IR Flashcards
assumptions of Liberal International Relations Theory
1.cooperation over conflict
2. institutions and norms
3. democracy and interdependence
Woodrow Wilson’s 14-Point Peace Plan
- Open Diplomacy:
- Free Trade
- Self-determination
- League of Nations
Connection peace plan to Liberal International Relations Theory
- Cooperation
- institutions and Norms
- Self-Determination
- Free Trade
complex interdependence
situation where states are connected to each other through multiple channels of interaction, such as trade, diplomacy, cultural exchanges, and international organizations. Unlike the traditional realist view that emphasizes military power and security as the primary concerns in international relations, complex interdependence highlights the significance of non-military factors and the intermingling of various issues in shaping global affairs.
role of complex interdependence in Liberal Institutional Theory
- Promotion of Cooperation
- Importance of International Institutions
- Interdependence as a Source of Stability
- Focus on Multiple Actors and Issues
Democratic Peace Theory
concept in international relations that suggests democracies tend to have fewer conflicts with each other compared to non-democratic regimes. This theory proposes that democracies are inherently more peaceful in their relations with other democracies due to certain characteristics of democratic governance.
Key Features of Democracies
- Political Accountability
- Institutional Constraints
- Norms of Conflict Resolution
- Shared Values and Interests
- Economic Interdependence
- Costs of War
- Transparency and Information:
Which domestic factors influence foreign policy decisions and in
what ways?
Political System and Leadership:
- Type of Government
- Type of Government
Public Opinion and Interest Groups :
- Public opinion
- interest groups
Economic Factors :
- Economic Interests
- Domestic Economic Conditions
Security and Defense Concerns:
- National Security
- Military Capabilities
Historical and Cultural Factors:
- Historical Experience
- Cultural Identity
The Thucydides Trap
- Thucydides famously noted that the Peloponnesian War was caused by the rise of Athens, which threatened the hegemony of Sparta, the established power. This concept has been termed the “Thucydides Trap,” referring to the tendency for rising powers to challenge established powers, often leading to conflict.
- The Thucydides Trap highlights the dynamics of power transitions in international relations and the risks of misunderstanding, misperception, and miscalculation between rising and established powers.
What Thucidydes’s Peloponesian War can teach us about enduring
features of International Relations?
- Human Nature and Conflict:
and status. - Balance of Power
- Diplomacy and Alliances
- The Tragedy of War
Definition of the Security Dilemma
The security dilemma refers to a situation where actions taken by one state to enhance its security are perceived as threatening by other states, leading to a spiral of insecurity and arms races. Essentially, efforts by one state to increase its own security can inadvertently decrease the security of other states, creating a cycle of mistrust and competition.
Implications for International Relations
The security dilemma leads to a number of significant implications for international relations:
Arms Races: States engage in arms races and military build-ups as they perceive the need to match or surpass the military capabilities of potential adversaries.
Alliance Formation: States form alliances and security partnerships to counter perceived threats and enhance their own security, contributing to the formation of opposing blocs and rivalries.
Crisis Instability: The security dilemma increases the risk of crises and conflicts, as misperceptions, uncertainty, and the fear of preemptive strikes can escalate tensions and lead to brinkmanship.
Difficulty of Cooperation: Overcoming the security dilemma poses challenges to cooperation and diplomacy, as states may be reluctant to disarm or compromise out of fear of vulnerability.
Hard Power
Definition: Hard power refers to the use of coercive or aggressive methods to influence the behavior of other actors in the international arena. It typically involves the application of military force, economic sanctions, or other forms of direct coercion to achieve desired outcomes.
Examples: Military interventions, economic sanctions, threats of force, and diplomatic pressure are all manifestations of hard power. States may use hard power to compel compliance, deter aggression, or enforce their interests through sheer force or the threat of force.
Characteristics: Hard power is often associated with tangible and coercive forms of influence, such as military strength or economic leverage. It relies on the capability to impose costs or punishments on other actors for non-compliance or resistance.
soft power
Definition: Soft power refers to the ability to influence the preferences and behaviors of other actors through attraction, persuasion, and legitimacy rather than coercion. It relies on the appeal of a country’s culture, values, policies, and institutions to shape the perceptions and actions of others.
Examples: Soft power can be exerted through cultural diplomacy, educational exchange programs, development assistance, public diplomacy, and the promotion of democratic values and human rights. It aims to build goodwill, foster trust, and cultivate positive relationships with other actors.
Characteristics: Soft power is characterized by intangible and persuasive forms of influence, such as the attractiveness of a country’s political ideals, cultural products, or foreign policies. It relies on the ability to shape perceptions, build networks, and generate consent rather than coercion.
differences (soft power hard power)
Means of Influence: Hard power relies on coercion and forceful measures to achieve objectives, while soft power relies on attraction, persuasion, and legitimacy to influence behavior.
Methods: Hard power involves tangible and coercive actions, such as military interventions or economic sanctions, whereas soft power employs non-coercive and persuasive strategies, such as cultural diplomacy or development assistance.
Outcome: Hard power seeks to compel compliance or deter aggression through the threat or use of force, while soft power aims to build relationships, foster cooperation, and shape preferences through persuasion and attraction.
