Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Bilkent > IR 358 wanna kms > Flashcards

IR 358 wanna kms Flashcards

1
Q

Critical Security Approach

A

is an explanation not prescription as to how emancipation, not power nor order produces true security

Emancipation - process of being free of legal, social, political restrictions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is security?

A

There is no one definition of what security is as the concept is subjective, but it is the accumulation of power - it’s commodity, you must possess enough things to obtain it.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Is AI a national security issue?
What kind of threat does it pose?
Can it be solved using military force? If not, How?

A

Can’t answer this yet, but I will need to - on the exam there will be something like this but maybe for climate, health, etc.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Zero-sum game

A

describes a relationship, competition, etc where one person’s gain is another’s loss.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Security Dilemma

A

JOHN HERZ
Offensive Realism - a situation in which actions taken by a state to increase its own security cause reactions from other states, which in turn lead to a decrease rather than an increase in the original state’s security. - John Herz

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Constructivism

A

identity is the main driver of politics
Everything we see as objective is a social construct

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Anarchy

A

Lack of central authority in the international system. States are in a state of self-help.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Assumptions of Offensive Structural realism regarding the International system?

A

Mearsheimer - why states pursue hegemonic power?!
1. anarchy
2. all great powers have some offensive capabilities
3. uncertainty about intentions
4. main objective - national survival and security
5. great powers are rational actors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Power?

A

Latent power - based on the size of the state population and wealth
Actual Power - army, air, navy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Coercion

A

Schelling - Coercion involves using threats of damage or violence to influence behavior in situations where interests aren’t entirely opposed, aiming to make compliance less costly than the threatened consequences.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Brute Force

A

Schelling - No negotiation or threat, doesn’t care about opponents potential compliance, employs sheer physical dominance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Civilized warfare

A

Schelling - when there is proportionality, an artificial distinction between combatants and civilians, reluctance to punish collectively, and the rush to end conflicts.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Holy Trinity of War?

A

Mearsheimer:
The people - the passion
The commander and his army - the chance (probability)
The government - the reason (the politics)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Inadvertent war

A

Schelling - not deliberate, but accidentally being put in a position where war is inevitable.
ex. Falkland’s war - UK/Argentina

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Splendid first strike

A

Schelling - leave the other side with no possibility of a counter attack ex. Hiroshima

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Chance - definition

A

Clausewitz - comes from friction or fog of war:
friction: always an element of unknowing, weapons/soldiers fail
Fog of war: multiple aspects that commanders are unaware of that affect their ability to make the right decision.

This is why Clausewitz doesn’t think war is straightforward

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Hegemonic equilibrium

A

Gilpen: Realism
the international system is more likely to remain stable when a single state is the dominant world power, or hegemon.

maintaining the equilibrium can be done through:
1. increase taxes domestically
2. Increase tariffs from the international system

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Gilpen’s cycle of hegemony

A

Hegemonic equilibrium → 2. hegemon provides collective goods for system → 3. Rivals gain Power rapidly → 4. Disequilibrium: Hegemon overcommits and weakens rapidly → 5. Hegemonic war

critique:
- too realist - oversimplifies military power, neglects concepts of Clausewitz
- doesn’t think about economic inter-dependence // globalization
- IOs?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Balancing through alliances

A

Stephen Walt
ally in opposition to the principle of the main source of danger.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Bandwagoning

A

Stephen Walt -
ally with the state that poses the major danger to share the thrills of victory and to avoid attacks on himself. Ex. Italy in WWI

Why:
1. weak states are more likely to
2. when they’ve alienated other allies ex. Finland after WWI had to with SU bc they sided with Germany

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Aggregate power

A

Stephen Walt Defensive realist
- 1. source of threat
the more resources a state has, the bigger of a threat they are, so stop a state from getting all the materials.
causes a state to either seek balancing or bandwagoning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Proximity

A

Walt: 1. source of threat
States align because of proximate power, neighboring states pose a much larger threat than states who are far away
leads to bandwagoning if they are weak/small in comparison to their neighbor. ex. Finland and Russia

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Offensive capability

A

Walt: 1. source of threat
states with big offensive capabilities are more likely to provoke an alliance than states that are weak or defensive

uses balancing and bandwagoning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Offensive intentions

A

Walt: 1. source of threat

aggressive states are more likely to provoke other to balance against them.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Ideological solidarity

A

Walt: alliances that result in sharing political, cultural, or other traits.
the more alike = more chances to be allies

problem: some ideologies promote conflict among similar states ex Hitler and Stalin

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Penentration

A

Walt: instrument of alliance formation
indirect manipulation of one states political system by another

“The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy” - APACT’s goal is for Israel to have a direct say in the US foreign policy - this is an example of penetration

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Structural Realism

A

Thomas Risse
States are the dominant and unitary actors in international relations calculating ends and means rationally

The international system is anarchic, constituting a self-help system

Rational states calculate their interests in response to the power structure of the international system
superpowers use bribery or persuasion so that smaller partners accept the hegemonic system

28
Q

why small states can prevail?

