Intro to IR - Midterm 1 Flashcards
Security Dilemma
Actions taken by a state (ex: balancing) lead to the response of other states - increasing tensions
magnitude depends on the offense-defense balance and can be differentiated
if defense has advantage or if defensive weapons are more visible, security dilemma lowered
Mearsheimer (2001, 36)
Polarity
of world powers - unipolar (US post WWI), bipolar (Cold War), multipolar - connected to idea of regional hegemonies (WWI) Posen (2009, 34), L4 S19
Anarchy
at the end of the day, every state can do what they want - no overarching system - Mearsheimer, Waltz, Posen
Realism’s Key Assumptions
- international system = anarchical
- it is a “self-help” system
- states are primary units of analysis (alike in tasks, not in capabilities)
- states are rational unitary actors (strategical in self interest)
- Primary goal is survival, which leads them to pursue offensive capabilities
- States view world as zero-sum games –> more concerned with relative gains
Marsheimer (2001, 30), Waltz (1979, 49-50), Posen (2009, 347)
Classical Realism
conflict is part of human nature & aspirations of individual states, which leads to incompatible interests
individual and state characteristics predominate
categories: imperialist v status quo, revolutionary v status quo, revisionist vs status quo
Think Melian dialogue
Hobbes L4 S4-5
Neorealism/Structural
conflict is the nature of the international system - role of uncertainty & unintended consequences is big
downplays orles of individuals and states and emphasizes anarchy and distribution of power
states = ultimate victims -
subsets: offensive and defensive
Waltz
L4 S4
offensive realism
subset of neorealism, mutually exclusive w defensive realism
states are power maximizers
great powers WANT to be regional hegemony if capabilities permit (distr. of power does not let everyone)
Mearshimer, L4 S9
Defensive Realism
subset of neorealism, mutually exclusive w offensive realism
states are security maximizers above all else
can be status quo states or acquisitive states
cooperation is possible under some conditions
Posen, Jervis L4 S9
Hegemony
relative power (local) - ex: US, China, India Mearhseimer (2001, 40-41) - always wanted, Posen
Balancing
bipolar system have more internal balancing (grow); multipolar system have more external balancing (ally small states`) - internal more reliable, but not all have the capabilities
Bandwagoning
allying with a big power for protection - risky - no guarantee they will not turn
Liberalism’s Key Assumptions
1) Still anarchical, moderated by repeated reciprocal interactions
2) international institutions help facilitate cooperation
3) states (that express preferences of individuals in the state) are primary units of analysis - focus on the liberty and freedom of the individual
4) states are rational actors - strategically in self interest
5) preferences are fundamental determinants of state behavior (and are not fixed or same across states)
6) states’ primary goals vary (prosperity, welfare, power, security) after survival
7) inclined to view world as positive-sum - more concerned with absolute gains
Keohane, Martin
Ideational/Normative Liberalism
importance of world politics - variation values concerning domestic public good provisions
norms, ideas, and values
give benefit of the doubt - recognize autonomy and freedom
Oneal and Russett (1999, 32)
Commercial Liberalism
with variation in material incentives, economic interdependence is created,
specialization in products and trade increases domestic wealth (diff geography and nat. resources) - will not want to go to war b/c trade is more cost effective than conquest & private groups benefit
Oneal and Russet, Copeland, L5 S15-17
Political/Neoliberalism
variation in nature of domestic representative institutions
relations depend on domestic infrastructure - state policies change
executives in trade, partisan disagreement, institutions power are all factors
two relations: diffuse (you owe me on), speficic (tit for tat)
create trust w institutions and regimes
L5 S18, 23
Keohane and Martin
Institutions
provide information, reduce transaction costs, make commitments more credible, establish focal points for coordination, facilitate reciprocity - all leads to greater trust under political liberalism
Keohane and Martin
Theory of trade expectations
Copeland’s idea that decisions are not made about what is happening now, but rather expectations for what will happen in the future (eg: if think that trade will fall in future, more likely to go to war) L5S22
Interdependence
states depend on eachother - can also be asymmetric and may vary across issues (ex: West depends US for protection, however US depends on insert state for a particular resource)
Copeland (1996 16-17)
Kant Democratic Peace Theory
