Exam 1 Flashcards
Main assumptions of realism
types of realism
do you agree or disagree that this is the way of explaining state behavior
2 examples
Uncertainty, anarchy, balance of power (amass as much power as poss to overwhelm any competitor), power (basis of state behavior, most importantly RELATIVE power how much power does one state have in comparison to another)
Niccolo machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes
NS is a unitary, rational actor NS is the main actor security is the number 1 purpose IS is one of self help IS breeds insecurity
We have not made much progress toward a peaceful existence.
neo/structural- anarchy, units seek to survive but Dif material capabilities, defined by dist of capabilities
Know allegiances, ones own abilities and everyone else’s
uncertainty leads tot he need for survival, so its logical to preemptively attack
neoclassical- anarchy+uncertainty+survival+domestic level factors=state behavior
Regime types matter and national interest is defined by regimes
I do not believe that structural or neoclassical realism is the best way of explaining state behavior.
Major ends in history the end of the Cold War, rise and fall of Rome, French Revolution: major points in history that are unique and complicated that discredit the inflexability generalizability of realism. interests and means of meeting them CHANGE over time. too positivist
Main assumptions of liberalism
types of liberalism
do you agree or disagree that this is the way of explaining state behavior
2 examples
institutions and cooperation
Ir is being transformed in a way that promotes greater human freedom through peace, prosperity, and justice.
Kant, Locke, Rousseau
cooperation has increased over time because of industrialization and modernization. there are things standing in the way of cooperation but there are ways to overcome it
cooperation has increased over time because of industrialization and modernization
3 ways formal international institutions make cooperation easier to attain
defines acceptable behavior and punish defectors (norms).
- provide legitimacy for states that enforce norms. deputizes other states. given authority to enforce norms
-smooth out the wrinkles of decision making by facilitating the flow of information. provides the platform of communication
liberalism can overcome uncertainty, fear
neoliberalism- explains the conditions under which anarchy prompts states to seek multilateral cooperation
which kinds of situations we will see cooperation occur.
Anarchy exists, but what are the situations below anarchy that cooperation happens
pub goods realism - fully joint and non-excludable, consumption of one party does not reduce the amount available for consumption by another, once a good or bad is made available to one party, no other party can be barred from consuming it free rider problem best shot (one actor or small group of actors), summation (high degree of common interest), weakest link (when provision of a public good is a function of the weakest link in the chain of actors will provide it)
no
security and economy front
Cold War: SU and US had veto power, the UN was stuck in limbo. it was a battle ground but not the solution to the problem. stalematehe world organization played an insignificant role in some of the most dangerous threats to world peace SU fell from within, II had very little to do.
those who create the II’s still have the ultimate power
China has not been disciplined by the WTO for their unfair trading practices
Main assumptions of constructivism
types of constructivism
do you agree or disagree that this is the way of explaining state behavior
2 examples
Anarchy is what states make of it
Identities and interests depend on social contexts, actively constructed by social interactions
“Intersubjective meanings” are collectively held understandings
Addresses the agent-structure debate
Less methodological and more topical
Focus on norms, culture, rhetoric, speech
Descriptive, not predictive
Norms constructivism: convergence and divergence
International law is a set of general principles that codifies appropriate behavior and structures international interactions
IL provides a normative structure, but only offers general guidance for states
Actors will have different interpretations
Meaning of norms is open to contestation
Evolution of norms based on a cyclical model
Relative constructivism: Legitimation: Social actors provide reasons for their actions to different groups
Relational approach: Focuses on an ongoing process of social transaction rather than rules or norms
Actions are rhetorically encoded as the doings of some social actor–This solidifies the actor’s capacity to perform an action, and legitimates the act itself
Commonplaces (i.e. liberty, terrorism) are embedded in discursive practices
I do agree that this is a way of predicting state behavior
“states are people too”
Bhutan is a Buddhist kingdom located in the Himalayas. Projecting their country as the last surviving independent Mahayana Buddhist kingdom in the world and as a leader in advancing a holistic and sustainable development paradigm enables Bhutanese authorities to signal their country’s status as an independent sovereign state.
