease, Cash and Carry...) 1960-1971- beginning of destabilization of the system. 1970 oil crisis 1971- Nixon Shock in which US announces dollar no longer convertible to gold effectively ending Bretton Woods To maintain the regime had established two main institutions: International Monetary Fund ( IMF , 1944) was established to help countries maintain exchange rate stability by providing short-term loans to countries in distress. 80s IMF has taken an active role in helping countries with chronic problems in the economy. The fund affiliated with the United States and its interests. World Bank (1945): helps to develop important infrastructure for economic development. Restoration ß Development ß Encouraging economic sector ß sustainable development. Regime is an example of hegemonic stability theory was that the US economic regime political interest to oppose the Soviet Union, through the development of weak states is earning more, and had an interest in commercial liberalism's ideological. US battle to become economic hegemon (during this regime): 1.Marshall Plan - could create a crisis of legitimacy for the US 2. Printed large amounts of dollars to create liquidity in capital 3. Markets opened unilaterally Europe and Japan, which created a deficit payments. Causes weakening of the US and the cancellation of the regime: 1. The arms race 2. Vietnam War 3. Financial burden of developing countries.

Development of Nuclear Balance

1945-1949- US nuclear monopoly 1949- Russia achieves nuclear but US still has advantage 1951-1957- US still supreme but China, France, and Britain join the race. 1956-1966- Narrowing of the gaps. 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis 1967- US and USSR nuclear equality

NPT- Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty

1968- Signed between US and USSR. Established nuclear states as all those with nuclear weapons by 1967 and forbade their use, dispersal, and required discussions regarding disarmament. Non-nuclear states undertake not to try and acquire nuclear weapons. Preserved nuclear status quo and status of great powers.

System-level explanation of wars: Hegemonic War (Gilpin)

According to Gilpin a hegemon is the country with the capability and motivation to become a hegemon. The most stable system is when a large gap exists between the hegemon and the rest of the countries. Undermining stability occurs because: 1. Hegemon creates world order to meet their neeeds 2. Changes in distribution of power due to strengthening of another country or weakening of hegemon 3. Imbalance in the current established order of power distribution (i.e. China and US) 4. Frustration of the rising power due to the large gap of power between them and hegemon. 5. Hegemonic War- Either assault by rising challenger or pre-emptive war by hegemon.

Northern States Response to NIEO

After the Cold War, motive to aid the South decreased. Ways to cause the North to Invest in the South: 1. Change in Structure of intl. system. 2. Trade 3. Development of arms in South 4. Ecological interdependence- Third-World has high polluting industry giving North interest in aiding 5. Regulatory Changes- protest movements or NGOs 6. Liberal world view of US and major financial institutions.

Conditions for Cooperation under Realism

Against a common enemy - eg coalition against Nazi Germany, after victory coalition fell apart because no longer was needed. Cooperation led by the hegemon - a hegemon can encourage \ compel cooperation, solve problems of anarchy, to give incentives, enforce agreements. Hegemony encourages cooperation acc. Realism because they are less sensitive to the problem of relative gains, because its status is much higher than those of other countries. Cooperation in margins (unimportant categories) - eg cooperation between Israel and Jordan in coping with the Mediterranean fruit fly. Neo-functionalism theories argue that this will roll over to more cooperation, realism argues the cooperation will only be in marginal issues.

Cold War effect on Nuclear Weapons

Challenges after Cold War: 1. Nuclear deterrence in both a regional and global context 2. Accelerated nuclear proliferation and failure of NPT 3. Nuclear weapons by irresponsible countries 4. Nuclear weapons by non-state actors Ways of handling: 1. Expansion of NPT to prevent nuclear proliferation to terrorist organizations 2. Supervising the sale of missile technology 3. Debate between liberal European and realist American perception

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)

Defensive neo-realism. Price of action so high that it is not worthwhile, nuclear weapons that cause unacceptable harm. Countries deter each other from attack. This strategy was designed in the 70s by the Secretary of Defense during the Kennedy. During this period, it was clear that both sides have a second-strike capability. Positive implications of MAD : Countries with nuclear weapons are behaving cautiously Stabilization of the balance and reports that there is no incentive to initiate the attack Mutual recognition of vulnerability to nucelar weapons

Marxism (in political economics)

Commerce should create equality and not exploitation. Free market increases exploitation. Upper classes take advantage of weaker classes. Economics and politics are inseparable. An an economically socialist revolution can rectify the situation. Supreme value is equal classes, distributive justice, class struggle, nationalization of resources with a socialist distribution. Criticism: 1) Politics cannot be explained solely via economics. 2) Even after imperialism there is a clash between powers proving that it is not tied to a capitalist economy.

