IR FINAL CONCEPTS

Shadow of the future

As a strategy to foster cooperation in international relations, the "shadow of the future" implies: How the prospects of an ongoing, future relationship might affect the current interaction among actors. Lengthening the shadow of future/adding future iterations of the game makes cooperation more likely States behave differently/more willing to cooperate when expect to interact with other states repeatedly over time (because if defect will be punished in future iterations of the game) Shadow of the future creates environment of expected reciprocity-improves prospects of cooperation because direct connection between present cooperation and future benefits THE PARADIGMS: REalists maintain collaboration is rare and fleeting, typically only in face of threat Liberals disagree—-believe you can ameliorate the impact of anarchy by lengthening shadow of the future Oye discusses the strategies to foster cooperation in international relations, such as changing payoff structures (to ensure mutual benefit), reducing the number of players (reduce transaction costs), and to LENGTHEN SHADOW OF THE FUTURE The Shadow of the Future: Single-Play and Iterated Games Iterated situations: states must expect to continue dealing with each other Payoff structures must not change substantially—each round of play should not alter the structure of the game in the future If a government places high value on future payoffs, its situations may have characteristics of an iterated game Strategies of reciprocity and conditions of play: Iterated environment permits resort to strategies of reciprocity that may improve prospects of cooperation Strategies of reciprocity may promote cooperation by establishing direct connection between actor's present behavior and anticipated future benefits Defection in a round of iterated games will decrease the likelihood of future cooperation Strategies to improve recognition and lengthen shadow of future: --Explicit codification of norms can reduce ambiguity --Provisions for surveillance can increase transparency --ISSUE LINKAGE—--can turn single-round games into longer term EMPIRICAL EXAMPLE: The beginning of nuclear disarmament talks between US and USSR —- clear that more was needed than in initial talks, and mutual benefits existed. BEGINNING OF DETENTE—-hoped to be the start of a future relationship between US and USSR and to lead to future talks, prospects of future talks made initial negotiations and cooperation successful. US and USSR were both willing to cooperate bc MAD (mutual benefit to disarmament), and much more willing to stick to terms in hopes of more later bilateral disarmament EX: SALT I (started in 1969 negotiations 1972 signing) and SALT II.

Civil War

Civil war: armed conflict within a country between the central government and one or more insurgent groups Civil war is now the DOMINANT mode of conflict in the world (very few interstate wars) Most of these conflicts in the GS—-unstable governments, underdevelopment, run longer than average interstate wars, high human costs, HARDER TO RESOLVE without relapsing to violence Causes of Civil Wars Economic causes: general poverty; relative poverty and relative scarcity; lack of resources; raw materials; demography Domestic political reasons: political exploitation and repression; failure of the central government (weak or failed state) Structural/systemic causes: colonialism and decolonization; colonial legacies and post-colonial borders Non-tangible causes (ideas/ideologies): ethnic and ideological motivations Concerned with political survival—leaders and countries, security in GS not just international security but security of state/stability Often—-other states (particularly great/GN powers) intervene (humanitarian reasons, terrorists) Internationalized civil wars: armed conflict between the central government of a country and insurgents with outside intervention by at least one other state in support of either side BUT---as Kaufmann argues---international intervention in ETHNIC wars more likely to be successful Kaufmann, Intervention in Ethnic and Ideological Civil Wars Ideological and ethnic civil wars are fundamentally different KEY DIFFERENCE is flexibility of individual loyalties in ideological conflicts, rigidness in ethnic wars+territory's importance IDEOLOGICAL Ideological wars center around competition between govt and insurgents for the loyalties of the people most important factor is political competence of competing factions; outside support not often decisive, and more involvement may reduce chances of who you support Political competence: leaders are committed, uncorrupt, disciplined NO AMOUNT OF OUTSIDE AID CAN SUBSTITUTE Foreign aid, direct intervention have little effect—both delegitimates Military action: much less important than winning the support of the people. Rebels use guerilla tactics while gathering recruits and once get big enough then go on offensive against govt Empirical example: IDEOLOGICAL: China: KMT Republic of China (old form of government, fled to China) vs. Communist forces (mao—promised radical changes) ETHNIC Ethnic wars cannot recruit members—fixed by birth; instead contests over control of territory----international intervention can make tremendous difference. RESEMBLE TRADITIONAL/INTERSTATE WARFARE, OUTSIDE AID HELPS IRRECONCILABLE visions of identity, purpose, and legitimate borders of state Military action most important: military operations decisive—-attrition matters, territorial loss reduces mobilization potential, political restraints on force unnecessary—-inflicting collateral damage on enemy civilians don't "lose" potential converts Empirical example: ETHNIC: Ethiopia: Tigrayan forces vs. Ethiopian government-backed forces +Eritrean forces; a multifaceted conflict along ethnic lines, causing refugee crisis into Sudan (trying to democratize) and devastatingly high human cost (famine, human rights violations on both sides)

Dependency

Dependency theory: a view of development asserting that the leading capitalist states dominate and exploit the poorer countries on the periphery of the world economy From the MARXIST paradigm—-specifically builds on Lenin's critique of imperialism Global system is divided between a dominant core and subordinate periphery that has been constructed by colonialism—-GS forced into the role of exporting raw materials to GN and importing GN finished goods, GN gets richer while GS remains poor. GS is made DEPENDENT on GN by this but also the capitalist GN economy is DEPENDENT on GN exploitation Marxism Internationalized: Dependency Theory (Cardoso and Faletto) The leading question: why do Latin American countries not succeed in emulating North America and Europe in economic terms? The main argument: the basic structure of the world economy sets the development path of certain states, exploiting the developing countries Transnational coalitions of multinational corporations and local elite exploit the (developing) states A zero-sum approach: wealth of rich countries produced at expense of poor countries DOS SANTOS: Dependence: a situation in which the economy of certain countries is conditioned by the development/expansion of another economy to which the former is subjected. Underdevelopment is a CONSEQUENCE AND PROCESS of world expansion of capitalism—-NECESSARY TO capitalism Industrial development DEPENDENT on export sector for foreign currency to be able to invest in industrial/domestic sector. BUT this only further entrenches traditional export sector and system of exploitation Industrial development is strongly conditioned by technological monopoly exercised by imperialist centers. Underdeveloped countreis rely on importation of machinery, patented and often demand royalties Remittance abroad of profits carries away part of the economic surplus generated within country ALLEGED BACKWARDNESS OF THESE ECONOMIES NOT BC LACK OF INTEGRATION WITH CAPITALISM BUT THE POWERFUL OBSTACLES TO THEIR FULL DEVELOPMENT FROM THE WAY THEY ARE JOINED TO THIS CAPITALIST INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM Empirical examples: All examples of colonialism and mercantilism imperial powers are part of this dependency theory In modern era—-GN fast fashion profits while workers in Bangladesh starve or worse (Rana Plaza building collapse)