Neoliberalism and war in Iraq
apply and perspective
*prompts the state to seek multilateral cooperation
Not a reason WHY the war happened, but more of a reflection of how it could have been prevented
Washington was concerned about Iraq’s compliance with Gulf war era UN mandates and weapons inspections.
UNCERTIANITY was a core problem, Bush worried about what he did not know. uncertainty led to impatience
if Iraq did not comply with weapons inspections, military intervention would be more “accepted” by international institutions and an easier case to make
Cheney warned that UN weapons inspectors would not be Americans, therefore they would be more likely to take Iraqi claims as fact , leading to inconclusive results.
Bush attempted new UN resolution, and even after very clear communication that Iraq did NOT have WMD or was purchasing uranium and aluminum tubes was incorrect, the US STILL hand picked information to support the decision they already made to go to war, undermining every institution along the way
Did institutions fail? I don’t think so. The US did this to themselves, and it was uncertianity that won versus institutions that failed. However, a return to institutions happened after bc the international community recognized the failure of the US and the repercussions.
1990- USNC 12 rests condemning iraq
1991- economic sanctions against Iraq assisted in peace settlements
1992- keep sanctions+ enforced by UNSCOM and IAEA (on site inspections, etc.) initial program is exposed. Hussein cooperated to get reintegrated into international community
post 9/11 - can’t just overthrow and be supported by the international community - a UNSC resolution would provide legitimacy
2002- successful vote to have weapons inspectors return to Iraq. when US didn’t get the answers they wanted, they fake newsed and did what they wanted anyway
public goods liberalism and the war in iraq
apply and perspective
mix of pub and private goods perceived by actors
mix of costs and benefits through participation
Bush admin asserted that 1) Irraq was destabilizing th Gulf Region 2) Saddam hussein had forged, or has tried to forge, links with al qaeda, 3) Iraq was pursing WMD
all three strategies of of pub goods pro was necessary
coalition dynamics that help us understand the willingness of a state to remain engaged
1) mix of pub and private goods necessary to produce involvement
2) cost benefit analysis of being involved
3) evolution of circumstances
Pub goods is NOT produced by a static set of political relationships
US thought they were the “best shot” at creating peace and stability in the gulf through a regime change (pub good), eliminating WMD and their connections to terrorist groups (pub bad), take charge in counter terrorism efforts b/c removing hussein from power would represent a victory against the war on terror (terror has been a pub bad since the 60’s b/c of Husseins prior “friendly” behavior toward terrorist groups (pub good)
Neo/structural realism and the war in iraq
apply and perspective
There has never been a sovereign world government, and that stood true in 2003. closest thing was UN. The international political system enables states to behave as they like.
US is a Permanent 5 of the UN (can’t mess with them) and the IR system was unipolar at the time
US ranked top 5 in pop, GDP. economic capabilities, coal reserves, and military strength. insinuating that the distribution of capabilities is in the US’s favor and power is not balanced
Iraq was ideal target in the aftermath of gulf war and 9/11 bc structural realism
-a great, democratic power will most likely not attack another great, democratic power. only weak, non-em
- Iraq was “weak” in a sense of relative power
- US invaded with a “coalition of the willing” UK was only involved for their own benefit, and the unipolar nature of the US created a permissive environment
-US propaganda campaign. “we’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality” the great power of the US gets to define what is of interest to them. imperial policies
-US did it anyway even though there were no Wmd, not in cahoots with al queada, so it was NOT inspired by security dilemma but instead ambition to maintain unipolarity
The best info the us had was through the UN. example of the benefits of International institutions and the cost of failing to use them correctly.
neoclassical realism and the war in iraq
apply and perspective
agrees with everything structural
unipolararity and anarchy created the environment for the propaganda campaign of the US to sucessfully use its relatively strong power, US, to invade a relatively weak power, Iraq, on no grounds of a security dilemma but for imperialistic ambitions
HOWEVER, it all had to be filtered through unit level variables which provides us with a more complete picture
US was lone superpower post Cold War and predominant on most material capabilities
BUSH DOCTERINE — invasion of Iraq
a doctrine named after the regime is about as neoclassical as one can get. this was not done ex nihilo, product of US grand strategy in 90’s and neoconservatives (dem peace literature, anti-communism, free market, legal scholarship on sovereignty which they shared w liberals, but neoconservatives had much more faith in the military) in senior policy positions (regime shift)
arguing the war was more policy and moral driven then security
Bush regime was unique bc they were in the political position to fundamentally reorient the grand strategy (9/11 shockwave) and senior officials were more “realists”
wage a “war on terrorism”, someone needed to pay, and the Bush administration decided it would be Iraq.
