International Relations

Nuclear Proliferation/Non-Proliferation (NPT, IAEA)

5 states originally made nukes immediately following world war 2: USA, France, GB, China, and Russia. These are the five permanent seats on the UN security council. Then, India, pakistan, Israel, and North Korea have all acquired nuclear arms. Constructivists and realists believe that nuclear proliferation can be a good thing, since the more countries have nukes, the more norms are shaped to MAD which will deter conflict between countries. Most other paradigms see nuclear proliferation as a cause of conflict. Perhaps the india/ pakistani conflict will turn out peacefully like the cold war between the US and USSR because of their nukes. International Atomic Agency- monitors state nuclear programs (not just nuclear states but all nuclear energy programs). Used to monitor iranian nuclear energy facilities. NPT/ Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons- prevent spread of nukes, promote cooperation and peaceful use of nuclear energy. Signed 1968 and enforced in 1970. The problem with this treaty is that there was no set timeline are disarmament meaning that nuclear powers could keep their arsenals indefinitely; also it allows members to withdraw from the treaty without penalty. Almost every country signed this Interesting non-signers- india, israel, north korea, pakistan, south sudan Nonproliferation efforts- stuxnet in iran. North Korea Likelihood of nuclear theft by terrorists? International threats vs. domestic stability Japan and germany are sufficiently stable to produce nukes and use them in a rational way. In iran, terrorist threat form inside the country. Where to store nukes? Out in the countryside where nukes can be readily deployed at any time? Tangible threat of terrorists stealing them. Inside a heavily populated city with more guards? More security but nukes are not readily deployable

Billiard Ball Model

A concept out of the Realist tradition, specifically neorealist theory, which says that the study of the internal politics or domestic properties of states are unnecessary to understanding international relations. International relations can instead be understood by examining the pressures states face and the interactions between states. Metaphorically, states are billiard balls that collide with one another. Sovereignty is the hard impenetrable outer shell of the ball which enables it to withstand the impact of the collision. Not all balls are the same size, which is why international politics gives attention to the interests and behaviour of 'great powers'. This model has come under pressure due to growing interdependence and development of "smaller balls".

National Interest

A country's goals or ambitions, whether economic, military, or cultural, in the international system. Pursuit of national interest is the foundation of realism, and states will inherently clash over competing interests. Liberalists believe in the pursuit of mutual interests, which can be linked through cooperation in an international institution. Main driver behind any country's foreign policy and national security, as well as important player in economic policy.

Free Rider

A free rider is an entity that reaps some form of benefit from a collective public good without using any of its own resources to achieve that public good. Instead, this entity relies on the work and effort of another entity in order to produce the good and subsequently enjoy the benefits. Often time free-riding is a state's behavior at the international level. We can look to NATO as an example. NATO was established in 1949 as a collective security organization led by the US. The good that NATO produces is security, and all of NATO's members benefit from this security. However, the US contributes a substantial amount more than some of the other members to achieve the collective security that benefits all. So we can see a member country such as Luxembourg as a free rider. It contributes significantly less resources than the US but still achieves the same benefits. Significance is that countries are incentivized to contribute the least amount possible to international agreements while still maximizing benefits. This can also be applied to climate change negotiations. Air quality is a public good, but if Country A is the only one cutting emissions but Country B is benefitting from better air quality then Country B is a free rider.

Free Trade Agreement

A free trade agreement is an agreement between two or more countries to reduce trade barriers for the sake of mutual economic prosperity. Trade barriers include things such as tariffs and import quotas. Free trade agreements also serve to increase the amount of international trade and the movement of goods and services over borders. Unlike a customs union, there is no common external tariff. Free trade agreements expand both the production base and consumer base for companies. They can produce goods in more economically efficient areas while also selling their product to a greater customer base. One of the most famous examples of a free trade agreement and how it leads to regional integration is NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). This is a free trade agreement between Canada, the US, and Mexico, which came into effect in 1994, is designed to reduce the trade barriers between the three North American states. Important to note, however, that each three countries have different trade relations with non-members of this treaty.

Liberalism (Liberal Institutionalism/Neoliberalism, Liberal Commercialism, Liberal Internationalism)

A political philosophy or paradigm founded on the ideas of liberty and equality. Liberalism became a popular political movement during the Age of Enlightenment in the western world. Liberalism manifests itself as a leading paradigm and a counter to realism. In liberalism, unlike realism, conflict is not inevitable, and can be avoided through Immanuel Kant's triangle of perpetual peace states; international institutions, democratic governments, and economic interdependence. Liberalism states that unlike realism, the inner machinations and internal governments of states are important. 4 assumptions of liberalism vs realism: 1.Liberals believe in absolute gains over relative gains (realism) 2. Realists believe that moral and values don't matter, and that security comes first. But liberalists believe that once a state is relatively secure, other things like morals and values matter. 3. Realists believe the major actors are the states, whereas liberals believe that other actors are dominant. 4. Level 2 domestic level matters most for liberals- type of government. Realists are only concerned with level 3- international anarchy Liberal Institutionalism/neoliberalism- states where international institutions like the UN, NATO, & EU aid and increase cooperation between states, thus mitigating anarchy. Liberal commercialism- the branch of liberal international relations theory which states that promoting free trade and economic interdependence will promote peace. As states become more economically dependent on one another in a free market, war will have an increasingly destructive effect on a state and its economy if the economic chains are broken. US-China relations today. Liberal Internationalism- liberal states should intervene in other sovereign states in order to promote liberal objectives, encouraging democracy to emerge globally and in every country. Emphasis on DPT. This intervention can be through military intervention or humanitarian aid.

Positive-Sum

A positive sum is a part of Game Theory, where the total gains or losses is greater than one. It is a central part of negotiations and bargaining where everyone comes out a winner in their own right, depending on their interests. For example, if two countries enter negotiations for a trade deal and Country A gets something out of Country B that they wanted, and Country B gets something that they wanted out of Country A then they have reached a positive sum. To contrast, a zero-sum would be a winner takes all situation at the expense of the losers (e.g. Country A gains something from Country B, but Country B gets nothing in return, resulting in their loss and Country A's gain). This scenario considers absolute gains, whereby you are better off than you were before, as opposed to relative gains, thus it exists in the liberal paradigm.

Pre-emptive War

A pre-emptive war is a war that is started to repel a perceived imminent attack or invasion. Michael Walzer describes three criteria that are crucial for starting a pre-emptive war. First, there must be the existence of an intention to harm or injure. Second, undertaking military preparations that would conceivably increase the level of danger. Finally, the need to act quickly because there is a perceived high degree of risk involved if they do not act quickly or at all. A classic example of this is the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Israel became aware that Egypt and Syria planned to invade so instead of waiting for an invasion they struck first and destroyed the Egyptian air power. The invasion of Israel appeared to be an inevitability so it was essential for Israel to strike first to gain the upper hand.

Peace of Westphalia (1648)

A series of treaties which led to the end of the Thirty Years War and kicked off the "modern" system of international relations. It explicitly recognized a society of states based on the principle of territorial sovereignty, it established the independence of states and emphasized that each had jural rights which all others were bound to respect. It recognized the legitimacy of all forms of government and established the notion of religious freedom and toleration (cuius regio, eius religio). In sum, it established a secular concept of international relations replacing forever the medieval idea of a universal religious authority acting as final arbiter of Christendom. By destroying the notion of universalism, the 'Westphalia system' gave impetus to the notions of reason of state and balance of power as key concepts in foreign policy conduct and formulation. From 1648 onwards, the particularist interests of states became paramount both politically and legally. Important to note, it only applied to European Christians, thus interactions with the Muslims were not adherent to these limitations, leading to centuries of animosity between the two religions, peoples and regions, until a more globalized 19th and 20th century saw European incursion into Muslim territory and the adoption of this system of IR by force.