World Order

ENGLISH SCHOOL OFFERS UNIQUE FOCUS ON THIS PHENOMENON: KACOWICZ As opposed to International order: the order among states World order describes a broader phenomenon Globalization poses challenge to "international" society—-not just among states, rise of nonstate actors World order: larger, whole globe (not just states). A cosmopolitan approach. Community; demands for global justice that might undermine international states World order: units not just nations-states but individual human beings; degree of order based on delivery of public goods for humanity as a whole (human rights, secuirty, basic needs, etc) Bull: "Patterns or dispositions of human activity that sustain the elementary or primary goals of social life among mankind as a whole" WIDER category than international order; takes HUMANS as its units and assesses degree of order on the basis of delivery of public goods (security, human rights, basic needs) Blackwell and Wright International order: led by a specific country/power World order: shared understanding among major powers to limit potential for serious confrontation (RARE HISTORICALLY) WORLD ORDER: normative terms: international ethics; how the world should be (Huntington, Fukuyama) may overlap with global governance. Loose concept (whether we are heading to new Cold War with US-China) Order in social life: life, truth, and property Order: assumes pattern of behavior or consistent arrangement—norms, rules, and conventions. Order vs. justice in world politics Order: status quo, conservative Justice: may be radical/revisionary Mechanisms of Order in Global Society: common interests, norms, principles International institutions: Balance of power International law Diplomacy War as organized violence The role of great powers: institutionalized balance of power MAY NEED TO SHIFT TOWARDS BETTER WORLD INSTITUTIONS NOT JUST INTERNATIONAL **TO ACHIEVE WORLD ORDER, MAY NEED SHIFT TOWARDS GLOBAL GOVERNANCE** New medievalism: a modern, secular equivalent to the universal political organization that existed Europe before Westphalia—sovereignty shared between vassals beneath and Pope above; individuals governed by numeral overlapping authorities and identities Alternative World Orders in the Age of Globalization, 1991-2022 "New Medievalism": overlapping authorities and multiple identities End of cold war—> moving into a world that might remind us of medieval times; not in brutality sense but the idea that in medieval times you had overlapping sources of political authority (Pope, king, etc) (Metaphor now: State, political communities above/below the state (EU, transnational communities) A cultural "Clash of Civilizations" (Huntington) End of COld War means there's no longer IDEOLOGICAL conflict (not capitalism vs. socialism, democracy vs. authoritarian)CULTURAL (religious, ethnic, etc) identities are the NEW source of conflict Divided world into "civilizations"----very controversially divided, but his argument has held a lot of power within IR Liberal globalism: "The End of History?" (Fukuyama) Had a very liberal and optimistic view of end of Cold War—-end of history Liberal values WON over socialism and Marxism

Stable Peace

ENGLISH SCHOOL: Kacowicz and Bar-Siman-Tov "Stable peace": conditions for stabilization and for consolidation of peace; an ongoing and dynamic process Stable peace: Boulding: " 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"; George: relationship between two parties in which no one considers use of force/threat of force Dimensions of Stable Peace: --Systemic level: peace between great powers --Cognitive dimension: joint perception/understanding war is unthinkable method of resolving conflict --Normative dimension: development of shared norms for stable peace --Institutional dimensions: institutions/ mechanism necessary for cooperation and conflict management --Economic/functional dimensions: economic peacemaking as a way of stabilizing and deepening peace by establishing common balance of prosperity Democratic peace: crucial foundation for stable peace among states is the similarity of their institutions; similar regimes identify with each other and tend to perceive similar interests. ***Zone of democratic peace can never be universal—for states to be "like" they need states to compare themselves to "unlike" states Pluralistic security community: a particular instance of stable peace, with a shared identity ("we-feeling") NECESSARY CONDITIONS FOR STABILIZATION OF PEACE: --Stable political regimes --Mutual satisfaction with the terms of the peace agreement and/or the existing status quo --Predictability of behavior and problem-solving mechanisms --Open communication channels; initial (mutual) trust and respect between leaders CONDITIONS FOR MAINTAINING/CONSOLIDATING STABLE PEACE --Compatible self images; development of community --Increase in the strength of the system of relationship between parties --Removal of national boundaries from political agenda (except under mutual agreement) --Minimum amount of military intervention by one nation in the other --Development of an economic attitude towards the national state (not romantic/heroic) --Cohesion in the face of outside threats --Institution building --Economic ties and social communication; economic benefits --Democratic peace and beliefs (leaders of vision, learning process) EMPIRICAL EXAMPLE The relations between the United States and Canada since the beginning of the 20th century. democratic peace but more than that, no expectation of war, NAFTA, economic ties, community, lots of crossing border relations (universities, jobs, etc.)

Global Governance

ENGLISH SCHOOL: Kacowicz, expanding on Bull's international society/order in context of era of globalization Kacowicz's 2 major arguments: 1. In age of globalization there is an increasing (functional) need for global governance (just like in previous period of "complex interdependence" Keohane/Nye there was a functional need for international regimes) Economic globalization and global problems DEMAND the establishment of new political mechanisms/global governance that transcend the state system in order to cope with our world's complexities. 2. Global governance should be understood along a possible continuum of governance ranging from international order (Bull's "anarchical society") to world government. Concept of global governance provides us with theoretical terminology to analyze complex systems of rule-making, political coordination, and problem-solving that transcends states and societies GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: mechanisms of cooperation when states and non state actors provide collective goods to cope with global problems (WHO during COVID, global governance of trade). Theres a need for the great powers for provide global governance When we have globalization, need global governance to deal with global issues Global governance—not just about states, non state actors play a role as well Global governance: a qualitative change embedded in the demand of political globalization to cope with the challenges of global problems (environment, nuclear proliferation) and economic globalization "Governance": rise of political authority in framework of institutions different from nation-state that help in process of governing Global governance elements: regulation of the global sphere, the multiplicity of spheres of authority, nature of actors and individuals involved in regulative process and production of public goods IN CONTEXT OF GLOBAL ISSUES, NEED GLOBAL GOVERNANCE----STATES ILL-EQUIPPED TO TACKLE New medievalism: a modern, secular equivalent to the universal political organization that existed Europe before Westphalia—sovereignty shared between vassals beneath and Pope above; individuals governed by numeral overlapping authorities and identities, multiple spheres of authority SIMILAR TO NEOLIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM'S FOCUS ON FUNCTIONAL NEED FOR INTERNATIOANL REGIMES DURING COMPLEX INTERDEPEDNECE, NOW NEED FOR GLOBAL GOVERNANCE BC GLOBALIZATION/GLOBAL ISSUES Global governance has contributed to the erosion/diminution of state capabilities (empirical example: WHO during COVID working to distribute vaccines to all the different countries----relaitelvy successful, though efforts were impeded by selfish great power states)