State-level explanations for war: Nationalism

Constructivist theory argues that war is driven by ideology. There is a greater number of nations than states. The greater the discrepancy the greater the chance of regional war.

Prisoner's Dilemma

Cooperation is usually analysed in game theory by means of a non-zero-sum game called the "Prisoner's Dilemma" (Axelrod, 1984). The two players in the game can choose between two moves, either "cooperate" or "defect". The idea is that each player gains when both cooperate, but if only one of them cooperates, the other one, who defects, will gain more. If both defect, both lose (or gain very little) but not as much as the "cheated" cooperator whose cooperation is not returned. The problem with the prisoner's dilemma is that if both decision-makers were purely rational, they would never cooperate. Indeed, rational decision-making means that you make the decision which is best for you whatever the other actor chooses. Suppose the other one would defect, then it is rational to defect yourself: you won't gain anything, but if you do not defect you will be stuck with a loss. Suppose the other one would cooperate, then you will gain anyway, but you will gain more if you do not cooperate, so here too the rational choice is to defect. The problem is that if both actors are rational, both will decide to defect, and none of them will gain anything. However, if both would "irrationally" decide to cooperate, both would gain. Priority of each player- DC>CC>DD>CD Real World Examples- Arms Control and Security Dilemma. Every country wants to increase its security, countries do not trust each other and arm themselves. If both defect and will be armed, would be an arms race and nuclear war could occur. Cooperation will lead to nuclear art. Countries prefer to defect rather than cooperate to protect themselves.

State-level explanations for war: Democratic Peace Theory (Russet)

Countries that are not yet democratic or fully democratic and therefore don't have democratic norms and institutions (bureaucracy, public pressure, checks and balances) that prevent war.

Nuclear Peace Theory (Walsh)

Defensive Neo-realism Basic assumptions: 1. Rational decision making based on cost-benefit 2. Existence of second strike capability Creates international stability because: 1. Such a destructive effect 2. Reduces impact of security dilemma. States don't believe it will be used as an offensive 3. Second strike capability 4. Reduces incentives of arms race. Easy to obtain nuclear power. Walsh holds that best system is bi-polar nuclear system in which all states are under either sides umbrella. Others hold that more states with nuclear capabilities more stable the system.

Liberalism (in political economics)

Economy is meant to maximize individual profit. Smith, Ricardo- State should not intervene in the economy but should allow free trade. The market naturally creates a balance between supply and demand. Players focus on maximizing absolute profit. Politics and economics should be separated. System is dynamic and open market and possibility for change. Main values: Free market, equilibrium, principle of the invisible hand. Criticism: 1) Liberal economic system without government will lead to cartels 2) Naive to separate economics and politics which have much contact 3) Free trade enables stronger countries to have command 4) Liberalism has difficulty explaining changes

Mercantilism

Economy is to ensure welfare of state. Policies associated with realist approach. Began in middle ages with disputes between Nobles, Merchants, and Kings. Close borders to imports with Tariffs and increase exports to increase power of state. Relative gains. Defensive mercantilism argues that states don't want to become dependent on others so they don't sign agreements while offensive mercantilism argues that they aim to make others dependent on them. Mercantilism believes in heavy state intervention in areas such as heavy industry. Criticism: 1) Assumption that there is one, unified national interest 2) Assumption that economic relations necessarily conflict. 3) Harnessing the economy via politics can harm the state profits 4) State intervention can hurt industries

International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA)

Established in 1957. Initiated by UN to promote use of atomic energy for civilian purposes and avoid military use. Agency of 137 countries meet once a year to choose 35 members. Team meets five times a year and makes suggestions to GA. Agency is assisted by scientific and technical experts and monitors safety standards. Also conducts inspections and investigates violations of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Most prominently known for testing nuclear program in Iraq and Iran's nuclear program inspections.

World Trade Organization

Established in 1995 as successor of GATT. Including the rules of the agreements GATT And adds Agreement of Trade in Services and copyright agreement. Is an effective mechanism for complaints to be submitted. The main aim was to rebuild Europe after World War by long-term loans. Signed by some 185 countries. Europe recovered faster in the 50s and 60s there was a big growth, it then went develop third- World countries and reduce poverty and inequality. THis was a little problematic as Third World countries before receiving the loan need to maintain certain conditions. Free trade, lowering tariffs on agriculture and heavy industry and so on. These loans come with conditions that Western liberals, what the West thinks should be imposed on them so. Come to promote an agenda.

War

Violent expression of conflict. European wars between nobles, merchants, and peasants led to establishment of model nation-states. Most dramatic change to the international relations. Today, most wars are civil. Some define war as a political tool to achieve goals (i.e. Sadat attacking Israel on YK was not to conquer but rather for other goals.) Singer COW definer war as: sustained combat, involving organized armed forces, resulting in a minimum of 1,000 battle-related fatalities within a 12 month period.

