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