Game Theory

Game theory: a branch of mathematics used to analyze the strategic interactions of two or more actors; applied to state decision-making in IR Game Theory: Basic Concepts/Assumptions Assuming strategic interaction and the state as a unitary rational actor (Continuation of the RATIONAL MODEL OF DECISION-MAKING in strategic terms) Two or more actors are involved in the game (models of IR) Game: strategic situations defined by a certain payoff structure States can choose between cooperating (C) or defecting (D), establishing possible PAYOFF STRUCTURES CC: both parties cooperate CD: I (one party) cooperate, they (the other party) defect DD: both parties defect DC: They (the other party) defect, I (one party) cooperate Common games used in field of IR scholarship are....Stag hunt and prisoner's dilemma Stag Hunt Realists see allegories between stag hunt and world politics: Both involve tension between risky cooperation and individual self-help within an anarchical environment where survival is the primary goal Realists maintain mutual defection in stag hunt will be common because you can never be sure of other states' intentions and credibility; states are egoistic actors who fear being the "sucker" Calls attention to suspicions states have of one another and the problem of collaboration in the absence of trust REalists maintain collaboration is rare and fleeting, typically only in face of threat Liberals disagree—-believe you can ameliorate the impact of anarchy by.... (OYE SUGGESTIONS) Lengthening shadow of the future Changing payoff structures Issue linkage Reducing the NUMBER OF PLAYERS CC>DC>DD>CD Best option is to cooperate— disarmament, climate change, world peace Prisoner's Dilemma:Two partners in crime get arrested, separated into different rooms for interrogation C: cooperate—-stick to plan to stay silent D: defect—-rat the other one out If both stay silent (CC): both get one year in jail If person A rats person B out (DC): A gets off free, B gets 4 years If person B rats person A out (CD): B gets off free, A gets 4 years If both rat each other at (DD): both get 3 years **MOST COMMON: both rat each other out (DD) because fear that other person will rat you out (as it is best option—the way incentives are structured lead people to defect) Chicken game: Two drivers going at each other on a road, on a collision course, who will hit the brakes Better description of Cuban Missile Crisis, cooperation under nuclear threat

Globalization

Globalization: a set of processes that are widening, deepening, and accelerating the interconnectedness among societies Scholte Globalization 5 general usages of word globalization: 1. "Internationalization"---intensification of crossborder interactions and interdependence 2. Liberalization—process of removing government-imposed restrictions on movements between countries to create "open/integrated" world economy 3. Universalization—-spread of objects/experiences to all people 4. Westernization/Americanization—-critics (especially in GS) 5. Deterritorialization: territorial borders losing overriding influence (though have not eliminated their significance) Globalization not just internationalization—--usage 5 too; nonstate actors; transnational networks not patchwork of bordered countries Globalization: processes whereby social relations become relatively delinked from territorial geography, so that human lives are increasingly played out in the world as a single space Core of the Westphalian norm of sovereignty is challenged in the globalizing world. State sovereignty is PREMISED on territorialist geography What is Globalization? Quantitative or qualitative change? (both) --The intensification of economic, political, social, and cultural relations across borders ---A shared social space by economic and technological forces with the relative de-territorialization of social, economic, and political activity, and the relative denationalization of power --The transformation of the world economy, as epitomized by the integration of the markets --A technological revolution with social, political, and economic implications --The inability of nation-states to cope with global problems that require global solutions --The triumph of US values, through the combined agenda of neoliberalism in economics and political democracy in politics --The free movement of goods, services, labor and capital thereby creating a single market in inputs and outputs; and full national treatment for foreign investors (and national working abroad) so that, economically speaking, there are no foreigners (OECD definition) --Globalization is an uneven phenomenon—-not everyone everywhere in the world feels its effects or benefits equally (GN teen with social media vs. GS farmer lack tech) THE PARADIGMS Effects of Globalization upon the International System Liberal approaches (positive implications) Realist approaches: limited impact (to be mediated by state) Marxist/radical approaches: pernicious, negative implications: such as the "Race to the Bottom" (MNCs that want to invest in developing countries where the measures are not as strict); inequality; unemployment; global ecopolitics; global health; global migration; social insecurity Among the possible implications of globalization upon the distribution of wealth we can include: No clear implications (as indicated by Realists). Negative implications (as indicated by Marxists). Positive implications (as indicated by Liberals). What is the difference between interdependence and globalization? Interdependence focuses upon international (inter-state) relations; globalization refers to both state and non-state actors. Which of the following can be considered consequences of economic globalization? Globalization shifts power away from states to MNCs and private investors. Globalization limits the type of domestic economic policies countries can implement. Globalization leads to the off-shoring of manufacturing jobs from the Global North to the Global South. EMPIRICAL EXAMPLE OF GLOBALIZATION: Along the cultural dimension, SOCIAL MEDIA—rapid dissemination of information, spread Squid Game coming from Korea to US, US television going to Korea EXAMPLE: Apple iPhone (US company) is assembled in China from components coming from Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, elsewhere, etc In modern era—-GN fast fashion profits while workers in Bangladesh starve or worse (Rana Plaza building collapse) "Race to the Bottom"