System-level explanation of wars: Just War (English School)

War is part of the system of world order. It helps balance the system and is employed when it is just and there is no other choice.

What are the three approaches that Gilpin offers for understanding international political economy? How does he criticize each approach? Do you agree with these criticisms? Why? In your opinion, which of the three approaches portrays the contemporary reality of international political economy better? Why? Use empirical examples to prove your point.

What are the three approaches that Gilpin offers for understanding international political economy? 1. The liberal perspective: liberal economic theory is committed to free markets and minimal state intervention, individual equality and liberty. liberals believe that trade and economic intercourse are a source of peaceful relations among nations because the mutual benefits of trade and expanding interdependence among national economics will tend to foster cooperative relations. Whereas politics tend to divide, economics tends to unite peoples. A liberal international economy will have a moderating influence on international politics as it creates the bonds of mutual interests and a commitment to the status quo. However, it is important to emphasize again that everyone will, or at least can, be better off in absolute terms under free exchange, the "relative" gains will differ. All forms of economic liberalism are committed to the market and the price mechanism as the most efficacious means for organizing domestic and international economic relations. 2. Nationalist perspective: economic activities are and should be subordinate to the goal of state building and the interests of the state. within this general commitment two basic positions can be discerned. Some nationalists consider the safeguarding of national economic interests as the minimum essential to the security and survival of the state. there are also nationalists who regard the international economy as an arena for imperialist expansionism and national aggrandizement. The type of nationalism has changed over time, in all ages however the desire for power and independence have been the overriding concern of economic nationalists. it can be claimed that nationalist emphasis on the geographic location and the distribution of economic activities provide it with powerful appeal, throughout modern history states have pursued policies promoting the development of the industry, advanced technology and those economic activities with the highest profitability and generation of employment within their own borders. As far as they can states try to create an international division of labor favorable to their political and economic interest. 3. Marxist Approach: four essentials can be found in the overall corpus of Marxist writings. 1. The dialectical approach to knowledge and society that defines that nature of reality as dynamic and conflictual; social disequilibria and consequent change are due to the class struggle and the working out of contradictions inherent in social and political phenomena. There is, according to Marxist no inherent social harmony or return to equilibrium as liberals believe. How does he criticize each approach? Gilpin presents for each of the approaches criticism. First, he criticizes the liberal approach. 1. The first limitation is the complete division of economic and political policies, which in reality influence one another. In reality the political context cannot be easily separated from the individual social standing. 2. The liberal approach provides an explanation of how to get specific objectives at the lowest cost, but does not address the ethical and social consequences of this economic system. 3. .it is problematic to assume that trade is always free trade. Gilpin claims that barter is rarely free and equal. Instead, the terms of trade are often influenced by coercion, differences in bargaining power, and other political factors. 4. liberalism is unable to explain a change in international political economy, and tends to assume that the stability and economy are the status quo. Gilpin's criticism of the nationalist approach is divided into three. 1. The first is the tendency to believe that economic relations in the International society are all zero-sum. In reality, collaboration and cooperation is able to generate income markets as liberalists believe. 2. The assumption that power and economics are intertwined is not always true. Having a powerful military and other forms of aggression often go along with high costs which may hurt the economy. 3. Mercantilism does not acknowledge the interior complexity of a state- the political, state, and foreign policy. Nationalists tends to assume that a state is made up of one unified entity and foreign policy is shaped by objective national interest. Liberalists on the other hand, say that society is pluralistic and there are complex groups and individuals that act in order to make the state apparatus serve its goals- a more realistic assessment. Gilpin believes that the main weakness of Marxism as a theory of international political economy is its inability to assess the role of factors other than the economy such as: Political and Strategic issues, as factors mobilizing the international system. Countries can go to war without the main reason being their economic agenda. In addition, the Marxist approach did not meet the test of time, Gilpin does not agree with the determinist statement that imperialism is an unavoidable stage of capitalism. Do you agree with these criticisms? Why? In your opinion, which of the three approaches portrays the contemporary reality of international political economy better? Why? Use empirical examples to prove your point. In my opinion the approach that most accurately portrays the reality of the international political economy is liberalism. As nationalism and mercantilism is an economic approach that was popular during the 15-16th century, where a king was in complete control of the economy, and therefore had the ability to run his country as a unified front, mercantilism made sense, today with the numerous internal factors pulling in different directions within each state, mercantilism is impossible. Marxism in my opinion is also less relevant due to its outlook that the economy is the only thing in the world that matters, and it is the only factor driving history, in addition, I agree with the criticisms mentioned above. Liberalism in my opinion is the closest approach we have today to the reality, especially with globalization, we are moving in a direction that free markets, international cooperation and the growth of the private sector as our reality.