Human Rights

A set of moral standards in state or individual behavior, generally regarded as universal, inalienable and protected by international law. It is a more modern concept from the enlightenment and codified in the aftermath of the holocaust by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 by the UN general assembly. This emphasis on human rights has become popular in recent decades with the rise of the COnstructivist school of IR, which predicates state interaction on the influence of the individuals that comprise the state. So, if their human rights are being infringed upon, animosity will develop towards the government, forcing the government to center its focus at home, leaving it out of a lot of global initiatives. In conjunction with the rise of Constructivist critique of IR, institutions have been formed to raise awareness of the notion of equal rights for all. The ICC is a supranational example of this, and the NGO Amnesty International is an example of an organization independent of government oversight focusing on the rights of individuals. The Clinton doctrine also emphasized the importance of human rights, as it willingly interceded in the Balkans to prevent further genocide on behalf of the government against a certain group of peoples.

Appeasement

A strategy in international relations where one world power accommodating the demands of an assertive power in an attempt to prevent conflict. In order to avoid the war the power will give in to the demands of the other power, generally more assertive, power. A key example of this is pre world war two Europe where Britain and France gave up territory in Czechoslovakia in order to avoid conflict with the rising industrial and military power of Nazi Germany. British PM Neville Chamberlain infamously declared that appeasing Germany had brought "peace for our time", but had to eat those words when Germany violated the agreement and attacked Poland the following year, kicking off WWII. Thus, hawks in foreign policy, especially realist thinkers, believe that appeasement is not a suitable diplomatic tactic, because it makes one nation look weak, instilling confidence in the more aggressive and assertive nation, making them more inclined to continually push for more and more. Thus, appeasement seldom brings a definitive end to an issue, but rather results in conflict.

Zero-Sum/Fixed Sum

A term derived from game theory. It refers to the realist belief that the numerical value of the 'payoffs' add up to zero. It is therefore held to represent in mathematical terms a situation of pure conflict where a gain to one party is a loss to the other. In IR theory, a Zero-Sum Game is the understanding that one country cannot afford to give up anything, because then their opponent country would have the upper hand in an anarchical international system. For example, Pakistan cannot afford to lose its nuclear weapons, because than its nuclear-armed enemy India would have the upper hand. Thus, zero-sum politics and negotiating has been effective in developing a model of deterrence in an arms race.

Absolute Gains

According to liberal international relations theory, absolute gains is what international actors look at in determining their interests, weighing out the total effects of a decision on the state or organization and acting accordingly. The international actor's interests not only include power but also encompass the economic and cultural effects of an action as well. The theory is also interrelated with a non-zero-sum game which proposes that through use of comparative advantage, all states who engage in peaceful relations and trade can expand wealth. This differs from theories that employ relative gain, which seeks to describe the actions of states only in respect to power balances and without regard to other factors, such as economics. Relative gain is related to zero-sum game, which states that wealth cannot be expanded and the only way a state can become richer is to take wealth from another state.

Supranational Organization

An international organization in which member states transcend boundaries or specific national interests to work for the betterment of the union of all states part of the organization. Decision making is shared by all, thus it is a truly globalized institution, working for the betterment of the many, not the few. The EU or WTO are an example of such an organization.

International Organization (IGO vs. NGO)

An international organization is an organization with international members, presence, scope and recognition. There are 2 types: Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO). An intergovernmental organization is an organization composed primarily of sovereign states or other international organizations. The IGOs are created by treaty that acts as the charter to the group. IGOs have a function outlined in their charter usually having mutual interests. They are subject to international law and have the ability to enter into agreements among themselves or with other states NGOs are non-profit organizations not affiliated with any nation-state. They act in the interest of common goals that they outline in their organizational goals. NGOs lobby and participate in civil disobedience to be heard and the power of NGOs stem from direct links to citizens at the local, state, national, and transnational level. NGOs are citizen based, contrary to IGOs, which are governmental based, and have such examples as Amnesty International or al-Qaeda.

Waltz's "Three Images" of International Relations (levels of analysis)

As laid out in his seminal 1959 book on international relations theory, realist Kenneth Waltz described the causes of war by breaking them down into three categories (or "images" or "levels of analysis"). Man/Individuals: The first image argues that wars are often caused by the nature of particular statesmen and political leaders such as state leaders -- examples like Napoleon or Saddam Hussein -- or by human nature more generally. This is basically consistent with Classical Realism. The State: The second image contests that wars are caused by the domestic makeup of states. A prime example that Waltz refers to is Lenin's theory of imperialism, which posits that the main cause of war is rooted in the need for capitalist states to continue opening up new markets in order to perpetuate their economic system at home. A more familiar example in the Western world today is the notion that non-democratic states, because of their internal composition, start wars. International System:The third image describing the framework of world politics and the first and second, determining the forces that create the policies of a state. The third image posits that the cause of war is found at the systemic level; namely, that the anarchic structure of the international system is the root cause of war. In this context, "anarchy" is not defined as a condition of chaos or disorder but rather one in which there is no sovereign body that governs the interactions between autonomous nation-states. Put differently, unlike in domestic society where citizens can theoretically rely on law enforcement agencies to protect their persons and property, if a state is invaded and calls "911" it can't be sure anyone will answer. Similarly, whereas when two citizens have a dispute they can appeal to the courts to render a verdict and, more importantly, the law enforcement agencies to enforce the court's ruling, there is no body above nation-states that is capable of: establishing rules or laws for all the states, deciding how these apply in specific cases, and compelling the states to honor the court's ruling. As a result, if an issue at stake is important enough to a state, it can achieve a satisfactory outcome only by using its power to impose its will on another state(s). The realization that, at any point in time any state can resort to armed force, forces each state always be prepared for that contingency.

Stability/Instability Index

As the likelihood of nuclear conflict declines, the risk of conventional war increases and as the likelihood of nuclear conflict increases, the risk of conventional war declines. This inverse relationship between the probability of nuclear and conventional military conflict is known as the stability-instability paradox. For example, Western deterrence theorists during the Cold War proposed that offsetting nuclear capabilities and secure, second-strike capabilities would induce special caution, providing the basis MAD. Offsetting nuclear deterrents channeled the superpower competition into "safer" pursuits. Instead, a number of proxy wars and a sequence of crises substituted for outright nuclear war.

Balance of Power (internal vs external balancing)

Balance of power, at its most basic, refers to the relations between states in the international system. It asserts that national security of any given nation is enhanced when there is a more equal distribution of military capability, so that no single state can use military means to gain dominance over the others. If one state were to develop hegemonic power, the theory states that there is an increased likelihood that state will take advantage of its strength and attack weaker neighbors, thereby providing an incentive for those threatened to unite in a defensive coalition. This generally happens when a regional hegemon develops, so its neighbors states feel compelled to act due to the proximity of the threat. The League of Nations was a specific attempt to replace the balance of power system: the principle of collective security which was at the heart of the organization was designed to obviate the need for balance. Many realists argue that its absence in the inter-war period resulted directly in the Second World War. Since 1945 the international political system is not so readily explained in terms of the concept and notions of bipolarity and multipolarity have replaced it. However, echoes of it are still common in the language of diplomacy, especially balance of terror. According to Kenneth Waltz, father of neorealism, "balance-of-power politics prevail wherever two, and only two requirements are met: that the order be anarchic and that it be populated by units wishing to survive". They can do this either through "internal balancing" , where a state uses internal efforts such as moving to increase economic capability, developing clever strategies and increasing military strength, or through "external balancing", which occurs when states take external measures to increase their security by forming allies. [external balancing is forming coalitions, whereas internal balancing is reallocating resources and funds so to enhance domestic security capabilities

Bandwagoning

Bandwagoning is a realist strategy which is an alternative to balancing, in which smaller states will choose to side with the more powerful nation in order to ensure their own safety and security. This strategy is chosen by nations that believe working with the hegemon has more advantages than attempting to oppose the hegemon. This phenomenon can also be chosen if the smaller nations believe there is no reasonable chance of defeating or opposing the hegemon, and is more common at the end of a conflict when there is a clear victor. A prime example of bandwagoning is the alliance of Romania and Bulgaria with the THird Reich, despite a lack of common ideologies, but the assumption of inevitable victory. The term also came to prominence during the Cold War in American Foreign Policy, when policy-makers such as Kissinger asserted that if AMerican dominance faltered at all, smaller states would side with the Communist Soviet Union to protect themselves, despite the fact that state may not actually be Communist.