Clash of Civilizations

HUNTINGTON Clash of civilizations: the thesis (HUNTINGTON) that future international conflicts will be based on competing cultural values Huntington believed conflict in the future would involve a clash of civilizations-collision between different cultural values. The world is divided into several major civilizations: Western, Islamic, Confucian, African, Japanese, etc. (Division HIGHLY controversial) Political friction could be expected where civilizations rub against each other (like tectonic plates) Main thesis of Clash of Civilizations: in the future, the major conflicts will be across different civilizations. Civilizational identities will become more salient/generate the worst conflicts. the greatest divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be CULTURAL," NOT ideological or economic. Nation-states will remain the most powerful actors, but principal conflicts will be between nations of different CIVILIZATIONS. Civilization identity components: history, language, culture, MOST IMPORTANT IS RELIGION Different civilization identity determines your values on a whole set of issues. People with different fundamental values will be at conflict with each other Huntington does believe people can redefine identities/civilizations can change over time (AGREE WITH CONSTRUCTIVISTS IN THIS SENSE) The main source of tension between West and non-West nations will between West-Chinese, West-Islamic Hungtington: Conflicts and violence within the same civilization are less likely to be intense, violent, or expand than conflicts between different civilizations. ****HE WRONGLY USES UKRAINE-RUSSIA—PREDICTS LIKELIHOOD OF RUSSIA SHOULD BE LOW BC OF SHARED CIVILIZATION** also—-Shiite and Sunni clashes WHY CIVILIZATIONS WILL CLASH: "The most important conflicts of the future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating these civilizations from one another" BECAUSE: 1. Differences among civilizations are real and basic (history, language, differing views on relationships between citizen and state, God and man, etc). These differences are more fundamental than differences among political ideologies/regimes. 2. World is becoming "smaller" (globalization) AKA civilizations are interacting more 3. Processes of economic modernization and social change are separating people from local identities and are weakening the nation-state as a source of identity. 4. Growth of civilization-consciousness enhanced by the dual role of the West (West is at peak of its power, simultaneously non-West wants to shape the world in non-Western ways). "The efforts of the West to promote its values of democracy and liberalism as universal values, to maintain its military pre dominance and to advance its economic interests engender countering responses from other civilizations." 5. Cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable, making them less easily compromised/resolved than political/economic ones. 6. Economic regionalism is increasing-more INTRAregion trade. Common culture is clearly facilitating rapid expansion of economic relations between China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore—Chinese-speaking regions. THE FAULT LINES BETWEEN CIVILIZATIONS will be where conflicts most likely to emerge Fault lines between civilizations are replacing the political and ideological boundaries of the Cold War as potential/critical points of conflict. EMPIRICAL EXAMPLE: BOSNIAN WAR Bosnian conflict, (1992-95) Ethnically/religiously rooted war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, then a republic of Yugoslavia with a multiethnic population—44% Bosniak (Muslim), 33% Serb (Orthodox), and 17% Croat (Catholic). Unrest began with Yugoslavia's breakup in 1990; after a 1992 referendum, the European Community (now European Union) recognized Bosnia's independence. Bosnia's Serbs responded violently, seized 70% of Bosnian territory, besieged Sarajevo, and terrorized Bosniaks and Croats in what came to be known as "ethnic cleansing." After bitter fighting between the Bosnian Croats and the Bosnian government, international pressure forced the two factions to sign a cease-fire and an agreement for a federation. Both then concentrated on their common enemy, the Serbs.

Human rights

Human rights: the political and social entitlements recognized by international law as inalienable and valid for individuals in all countries by virtue of their humanity human rights: Rights we should enjoy just because of our humanity Which rights do exist? Civil rights and political rights (emphasized by US) Economic and social rights (emphasized by GS, former USSR) Human rights and the formulation of foreign policy Often has manifested in democracy promotion FALK Modern human rights has to reflect the psycho-political impact of globalization on all forms of social interaction, interrelatedness, and the search for personal meaning/fulfillment in a period of growing societal anguish/tension Advocates of human rights need to be concerned with distributive justice, sustainable development, and enhancing human security Remembering "human rights" history—used to exclude; Magna Carta originally for elites Idea of INTERNATIONAL human rights started as distinctly western liberal project postWWII; (belated recognition of rights/respect for Holocaust victims) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) actually avoided referencing self-determination as right so to not challenge colonial rule—-MUST REMEMBER THIS HISTORY AND MAKE SURE OUR CONCEPTIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS AREN'T JUST COLONIAL WHITE MALE ETC Howard and DOnelly Many argue human rights arise from human needs; other argue that human rights reflect the minimum requirements for human dignity of moral personality People have human rights to those things "needed" for a life of dignity, for the full development of their moral personality; Human rights are UNIVERSAL but subject to cultural/political variation Universal Declaration has no force of law; BUT universal declaration has attained something of the status of customary international law (rights binding in some sense) UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNHR) has no enforcement mechanisms—up to states to follow At the international level there are comprehensive, authoritative human rights norms that are widely accepted as binding on all states; implantation and enforcement however are left to states Many states have chosen to make human rights a concern in their bilateral foreign relations (JIMMY CARTER) Human rights concerns must be integrated into the nation's broader foreign policy (human rights at best only one of several objectives) Foreign intevrvention for humann rights problematic/controversial because sovereignty entails nonintervention; sovereignty foundation of international law EMPIRICAL EXAMPLES OF HUMAN RIGHTS:Right to work, right to education, free speech/opinion

Groupthink

IRVING JANIS---the psychological model of decision-making Groupthink: the propensity for members of small, cohesive groups to accept the group's prevailing attitudes in the interest of group harmony, rather than speak out for what they believe. "Groupthink": mode of thinking when people's striving for unanimity overrides realistic appraisal of alternative actions, leading to deterioration in good judgment In terms of making decisions in IR, this falls in the first level of analysis and analyzes how leaders and their circle of advisors can fall victim to misperceptions either about their own capabilities or the enemies' Mainly a psychological theory about groups, but contains ideas of intersubjectivity, focus on norms, idea, identity, all elements of the constructivist paradigm, Members of the group conform to group norms, lose creativity and independent thinking to maintain group cohesiveness and loyalty. Don't speak out against group Particularly fall victim to selective bias: dismiss or fail to see/seriously consider information contradictory to their ideas/beliefs; don't critically examine their initial choice or examine full range of options, can cause leaders to make seemingly irrational decisions Concurrence-seeking tendency fosters lack of vigilance, over-optimism THIS TENDENCY PARTICULARLY SALIENT ALONG LINES OF IDENTITY (cultural, ideological, etc) or under situations of stress—which creates tendency to divide into "us vs. them" mentality Empirical Example: Bay of Pigs Invasion Kennedy's administration and advisors were some of the smartest people, but were confident that their plan to overthrow Castro's government in Cuba would work. Had a mentality of "if we all think it'll work, it'll work" rather than actually considering the merits of their plan Advisors even if they had doubts were reluctant to voice them in fear of appearing "weak" or uncommitted to Kennedy's vision Kennedy admin had illusion of invulnerability and seriously underestimated Castro's forces and their small military force's might—---and as a result, invasion was a DISASTER