Development

Ideological term. Usually refers to economic development but has evolved to cover areas of human development and needs. Sustainable development- development that doesn't harm future generational use of natural resources.

System-level explanation of wars: Constructivism

If we socially construct one another as enemies that can lead to war. From the 17-19th centuries there were norms for conflict resolution.

Question: After reading the articles of Waltz and Sagan regarding nuclear stability in South Asia - what are the arguments that Sagan presents in the sense that nuclear weapons might be dangerous and bring about instability in the region? Conversely, what are the arguments that Waltz suggests against Sagan's pessimistic analysis? In your view, which arguments are more convincing? Why?

In his article Waltz presents several arguments held by pessimists as to why the nuclear situation between India and Pakistan is an unstable one that could escalate to a nuclear disaster as is therefore ultimately harmful for the region that they developed such capabilities. Most of these alarmists claim that although in hindsight nuclear deterrence worked for the cold war, the same cannot be said for the situation is South-East Asia. In Contrast Waltz argues that the dynamic between India and Pakistan is very much the same as in other parts of the world, and that leaders from both countries have learned from previous mistakes, understanding that for effective deterrence there is really only a need for second strike capabilities, and no more. When the united states dropped the support for Pakistan when the USSR started to crumble, a move which surprised both Pakistan and India, they felt a need to join the nuclear game, which is a cost effective wat of leveling the playing field, in fear of their Indian neighbor who's five times bigger, and whom has a military five times as strong as well. In similar fashion India felt the need to develop nuclear capabilities in fear if it's larger neighbor China whom holds nuclear capabilities, as well as American support. As for India's development of nuclear weapons, the main result as held by Sagan as well as the "alarmists and pessimists" was pushing Pakistan to develop their own, claiming that it is too difficult for India to effectively deter china with nuclear weapons. In addition, even if they were to effectively deter one another, with the proximity between the two states nuclear deterrence facilitates smaller engagements, since retaliating to smaller engagements with nuclear weapons would be an unreasonable escalation, meaning the Kashmir strip and Arunachal weren't really safe from Pakistan and China respectively due to nuclear deterrence and arguing that nuclear weapons on upped the ante on conflict in the region without realistically restraining it.. In contrast Waltz argues that both these needs, are existential driven, a feeling of insecurity which can be quenched with sufficient nuclear deterrent, which therefore helps the stability in the region, which otherwise would be unclear. Sagan emphasizes the Kargil War (1999) between India and Pakistan calling it the fourth war between them and how Pakistan mobilized nuclear warheads towards the border as a threat, presenting a real risk of escalation. Though Waltz argues that calling it a war is an overstatement despite the technical requirement of 1,000 deaths, he also says that although Pakistan mobilized its warheads during the conflict there was no real threat of a strike, much the same can be seen during the Cold War in the case of the Cuban crisis, or with the American nuclear weapons stationed in eastern Europe. Another argument is that using organizational theory, the situation seems ripe for disaster as Pakistan is very much a military state which has different priorities then democratic elected leaderships, or when accidental detonations may occur it could and would be perceived as an attack which would immediately bring retaliation from the other side. However Waltz claims that history has shown that any engagement between nuclear states has been at a low level, and although when dealing only with conventional weaponry the personality of the state and its leader must be considered, with nuclear weapons the threat is so large it defaults all states and leaders to act cautiously and defensively. Or as Joseph Nye puts it, with nuclear weapons, there exists a clear crystal ball as to the dangers of war and engagement, whereas when there is only conventional weapons they crystal ball is clouded since there is a perceived advantage for first strike which may set the tone of the war [can add example: 6 day war - bombing Egyptian airports], therefore with nuclear weapons the situation is more stable. In my opinion the alarmist and Sagan's base for evidence, that the situation is a new one that cannot be compared to other nuclear situations is rather weak, with today's rocket technology distances between countries have little effect on nuclear deterrence beyond a few extra minutes of "code red" alarms. That being said the notion that "nuclear deterrence worked up till now, so it will work going forward" is rather naïve, for a nuclear crisis to develop all it takes is one little oversight to be exploited by extremists, or many other "unpredictable" situations. And in this reality I would claim that although on a "daily" basis the nuclear deterrence does calm the current dynamic and opens up the possibility of temporary peace and agreements, in the long run it's really just a catalyst for a bigger disaster.

According to Keohane, what are the main arguments on which the Hegemonic Stability theory rests? What is his criticism toward that theory? Do you agree with Keohane? Use examples.