Marxism/Neomarxism (base-superstructure, historical materialism, dependency theory)

Based on the writings of Karl Marx (and Friedrich Engels) which contends that history is shaped by struggle between classes, and capitalist nations have reached peak development. Since this is the case, it is the ideal time for a revolution of the proletariat to create a more egalitarian system. These writings are the fundamental basis for Communism. It emerged most effectively in the Soviet Union after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. The ideological struggle between Marxist-Communist and capitalists defined the Cold War. Neomarxism: paradigm that accepts the realist notion that conflict is inherent in world politics, but sees that conflict is driven by the economic interests of socioeconomic classes more than by geopolitical interests of sovereign states. Marxism and realism agree that the conflict is rooted in structural characteristics of world politics Marxism is naturally opposed to liberalism, constructivism, and feminism Realist- competitive pursuit of national interest is at the core of world affairs; power struggle VS. Marxist- competitive pursuit of class interests is key to understanding the world; Economic interest drives politics Bourgeois and proletariat Bourgeoisie- modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of world labor; upper class Proletariat- modern wage laborers who have means of production on their own but are reduced to selling their labor power in order to live; lower class Marxists believe there is still a 2 class society today- want an international revolution to seize the means of production. Capitalism inherently bad- causes class conflicts because some group will always get screwed over at the expense of making the most profitable product. Marxists believe that the superstructure of all world paradigms are built on the basis of economics. Want to reorganize society at base- get rid of these zero sum exploitative work relationships Marxists believe that all wars are essentially over economic interests

Balance of Threat

Because there is no "world government" to protect states from each other, each has to rely on its own resources and strategies to avoid being conquered, coerced, or otherwise endangered. When facing a powerful or threatening state, generally a hegemon, a worried country can mobilize more of its own resources or seek an alliance with other states that face the same danger, in order to shift the balance more in its favor. This viewpoint was hypothesized by Stephen Walt, who believed that the generally held belief, the Balance of Power theory was inadequate. That theory holds that if a state develops hegemonic power, smaller and less capable states will band together or increase their military capabilities to once more create an even playing field, power-wise. Walt instead believes that states will only subscribe to this theory if the growing state also holds hostile intentions to its neighbors. Thus there are three main criteria for the hypothesis: that the potential hegemon has growing/high military capabilities and poses a threat due to geographic proximity, but also has the intention of engaging the smaller nations in conflict. If this third point is not the case, other states will not be compelled to balance the hegemon's rise. This theory takes establishes realist notions, and then layers a constructivist critique upon them. For example, Canada does not balance the military supremacy of the US because the US does not have aggressive posturing toward Canada.

Coercion/Compellence

Coercion is a strategy in the international system where a world power seeks to gain leverage over another state through aggressive methods. This can be stacking troops in key positions to threaten the other state, economic sanctions or full blown trade embargos used in order to force concessions from the power being coerced. On the flip side, compliance/compellence is the exact opposite, it is acquiescing to the demands of the power using coercion or simply working with another exterior power in order to execute the exterior powers goal.

Collective Security

Collective security is the concept that when states form an alliance, an attack against one is an attack against them all. The assumption is that they will band together if necessary to protect a member state from an aggressor. The idea behind this is that if states form a permanent alliance, it will serve as both a security measure by strengthening the military might of members states as well as act as a form of deterrence against potential aggressors, balancing the power/threat of a hegemon. One of the earliest modern examples of this was the League of Nations, which was formed in 1920 at the conclusion of the First World War. After the fall of the League of Nations, the idea of collective security was later made famous when adopted by the United Nations, which was formed in 1945 after the conclusion of the Second World War, and again by NATO which was formed from the UN in 1949. Within NATO, the idea of collective security can be seen in Article 5. Article 5 has only been invoked once, which came in the aftermath of the attacks on September 11th. In both the case of the League of Nations and the United Nations, collective security failed deter every threat against member states. This primarily comes from conflicts of interests between member states. States have a way to forego collective security if they are a permanent member of the UN Security Council via article 27 paragraph 3.

Sovereignty

Condition of supreme, independent political authority answerable to no higher authority. In international relations theory, and especially among realists, states are often regarded as sovereign. In a democratic political system, sovereignty can be said to rest collectively in the people who exercise political power through a democratically elected and constituted government. That government wields sovereign power in the name of the citizens. However, there is no overriding sovereign at the global level able to regulate and resolve disputes between individual, sovereign states. Instead international relations must work out differences between themselves, leading to competitiveness and the need for self-help.

"Conditionality" (e.g. of IMF/World Bank loans)

Conditionality in reference to the World Bank and the IMF is a concept that refers to the terms under which a state would take out a loan. When a nation is in need of international financial assistance, it is subject to certain conditions that are established by the agency that is providing the loan. Though the IMF provides loans to countries in need of stabilization and the World Bank provides loans to countries that are in need of development assistance, both agencies reserve the right to set conditions for the countries that are receiving the loans. This is intended to act as a form of security for these agencies to help ensure that their investments are being used in a beneficial way that will contribute to the stabilization/development of the country. Conditionality also serves as a way to ensure that the countries that are receiving the loans are able to pay back the loan. This is important because it helps to ensure that there are always adequate funds available for other states to access. The host country is allowed to design and implement policies that best suits the conditions set by the lender. This helps establish macro-economic control over the country and promotes strong national leadership. There is some criticism over the idea of conditionality. The criticism mostly stems from the idea that these organizations are forcing countries to adopt free trade and a globalized economic policy, such was the case with Latin America, especially Brazil and Chile in the 1970s and 1980s, which were ruled by Authoritarian regimes who instituted liberal economics by force, resulting in increased inequality in the already-poor countries.

Constructivism

Constructivism, which gained its popularity at the end of the Cold War, is one of the core paradigms of IR which believes that many of the core attributes of international relations are socially constructed and spawn from social interactions rather than just natural human/state behavior. The paradigm revolves around the concept that international relations are formed from shared ideas rather than more material forces, which in turn will determine the actions of players more so than natural instincts or behavior. This is the idea that changes in the ways in which states interact can bring about fundamental changes in the international community's view/behavior towards cooperation and security. This point is furthered by the idea that anarchy is only "what states make of it" rather than a natural determinant of state's behaviors. This contests one of the core values of those who follow the realist paradigm. Constructivists also believe that individuals and non-state actors are key to the promotion of the core ideas and values that will shape foreign policy. A simple example of this would be a fire in a crowded movie theater. The natural assumption would be panic and chaos while the whole crowd rushes towards the exit. Constructivists would argue that one must know the culture of those in the theaters to determine the outcome, e.g. if they prioritize women and children the result would be very different than a mass scramble towards the door. Translating this to the world of international relations, constructivists would argue that international economic or physical security is dependent on how individual states value security and the level of insecurity they feel. A real-world example of this can be seen when looking at Gorbachev's "new thinking" when he was leader of the Soviet Union. These ideas were not original to him, but rather had been in circulation by human rights and peace activists for some time. Though the USSR was not politically or socially the same as the West, once the Soviet Union fell the two areas of the world were able to fall into a period of peace and cooperation with relative ease.

