Class Test 1 POLI 435 Canada and World Politics Flashcards
1
Q
Nomenclature
A
- set of terms (definition) from vocabulary of particular discipline, sub-discipline or field of study.
- important because act of naming and defining deliberate process, not arbitrary. reflects biases/interests of those naming/defining
- what is included and what isn’t. what to focus on to explain a particular thing/issue. operationalize.
- terms used, historically conditioned. situation changes, term either retained, redefined or rejected and replaced.
ex) international politics v.s world politics, Westphalian v.s Post WestPhalian
2
Q
Essentially Contested Concept
A
- high degree definitional variation, no consensus
2. no common agreement on how to operationalize (apply) the term to analyze (explain)
3
Q
Foreign Policy Definition
A
- debate over definition, Kim Richard Nossal (2011): no consensus on definition and application and disagree on the subject matter (domain)
- essentially contested concept
4
Q
Policy
A
- plan or program that specifies intended targets of the plan. who or what is directed, object of said plan.
- objectives to be achieved relative to those targets
- course of action (methods) to be employed to achieve objectives specified in the plan.
5
Q
Who makes foreign policy?
A
- State-Centric Approach:
- state as dominant actor.
- policy= state activity. government authority to exercise sovereign power of the state.
- exclude foreign activity of interest groups, transnational corps & NGO’s - Pluralist Approach:
- rejects state centrism in favour of mixed actor model
- state and non state important and the international level
6
Q
What does foreign mean?
A
- geospatial. inside (domestic) v.s outside (foreign)
- domestic: directed internally, target inside the state. policies made by government to achieve objectives within the state relative to targets within state
- foreign: externally, target outside the state although can have domestic repercussions, government beyond the state’s territorial jurisdiction.
7
Q
What is the subject matter of foreign policy?
A
- inclusive: all activities relations occuring internationally between states and or non state actors. (foreign relations).
v. s - exclusive: distinction drawn by Hans Morgenthau, between foreign relations and foreign policy.
- foreign relations: not political where as foreign policy is political, accumulation and competition for the exercise of power over another group. high politics specifically: existence (life/death) of a state.
8
Q
What is Canadian Foreign Policy
A
- John Kirton 2007: two meanings.
- state centric: Canadian synonym for federal government. constitutionally empowered to speak authoritatively.
- analytical emphasis on individuals and institutions of the federal government.
- Canada as a distinct sovereign state actor.
- Waltz 1979, neorealism states as like units. national behaviors all identical. - Canadian meaning different, domestic or individual level. Canada as unique: geolocation, econ system, beliefs, level of dev, demographic, size, settlement, immigration, societal comp, regime, federalism
9
Q
Decision Making v.s Analysis
A
- foreign policy as decision making: process, where foreign policy is the outcome of decision making process. details on how it is made.
- foreign policy analysis: why foreign policy is made the way it is. actions and interactions between ind and inst.
10
Q
What is the Capability Approach?
A
- associated with realist IR
- state centric and power based
- classify states, state systems (polarity), expalin fp making, explain inter state behavior
11
Q
Capability Approach Assumptions
A
- international system is structured hierarchically.
-asymmetric distribution of power among states produces unequal outcomes. power determines outcomes. - rank in international hierarchy determined by its power capabilities.
Nye’s Two Types of Power: hard-measurable and tangible and soft-intangible. - capabilities are parametric variables bounds/limits what states can/can’t do.
12
Q
How Does Rank Determine Behavior?
A
- Capabilities Approach
- Rank determines its behavior: activity, association, approach to world order,
- State’s rank determines its foreign policy making process: societal, external and governmental determinants. more powerful, intrastate over external determinants.
- determines the degree of autonomy it has in the international system
- change is possible in a limited way: distribution of power, systemic change, number of actors, order (rank) of states.