It is very accepted to look at the times when the United States and Britain were the dominant actors in the global economy with nostalgia and hope it will be so today. for a stable international economic order there needs to be a hegemon that will protect its stability; for that to happen, there needs to be one stabilizing. Keohane tries to claims the opposite- in order to create hegemonic stability- there does not need to be a hegemon that acts only in its own interests and is after power. The new type of hegemon does not necessarily need to be the classic one country hegemon. Moreover, we can talk about the post-hegemonic reality, the reality of the international regimes, where it is clear that a hegemon is not necessary. In the traditional theory of economic hegemony, the Hegemon must control: 1. Raw materials 2. Control over economic capital 3. Control over markets that the hegemon can import necessary products from 4. Advantage in the competition over production of high-level products, so that they are competitive, according to Wallerstein, in other core countries as well. Dominance does not mean that the Hegemons export everything, instead they export products with a high profit margin, such as high-tech, and import products with small profit margins such as labor-intensive work. Therefore, the hegemon must lead in terms of technology in order to lead generally. The hegemon, of course, does not only have to control all four of these aspects, but also to lead them in comparison to other countries. According to hegemonic theory, the greater the power of a hegemon, the more other countries will want to cooperate with it. This theory has a problem dealing with the lessening of the power of a Hegemon- when Britain's power declined, so cooperation decreased between it and other countries. If you look at the unwillingness of the US to become a hegemon, it was not due to lack of economic ability, but lack of political will to do so after WWI. Moreover, the theory of hegemony does not apply to the domestic economic strength of a country though that power is transferred to the international level. Therefore, internal political structures and decision-making are also important to the equation. Another problem, then, is that the theory of hegemony works only ad- hoc, after the incident it can explain why a leading country will be a hegemon apart from the situations where the country decides not to become a hegemon. It does not know how to determine the conditions for such a situation. Therefore, it is very important for understanding the internal politics of the country. If we look at the last hundred years, it seems difficult to attribute the cooperation in international arena to the presence of a hegemon. This can be seen in the time of the US (for example, the Bretton Woods agreement) but one cannot say that Britain's actions are the ones that led to the cooperation between the two countries. Despite the notable economic strength of the United Kingdom- it did not force other countries at the beginning of the century 20 For example, despite its dominance at sea, sailing was allowed freely. Therefore, if we look at the American hegemony against British hegemony- they were very different, this contradicts the classic hegemonic theory. There are clear contradictions in hegemonic theory; on the one hand it says that everything repeats itself- the end of a hegemonic war marks the beginning of the next war. On the other hand, Gilpin talks about progress and the ability to resolve conflicts not through the hegemonic war. The theory of hegemonic claims that there must exist a player with absolute control. However, if we look at the multi-polar world in which a number of countries control the resources and markets, there is no need for a hegemon. Therefore, power concentrated in the hands of one player is not a sufficient condition to create stability in the international arena. We need to look at the theory of hegemony as a starting point. What international and internal conditions will be act as incentives for state institutions and rules to take place? Moreover, we need to think when hegemony is legitimized by the other players in the system. In order to maintain economic hegemony, the hegemon must be a military power. This is so that it is able to deal with players who are a threat to this hegemony. However, it is important to say that this is a global hegemony. The power of the hegemon should be sufficient to prevent an invasion of the factors that will prevent the access of the hegemons to large parts of the world markets where economic activity takes place. If we talk about the Hegemon's alliances in this context only- it is only on the military level, military partnership, any threat to either party will as a result cause doubt in the alliance. Therefore, there is a need for "complex interdependence" and contains additional variables that contradict realist theory. However, still you cannot ignore the everlasting necessity of military power. It is important to remember that the theory refers to a change that came to be with American hegemony where the importance of military strength is diminished. If we look at the Marxist theory- it is engaged in the struggle between classes. According to that progress of productive forces in a capitalist world over time is not possible. The contradictions and conflicts will arise sooner or later. Thus, any crisis in particular Hegemon is necessarily a crisis of the capitalist system. Marxist analysis looks at the power and wealth ad components that complement one another. Therefore, the Marxist and realistic outlook are largely similar. Both schools see the reality of after WWII as the rise of a new hegemon, the US. The big problem of Marxist analysis stems from the fact that when it dabbles in International relations, it abandons to some extent the basis of Marxist theory - the class struggle. It becomes something in the background not getting enough attention. the question on the agenda is whether the downfall of a capitalist hegemon will lead to the next step- a change of the international arena, or will the fall of the hegemon just lead to the rise of a new capitalist hegemon? Keohane's argument is that because international institutions exist and through them countries can cooperate, then even in the event of the decline of US hegemony this cooperation will continue. While there may be conflicts and disagreements, the presence of these institutions will ensure these questions are resolved peacefully. Finally, Keohane also refers to the Gramsci's hegemonic theory in his theory. In this framework the idea of control is slightly different from the one proposed by the Marxists- it is conceptual control and not material control. Thus, the hegemonic states will be ready to give up material benefits in order to make other players feel that they are getting a good deal. However, this theory should be treated with caution - the hegemon could be ruled by elites do not represent the people. Secondly, in many cases, we see how the countries under the Hegemon gain from the hegemons control. Finally, revisionist countries can always use national arguments to challenge the hegemon. In conclusion, we need to look at the idea of hegemony as important but one that does not contradict cooperation. On the contrary - in many cases there is a symbiosis between the two ideas. Therefore, we must look at cooperation not as the ideal, but as a situation in which conflicts can exist but there is a willingness to make adjustments between the various actors.