Democratic Peace Theory

Democratic Peace Theory is the idea that democracies are less likely to go to war, so two democracies are less likely to have conflicts with each other. This theory dates back to Kant in the 18th Century but has been a growing source of research and popularity. This theory takes several forms. Many scholars argue that the more democracies there are in a particular region, the higher likelihood of peace and stability there is in that region. This theory is founded in the idea that the democratic norms of countries will translate to the international forum and democracies have a higher likelihood of pursuing a diplomatic approach to conflicts. If war does erupt, the theory states that democracies are more likely to form alliances thus raise greater military power. This concept comes from the liberal paradigm and suggests that it would be harmful for liberal governments to go to war with other liberal states. The Democratic Peace Theory is true from a theoretical perspective, but in reality there are many other factors (cultural, religious, economic) that can still drive states to conflict. Realists suggest that this phenomenon is actually caused by the prevalence of alliance ties between democracies, which are a function of realist power concerns.

Deterrence

Deterrence is a strategy states employ in an attempt to dissuade other states from conducting an action that has not yet been started. Though the concept has been around for a significant amount of time, in the realm of international studies it became popular after the Second World War with the employment of nuclear weapons. The general idea of deterrence is that one nation poses an equal if not greater threat to the nation it is worried about, which in turn would prevent the aggressor from taking any action. In the case of nuclear weapons, the concept of deterrence revolves around the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). This is the idea that if one nation conducts a nuclear attack against another, it will be met with a response just as deadly and destructive. For this strategy to be effective, a nation must have the ability to retaliate after an attack, and a credible will to retaliate. Arguably the greatest example of successful deterrence can be seen in the Cold War with the fact that neither the US nor the Soviet Union launched a nuclear weapon at the other despite enormous amounts of pressure at times. Deterrence is not just limited to nuclear weapons though, and as we move into an era with different types of threats, nations are struggling to hold onto the ability to retaliate (especially in the realm of cyberwarfare).

Economic Interdependence

Economic interdependence is the idea that no one state produces all of the goods and services it needs so it is reliant on trade with other nations. This liberal concept revolves around the idea of specialization, which is the idea that states are naturally better at producing certain goods than others (given available funds or resources). With specialization, countries should be a global provider of those resources where the opportunity cost to produce is low and trade for those in which the OC is high. The idea of economic interdependence has grown exponentially in the last 100 years. This is largely due to the rapid technological advances and the ability to conduct global trade at a far quicker pace than ever before. Those who believe in the liberal paradigm also follow the idea of economic interdependence as a force of peace. This is the idea that when multiple countries economies are reliant upon each other, they are incredibly unlikely to go to war for failure of economic collapse. There have been multiple steps taken throughout the 20th Century to help promote the idea of economic interdependence. Organizations and agreements such as the European Union, NAFTA, and the TPP all serve to enable this idea of free trade and interdependence.

Economic Protectionism

Economic protectionism is a method that is employed to protect a home economy from foreign competition. It is an economic defense tool and contrasts the idea of free trade and economic interdependence. One of the most common ways countries will use protectionist policies is with the implementation of tariffs and import taxes. This serves to drive up the price of foreign goods in a domestic market, thus trying to persuade consumers to opt for the domestically produced product. Another way of using protectionist policies is through subsidies of domestic industries, which allows producers to lower the price of their goods. The third way to enact protectionist policies is for domestic producers to simply produce more goods than foreign competition. Though economic protectionist policies can be good for the economy in the short term, they are typically quite harmful in today's global economy. One of the greatest examples of this is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930. This tariff heavily subsidized especially domestic farm goods to compete with the cheaper European goods that were being imported. The result was a trade war that severely exacerbated the Great Depression. Economic protectionism is significant because it has large effects on the global economy, especially for a great power like the US, and can set the tone for a country's willingness to conduct international trade and diplomacy.

Economic Sanctions

Economic sanctions are an economic response of one or more nations trying to alter the actions or behavior of another nation. When Country A enacts sanctions against Country B, it is withdrawing from customary trade and financial relations with that nation in response to an action or behavior that it disagrees with. Sanctions vary in size and scope. Sometimes the sanction will only pertain to a particular industry or business, such as the sanctions the Obama administration levied against North Korean leaders, or it could pertain to the country as a whole, which was seen with the US embargo of Cuba. Sanctions can be employed by individual countries or by international bodies a whole (like the UN). Though the success rate of sanctions varies, they can be an important intermediate step to try to persuade a country to change its behavior/punish for its actions. Sanctions have more bite than simple diplomatic negotiations, and are lower cost (both financially and politically) than employing a military response. Sanctions have been used heavily recently, examples being against Russia after its annexation of Crimea as well as against North Korea in response to the development of its nuclear program.

Ethnic Cleansing

Ethnic Cleansing, according to the definition decided upon by the UN in 1993, is the systematic and forceful removal of a particular ethnic or religious group by a more powerful ethnic or religious group to render that area ethnically homogenous. Ethnic cleansing is traditionally thought about in terms of genocidal murder (in the case of the Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide) but it can also come in the form of forced migration (as in the case of Kosovo or the present situation in Myanmar). There is no specific treaty under international law that defines ethnic cleansing as a crime, but it is defined as a crime against humanity under statues in the International Criminal Court.

UN Institutions: Human Rights Council, Economic and Social Council, General Assembly, International Court of Justice, Security Council (P5)

General Assembly: Here representatives from each of the 193 states that make up the UN gather every year to discuss the world's problems in a global parliamentary setting. The Assembly has little influence in world politics. It can debate any issue it chooses, adopt Resolutions with a two-thirds majority, help elect members of other UN bodies, and vote on the UN budget. Ultimately, whatever power it has depends on its moral authority as a reflection of global opinion. Security Council (P5): The Security Council is the most important agency in the UN, particularly in fulfilling its primary purpose. It remains ready to meet at any time whenever there is a threat to international peace and security. There are 15 members of the Security Council. Five are permanent (the P5), and ten non-permanent members are elected for a period of two years from regional groups within the UN: Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, Western Europe, and Oceania. The P5 are the United States, Russia, China, France, and Britain. Decisions of the Council have to be accepted by a majority of members, and must include the P5, each of which is able to veto a decision. Human Rights Council: A United Nations System inter-governmental body responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the world. Its 47 seats are filled by member states elected for three-year terms. The UNHRC is the successor to the UN Commission on Human Rights, and is a subsidiary body of the UN General Assembly. The council works closely with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and engages the United Nations' special procedures. The General Assembly established the UNHRC by adopting a resolution (A/RES/60/251) on 15 March 2006, in order to replace the previous CHR, which had been heavily criticised for allowing countries with poor human rights records to be members. However, many of the current 47 UNHRC member states are criticised for poor human rights. Economic and Social Council: One of the six principal organs of the United Nations,it is responsible for coordinating the economic, social, and related work of 15 UN specialized agencies, their functional commissions and five regional commissions. The ECOSOC has 54 members. It holds one four-week session each year in July, and since 1998, it has also held an annual meeting in April with finance ministers heading key committees of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). ECOSOC serves as the central forum for discussing international economic and social issues and formulating policy recommendations addressed to member states and the United Nations system. International Court of Justice: The principal judicial organ of the United Nations, It settles legal disputes between member states and gives advisory opinions to authorized UN organs and specialized agencies. It comprises a panel of 15 judges elected by the General Assembly and Security Council for nine-year terms. It is seated in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands

Human Security

Global vulnerabilities whose proponents challenge the traditional notion of national security by arguing that the proper referent for security should be the individual rather than the state. Protection of the individual is in regards to human rights, humanitarianism, development, and conflict resolutions primarily handled by the state. But, when the state becomes the cause of human insecurity, the responsibility falls upon the international security if they wish to act. This idea of individuals rather than the state as the primary object of security is meant to improve both global and national stability.