Terrorism

In a globalized world, dramatic growth of non-state actors challenging traditional state-centric view of global politics and demanding state attention. Some nonstate actors are capable of advancing their interests largely outside direct control of states (though state still has more dominance than nonstate groups in world arena) An unfortunate example of these nonstate actors is rise of terrorist groups Terrorism: the premeditated use or threat of violence perpetrated against noncombatants, usually intended to induce fear in a wider audience. Usually nonstate in current context but can be perpetrated bys states (such as the Gestapo) Terrorism has had significant impact on the world of IR and has shaped the actions of states in the post 9/11 world US/other GN powers have increased interest in stabilizing/assisting GS problems as insecurity in GS can become "breeding grounds" for terrorist groups—-spillover to international events Howard and Stark Post 9/11 world—-norm of negotiated settlement has been challenged by arguments for stabilization over democratization and non-negiotiation with terrorist groups. Post 9/11: the international political environment and the goals of the great powers are less certain. One goal on which all great powers have come to agree is that of "stabilization. The United States and dozens of other states have professed that they will not negotiate with terrorists, especially those adhering to the ideology of violent Islamic fundamentalism. Terrorism: A type of extortion that threatens people with an unpredictable/unavoidable danger Psychological impacts of terrorism often can exceed physical damage Agitational objectives of terrorism: promoting dissident group, advertising its agenda and discrediting rivals. Shocking behavior (especially with symbolism) grabs attention Coercive objectives of terrorism: disorienting a target population, inflating perceived power of dissident group, wringing concessions from authorities, provoking heavy-handed overreaction from police/military (that hopefully will draw more to their cause) Organizational objectives of terrorism: acquiring resources, forging group cohesion, maitiaing underground netwrok of supporters State-sponsored terrorism: formal assistance, training, and arming of foreign terrorist by a state in order to achieve foreign policy goals Information warfare: attacks on an adversary's telecommunications and computer networks to degrade the technological systems vital to its defense and economic well-being Terrorism and Privatization of war: Innovation is "democratizing technology", including weapons Internet makes global communication virtual free Terrorism depends crucially on soft power for its ultimate victory—attract support from the crowd, destroy enemy's will to fight EMPIRICAL EXAMPLE: Irish Republican Army—- in Northern Ireland, wanted to end british rule/Irish unification, Provisionals (Provos) used terror tactics against Ulster Protestants and the British military—tactics like bombings, assassinations, notably the 1979 assassination of Lord Mountbatten and the killing of some 1,800 people by the early 1990s (and an estimated 500-600 civilians)

International Regime

International regime: a set of principles, norms, and rules governing behavior within specified issue area LIBERAL (specifically neoliberal institutionalism, as institutions can facilitate the development of these regimes) (IE TRADE— WTO) International Regimes: "A set of principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors' expectations converge in a certain issue-area of international relations" Principles: basic causal and factual beliefs Norms: standards of behavior defined in terms of rights and obligations Rules: specific guidelines for behavior Decision-making procedures: technical and practical implementation of rules KEOHANE International regimes: institutionalized patterns of cooperation; sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actor expectations converge International regimes should NOT be seen as quasi-governments but the contracts that involve actors who want to structure their relationships in mutually beneficial ways Feature of international context important for regime-formation: ANARCHY --World politics lacks authoritative governmental institutions --World politics is characterized by pervasive uncertainty Actors in world politics may seek to reduce conflicts of interest/risks by coordinating their behavior A major function of international regimes is to facilitate the making of specific agreements on matters of substantive significance within the issue-area covered by the regime Regimes developed bc actors believe that will help make mutually beneficial agreements that otherwise would be hard to attain Regimes facilitate the making of substantive agreements through a framework of rules, procedures, etc. DONE FOR EFFICIENCY Regimes are of value when at least one of these is met: 1. Lack of clear legal framework establishing liability for actions 2. Information imperfections (info is costly) 3. Positive transaction costs In world politics, 99% of time ALL exist—anarchy, no supranational govt setting rules, info is hard to attain, high transaction costs Regimes can affect strategies: Create a focal point around which expectations converge, reducing uncertainty, providing guidelines for action Constrain state behavior by prohibiting certain actions EXAMPLE: INTERNATIONAL REGIME OF TRADE WTO (trade regime) Regulates and facilitates international trade, ensures it is predictable/members follow norms etc NORMS OF THE REGIME: •Most-favored-nation (MFN) principle: elimination of discriminatory tariffs

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)

Mutually assured destruction (MAD): a system of deterrence in which both sides possess the ability to survive a first (nuclear) strike and launch a devastating retaliatory attack Regardless of who struck first, the other side could destroy the attacker. To launch a nuke was an act of suicide, which was understood by both sides. Emerged during the Cold War, (when the realist paradigm dominated?) While nuclear weapons' destructive ability were well known, this MAD understanding became bilateral after CMC—- cautious balance between the two sides emerged and solidified after the Cuban Missile Crisis MAD conditions made nuclear war irrational, and as Gaddis argues contributed to the "long peace" (raised the stakes of nuclear war) War requires deliberate decisions on the part of national leaders; calculations that gains from war will outweigh costs Superpowers less willing to risk war in postwar era, despite many conflicts that could have provoked war Nuclear deterrence is the difference—puts a lid on escalation; sobering effect Nuclear war is still possible—but development of nuclear weapons has had on whole a stabilizing effect on postwar international system While US and USSR are ideological rivals, both have demonstrated willingness to subordinate ideological interests to a common gaol of preserving international order (AND MAD) empirical example of MAD still at play: nonuse of nuclear weapons in Ukrainian War by Putin, knows it will be suicide?