System-level explanation of wars: Balance of Threats

It would seem that in a balance of power system, states organize against the most powerful. However, as Walt demonstrates, states organize against the most threatening, such as in Cold War against USSR and its' expansionist agenda.

Economic entities today:

Japan: economic power in the 80s, served as an economic model until its' crash China: want to be a hegemon in the East and an international economic power Eurozone and EU: a global power, but political crises such as the refugee crisis undermine the will of some countries to be a part of the block that are translated into economic considerations that often supersede political considerations.

Kacovitz/ Siman Tov Stable Peace

Liberal- Constructivist- Groatian Theory- Stable peace is on the scale that moves from cold peace (no war currently) to pluralistic security community (war is not an option). Permanent Peace consists of 2 dimensions: Perception- war is not an option to resolve conflict. Time- stands the test of time and institution is maintained. Steps: 1. Normalization- goal is to take initial confidence building measures and begin limited cooperation. This can lead to a security community if it works. Conditions needed for these measures: 1. Existence of stable regimes and leaders desiring to reach stable peace 2. Mutual satisfaction with status quo. 3. Ability to create problem solving mechanisms 4. Open channels of communication and trust between leaders. (Third-Party guarantee and spillover effect can both aid this process) 2. Step Foundation/ Peacekeeping: This step is a rare scenario in which both sides interests become the same during creation of the conditions: 1. Existence of democratic regimes. 2. Economic interdependence 3. Common cultural framework -we feeling 4. Satisfaction with the status quo

Robert Jervis- Theories of War and Peace (2001) What is Jervis's explanation to the evolvement of a pluralistic security community among the developed western states? What are the four possible scenarios about the future relationship within the community? Which of the scenarios do you think is the most likely? Why? According to Jervis, what challenges this community sets toward IR theories? Do you agree with his arguments?

What is Jervis's explanation to the evolvement of a pluralistic security community among the developed western states? Western states don't expect war with each other and do not pursue policies that lead to war. States on their own can't end their reliance on war but can as a collective. The most developed powers (i.e. North America, Western Europe and Japan) and not the great powers form the pluralistic security community (i.e. not Russia or China). Between the Community it is unthinkable that they would go to war with one another. These states are rich, democratic, and would lose most by a change in the status quo. Russia and China have shaky internal regimes, aren't at the forefront of technological/economic advances, and only pose challenges regionally. In addition, other states don't strive to be like them. IR theory explanations for development of this community: Social Constructivism: Norms of non-violence and shared identities. Attitudes, beliefs, and values that people are socialized into are conducive to peace. Liberalism: Democracies. Members are democracies and democracies don't fight one another. 3 possible explanations for this: A. Democracies disperse power (internally) creating a system with multiple groups that can block war. B. Democracies encourage debate and transparency causing more debate and less rash decisions. C. In a war the general public will pay the price and therefore will only want to go to war when they have a guaranteed win. D. Jervis also explains that wealth and security, which helped states form into democracies, are conducive to peace between democracies. Economic interdependency creates further common interests between them. These states benefit by trading with one another as opposed to war. They are members of the same international organizations. Realism:American Hegemony- America dominates world politics and America's allies don't have the capacity to fight a major war without American assistance. Nuclear weapons- realists argue that nuclear weapons have a pacifying effect in that the further they are spread the more they make it impossible to score an outright victory. (Jervis argues this explains peace but not a security community) Synthetic Interactive Perspective: combination of above (Jervis): A. War is expensive and victory is difficult. Expected benefits of war have declined within community. B. War is no longer seen as a means in itself. C. Less territorial disputes within community- a previously central factor in war. D. Peace brings economic gains for members of the Community. E. The Cold War enabled the Community to overcome fears and rivalries. F. Democracy as a new value means respect for the law and interests of others and looks down upon violence. G. With nuclear weapons abound, war doesn't make sense. What are the four possible scenarios about the future relationship within the community? 1. National autonomy will continue to diminish. Domestic and foreign policy will be similar. State power and interest will be decreased. 2. States within the Community play a large role but with more extensive and intensive cooperation. The distinction between high politics (those vital to the state such as security) and low politics (not vital to states' survival) would become more blurred. 3. The US maintains hegemony and opposes the efforts of others to become a rival to it. The US effectively leads an empire but possible exploitation could be limited by bargaining power of other members of the community and US recognizing that discontent can have long term negative consequences. 4. US starts as a hegemony but other members of the Community form a counter-balancing coalition and create a rift in the community. Which of the scenarios do you think is the most likely? Why? I believe that 3 is the most likely scenario but with elements of 2 as well. The US as a hegemony is unchallenged in my eyes. I believe that no state on its' own can rise up to challenge the US and they will do all they can to manipulate world affairs to prevent a rising challenger. However there will be cooperation with other states to both limit discontent and further strengthen the US' role as a facilitator to help extend the hegemony. States will cooperate to solve world issues on both vital (security) and non-vital (animal rights, equality) matters as they do today. According to Jervis, what challenges does this community set toward IR theories? Do you agree with his arguments? Jervis argues that the existence of Security Community refutes theories for causes of wars. Human nature and drive for dominance/honor don't drive man to war today. Strong powers don't use force even when they can and will win, they prefer peace. Security community proves that peace can exist without a central authority. I agree with his arguments to an extent. I think that many of the theories still apply but that even within the theories for causes of war there is an understanding that sometimes the costs outweigh the benefits and that is the situation we are at today. Leaders in the community are happy with the status quo and in an internationalized world, they have much more influence and ability to maintain the status quo- which only benefits them.