Globalization

Globalization is the increasing interaction of people, states or countries through the international flow of money, ideas and culture. Globalization has been able to flourish through technological advancements in transportation and communication. Globalization has roots in the european age of discovery but most improvements were made in the 1820s and into the 19th and 20th centuries. The IMF identifies four basic aspects of globalization: trade and transactions, capital and investment movements, migration and movement of people and the dissemination of knowledge. Much of our current world system relies on the transmission of information and technology. This information sharing is crucial to advancement. The world has also become more conscious of different cultures and cultural awareness thanks to globalization.

Hegemonic Stability Theory

Hegemonic Stability Theory is a theory of IR that indicates that the international system is more likely to remain stable when a single state is the dominant world power, or a hegemon. The fall of a hegemon would thus reduce global stability. The stability theory has its basis in the idea that a hegemon will exercise leadership using its power. Peace and order will prevail in a hegemonic world because of the predominance of a single state, whether their rule is fair or not is not considered, and thus fits squarely in the offensive realist camp. For example, the US became one of the world's two superpowers, thus hegemons, after WWII. It then took on economic responsibilities like turning Wall street into the financial center of world, producing more so it had a trade surplus, allowed the dollar to be the reserve currency for the world, and backed it in gold. It also had military dominance of the world, and provided aid to its allies within its sphere of influence, such as Vietnam.

Hegemony ("benign" hegemon)

Hegemony is the political, economic or military predominance of one nation over others. After the end of the Cold War, we saw the rise of America as the global hegemon, when previously the nature of IR had been bipolar, with the USSR serving as the other hegemon. Hegemonic states assist in global world order as well as act as an intermediary in conflicts. A hegemon is the root of the hegemonic stability theory. (three paradigms) A benign hegemon is what the US considers itself to be; a hegemon that exerts its influence on others through soft-power means, not militarily.

Humanitarian Intervention/R2P

Humanitarian intervention is a state's use of military force and non-forcible methods, such as aid and international sanctions, against another state in order to end the violation of human rights. Humanitarian intervention usually interferes with a country's internal affairs and does not affect the intervening state's strategic interests, but instead is invoked because of a crime against human rights. Humanitarian intervention also encompasses political and economic intervention in times of disaster in which a state no longer can offer security and human rights to its citizens. R2P stands for "Responsibility to Protect" and is a global political commitment which was endorsed by all member states of the UN at the 2005 World Summit to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This is based off of international norms and laws. This commitment is significant because these interventions or the lack thereof can draw states into a more involved conflict. There are also political ramifications both at home and abroad for a state that either aids or fails to aid a humanitarian crisis.

Anarchy

In international relations theory, anarchy is the idea that the world lacks any supreme authority or sovereign. In an anarchic state, there is no hierarchically superior, coercive power that can resolve disputes, enforce law, or order the system of international politics. In international relations (IR), anarchy is widely accepted as the starting point for international relations theory. While some political scientists use the term "anarchy" to signify a world in chaos, in disorder, or in conflict, others view it simply as a reflection of the order of the international system: independent states with no central authority above them. Anarchy provides foundations for realist, liberal, neorealist, and neoliberal paradigms of international relations. Constructivist theory disputes that anarchy is a fundamental condition of the international system. The constructivist Alexander Wendt argued, "anarchy is what states make of it". That is tosay, while the international system is anarchical, anarchy does not determine state behavior in the way in which other schools of IR theory envision it, but rather it is a construct of the states in the system.

United Nations

Initially laid out by Churchill and FDR in the outbreak of WWII in The Atlantic Charter, it would eventually be a successor to the aborted League of Nations. The Charter had the stated goal of defeating the Axis, but the provisions that were used as a foundation for the UN were three-pronged and included: a.) to maintain international peace, b.) to develop friendly relations among states, and c.) to cooperate internationally in solving international economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems and in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

League of Nations

International organization headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland formed in order to provide a conflict resolution medium after WWI. This organization was outlined in President Wilson's 14 points even though the United States never became a member state. Its charter, contained in the Treaty of Versailles, intended the League to maintain global peace and state sovereignty by taking "any action...to safeguard the peace". The agreement was not ratified by COngress, so America stayed out of the League despite the fact it was the brainchild of President Wilson. Due to the lack of American participation, the league collapsed. But with the rise of Germany and the Second World War the threat of global instability returned, and it was quickly realized that such an international body was necessary and the United Nations was formed in 1945 with similar objectives.

Nation, State & Nation-State (How are they different?)

Nation- cultural and ethnic entity embodying a group of people. Requires cultural commonality, particularly language State- political and geopolitical entity embodying a group of people. Existence of ruling body Nation-state- form of political organization in which a group of people who share the same history, traditions, or language live in a particular are under one government A state or a country can be invaded and occupied by a foreign military, but a nation can't? Kurdistan

NATO

North Atlantic Treaty Organization created in 1949, it now has 29 members in Europe and North America. Counterbalanced the Soviet Union during the cold war, and counterbalance them today. If one state is attacked in this organization, other states are compelled to join the fight and defend the allied state under Article 5. 3 Main Pillars: Collective security: an attack on one is attack on all Crisis Management: ability to provide aid in the face of national conflict on a global scale, such as conflict in Syria, or in the face of a natural disaster, such as an earthquake in Pakistan Common defense: working together and with neighbor nations to create a stable international order POLITICAL - NATO promotes democratic values and enables members to consult and cooperate on defence and security-related issues to solve problems, build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict. MILITARY - NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. If diplomatic efforts fail, it has the military power to undertake crisis-management operations. These are carried out under the collective defence clause of NATO's founding treaty - Article 5 of the Washington Treaty or under a United Nations mandate, alone or in cooperation with other countries and international organisations.

Outsourcing & Offshoring

Offshoring- moving labor to different countries to exploit lower labor markets. Moving manufacturing countries to china to create iphones for cheap Bad- exploits countries with poor labor laws for cheap labor, and increases production while not increasing jobs Good- creates cheap products. Without the big brand companies moving manufacturing here, these people wouldn't have any jobs at all. People will eventually see political growth Outsourcing- using companies or banks in another country to take advantage of tax/business laws

OPEC

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries- 14 states, founded in 1960 in Baghdad. Trade partnership unifying the petroleum policies of its member countries and stabilizing oil prices. The cartel first demonstrated its influence by imposing an oil embargo from October 1973- March 1974, leading to the dangerous oil shocks that shook the world economy. It currently provides one-third of the world's oil production. Saudi Arabia is the largest oil producer and most influential member, along with other members Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, the United Arab Emirates & Venezuela

Pax Britannica, Pax Americana

Pax Britannica lasted between the Napoleonic Wars and World War I (1815-1914). Britain established unparalleled global influence through naval power and trade relationships. During Pax Britannica, Britain and the United States remained peaceful and cooperative allies. World Wars I & World War II ended the Pax Britannica, but the end of WWII resulted in the flourishing of Pax AMericana, where there was peace among the great powers (hegemonic stability theory), often called "The Long Peace". A realist approach ,in this modern sense, it has come to indicate the military and economic position of the United States in relation to other nations. For example, the Marshall Plan, which spent $13 billion to rebuild the economy of Western Europe, has been seen as "the launching of the pax americana."

Peacekeeping/Peacemaking/Peace Enforcement

Peace Enforcement-Application of military force, or the threat of its use, normally pursuant to international authorization, to compel compliance with resolutions or sanctions designed to maintain or restore peace and order. These peacekeeping forces are now often deployed through supranational institutions, such as NATO or the UN. In Peacekeeping operations, the UN intervenes to maintain a peace already established via political negotiation or military stalemate. The UN forces are typically there with the prior consent of all parties to the conflict to play the role of an impartial buffer force. In Peacemaking operations, the UN intervenes without a prior ceasefire having been established. The task is to impose a peace with or without the consent of the parties to a conflict. The peacemaking forces are more heavily armed than peacekeeping forces and have been used in places like Bosnia and Somalia. Peacebuilding- UN sponsored workers help rebuild and prevent conflict from happening again. Funding, training, building, education Somalia Bosnia Congo- 1950s60s Croatia

Power Transition

Power transition is a theory based on the cyclical nature of warfare in international relations. An even distribution of political, economic, and military capabilities among states will lead to greater conflict. An uneven distribution of power leads to more stability and peace because the advantaged nations hold power over the disadvantaged nations. This is true of the entire international system and regional systems, where a dominant power keeps peace within the region of a few smaller states. It creates a hierarchy of states in power with varying degrees of cooperation and competition. There is always the potential for a challenger to reach an equivalence of power and cause conflict, especially if they are dissatisfied by the status quo. Once they surpass or defeat the former dominant power, they are free to rewrite the status quo according to their interests once the power has transitioned to them.