Peaceful change

Peaceful change: the process of alteration of the status quo, brought about by means and procedures other than war, as a result of some degree of cooperation, negotiations, and bargaining among the parties concerned (KACOWICZ AND MILLER) The difference between peaceful change and appeasement is that: Peaceful change is bilateral (reciprocal), whereas appeasement is unilateral. Levels of analysis: —Systemic: power transitions and peaceful status accommodations of rising powers —Interactive: peaceful territorial change —Domestic: change of political regime and other forms of peaceful political transformations A Model of Peaceful Territorial Change Background conditions for peaceful territorial change: Asymmetrical distribution of power to the benefit of the status quo Similar political regimes Convergence on norms and rules of international law (sovereignty; self-determination) Diplomatic intervention by third parties Experience in previous wars Third-party threats Process variables: asymmetrical interests and changing preferences; degree of cooperation and reciprocity; negotiations and bargaining TV PAUL DEFINING PEACEFUL CHANGE: Minimalist definition: change in international relations and foreign policies of states, including territorial or sovereignty agreements that take place without violence or coercive use of force. minimalists: peaceful change occurs when new great powers are accommodated without violence. involves status adjustment, the sharing of leadership roles through the accordance of institutional memberships and privileges and acceptance of spheres of influence. (REALISTS think impossible) Maximalist definition: transformational change that takes place non-violently at the global, regional, interstate, and societal levels due to various material, normative and institutional factors, leading to deep peace among states, higher levels of prosperity and justice for all irrespective of nationality, race or gender. In-between definition: the resolution of social problems mutually by institutionalized procedures without resort to large scale force PARADIGMS: REALISM: cyclic, absence of linear change, pessimistic about peaceful change's ability to work. ILL-EQUIPPED TO EXPLAIN (peaceful) CHANGE LIBERALS: the three mechanisms aimed at perpetual peace in the Kantian conception—widespread availability of international institutions, deep economic interdependence, and proper liberal democratic order—are expected to bring enduring peace despite efforts to thwart it by illiberal force Constructivism: highlights social learning, socialization, social norms and identities EMPIRICAL EXAMPLE: Great powers agreed to decolonization movements after WWII/cooperated in peaceful change/loss of power (partly because Europe fall in power, partly because agreed to international norm of self-determination and new world order after WWII)

Pluralistic Security Community

Pluralistic security community: a particular instance of stable peace, with a shared identity ("we-feeling") Pluralistic security community: a security community that manages their conflicts peacefully (NATO, EU)----definitely have conflicts in between members but don't use force RELATED TO CONSTRUCTIVISM—includes some kind of shared identity that contributes to peaceful management and resolution of conflict Analogy: pluralistic security community: a marriage; each partner has their own identity but also a shared identity; manage conflicts peacefully TV PAUL pluralistic security community in which war is not even thought of as an option and change within this order is the result of institution-based dialogue and compromises among states and nonstate actors. Kacowicz and Bar-Simon-Tov Pluralistic security communities: transnational regimes composed of sovereign states whose people sustain dependable expectations of peaceful change States retain their sovereignty; REALLY friendly allies, stable peace PUCHALA Pluralistic security communities are kind of a prerequisite for integration—-but don't go that far(don't surrender sovereignty); on the spectrum of nation-state to world government are in between Within the community must be a shared expectation among members that conflicts will be peacefully resolved (A SECURITY COMMUNITY) Amalgamated community: federation (13 original US states 1781) Pluralistic international (security) community: population integrated into a security community but politically fragmented into sovereign states KACOWICZ Two conditions necessary for attainment of pluralistic security communities: 1. Compatibility of political values associated with common political institutions, such as common democratic norms 2. Links of social communication that reflect a sense of community and shared identity (we feeling) among members of region Pluralistic security communities are a "middle ground"/intersection of the three forces (globalization, regionalization, and natioanlism) Security communities are partly motivated by economic forces of globalization, which include transnational links among the peoples composing the different member states • Conversely, by being pluralistic, security communities do not rule out the national character, and political independence, of the member states • Security communities, by establishing regions of common identity, epitomize the trends toward regionalization and regionalism Thus, somewhere "beyond the nation-state," but short of world government, we find the domain of pluralistic security com- munities composed of sovereign states that share stable expecta- tions of peaceful change EMpirical examples are NATO, EU; peace is stable/pretty much assured within them, shared identity (European or Western/liberal/democratic)

Hegemonic stability

REALISM Gilpin, Kindleberger Hegemonic stability theory: argues free trade and economic order depend on the existence of an overwhelmingly powerful state willing and able to use its strength to open and organize world markets MILNER: Hegemonic stability theory: distribution of power central factor in explaining openness and stability of international economy; changes in distribution of capabilities affect world economy. Overwhelming dominance of one state necessary for open/stable economy—-coordinate and discipline other countries so each could feel secure enoguh to open its markets. Decline of hegemon associated with economic closure/instablity Free trade depends on a hegemonic willing to provide COLLECTIVE GOODS Hegemonic stability theory: global economic system will become more stable/openness more possible when you have an economic hegemon to monitor system/provide collective goods, providing and enforcing rules Hegemonic Stability Theory Core proposition: existence of a hegemon→economic openness and cooperation Hegemon can provide "public goods"; hegemon necessary to maintain and create openness and cooperation Keohane's (neoliberal) critique: hegemony neither necessary nor sufficient for the creation of international regimes Hegemony does not always lead to cooperation Post-hegemonic cooperation is possible LAKE: Hegemonic stability theory is composed of two theories: Leadership theory: builds upon public goods model, seeks to explain production of international economic infrastructure and international stability. States are rational egoists, seeking to maximize their own (material) welfare. Free rider problem means that a single leader is necessary for the provision of the public good of international stability Hegemony theory: focuses on different structurally derived trade policy preferences of states, seeks to explain patterns of international economic openness (sum of free trade and protectionist elements in foreign economic policies) Free trade and economic openness is strongly desired by the hegemon. EMPIRICAL EXAMPLE: PAX BRITANNICA 1815-1914 During the nineteenth century, Britain exercised a form of economic hegemony over much of the world. Britain's leadership was associated with the globalization of markets, the openness of international trade and capital movements, the rise of multinational corporations, and the general economic and political stability that characterized at least Europe. (started with end of napolenoic wars when Britain became hegemonic, ended with WWI start)

Security Dilemma

REALIST an expected product of anarchy The Security Dilemma: since states have to rely upon themselves and they are concerned about their security, they try to increase their security by creating/amassing more weapons, which makes other states insecure (a paradox, cycle) Within the anarchical self-help system, Security dilemma: actions taken by one state to increase its security causes reactions from other states to increase their security, which leads to a decrease rather than an increase in state security Since states so in-tune with alterations to the balance of power, always looking outward at the actions of other states and how that will affect their RELATIVE power/security Security dilemma:a condition that results when each state's increase in military capabilities is matched by another's, and all wind up with no more security than when they all began. the propensity of armaments undertaken by one state for ostensibly defensive purposes to threaten other states, which arm in reaction with the result that their national security declines as their arms increase According to realists, the security dilemma is an expectable outcome of states living under anarchy Anarchy causes states to pursue their own interests in a self-help system, expect other states to also act similarly---fosters environment of suspicion and mistrust that creates this security dilemma empirical example: Cold War arms race;