13
Q
Rank Determines Activity:
A
- Activity: more power, more active
- involvement: degree, multi-lateral or insular
- issue areas-range or 1-2
- targets- individuals or cohorts
14
Q
Rank Determines Association
A
- Association speaks to targets
- alignment: extent seek to be part of a group, group alignment v.s autonomy
- initiative: extent to maintain membership
- commitment: degree it attempts to harmonize interests with group
- focus: on members of group or outside its allignment
15
Q
Rank Determines Approach to World Order
A
-degree: to which it prefers regulation in the international system or not. loose and anarchic or institutionalized governance.
-scope: who is involved in the regulation. inclusive and democratized or exclusive (wanted by more powerful states)
-transformation: maintain existing world order or not:
status quo orientation v.s revisionist/revolutionary
16
Q
Classification Scheme of the Capabilities Approach
A
- classified according to rank. several schemes. Debate
- Molot in Bratt and Kukucha: focus on Canada’s place in the world : power, status, influence, position. if not this then formulation. Leaves important questions out. dismissal of alternative perspectives, male white anglophone.
- Post 1945 reclassification of power, new category for classification.
- Kirton and Dewitt: get rid of superpower classification post 1970, can’t dictate anymore, replace with principal power. originate with Mackay and Rogers. Canada Looks Abroad 1938. Set up this debate early on.
- Canada middle, satellite or principal.
17
Q
Major Power Characteristics (1-3)
A
- Polar Actor: state of such power, all others potentially threatened by it. considered in fp calculations of all states. addition/subtraction alter system.
- National Interests and Objectives defined internationally rather than nationally. higher international interaction patters over multiple issue areas.
- System Determining States: significant role in shaping the international system. institutional leadership: determines rules practices and procedures even if they don’t abide by them. rule makers rather than rule takers-Kirton. meta power Krasner.
18
Q
Major Power Characteristics (4-7)
A
- Relative Self Sufficiency: capability provide for own security and autonomy, no reliance on others to protect self
- Relative invulnerability. vulnerable only to other major powers of coalitions led by major powers.
- Power projection: offensive or defensive. willing and able to project power beyond on borders to advance interests/aid allies. potential v.s kinetic, meaningless till exercised
- Active involvement internationally: advance and defend interests more assertively, more frequently defer to threat and use of force, high level international and participation and involved in almost all the worlds regions.
19
Q
Major Power Characteristics (8-11)
A
- Spheres of Influence: juridically sovereign state/regions over which majority power claims preferential or exclusive status. asymmetrical power. limitations on the autonomy and sovereignty comprising the sphere. recognized by others. restrict or deny access to other major powers.
- Recognition: major power must be recognized as such by other major powers. treated equal by cheers, recognition confers rights and obligations.ex)Monroe Doctrine
- Rights: refer to selves or others as great powers, conferences, p5 get veto and special status
- Obligations: maintenance of international order by: upholding the balance of power, avoiding crisis involving other major powers, contain wars, respect spheres of influence, participate in construction and maintenance of major power concerts.
20
Q
Complex Neo-Realist Intellectual Origins
A
- Kirton and Dewitt 1983, sought to take account of the systemic changes that were attending American hegemonic decline and how these changes affected status and behavior in the international system and affected study of fp behavior.
- Decline created critical space for the rise of lower rank states.
- . Broaden the existing debate about Canada from an intellectual and policy debate that moves beyond middle v.s satellite controversy. bi-polar debate no longer applies
- make study of fp more rigorous, test against the empirical record more compelling. establish three competing concepts that can be applied, tested and validated empirically.
- ground study in broader IR lit, broaden the scope and make it applicable beyond Canada
- lessen emphasis on idiographic factors: individuals, histories, biographies because too focused on individuals and personalities
- advance a systemic theory of Canadian fp drawing on Kenneth Walt’s structural significance of the relative capability among major powers and neoliberalism Keohane and Nye sensitivity and vulnerability in an era of complex interdependence. theoritically ecclectic
21
Q
Complex Neo-Realism
A
- Unique to Dewitt and Kirton
- Derived from dominant realist Hans Morgenthau- classical realism
- Accepts following realist assumptions:
- no natural harmony of interests among states
- politics i the primary interaction - Take issue with
- the significance realists assign to external determinants.