Realism (Classical, Structural/Neo-)

Realism is the theory that all states are engaged in a struggle for power and ultimately their own survival. There are four assumptions that are made when discussing realism. First, there is nothing greater or more powerful than the state in international relations so its self-preservation is of the utmost importance. Second, the state is a unitary and rational actor, where it identifies a goal and then weighs its options for its greater benefit. Third, international relations are essentially conflictual due to the nature of the state's survival and self-preservation. Fourth, since international relations is essentially conflictual, they are perpetually in a competition for power and security. The biggest difference between Classical Realism and Neo-Realism/structural realsim is that classical realists focus on human behavior as the source of the state's internal decision making, while neo-realists put more emphasis on the anarchical world system and the ways in which the system dictates the state's behavior.

Realpolitik

Realpolitik is a form of diplomacy that is based primarily around considerations on the given circumstances and factors as opposed to specific theoretical notions. Sometimes in contemporary politics it is often referred to as "pragmatism" or "pursuing pragmatic policies." Realpolitik relates to realism because realpolitik refers to political practice, while realism refers to political theory. Realism is based off the premise that states act in their own interests to pursue, possess and apply international power. Realpolitik is the practice of pursuing power, possessing power, and applying power where it is deemed necessary to do so. For example, Otto Von Bismarck is the most notable advocate for realpolitik. He made prudent decisions such as antagonizing other countries to start wars for the Prussian's benefit and also pursued some socialist policies like employee insurance and pensions because he knew it was better for change to be top-down rather than vice-versa. Arguably his best example of realpolitik was to not demand territory from the defeated Austria, which eventually lead to the unification of Germany.

Relative Gains

Relative gains in International Relations is the actions of states made in respect to the power balances of the international system without regard to other key factors (e.g. economics). Cooperation may be necessary to balance power, but concern for relative gains will limit that cooperation due to the low quality of information about other states' behavior and interests. Relative gains is related to zero sum game which states that wealth cannot be expanded and the only way a state can become richer is to take wealth from another state by either violent or diplomatic means.

Relative Power

Relative power is the idea in IR theory that a country's power can only be measured in comparison to another country's power. For instance, we cannot say Russia is powerful unless we specify in comparison to whom is Russia powerful? Russia is significantly more powerful than Guatemala. Russia, however, is not significantly more powerful than the United States or China. Power is relative in the international system and can only be compared and contrasted with different states. For classical realists, relative power concerns are the defining factor in state's interests.

Status Quo and Revisionist Powers

Revisionist Powers are states that lack a regional hegemony, both in military and economic matters, in comparison to another, nearby state. Thus they are displeased with the status quo (the continuation of present events or circumstances) and would like the playing field leveled, or they form an alliance with the hegemonic power to better their national standing. The UK or Canada, in close relation with the hegemonic power of the US, are most likely comfortable with the status quo, whereas revisionist states like Iran or North Korea or, closer to the US, Venezuela, are unsatisfied and want to increase their power and standing.

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)

Seen in Cold War US and USSR. Pakistan and India today too? The threat that any attack of nuclear weapons upon another country that has second strike capabilities would cause them to fire their nukes back at you, thereby destroying both states. This bipolar relationship between countries promotes peace, as neither country wants to be destroyed. It is a modern example of the strategy of deterrence. Induces caution In conventional warfare, the result of the war is unpredictable- there can be upsets and surprises. But the destructivity of nukes ensures no one will win Good- prevents large scale conflicts Bad- gives middle states power to act without restraint and push non-nuclear countries around. Also can engage in low level conflict, such as the proxy conflicts during the Cold War.

Rational Actor Model

States are monolithic unitary actors that make rational decisions based on goals that they have identified. Goals are identified then ranked according to their importance in that society. Options are weighed to meet these goals and so are the potential consequences of each option. The Rational Actor Model basically means with all the information that state leaders have, what is their best option to choose in order to meet the state's goals. Both the Realist and Liberalist paradigms accept that states are Rational actors, and while COnstructivists agree that they could be, there are ultimately more nuances in state behavior than simply furthering specific interests.

Bretton Woods System

The Bretton Woods System was established by the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 by Allied Nations preparing for the post WWII rebuilding that would be required. The system was a step toward establishing a liberalized global economic order. These new rules helped to manage exchange rates between nations by pegging them to the US currency, so the dollar served as the global reserve currency. Because of the fact the dollar would now serve as the world's reserve currency, the Soviet Union refused to sign the agreement, thus resulting in a steady depreciation of their currency over the subsequent Cold War decades. Furthermore the Bretton Woods system established the World Bank, IMF and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and saw they signing of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)

Clash of Civilizations

The Clash of Civilizations is a hypothesis proposed by Samuel Huntington that says people's Cultural and Religious divisions will be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world. He argued that because of the fact global politics is both multipolar and multicivilizational, future wars would be fought not between countries, but between incompatible cultures. An early indication of this coming culture war is Islamic Extremism, which would become the biggest threat to world peace. In addition to a predicted culture war, Huntington also stated that, the balance of power among civilizations is shifting away from the West, to less developed nation states, which will align themselves along broad cultural fault lines, lending more creedence, in his opinion, to the coming war for civilization. It was proposed in response to Fukuyama's "end of history" hypothesis, which believed western liberal democracies would be the final and eternal form of human governance. Both theories, but especially Huntington's have been criticized, with critics noting the diversity that exists in western democracies already, and does not lead to inter-cultural race wars.

Cold War

The Cold War was a conflict between the United States and The Soviet Union that was present from the end of WWII (though some argue from the formation of NATO in 1949) until 1991, when the Union finally dissolved. The war was known as a "cold war" because it was a series of proxy conflicts between third parties and never actually went hot with direct engagement between the Soviet Union and United States, both of which were nuclear powers. This conflict was fed by the ideological differences between the capitalist west and the Communist East. This war would stretch all the way from the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam where the US had direct involvement, to the Afghanistan Invasion by the Soviets, and across the globe to the proxy conflicts of South America and Africa. It also entered the technological arena, with the "space race" proving to be important propaganda tools for both sides, and an arms race which resulted in massive armaments buildup on both sides in the name of defense.

European Union

The European Union was formally created by the Maastricht Treaty, which was enacted into force in 1993. That being said, there were many precursors to the EU that date back to the end of WWII. As the war concluded, European states began forming different unions around various areas of the economy, be it manufacturing, mining, or banking. The European Economic Community was formally established in 1957 by the Treaty of Rome. This served to create a customs union between six original member states, and nationalized the aforementioned economic sectors, preventing Germany from re-arming. As the EEC and other similar economic unions began to grow, the European Union was formally established after the fall of the Eastern Bloc in the early 1990s. Today the EU's capital rests in Brussels and the organization has 28 member states. It has also deepnd, as a number of states all subscribe to a single currency, the euro. The goal of the EU was to establish a single European market that abides by one set of customs. EU policies aim to ensure the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital between all members states. Though the organization is not without its problems, the EU today acts as a unifying force between European countries. Though many of the individual countries are smaller, when combined the EU represents roughly 22% of the world economy and is one of the largest economic forces on the planet.

