Comprehensive Exam 1 Flashcards
“Man, the State, and War”
Written by Kenneth Waltz, Realism
-3 Levels of Analysis
-Individual Level (Human nature (fear, greed of indiv ldrs), humans want self-preservation)
-Societal Level (nature of state wanting to survive, regime type)
-Systemic level (nature of Intl anarchy, every state must protect itself without a hierarchical authority)
Conclusion: the IR system determines war
Note: Nukes are domestic level decision that affected systematic level
Note: Pre WWII was less stable than post WWII given multi-polarity to bi-polarity
Note: More defensive weapons/strategies equals less war
“Tragedy of Great Power Politics”
“Neorealism, or Structural Realism”
Written by John Mearshimer
- Kenneth Waltz, Robert Jervis
- State’s actions are explained by pressures of Intl structure. This limits and constrains their choices.
- States are in anarchy
- Survival is primary goal of all states, and power is means to gain security.
- Lack trust—security dilemma
- States are rational actors - think strategically to maximize security and power, optimizing through alliances.
- Bipolarity is more stable
- War is normal
- Ex of deterrence and 2nd strike capability
“Security Dilemma”
Written by Robert Jervis
- Anarchy as starting point, states cannot be sure of each other’s intentions (are weapons increases only for defensive purposes?)
- States should increase mutual cooperation and understanding. Increase rewards of cooperation (stag hunt). Increase cost of defection.
- Peace is possible when there is a strong distinction between Off and Def wpns, to decrease need for Offensive posture.
- Rationale against anti-ballistic missile systems.
“Offensive Realism”
Concept of states continually reaching for power until reaching hegemony, since one can never be sure of other state’s intentions.
- Mearshimer
- Security dilemma is inescapable
“Defensive Realism”
Jervis, Snyder
Concept of states continually striving for surviving, but not wanting to gain too much power as that might be dangerous.
-Waltz argues “weaker states try to find balance with rivals and form alliances with a stronger state to obtain security guarantees against offensive action”
-Wars stem from security dilemma
“Hegemonic Stability Theories”
Written by Robert Gilpin
- Rising states start wars
- Intl system is most stable when there is a single dominant power
Dynamic Differential (Levy/Copeland) -Same, except that dominant power initiates war.
“Classical Realism”
-Hans Morgenthau, among others
-Primary motivation of states is the desire for power or security and resources, rather than ideals or ethics. Human nature and the “urge to dominate” are central for the explanation of war.
Assumptions: Anarchy, Rationality, Intl Org’s have little power (only as states accept them). Military and economic power are central to state’s position in Intl system.
-Natural state of system is war, due to evil nature of almost all states.
-Multipolar balance of power is most stable.
“Liberalism”
- John Ikenberry in “After victory”, Thomas Friedman
- Shares “Inl anarchy” of Realism, but says states ARENT THE ONLY actors
- Believes states are rational
- Believes systemic challenges can be overcome for peace through Intl institutions, cooperation, spread of democracy, economic interdependence and trade, globalization and mass communications
- Peace and cooperation for mutual interests is the norm
- PROBLEM: Institutions are imperfect, subject to corruption and/or countries can disregard or resign membership
Liberalism Solutions (Systemic Level)
- Democratic world government
- Intl institutions, free trade, cooperation, collective security agreements
Liberalism Solutions (State and Indiv Level)
- Democratic Peace Theory (State Level)
- Democratic gov and liberal markets through social contract with people (Indiv level)
Constructivism
- Alexander Wendt, Ted Hopf.
- Questions our definition of “anarchy, balance of power, states and sovereignty, human rights, money, laws or other social constructs”
- Our structures are determined by shared ideas, not given by nature.
- Transitions from conflict to stability is a matter of changing mindsets.
- Challenge to Realism: Intl structure is result of social behavior and ideas
- Challenge to Liberalism: Human rights, money, laws are social constructs
“Anarchy is what states make of it”
Written by Alexander Wendt
- “Realism as construct of historical state thinking, but that it’s possible to transform reality and social construct.
- Connects to liberalism and how institutions “transform interests and identities”
- Describes “predator” problem in IR, and how it forces all others to engage in power politics
- States define interests: Nukes
- Problems- nationalism and culture
- Ex of FR and GER after WWII (bad relations) through today (both democracies, good)
- Ex: if US and USSR decide to get along, the cold war is over (COLLECTIVE MEANINGS!!)