through repeated interactions in which interdependence and cooperations happens, genuine positive peace can be developed - interdependency, democracy, and international law
Liberalism and the Security Dilemma
dem governance, interdependence, and international law supersedes security dilemma
(Oneal and Russett 1999)
Norms
ideas, expectations, or standards about behavior for actors
normative behavior w/community
socialization: how internalized by actors outside community
normative emergence: how idea reaches shared understanding and status
ex: melians asking for democracy
Bjorkdahl
Regulative, Constitutive, Practical Norms
the role of norms is to regulate (provide road maps), constitute (create new actors, interests, or categories), or enable (permit certain actions) actors in their environment - Björkdahl (2002, 15-16, 20-21)
Legitimacy
the normative belief by an actor that a rule or institution ought to be obeyed - defined by perception of institution (substance or how implemented)
Hurd 1999
Models of Social Control
Coercion (actors obey norms due to fear caused by threats and force), Self-interest (obey norms in light of calculations that they will receive a net benefit taking into account all factors), Legitimacy (adhere to norms because of a sense of moral obligation or rightness) (Hurd 1999, 379, 383-389)
structure and agency in constructivism
Mearshimer does not believe structure exists
structure - social structures but may not be outside human consciousness (not objective)
to interconnect - emphasize agency and interaction to produce and reproduce structure of shared knowledge over time
Wendt (1995, 73-78)
ex: security dillema, cold war
anarchy in constructivism
recognize anarchy, but anarchy (alone with all beliefs) is based upon assumptions we create on it
affects not determinate
Wendt (1995, 77-78)
Institutions in constructivism
institutions are instruments for expanding people’s conceptions of identity, relatedness, and self-interest
Oneal and Russet (1999, 4), Hurd (1999, 381)
Social context
what’s right and wrong - norms, ideas, and identities
the context of world politics is malleable - ideas change over time
sovereignity (ex): supremacy of authority as individual state -due to notions, actors, wants, and behaviors
3 Cultures of anarchy
Hobbesian culture - enemy with unlimited violence
Lockean - rivals, so refrain from eliminating
Kantian - likeminded friends work as a team against security threats (liberalism)
States, Nations, Nation-States
Identity: role-specific understanding about expectation of self - how explain to others
state: sovereignity over territory
nation: common identity
nation-state: borders congruent w cultural lines
Identity and Conflict
convergent national identity –> cooperation and peace
divergent national identity –> conflict and war
Fundamental Attribution Error
example of cognitive biases
look for causes of behavior (situations vs. dispositional) - attribute our behavior to situational but others to dispositional
ex: cold war - both misperceived
Illusory Truth Effect
tendency to believe a fact as true following repeat exposure
ex: russians believe liberating Ukraine
Internally vs. Externally Focused
internally: foreign and security policies conected to domestic institutions (removing threat demands transformative action - Bush ‘43)
externally: threats diagnosed from external orientation (only need to change leader)
Misperception vs. Mistake
misperception: didn’t know (Jervis 680) can lead to wars
Make assumptions based on capabilities, bandwagoning and balancing, role of state goals, honor, domestic politics, international reputation
ex: WWI, WWII…
mistake: knew but still acted
Coercion
use of threat or force to convince to act different (not brute force)
deterrence - dissuade from future action: defenders resolve is higher, and dont want to enter costly war (ex: nuclear deterrence (mutually insured destruction))
compellence: dissuade from current behavior: BoP favors coercer and cost of war already made
Defence
displays army or deploys military power to discourage an attack
Swaggering
Use military force for purposes other than defence… to display military might (fleet of white boats WWII, missles that North Korea fired)
theories v paradigms
theories: analytical tools that describe, explain, evaluate, and predict
paradigms: shared set of assumptions
paradigms and theories go hand in hand to explain concepts in science and assist academics in their work to define different phenomenon (paradigm = background + reference point and can contain theories)
levels of analysis
the ways of looking at the global system and applying paradigms and theories; Waltz
case studies for realism
9/11 + US Response: US military strength and sphere of influence
China: developing military slowly as economic power grow
19th century German unification: Germany becomes Europe’s leading military power, Russia and France counter
Diffuse v Specific
diffuse: owe me one
specific: tit for tat
