concepts

Question 1

bare branches- hudson and den boer

Answer 1

• The term, coined by Hudson and Den Boer refers to young men who are unable to marry due to a significant imbalance in the male to female sex ratio in certain societies, particularly in China
• They are often referred to as ‘bare sticks’ or ‘bare branches’ because they are seen as unlikely to bear fruit, meaning they wont be able to have their own families due to the scarcity of women within the population. This can often be due to a result of sex selective abortion due to cultural preferences for sons
• There are around 29-33 million young surplus males in China
• 28-32 million young surplus males in India in the next 2 decades
• Hudson and Den Boer argue that this can result in an increase in crime/violence, social unrest and a security threat

Question 2

Nuclear taboo- Tannenwald

Answer 2

• Tannenwald challenges the traditional explanation of why states have not used nuclear weapons since ww2- deterrence. Rather she argues that there is a nuclear taboo of using nuclear weapons.
• The widespread normative belief and prohibition against the use of nuclear weapons
• Its not just the belief that they should not be used but also the shared belief of right and wrong in regard to using them
• Overtime is has lead to the stigmatization of nuclear weapons
• They are even put in a different category. Conventional weapons vs nuclear weapons
• If Putin for example would be to use NW there would be large outrage vs when hes just killing Ukrainians using conventional weapons

Question 3

free riders

Answer 3

• In the context of climate change, free riders refer to the states that reap the benefits of climate change without contributing to it themselves due to the mindset that if you can get the benefits of the public good (such as clean air, less pollution), then why should you contribute to it?
• However, if one state free rides then trust, a fundamental aspect of IR can be eroded.
• According to Mancur Olson, the larger the group the more individuals are inclined to free ride
• Free riding is less likely to be punished because the effects will be spread across a large body
• As a result of these free riders, public goods are underproduced even though it seems like everyone would want it

Question 4

MAD

Answer 4

• Mutually assured destruction is a military doctrine that emerged during the cold war between the US and the Soviet Union
• First strike capability refers to the ability to destroy the opponents ability to retaliate whereas second strike capability refers to the ability to destroy an opponent in retaliation.
• Thus, when both sides possess second strike capability against each other they enter a state of MAD. This means that any nuclear aggression from one side will result in devastating retaliation from the other side leading to mutual destruction/ mutual annihilation
• For example, during the Cuban missile crisis the US and USSR had a tense confrontation over the missiles in Cuba, however both sides realized the dangers of the nuclear weapon and thus US and USSR reached an agreement. The soviets removed the missiles from Cuba and the US promised to not invade Cuba and also secretly removed the missiles from Turkey
• This is a prime example of MAD as both realized the potential for MAD and thus opted for diplomacy

Question 5

the poltiical trilemma of the world economy- rodrick

Answer 5

• Rodrick says there are three desirable goals in global governance (three things that you can have): however, he argues that it is impossible to achieve all three simultaneously
• Democracy, globalization (extremely free cross border of people, goods, information, and services etc) or state power (the ability of the state to do what it wants)
• But you cannot have all three, you can only have 2 of those three (trilemma)
• So for example you can have democratic politics and hyper globalization which means you would have to rely on global governance which means the individual state such as the UK wont have much power as decisions increasingly rely on international agreements
• Or you can have the golden straitjacket where you can have state power and hyper globalization but you cannot have democracy and so what if the people want something that conflicts with the multinational cooperations want and so have to ignore the people which undermines democratic values
• Or you can get rid of globalization but that means losing out on the benefits of trade, and the free cross border of information, people, services etc but instead assert state power and preserve democracy