ch 12 (vb) ON FINAL EXAM

Question 1

balance of power

Answer 1

distribution of military and economic power that prevents any one nation from becoming too strong

Question 2

bandwagoning

Answer 2

a strategy in which states join forces with the stronger side in a conflict

Question 3

constructivism

Answer 3

A philosophy of learning based on the premise that people construct their own understanding of the world they live in through reflection on experiences

Question 4

democratic peace

Answer 4

The observation that there are few, if any, clear cases of war between mature democratic states.

Question 5

foreign policy analysis

Answer 5

how a nation develops and enacts their foreign policy goals

Question 6

hegemon

Answer 6

the domination of one state or group over its allies

Question 7

idealism

Answer 7

A theory of international relations that focuses on the hope the nations will act together to solve international problems and promote peace.

Question 8

realism

Answer 8

A theory of international relations that focuses on the tendency of nations to operate from self-interest.

Question 9

world systems theory

Answer 9

Theory developed by Immanuel Wallerstein that explains the emergence of a core, periphery, and semi periphery in terms of economic and political connections first established at the beginning of exploration in the late 15th century and maintained through increased economic access up until the present.

Question 10

how common is war and peace

Answer 10

when you look at international relations objectively, war is a rather rare phenomenon. Peace is much more common. Most international relations involve cooperation, in things like trade, travel and regulation.

Question 11

what causes war

Answer 11

Wars are usually not accidents
Wars occur usually between neighboring countries
Wars are usually the product of rational, conscious decisions made by at least one of the participants
Wars may often NOT be caused by the so-called “spark” that is most visible as a cause

Question 12

why was world war 1 so bad

Answer 12

Trench warfare
the machine gun
chemical weapons

Question 13

E.H. Carr and later Hans Morgenthau developed

Answer 13

the theory we now know as realism, which rejected idealism as naïve and unrealistic. Instead, both argued that the reality of politics is what needed to be studied, not some pipe dream about how things should be if everything were perfect.

Question 14

Basic assumptions of realism:

Answer 14

states are rational unitary actors = we can talk of states as if they were people who made rational decisions in their own best interests
states operate in an anarchic environment = nobody is in charge, so states seek their own security (a self-help environment)
power is the fundamental resource to be pursued = power is the primary national interest for every country, because it is the key to survival

Question 15

why would a country go to war?

Answer 15

opportunity = they think they can win
fear = preemptive attack to prevent an attack
an imbalance of power in the international arena
bandwagoning = piling on so you can be on the winning side

Question 16

weaknesses of realism

Answer 16

1) that it has a difficult time explaining why countries may from time to time do “nice” things.
2) “unrealistic” to believe that states are rational, unitary actors. If you took this to the extreme, then you would have to believe that for every choice that is made by a country, other countries would have to respond in the same way as each other. This is called the “black box”

Question 17

Theory of Democratic Peace. A more modern version is called the McDonald’s Theory of Peace

Answer 17

Immanuel Kant originally developed the theory of democratic peace, stating that democracies are less inclined to go to war than non-democracies. He argued that wars were costly, and hard, and since leaders are held accountable to the voters, they would be more reluctant to go to war unless they could justify the costs.

Question 18

Liberalism is offered as an alternative to realism

Answer 18

The best way to describe it is to state that it is a collection of theories that presume that people are generally cooperative and want to work together in the pursuit of peace and justice.

Question 19

Game Theory:

Answer 19

zero-sum = A game in which the winnings of some players must equal the losses of the others. Zero-sum games are mentioned in a political context when it is believed that resources are limited, and every decision will produce both winners and losers.  So, if the United States wants to acquire more land or resources, someone else must lose that land or resources.
positive-sum = A positive sum occurs when resources are somehow increased and an approach is formulated in which the desires and needs of all concerned are satisfied.  Essentially, it means that when one person/group/nation wins, everybody wins.  For example, discovering a cure for polio produced a situation where everyone won.
negative-sum = the 'lose-lose' situation where all participants lose or the sum of winnings (positives) and losses (negatives) is negative.  In this scenario, when one player wins, everyone loses including the player who won.  Think of the nuclear holocaust as an example.  Nobody wins a nuclear war.

Question 20

world systems theory explained really well:

Answer 20

argues that the world is divided into core and periphery regions. The core includes the wealthy economic elite, and the periphery is the poor working class.
The argument is that each country is divided this way, between a small core of wealthy elites and a large mass of peripheral workers. Further, the world itself is divided this way, into the wealthy core nations and the poor peripheral nations.

core of the periphery receives support from the core of the core. Weapons, police training, and even direct military support are delivered by the core of the core to the core of the periphery to help them maintain their position, and keep the periphery down. Our authors point to the leaders of Kuwait right now as examples. Why are they in charge? Iraq invaded and chased them out, only to have the Coalition push back and reinstall the Kuwaiti leadership. What keeps them in power now? Us, still.

The core of the core redirects a small amount of wealth to the periphery of the core, so that the periphery of the core will have no interest in changing things.

For example, look at the lower class here in the US, and how often they shop at Wal-Mart, where many of the products are produced by the periphery of the periphery. Does the lower class here want Wal-Mart to go away?