State-level explanations for war: Organized politics

Military bureaucracy pushes for war and prefers offensive doctrine.

Types of Peace:

Negative Peace (Morgenthau)- No violence or war but conflict is still unresolved. Chance of return to conflict. Cold Peace (Miller)- only type of peace according to Realism. Lack of current war. Some cold peace is stable (Israel and Syria) Normal Peace (Miller)- Acknowledgement of the sovereignty and borders. Cooperation both political and social. Option of war still exists (Israel and Egypt) 5. Pluralistic Security Community (Fukuyama)- War is not an option, common identity. Peace is a common interest both social and economic. 6. Positive Peace (Galtung)- Positive peace is filled with positive content such as restoration of relationships, the creation of social systems that serve the needs of the whole population and the constructive resolution of conflict.

Extend the Shadow of the Future

One of the factors that makes cooperation easier. The bigger the shadow of the future the higher the likelihood of cooperation. Oye argues that a one off game has a greater likelihood of defection. Players are less likely to defect when they know that in the future players will be less likely to cooperate with them. Example: Israel and Palestinian Authority made agreements that if one were to not fulfill the conditions would lower their negotiating strength in the future. Neo-liberalism believes future is significant while neo-realism mostly negates the effect.

Number of Players and influence on cooperation

Oye argues that more players decreases likelihood of cooperation because: 1. Hard to identify common interest 2. Greater likelihood of defection 3. Higher enforcement costs 4. Higher cost of cooperation 5. Free riders and collective goods. Neo-liberalism argues that more players cooperation will increase cooperation while neo-realism argues that it makes cooperation more difficult.

State-level explanations for war: Scapegoat Theory (Levy)

When there is weak internal regime or an crisis of sorts then groups choose a scapegoat and take advantage of crisis to rally around government and push to go to war. More likely in non-democratic regimes and with level of uniformity that isn't too high or low.

Peace According to Realist Theory

Peace can only be cold/negative. 1. Balance of Power- I.e Cold War 2. Deterrence- I.e. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) 1. Bi-polar structure (Walsh)- bi-Polar system is most stable (Cold War) 2. Nuclear Peace (Gadis)- MAD- Constant pessimism creates cautious foreign policy to avoid mutual annihilation. 3. Hegemonic Peace- Hegemonic stability theory (Gilpin). Hegemon provides security, builds international institutions. 4. Common external threat: enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Radical approach to solving development problems in the South

Problem stems from exploitation that is inherent in international system. Structural-sectoral approach: Prices in north are rising and remain low in the South. Solution: ISI- Tariff walls. Protect domestic market. Rapid industrialization. Dependency Approach- Under-developing countries are developing slowly at the expense of their independence. Solution is socialist revolution. Realist approach: Problem is power distribution in intl. system.