Regional Integration

Regional integration: regional cooperation characterized by a certain surrender of the sovereignty of the participating parties Regional Integration is a process in which neighboring countries enter into an agreement in order to upgrade cooperation through common institutions and rules Several Definitions of "Integration" ---"A process by which states surrender/cede part of their independence/sovereignty to the benefit of an institutional framework in order to enact and implement common rules and policies." --"A process by which political actors from a number of states agree to transfer their political commitments, expectations, and political activities to a new political center, with institutions that have authority over the member states." --"A process of creating a common identity," "we-feeling" (Deutsch). Regionalism: increase of regional cooperation/processes of regional integration Proneness of the governments and people of two or more states to establish voluntary associations and pool resources to create common functional and institutional arrangements (BUT DON'T NECESSARILY GIVE UP SOVEREIGNTY) PUCHALA Deutsch's approach: Transactionalism (constructivist) Integration has to do with establishment of organizations, associations, or political institutions; requires a minimum condition of community—shared expectation among members that conflicts will be peacefully resolved (A SECURITY COMMUNITY) Model of political unification that consists of moving from communities to community, and then from community to state (institutionalizing) Haas: Neofunctionalism Neofunctionalism (Haas)Focuses on role of international institutions during political unification—argues institutional amalgamation PRECEDES/LEADS TO community because effective institutionalization invites refocusing of political attention, loyalties, sense of community "Expansive logic" to integration—-continually extends the range of activities under international jurisdiction, it "spills over". National govts are forced to choose between surrendering additional autonomy or refusing and risking collapse of initial effort at sectoral integration. EMPIRICAL EXAMPLE: Which of these represents an example of regional integration that involves supranational authority?! European Union EU has cooperated on many fronts to produce common goods for its member states States have sacrificed control over monetary policy (Euro) for this integration

Hegemonic War

THIS THEORY ORIGINATES FROM THE REALIST PARADIGM—--GILPIN, and as Gilpin discusses, this idea of hegemonic war goes back to even THUCYDIDES (Peloponnesian war; Melian Dialogue) Gilpin, The Theory of Hegemonic War Hypothesis: the probability of war increases as the capabilities of a challenging power increases relative to the hegemon's power. The theory of hegemonic war: the idea that the uneven growth of power among states is the driving force of international relations Thucydides' theory of hegemonic war: fundamental changes in the international system are the basic determinants of such wars; the structure of the system/distribution of power among states can be stable or unstable Thucydides wrote his history to identify that great/hegemonic war were recurrent phenomena with characteristic manifestations --Initial phase: relatively stable international system. --Over time the power of a subordinate state begins to grow disproportionately, rising state comes into conflict with the hegemonic --Ensuing struggle between two states and respective allies leads to bipolarization, crisis, eventual hegemonic war --New International system emerges Hegemonic war threatens and transforms the structure of the system; economic, and ideological struggles; generally involves all of the states in the system; it is a world war; methods of warfare employed are usually unlimited Hegemonic theory——there is incompatibility between crucial elements of the existing international system and the changing distribution of power among the states within the system—-what sparks war EMPIRICAL EXAMPLE French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars: British or French hegemony in Europe, revolutionary republicanism or more conservative forms of government, mercantilism or market principles controlling the economy. The British (and allies) defeated the French, established a new international order in Europe the 1814-1815 Congress of Vienna. British interests/naval power meant market principles and laissez faire would govern economy

Tragedy of the commons (Hardin)

The "commons" are collective goods Collective goods (or collective bads): something that is open for everybody, cannot limit use of it—-roads, public schools; on global scale: air, peace Tragedy of the commons: pasture is a common good; people as a collective overuse the common good, results in tragedy (ruin of the pasture) Used as a metaphor for climate change/the environment—-when exploited for personal gain then turns into The view of human nature apparent in the metaphor of the "tragedy of the commons" aligns with REALISM—-human nature is bad, people will act in their own self-interest Also align with some stuff we've discussed about game theory—structures of payoffs, etc Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS A Pasture is open to all——expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons BUT pasture can only support so many cows Each herdsmen thinks to himself—what's the harm in adding one more animal to my herd??? Will personally gain a lot but contributes small portion to overgrazing Everyone thinks this way^^^; leads to overgrazing and eventually pasture is ruined "Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interests in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all" EX: if everyone goes to National Parks for serenity/quietness/escaoe from people will become a touristy place and no one will have that kind of relaxation Tragedy of the commons appears in problems of pollution (in reverse——rational company finds costs of dumping waste in river cheaper than purifying first, but true for everyone, end up damming water supply) Can also be applied to "Freedom to breed"—-how many kids a family has a matter of public concern WHEN we have a welfare state. In Darwin model a family that has too many kids over it can support kids would just die and get back to carrying capacity of family MUTUAL COERCION—mutually agreed upon The social arrangements that produce responsibility are arrangements that create coercion, of some sort. RECOGNITION OF NECESSITY "The commons, if justifiable at all, is justifiable only under conditions of low-population density. As the human population has increased, the commons has had to be abandoned in one aspect after another" Finite world can only support finite population (therefore population growth must eventually equal zero) To maximize population must decrease "work calories"/excess food and reasons to need food to as close to zero (WON'T HAPPEN——optimum population is less than maximum) Positive population growth rate MAY be sign that population is below optimum——BUT most rapidly growing populations today (in GS) are "most miserable" EMPIRICAL EXAMPLE OF TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS most commonly used in climate change Countries' carbon emissions---what's the harm of me emitting X amount? but if everyone does the same will cause significant damage to ozone layer etc.

Liberal International Economic Order

The Liberal International (Economic) Order Key institutions: ---International Monetary Fund + World Bank (monetary regime)--- The IMF and the World Bank were created in July 1944 at Bretton Woods; established a framework for economic cooperation aimed at creating a more stable and prosperous global economy. Even though BW failed this goal remains ----GATT→WTO (trade regime) Regulates and facilitates international trade, ensures it is predictable/members follow norms etc 1947: First General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) round leads to tariff cuts of 35% 1995: Establishment of the World Trade Organization •Most-favored-nation (MFN) principle: elimination of discriminatory tariffs •Remaining barriers: agricultural tariffs, non-tariff barriers, ------UN Theoretical foundations: Kant's Triangle of Peace (political liberalism, economic liberalism/interdependence/trade, international institutions) Hegemonic stability theory (Kindleberger 1973; Gilpin 1987) Neoliberal institutionalism (Keohane) Constitutional order (Ikenberry 2001) Economic liberalism: classically-market-capitalist rules within countries, free trade, international capital mobility. Free markets and removal of barriers to the flow of trade and capital Now—neo—movement of goods across borders can be highly disruptive and societies need sheltered from that→robust welfare states that could (but did not) compensate those negatively affected by economic openness emerged Lake, Martin, Risse: Liberalism (neoliberalism) exacerbates who wins and loses from economic globalization These effects predictable but complex—-unequal returns on talent magnify disruptions of globalization and widen income inequality (MAJOR cause of populism) Offshoring of jobs in GN to GS causes resentment within GN Liberalism contains contradictions. For liberalism to construct itself had to be in some ways illiberal, which in turn made it less responsive to citizens (Free trade institutionalization—US had to insulate the policy process from protectionist interest) Liberalism (both economic and political) challenges notions of national identity Tension between norms of territorial sovereignty and of universalism Growing natioanlist--populist opposition to LIO from within core liberal states—exploded in late 2010s (ex: Trump and "America first"; Brexit) Shift to an urban-rural divide in US Domestic discontent about LIEO grows in liberal core states with offshoring of jobs