- realist rejection of societal and governmental factors as determinants - order more prevalent than anarchy in international system, hegemons and power concerts = absence of war between major actors.
22
Q
What Makes Complex Neo-Realism Complex
A
- Multiplicity of internally generated interests, most powerful states are not preoccupied solely with security concerns. National interests not reducible to security.
- Accounts for neo-vulnerability, threats to human security emanating from non state actors or natural forces such as terrorism or climate change.**different than major powers who are invulnerable (only other major powers/concerts of major powers)
- Principal power contemporary equivalent of major powers, under changed historical circumstances*
23
Q
Principal Power Characteristics
A
- First Tier Status (7-9). membership determined by relative capability. rankings within rankings
- Surplus Capability: beyond that required to assure survival/security,sovereignty, territorial integrity. diverse national interests allows them to focus on other issue areas.
- High degree of autonomy in the foreign policy sphere:
- self determined interests and behavior
- external determinants less important than societal/governmental
- fp made as domestic policy then implemented abroad
- makers over takers - System Determining states (meta power due to institutional leadership)
- Have attention of lesser states (polar actors) define orientation of other states
- Military sufficiency to sustain balance of power, maintain strategic presence abroad, defend against internal threats, deter direct assault on homeland
- High level of international involvement
24
Q
Positional Middle Power Approach
A
- Geographic position:
- based on 19th century German conception of Mitelmachte (central powers)
- definition and signification of middle power derived from its geographic location
- geographic middle between two or more major powers. (Canada, Poland, Belgium) - Status position: Intuitive Approach
- based on impressionistic assessment of a state’s rank
- simply know which states are neither major nor small
- Canada is a middle power because it is unlike the US/China.
25
Empirical Middle Power Approach
1. Based on state rank in international power hierarchy.
2. Power ranking as a function of capabilities that are objective, quantifiable (measurable), and assessed in relative context.
3. Some suggest that all middle powers are not created equal. Middle power category needs to be subdivided as follows:
- upper middle power and lower middle power.
4. Predominantly hard power assets because they are easier to quantify.
26
Middle Power Characteristics Credible Military Capacity
1. States that are regarded as secondary only to major powers: relative capabilities, rank below major powers but rank well above states below them
2. Credible Military Capacity:
- a state whose military capabilities, resources, strategic position are of such significance that major powers seek its support.
- can't expect to win a war against major power
- possess military capability sufficient to inflict unacceptable losses on any state (including major powers)
27
Middle Power Capability Constraints
1. Cannot be fully involved in every international issue, region, institution: choose commitments carefully, careful not to waste limited resourced, make sure actions in one area reinforce another
2. Limited/selective roles on issues/inst/regions involved in
3. Must act with others to make their presence felt: make compromises and adapt to the coalition view
4. Must work to prevent major powers form acting unilaterally: commit them to act within dense network of multilateral processes, institutions and rules
5. Must work within existing international framework to achieve national interests and constrain major powers:
- not system determining states: can't transform intl framework, big challenge facing middle powers ensure major powers don't act against their interests
- middle powers actively involved in bilateral and multilateral with major powers to allow middle to communicate with major.
6. Moderate degree of susceptibility to external forces in foreign policy making
7. More vulnerable to international threats (instabilities) than major powers
28
Middle Power Characteristics 5-7
5 States that are relatively developed and wealthy with demographic and natural resources to maintain mid lvl econ and military.
6. States high regional profile: are significant in own neighborhood.
7. System affecting states: cannot affect system on own. significant impact by acting through small groups and alliances or through universal regional orgs.
- not as powerful as upper tier which can influence
29
Behavioral Approach of Middle Powers
1. Pursue distinctive type of fp, particular type of diplomacy
2. Strongly influenced by liberal internationalism approach to IR but with a caveat:
- in Canadian case, this idea has to do with liberal government that identified Canada as a middle power. Louis St. Laurent's government.