Liberal Approach to solving development problems in the South

Problems stem from inefficiency, corruption, inability to collect taxes, provide education and research. To develop states should incorporate into the international system. Criticism: In practice very hard to make economic reforms and is not always beneficial. Additionally, only refers to economic integration and not greater integration into the international community.

Impact of globalization on economic dimension

Quantitative economic growth and fundamental change in the economy. The effect is evident in: 1.Trade - Globalization has increased the volume of bilateral trade, domestic trade and industrial - states today rarely produces finished products, the product is global. productivity 2. Multinationals 3. Financial field - a larger percentage of companies traded on the stock exchange. 4. Transporting personnel.

SALT I & II and START

SALT I- 1972- Set a maximum number of anti-ballistic missiles for the two powers. Problem was that the US had already created splitting warheads helping them sidestep the agreement SALT II- 1979- extends the restrictions on the development of nuclear power. US Senate did not approve the agreement and 6 months later the USSR invaded Afghanistan. START- 1991- reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms. By 2001 resulted in removal of 80% of nuclear weapons then in existence.

Antarctic Treaty-

Signed in US in 1959 keeping Antarctica open to inspection and allowing it to only be used for peaceful purposes. First arms control treaty.

Cooperation

Situation in which both parties change or adapt their policies relative to each other using policy coordination. Negative consequences will be elimination, prevented, balanced, or shrunk. Parties consider one another. Between Conflict and Harmony on a 'war' scale. According to Realism (with anarchy as a premise) cooperation is only carried out under adverse conditions and for a temporary period and specific purpose.

Integration

States transfer part of their autonomy to create common policy and rules A process in which political actors from several countries agree to transfer their loyalty, their expectations and their political activity, to a new political center, Institutions have authority over countries - emphasis on political integration as an supra-national entity Emotional process of designing a common identity, we feeling Integration final destination: 1. Economic sphere: Free trade zone - less economic borders, the agreement of countries duty-free trade zone, eg in North America Customs union - face no tariff, and a common external tariff . Eg the unification of Germany under Bismarck principalities custom union. Common market - eg Mercosur. Monetary union - eg EU Political-security sphere: System states Imperial system Pluralistic security community - a group of sovereign states has developed a shared identity so that the expectation of resolving conflicts by peaceful means. Community safety is air conditioned - Step generated we feeling so strong that there is no point in being in different countries, eg the United States. Dimensions of integration: Institutional functional dimension - functionalism Dimension of political processes - neo-functionalism Community social dimension - Deutch transaction theory

Promoting cooperation in Intl. Relations

Strategies to change the compensation structure, extend future shadow, and resolve difficulty of multiple players: 1. Unilateral strategies- reduction of military forces to inspire confidence (very minor effect) 2.Bi-lateral strategies- Salami tactics- series of agreements to deploy smaller agreements to reduce temptation to defect and improve confidence in the agreement. Measure for Measure- positive or negative Linkage- link cooperation in one area to another. I.e. US linking economic cooperation with USSR to ending Apartheid in Africa. Reciprocity- rewards for cooperation. Increases cooperation as they will expect benefits in the future. 3. Multi-lateral strategies- International institutions which allow transparency, increase importance of future, raise the price of desertion, and encourage cooperation. I.e. European Union

Regional Security Dilemma in the Third World

Term created by Bozen. A group of countries that their main security concerns are intrinsically connected one another to the point that you cannot separate national security concerns of one from another. In Europe this is positive and in the Middle East negative.

New International Economic Order (NIEO)

The New International Economic Order (NIEO) was a set of proposals put forward during the 1970s by some developing countries through the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development to promote their interests by improving their terms of trade, increasing development assistance, developed-country tariff reductions, and other means. It was meant to be a revision of the international economic system in favour of Third World countries, replacing the Bretton Woods system, which had benefited the leading states that had created it - especially the United States. Among the demands put forward: 1. Stabilization of raw material prices 2. Supervision and control of international corporations in these countries 3. State aid external fund 4. Right to nationalization of foreign assets. These remained as demands and never became requirements due to internal cooperation issues (within the South) and the commanding position of the North in negotiations.

System-level explanation of wars: Failure of Balance of Power

The system is more stable when there are minimal discrepancies in power between central players. Realist vision argues that balance of powers will lead to maintain stability in system but as the political objective is security, can also include war situations when: A. Revisionist War to top a rising challenger. B. When balance of power fails can actually lead to war. Balance of power is common in a multi-polar system as states will wait until another superpower will stop the rising challenger (free riding). Once there is no choice, they will go to war (I.e. Britain and France didn't attack Germany after Sudetenland and it was too late). The dynamic of alliances draws many country into wars.

Gold Standard System

Until WWI states adhered to Gold Standard. Afterwards slowly left it until Bretton Woods.