Unipolar Moment

The dissolution of the USSR in 1991—>no immediate great-power challenged the US; essentially like US won a huge world war without firing a bullet Cold War bipolarity superseded by US unipolarity US only world power with MILITARY ECONOMIC and cultural assets (soft power) to influence the world/be a decisive player wherever it chose; no single significant power counterbalanced US End of Cold War===liberal order had IDEOLOGICAL MONOPOLY; became an international order LIO peaked in the 1990s—--challenged by 9/11 Enabled US to do things: EMPIRICAL EXAMPLE: THE GULF WAR—-UN Secuirty Council AGREED (no USSR veto) to send UN peacekeeping troops US was able to spearhead this opeartion to get Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, very successful CHALLENGES TO US UNIPOLARITY: 9/11 (and the subsequent long drawn out and terrible for legitimacy wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) 2008 financial crisis Trump era (and how it caused US to be viewed from international stage—-loss of legitimacy, retreat from global affairs) RISE OF CHINA, challenge of Russia Moving to a world where US cannot unilaterally shape the world how it wants (and recognizes this inability, increased compromise Biden-Blinken doctrine strengthening relationships with allies) Biden Blinken Doctrine Humility and confidence should be the flip sides of America's leadership coin Trying to save liberal order by balancing the idea that America should confidently wield its power to help other countries but also the necessity of cooperation (US can't do it alone anymore) Biden-Blinken trying to reinvigorate alliances Trump lost but also build new institutions for cooperation Ending the "forever war" in Afghanistan was a humble acknowledgement of America's limits to fix the world, calculation of what was best for US, but also a diplomatic malpractice—went against what allies wanted Idea that the US is a global leader that allies deferred to is waning after Trump—the US needs to rebuild that legitimacy. We are now preeminent, not determinative America pursues foreign policy within frame of democracy-autocracy competition, but promoting democracy as a choice, not a command

Bretton Woods System

The economic order negotiated among allied nations in 1944, which led to a series of cooperative arrangements involving a commitment to relatively low barriers to international trade and investment. A monetary policy system in which all currencies were pegged at a fixed rate to the US dollar. (and US tied to gold standard) Bretton woods system part of the LIBERAL paradigm—-part and parcel of the LIEO The Bretton Woods system of the LIEO (Liberal Economic Order) was created: In 1944, towards the end of World War II. Consisted of two institutions: IMF—originally created to manage Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate regime. Value of currency tied to the value of another country (foreign currencies to US dollar) or gold (US dollar to gold). The "gold standard" What is now the World Bank: loans to countries (reconstruction in Europe after WWII, then development assistance to GS) ^^institutions still reflect the postWWII world powers Rules of Bretton Woods system had three political bases: --Power concentrated in rich Western European/North American countries (reduced number of states whose agreement necessary for managing economic relations) --BW system operated under dominant states' shared preference for OPEN international economy with LIMITED governmetn intervention --BW worked because the US assumed the burdens of leadership (AND that leadership unchallenged) Bretton Woods Collapse: LBJ's Great Society program and Vietnam War drove US inflation rates CAUSED INTERNATIONAL INFLATION AS ALL CURRENCIES TIED TO US DOLLAR 1972: Nixon unilaterally abandons the gold standard and the dollar shifts to a floating exchange rate Floating exchange rates: an unmanaged process whereby market forces rather than governments influence the relative rate of exchange for currencies between countries By the early 1970s, however, U.S. leadership was no longer readily accepted by others or willingly exercised by Washington. Power had become more widely dispersed among states. Where hegemony once reigned, various groups of industrialized nations now participated in a series of quasi-official negotiating forums to deal with monetary issues. GS started demanding a New International Economic Order---to allow GS more control/better integration in economy, end dependence/economic colonialism

International Political Economy

— All the possible interactions among activities, goals, and means; one dimension of the equation being political, the other economic. — The study of the reciprocal effects of politics and economics. — The dynamic relations between the pursuit of power and the pursuit of wealth in international relations. IPE: The study of reciprocal effects of politics and economics The political basis of economic activities The economic basis of political activities The "state" against the "market" Political economy: the dynamic relations between the pursuit of power and the pursuit of wealth How does IR contribute to the understanding of IPE? (and vice versa) From the IR point of view: concern with security; use of diplomacy ("economic statecraft"); the presence of power relations in economic relationships From the economics point of view: the importance of the market; the principle of economic interdependence The politicization of the international economic system (caused by globalization, greater involvement of state on economic issues, etc) "IDEOLOGIES" OF IPE LIBERALISM AND IPE Liberals committed to free markets and minimal state intervention; committed to individual equality and liberty Focus upon the individual (economic activities' benefits to state are side products) Separation of economics from politics Harmony and the mechanism of the market Market economy governed by law of demand and supply; market exhibits powerful tendency towards equilibrium/stability Interdependence and integration Absolute gains Free trade benefits all the countries around the world. MERCANTILISM AND IPE (realism) Economic activities are a function of the national interest of states Economic activities are/should be subordinate to the goal of statebuilding and interests of the state. The primacy of the state and of national security Conflict and maximization of the national interest Politics determines economics Relative gains Welath is an essential menas to power—-two goals are complementary Protectionism and economic nationalism Dynamic theory: hegemonic stability Model for the future: mercantilist model MARXISM AND IPE Economics drives politics Conflict of classes and maximization of class interests Relative rather than absolute gains Relevance nowadays (critique of globalization) Lenin: capitalism had escaped its destruction through overseas imperialism: acquisition of colonies enabled capitalist economies to dispose of unconsumed goods, etc. Capitalist international economy DOES develop the world but UNEVENLY—planting political seeds of its own destruction Dynamic theory: modern world system theory (Wallerstein) Model for the future: dependency theory