3. Actively engage in the resolution of international conflict
4. Actively support international institutions mandated to restore and or maintain systemic peace
30
Middle Power Core Ideas
1. Peace is indivisible: fate of all states is intertwined. interdependence
2. All states are responsible for maintaining peace
3. Multilateralism over unilateralism. ensure self restraint
4. Part in international multilateral institutions act as restraints. Cob Web Theory of IR
5. Willingness to enter into formal commitments to use natural resources for the good of the international system. Not free riders, put money where mouth is
6. Commitment to international law.
31
Middle Power Diplomacy
1. Assumes prosperity and security of states (alone and collectively) dependent on international stability. liberal international world view informs worldview.
2. Actively seek to resolve conflict where it is occurring because peace is indivisible.
3. Actively participate in institution driven efforts to restore/maintain peace. Limited power capabilities mean add power of other states to your own.
4. Mediatory middle powermanship. Canada not seen as imperial power
5. Distributive internationalism: international outlook that views war and conflict as due to economic inequality and asymmetric resource distribution.
6. Promotion of democracy and human rights. Democratic Peace Theory
7. Promotion of Trade. trading states don't go to war. Ricardo and comparative advantage
8. Functional specialization: attributes that other states don't have.
32
Weaknesses of the Traditional Framework
1. a-theoretical, implicit ties to IR
2. level of analysis: fail to focus on domestic and domestic international link
3. fp through lens of state autonomy, need critical approach
4. no discussion of economic issues
33
Non Traditional Frameworks
1. gender based
| 2. Neo-Gramscian: structural and dominant class theory hegemony.
34
Early Post War Period of Canadian FP 1945-1953
1. Disproportionately strong post World Wars. Strong national economy. Mackenzie King and federal government exert control over provinces. tax rental agreements.
2. Unity across political parties. One voice
3. High public support
4. Crucial role in founding mutlilateral organizations.
5. Position of power in the uranium industry
6. Gray Lecture: act on behalf of Canada regardless of party affiliation.
7. Rare to promise more than could deliver
8. Functional principle of Canadian FP: international engagement in issues where Canada has a pre-existing expertise or interest in active participation
35
Transition Period of Canadian FP 1954-1957
1. Depart from recipe of influence
2. Seat on UN Disarmament Commission
3. Praise establishment of IAEA whereas before, didn't consider commenting on nuclear issues appropriate because don't have armed forces constituting threat to world peace.
4. No longer defer to great power allies, significant change
5. Martin and Pearson, lobby for admittance of 16 new members in to General Assembly
36
Romanticism Period Canadian FP 1957-1968
1. Cold War entrenchment of US/USSR power.
2. Europe rises and Canada falls
3. Influence of India and the non aligned movement
4. US more aggressive and less consultative.
5. Changing international power dynamic
6. Domestically: imports stagnate, high unemployment, anti-US rhetoric to win votes
7. Martin too romantic, aimed too high and highlighted Canada's limitations
8. Pearson increased relations with Francophone countries (not including France)
9. Shift from foreign ministers to heads of government with summit level diplomacy gaining prominence.
10. Less party cooperation and more combative media/public criticism
37
Canada as an Ascending Principal Power Post 1968
1. Activity:
Degree: variety, diffusion external activities.
Variety of interest based involvement.
Diffusion: tendency toward autonomous bilateral movement and state to state relations
2. Association:
unilateral initiatives
divergence in policy commitment and focus away from any associated imperial state
4. Approach to World Order:
active effort to revise existing patterns of international institutionalization.
seek alternate org/informal groups. decrease in international law.
promotion of principle power concerts through groupings restricted to top tier.
Modification of existing international order in line with values and interests. accept basic legit of structures that allowed it to ascend.
6. Low level external environment salience and highly salient domestic environment: parliament and party, exec branch, major orgs and societal actors, labour business and media, department of external affairs.
38
Kirton, Theory 2010 Canada
1. national interests, survival, sovereignty, security, territory, legitimacy, relative capability but with distinct national values of : anti militarism, environmentalism, multiculturalism, openness, globalism and international institutionalism.
2. Increase in relative capacity, policy makers not policy takers.
3. Analysis of threshold or level of power rather than just rising or falling