Feminism/Feminist critique of IR

The Feminist Critique of international relations is the idea that the IR discipline is a heavily gendered discipline that is masculine in nature. This critique on IR examines how gender plays a role in how policy makers and scholars view the world. Feminist scholars argue that gender plays an important role when looking at important international issues such as war, security, and diplomatic approaches. This school of thought came into play in the 1980s and grew in popularity at the end of the Cold War. Certain scholars, such as Cynthia Enloe argue that international relations should be viewed with "a feminist consciousness", meaning that if policy makers and scholars are to view the world with a more feminist approach a more gender balanced outcome is likely. She goes on to argue that women tend to be more diplomatic and the feminist approach to issues such as international negotiations, peace agreements, and ceasefires could be a welcomed change that would be less masculine and violent.

G8. G20

The G8 summit was an international summit that took place annually between 1997-2014. The summit brought together the eight most powerful economies in the world. Present states included: Canada, US, Japan, Italy, France, Russia, Germany, UK. It is an informal meeting that allows leaders from these countries to meet and discuss matters related to the global economy, development, the environment, and international security. In 2014 after the annexation of Crimea, Russia was suspended from the G8 summit, and in 2017 Russia announced that it would permanently leave the group. Similarly, the G20 (founded in 1999) summit is an annual summit comprised of 20 different states ranging from South America, North America, Europe, and Asia. G20 consists of 19 individual countries as well as the EU. Working on international economic stability, this group is replacing the G8 as the primary global economic council. G20 represents roughly 85% of gross world product, around 80% of world trade, and two thirds of the world population.

ICC

The International Criminal Court or the ICC is a permanent international court established to investigate, prosecute and try individuals accused of committing the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, namely the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. The ICC was created in 1998 after the realization that many serious crimes committed during the 20th century have still gone unpunished despite tribunals after conflicts. The UN General Assembly recognized the need for a permanent international court to deal with such crimes, and developed the Rome Statute in 2002 as the enabling statute to prosecute future crimes against humanity. However, the ICC may only hear cases from one of the 114 nations that ratified the statute. Despots such as Muammar Gaddafi have been tried by the ICC.

Just War Doctrine

The Just War Theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. Just War Theory balances the ethical and historical explanations of war. The ethical side discusses the forms and ways that wars may be waged while the historical aspect references past war traditions. Just War has been a set of mutually accepted rules of combat by two culturally similar societies. This becomes blurred when two cultures are too different or one is viewed as "barbaric" leading to war conventions not being applied. IMportant to note that Just War theorists, unlike pacifists, accept that war can sometimes be necessary and just and in contrast to amoral realism it follows a certain set of moral guidelines.

Kantian Triangle

The Kantian Triangle is a peace theory similar to the Democratic Peace Theory today. It was developed by Immanuel Kant in a book written in 1795 discussing global peace. A key tenet of the Liberalist paradigm of IR, the triangle balances its three aspects of democracy, international organizations and economic interdependence suggesting that if these three elements are applied appropriately and more-or-less evenly, then peace will follow. This is significant because it is a framework for many of our current peace practices today. It established the framework for post WWII Europe and still has many remnants seen today. For example, in order to keep a symbiotic balance between the three points of the triangle, institutions, economic interdependence and democracy are mutually-reinforcing one another. Thus, democracies are more likely to trade with other democracies than with non-democracies, which tightens their economic interdependence, also increasing the need for international institutions to police the economic trade of these linked countries.

Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which commits its parties by setting international binding emission reduction requirements. Because of industrialized nations producing more than 150 years of emissions in the industrial process, the protocol emphasizes developed nations to reduce emissions. First adopted in Kyoto, Japan on December 11, 1997, the protocol entered into force on February 16, 2005. The parties involved in the convention pledge to reduce emissions based off of a set target goal of reduced greenhouse emissions. The Bush Administration refused to implement the Agreement, leaving the US out of it. It was later superseded by the Paris CLimate Accords in 2015, set to take effect in 2020, which the US is not a party to either.

Peloponnesian War

The Peloponnesian war, fought between Greek city states in 431-404 BC, became the central point of discussion for realist thinkers. Specifically, it was the Athenian historian Thucydides that described "The Melian dialogue" which is a classic case study of political realism. The war started with Athens' territorial expansion and ended with their Spartan rivals eventual victory as the hegemonic city state. It was before the siege of Milos, however, that Athens demonstrated the practical arguments made by modern realist political thinkers. The Athenian military offered the Melians two options: surrender to Athens or face imminent destruction. The Melians countered that they were a neutral power and there was no need for them to fight with the Athenians. The Athenians pointed out that not conquering Melos would make them look weak, even though the Melian army was far more inferior than the Athenians. The Melians considered fighting, knowing that there was only a very small chance of success, and surrendering themselves to the far superior city state. They then consider that the Spartans would aid them in their fight, though the Athenians pointed out that the Spartans would not risk their military when they have nothing at stake. The Athenians express their shock at the Melians lack of realist thinking even after they gave them reasonable terms for surrender. In the end, might makes right and the Athenians knew that the Melians had no other options besides surrender or engage in a battle that they would likely lose. The basic argument of Thucydides in the Melian dialogue is that power trumps justice. The lesson learned from the dialogue between the powerless Melians and the all powerful Athenians is that independence and survival depend upon the accumulation of sufficient power. Appeals to justice function in a domestic arena where there are institutions to enforce it, but in the international arena an appeal to justice gives little protection to those like the Melians who are threatened by other powerful nations Thucydides Trap---what if US doesn't want to play, averting Thucydides trap?

Prisoner's Dilemma vs. Stag Hunt

The Prisoner's Dilemma is an example of Game theory scenario developed by Albert W. Tucker. Two individuals are arrested by the police and accused of a crime. The police need more evidence in order to make a conviction. So they separate the individuals, and encourage each to testify against the other. If Prisoner A cooperates, he will walk free and Prisoner B will receive a 10-year sentence, and vice-versa. If both Prisoner A and B cooperate, they will each receive a 5-year sentence. If neither cooperate, they will both go free as the police do not have enough evidence to charge them. The Prisoner's Dilemma is a security dilemma that represents an example of a zero-sum equation, and exemplifies the insecurity nations feel in the global system. A common example of the Prisoner's Dilemma in IR is trade agreements. Both nations can benefit by working together and signing the agreement. One nation can then cheat on the agreement, and receives more of a benefit at the cost of the other. The second player, or nation in this case, has the same option. They can cheat on the agreement and hope to gain more than the first nation, but if the both cheat, they both do very poorly. This is why international trade negotiations are often tense and difficult. [Trump Trade Advisor Peter Navarro would claim that China negotiating its way into WTO, with US help, is an example of Prisoner A (China) cooperating with police/cheating on agreement, and reaping the benefits (goes free/better economy) while Prisoner B (US) is screwed (prison/economically disadvantaged).] Stag Hunt, meanwhile, is a game in which the players (states) must cooperate in order to hunt larger game (larger/powerful nations or hegemons), and with higher participation (coalitions), they are able to get a better dinner. If participation is not universal, they cannot surround the stag and it escapes, leaving everyone that hunted stag hungry. However, anyone who hunts rabbit can do so successfully by themselves, but with a smaller meal. The closest approximation of this in International Relations are universal treaties, like the Paris Climate Accords. In the long term, environmental regulation in theory protects us all, but even if most of the countries sign the treaty and regulate, some, like China and the US, will not for sovereignty reasons, or because they are experiencing great economic gain (rabbit dinner). This model was theorized by Brian Skyrms.