“Constructing Norms”
Written by Martha Finnemore
- States are intervening in other’s affairs for reasons beyond security, power and wealth
- Signals changing norms—norms shape interests, and interests shape actions
- Ex of HA/DR and how it now gains political capitol on world stage
“Nuclear Taboo”
Written by Nina Tannenwald
- Bottom up societal pressure
- Normative power politics (state want to delegitimize nuclear weapons b/c they give adversary strength)
- Indiv leaders, personal preferences and consciences
- Iterated behavior over time—nobody will use first strike
Sovereignty
The right to exercise political power over a group of people or a geographical area. A gov is considered sovereign if it has the final word on political decisions within its boundaries.
Legitimacy
Occurs when citizens accept the political decisions made by governing body, based on the citizenry thinking the gov is right, lawful and should be in power. Power may be based on ethnic identity, tradition, history, elections, international recognition or coup results.
Democratic Peace Theory
Mansfield and Snyder
- Well institutionalized democracies with true self-determination by the people.
- Democracies are better at war. Probably because of self-interest of average voter bearing the cost of war, the norms of bargaining and conflict resolution in Democracy, and the moderating impact of constitutional checks and balances.
- Other explanatory variables?
Mansfield and Snyder
- Democratization is often violent for at least a decade (based on study from 1811 to 1980)
- Increased risk for external/internal war
- Due to weak central authority, instability, high energy mass politics, elites abuse
- How do you define a democracy?
- Democratizing states are more likely to fight wars than stable systems.
- Although, mature democracies fight with same frequency as non-democracies
- What about covert actions?
Terrorism
- Use of violence (often against civilians) to instill fear, generate publicity, and sometimes destabilize governments. Generally used by small groups, but sometimes by gov’s.
- Ideological: promote a particular belief
- State: gov terror against own citizens
- Intl Terrorism: State Sponsored terrorists attacking in other countries
- Irrationality
- No home state or defined territory
- No single type of terrorist
The New Calculus of Pre-Emption
- Robert Litwak
- Preemption when WMD use by adversary is imminent.
- Prevention aims to forestall WMD development
- Risks: Could drive WMD programs underground, or may face ire of Intl Community (Iraq)
- Risks: Collateral damage (innocent civs)
“Strategic culture” by Carnes Lord
State Level
- Strategic culture is traditional practices and habits of thought by which military force is organized
- Culture (Ideas, values, beliefs) has an impact on our behavior
- Applies to US priority of technology and massive firepower in warfighting
- Applies to belief in solving global problems
- Affected by geo-political setting, military history, IR relations, political culture and ideology, civil military relations and military technology
Allison: Essence of a Decision
Model 2
(Individual Level)
Model 2: Organizational Behavior
- Gov’s are a conglomerate of semi-feudal and loosely allied organizations
- Org output is from “factory” agencies that put information through “machines” and give a standardized output
- Complex Tasks are often broken down and assigned according to pre-established org lines
- Actor isn’t a unitary state, but a constellation of loosely allied org’s (DOD vs. DOS)
- Ex of post-combat Iraq and that it may have been “outside DOD’s normative framework for analysis and planning”
Problem: Incremental change (1-5 yr budgets, logic of appropriateness), time and resource limitations.
-Normative framework of organization. DOJ and DIA think differently about things.
Allison: Essence of a Decision
Model 3
(Individual Level)
Governmental politics
- Gov action is best understood as the result or “outcome” of politicking/negotiation by top leaders
- Even with shared interests, different concepts of how to achieve goals based on personal interests and background.
- Factors such as charisma, personality and ranking and proximity to decision making
- If a leader has already implicitly decided on a particular COA, an advisor wishing to have influence must work within the framework of that decision.
Let us Now Praise Great Men: Bringing the Statesman Back
Individual Level
- Byman and Pollack
- Individuals matter! (Hitler, Napoleon, Hussein, al-Assad, Qadaffi, Eisenhower)
- Set the ultimate and secondary intentions and strategies of a state.
- Affect behavior of opposing states.
- Concludes that states led by dictators do a poorer job of analyzing info and make less informative decisions. Delusional leaders start and prolong wars unnecessarily. Grandiose visions are likely to destabilize the system. Predictable leaders have stronger and enduring allies.
-Most important when leader is very powerful, times of great change or when we’re trying to estimate strategies and capabilities of a state.