norms constructivism and the war in iraq
apply and perspective
states had a different interpretations of their shared commitment of the same international law
the supporters of the US and Iraq and those who opposed were under the same normative community
Norms are general principles that must be translated into specific actions even if its an established norm
started in the 90s - in the 90’s great powers understood and interpreted international law the same way with Iraq was against the normative structure also in the 80s Hussein used chemical weapons, ignored diplomatic immunity, and refused to provide humane treatment to POW
in 2003, France and Germany saw the UN as the guardian as the natural law and the chief enforcing policy
the big difference between 1990 and 91 was the domestic political situation with in the US and the aftermath of 9/11
In the end even the most powerful country in the world pays the cost when actions are contrary to international norms
relational constructivism and the war in Iraq
apply and perspective
Bush quote “disarm iraq, to free its people and the defend the world from grave danger”
a war of words
social actors provide reasons why they did what they did or why they should do one thing rather than another
the invasion of Iraq was a product of a successful legitimation process
ongoing process of social transaction rather than the following of norms
identify a course of action to be explained (presidential speeches, hearings at the US congress, and speeches at the UN) creates a “rhetorical topography” of commonplaces that
historical relevance of commonplaces (history of the term western civilization and WWII)
deployment of commonplaces
For the bush administration and Iraq, the Bush administrations legitimation strategy surrounded two streams of discourse - terrorism and 9/11 and US exceptionalism in defense of liberty
Legitimization strategy by Bush at UN general assembly on 12 September 2002: language is as important as location
revision US exceptionalism, Terrorists vs uncivilized
what theory best describes LOTR?
which variant?
major elements of theory
specific examples of the film
structural realism
anarchy, children unsupervised ( 2 definitions chaos and lack of authority)
BOP, the weak group (Ralph and piggy) will continue to overthrow the strong group (jack and tribe) even to death
uncertainty; (the beast and its justification)
power and survival; power in number force and food (jack) because it ensures survival
BUT
regime doesn’t matter. why? all that matters is the power distribution. by the end, jack and piggy only have each other, with no food, no fire, nothing but the conch shell which was their last grasp of civility.
It didn’t matter who had the power, but the distribution
what theory best describes WWZ?
which variant?
major elements of theory
specific examples of the film
liberalism, neoliberalism
A zombie apocalypse is a system of anarchy that would prompt international institutions to cooperate. although initially there is minimal international cooperation initially, but the symbolism of the positives of II’s
more in a symbolic way
symbolism Gerry’s is representative of international institutions UN. he smooths out the wrinkles in the communication by being the only one on the field and the entity that is Gerry overcomes the uncertainty that liberalism can overcome
an II, The Who, also creates the camouflage vaccine then travels the world to help everyone, this cooperation gives the human race a fighting chance
the problem is solved in a world health organization building
if nation-states used II’s appropriately and the positive outcomes it could have. he “
More of an explanation of how it could have
what theory best describes Wag the Dog?
which variant?
major elements of theory
specific examples of the film
relational constructivism
Anarchy are what states make of it
his firefly girl event (anarchy) was what connie, motss and winifred spinned it (states make of it)
politics much of it is staged for the benefit of those who wish to remain in power
Focuses on an ongoing process of social transaction rather than rules or norms
the staging of the war is a social transaction between the White House and the people
Legitimation:Social actors provide reasons for their actions to different groups
they’re legitimizing their actions
lots of emphasis on commonplaces
the war in Albania was to fight a terrorist group and every war needs a hero, Schumacher (liberty/freedom/democracy in America)
superpower to exert their will on a smaller
nation (in this case Albania)
game theory question
relevant players and choices they may make
8 different results (squares)
set a decision rule and RATIONAL CHOICE