Unitary Actor Model

The assumption that states are a single entity that tries to maximize national interest, broadly defined. Thus, we rule out political cleavages between leaders and their citizens. Leaders also justify war through this model, portraying it as a war for the benefit of their people. In sum, its about we, not me. This is the assumption held by realists, who believe there are two core sets of principles that shape national interests that transcend the interests of the governing: homeland security and economic liberty

Self-Help

The efforts of a state to protect their interests through the accumulation of military power or the forging of alliances. A state can engage in self-help in two ways: First, it can accumulate military assets—troops, tanks, warships, and even nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. But relatively small, poor, or sparsely populated states will have a hard time acquiring the military wherewithal to match that of larger, richer, and more densely populated neighbors. Thus, alliance with other states is a second form of self-help, insofar as alliance formation does not rely on a central authority that stands above that of independent sovereign states. An analogy might be the neighborhood watch group. If you rely on your neighbors for protection during a crime wave, that is fundamentally different from relying on the police. The neighbors in the watch group are legal equals who voluntarily come together to achieve a common purpose. The police, in contrast, have authority above all neighbors, and adherence to police directives is not voluntary.

Norms

The foundation of constructivism. Norms and identities have been constructing the character of international relations, so that a set of standards is present at the international level, and most states are wary to break them in fear of repercussions. Constructivist Paradigm became popularized late 1980s at the end of the cold war. Realists think that US and Russia would have inevitably gone to war. Liberals think that economic relations would have kept peace. Neither of these theories hold true. Norms- material structure of a situation provides partial source of human behavior Individuals and nonstate actors promote ideas and norms through repeated interaction. Most states do follow international laws because of norms and fear of other states. States follow norms Through repeated and cooperative interactions between states, the norms will create a peaceful relationship between the states. Security communities are a product of positive norms

Polarity (multipolar, bipolar, unipolar)

The idea of polarity simply means that the concentration of global power is either in one (unipolar) two (bipolar) or multiple (multipolar) states that maintain control of the system. For example, in the post-Cold War era it has been widely accepted that we entered into a unipolar system with the United States at the helm. However, the international system was dominated by the USSR and USA during the Cold War, so it was a bipolar system. A unipolar state should not be confused with an empire because the international system allows for many smaller, independent states to pursue their own policies, which an empire would not allow for. A unipolar system has only one great power and there is no competition. Any time a competitor emerges the system has been changed to bipolar or even multipolar if there are two or more states challenging the one state currently in power.

Security Dilemma

The notion that what one state does for purely defensive purposes might appear to other states as threatening to their security and interests.This is one reason arms races and the tensions they produce can be so hard to regulate. Country A builds up arms because it fears Country B, then Country B responds in kind because of its escalating fear of Country A. In this way, two countries with no offensive intentions toward one another can end up in an expensive arms race that neither wants but that neither is able to effectively control. This security dilemma is an application to international relations of the more general concept of "the prisoner's dilemma." If two criminals are split up and interrogated when arrested, they will most likely confess in the face of a harsher sentence if one confesses and the other does not. For example, if Prisoner A confesses, but B is silent, than A gets 1 year in prison, while B gets 10, and vice-versa. If they both confess, they each get 5 years, but if they had remained silent they would both be free. This applies to IR theory in the case of, for example, India and Pakistan. Both countries would be better suited to disarm their nukes and reallocate that money elsewhere, thus improving other aspects of their military and making life safer. But neither side can assume the other will totally disarm, so they continue to amass nuclear power.

Leviathan

The seminal work by English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes published in 1651 during the English Civil War, it concerns the structure of society and legitimate government, and is regarded as one of the earliest and most influential examples of social contract theory. Leviathan argues that the basic human state of nature is a war of all against all, so to prevent such chaos, human beings rationally enter into a social contract where they give power to one absolute sovereign who rules over the public and keeps peace, order and stability. He also believed in oppressive rule of the populous if necessary, and his work, as well as Machiavelli's The Prince came to exemplify the authoritarian style of governance. However, his idea of a covenant between the people and the government through a Social Contract inspired John Locke, who wrote his Second Treatise of Government several decades later, where he studies and rebukes the Hobbesian notion of an absolute sovereign. Instead, Hobbes writes in favor of a government by the people, for the people, as rational individuals would only enter into a government that did not oppress them and served their interests. This philosophy was vitally influential to the FOunding Fathers, who incorporated a lot of its arguments, including the Lockean notion of the right to life, liberty and property (or the pursuit of happiness), into the Declaration of Independence. In summation, Leviathan introduced social contract theory, which, when expanded by Locke, inspired the foundational principles the American Republic is built upon.

Global Warming

The term used to describe the rising global atmospheric temperature. This is significant because over the past 50 years, the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in history. This revelation has caused many countries to start acting to preserve the environment in the face of difficult challenges that more extreme weather and rising sea levels bring. There have been numerous climate agreements since the rise in temperatures was noticed, namely Kyoto Protocol and Paris Climate Agreement, but the Bush administration refused to ratify or implement the Kyoto protocol in the early 2000s, and the Trump administration pulled the US out of the Paris CLimate Accords in July of 2017. The rising temperatures can be a reason for international conflict. The atmosphere being a public good, can cause tension between nations that have disparities between carbon output. Global warming also affects the earth in other ways, extreme weather is linked to global warming, which can create crises in their own. This increase in temperature is said to be caused by human activity involving the burning of fossil fuels and the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Tragedy of the Commons

The tragedy of the commons is an economic problem in which every individual tries to reap the greatest benefit from a given resource. As the demand for the resource overwhelms the supply, every individual who consumes an additional unit directly harms others who can no longer enjoy the benefits. Generally, the resource of interest is easily available to all individuals; the tragedy of the commons occurs when individuals neglect the well-being of society in the pursuit of personal gain. Ex: Grazing lands that are commonly owned in pastoral societies. It is in the interest of an individual to graze as many livestock as possible, but if too many individuals all have the same attitude, the grazing lands may be overused and degraded; the rational use of a resource by an individual may not be rational from the viewpoint of a wider society. The principle can also be applied to explain the misuse of other commonly owned resources, such as the pollution of air and water or catching too many fish in the sea. It is important to note, however, that common ownership does not necessarily lead to the exploitation of resources. In many areas where resources are commonly owned, strong social and cultural rules have evolved to control the use of resources. In situations like this, resource degradation usually occurs because the traditional rules for the control of the resource breakdown for some reason. Reasons include migration to a new area, changes in ownership rights, and global population growth. In examples like overfishing of the open oceans, by contrast, the tragedy of the commons applies because there is no tradition of rules developed to limit exploitation.

Terrorism

The unpredictable and premeditated use of violence or the threat of violence to achieve identifiable goals. It can be used by individuals and groups against governments, and it can be used and sponsored by governments against particular groups. There are four relatively distinct kinds of terrorism. Transnational Organized Crime, i.e. Drug Cartels, Mafia State-Sponsored Terrorism, which is a method of warfare whereby a state uses agents or surrogates to create political and economic instability in another country. States also sponsor terrorism by giving logistical support, money, weapons and allied equipment, training, and safe passage to terrorists. Ex: Libya, Palestine, Afghanistan Nationalistic/Dissent- Terrorism has often been used in the initial stages of anti- colonial movements, or by groups wishing to secede from a particular state. Ex: the Basque movement in Spain, Sikh nationalists in India, and a number of Palestinian movements. Ideological (incl. religious), i.e. RAF in Germany (ideological) or ISIS (religious)

Chapter VII Authority

Written in 1945, Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter sets out the UN Security Council's powers to maintain peace. It allows the Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and to take military and nonmilitary action to "restore international peace and security". Chapter VII also gives the Military Staff Committee responsibility for strategic coordination of forces placed at the disposal of the UN Security Council. It is made up of the chiefs of staff of the five permanent members of the Council. The UN Charter's prohibition of member states of the UN attacking other UN member states is central to the purpose for which the UN was founded in the wake of the destruction of World War II: to prevent war. This overriding concern is also reflected in the Nuremberg Trials' concept of a crime against peace "starting or waging a war against the territorial integrity, political independence or sovereignty of a state, or in violation of international treaties or agreements..." (crime against peace), which was held to be the crime that makes all war crimes possible.