A

Liberal ideology - Thomas Risse
liberal bargaining theory

  1. can make up for their lack of power through the alliance leader due to being clse to the topic at hand.
  2. when SPs want relative gains - they use small alliances (domino theory) . Small states can explout this and turn the SP concerns into a bargaining strength
  3. the more threatened a SP is, the greater the bargaining power of the smaller ally is
  4. small state are powerless when facing SP alone, through pooling resources they can have a strong, united front.
  5. If there are issue-specific resources that the alliance leader needs.
29
Q

relative gains

A

benefits gained during trade agreements
individual winnings
zero-sum gain

30
Q

Absolute gains

A

Refer to gains reaped during trade agreements
benefits are to all parties involved

31
Q

types of alliances

A

John Duffield

defensive alliances:
formed for collective defense in case of an attack on the member ex. NATO

Offensive alliances: helping members achieve aggressive objectives

Non-aggressive alliances: agreements not to attack each other, but without the commitment to defense ex. UN

32
Q

John Duffield on alliances

A

alliances are vital instruments of international security, but their effectiveness hinges on the careful management of commitment, credibility, and the evolving geopolitical landscape.

33
Q

Walt on alliances

A

Trade is not a good enough reason to avoid war - as most all countries trade with each other

But alliances give an economic underpinning

34
Q

Capabilities aggregation model

A

Label to define the pooling of resources together (especially military) to enhance security

35
Q

Coercive model

A

There has to be an idea of an external threat that enhances coercion - Duffield, John

There is a trade off between losing some of their power in exchange for security - James Morrow

36
Q

Wallander alliances

A

Alliances represent security institutions
Standing Operating procedures - the enemy should be predictable, thus, we need rules, IOs help do this through accountability and transparency

37
Q

Constructivism - alliances

A

alliances represent communities
and domestic determinants like ideology and socialization

38
Q

Marxists - alliances

A

economic gains
workers of the world unite
ideology/economy
to have a capitalist bloc

so both liberalism and realism traits

39
Q

Realists - why do alliances endure?

A

International determinants
- Distribution of capabilities
- Threat persistence

40
Q

Alliance management - Realists

A

Burden Sharing ex. Trump in NATO, can’t be a free rider

41
Q

Marxists - why do alliances endure?

A

domestic determinants - ideology
International determinants - threat persistence

42
Q

Neorealism - alliance management

A

the strong do what they can
the weak suffer what they must

43
Q

Eliza Gheorghe main idea

A

Main argument: the structure of the international system, significantly shapes the dynamics of the nuclear market, influencing the level of supplier competition and thwarter effectiveness, ultimately determining the likelihood and pace of nuclear proliferation.

44
Q

Gilpen

A

hegemonic war occurs when a challenger goes against a hegemon
Usually the challenger is the one to initiate the war. Or there is a preventive war - integrate with the last lesson.

PICTURESSSS - DRAW!

45
Q

Mearsheimer

A

Offensive realism, which argues that the international system is anarchic, and great powers are inherently driven to seek maximum power to ensure their survival.

Mearsheimer’s main point is that this relentless quest for power often leads to conflict and competition among states, as no state can ever be truly secure.

He contends that the tragedy lies in the fact that even peaceful intentions cannot prevent the dynamics of power politics from escalating into potential conflicts, as security competition is inevitable.

46
Q

Offensive realism?

A

Multipolar systems are more war-prone than bi-polar systems

Expect a war in an unbalanced multipolar system.

Mearsheimer

47
Q

Liberals - why are alliances created

A

democratic peace theory

market gains
ideologies
Audience cost theory - when democratic governments make promises, it’s much harder to go back on that promise

48
Q

Offensive Realism - Why states pursue power

A

Mearsheimer
1. Anarchy: lack of a global centralized power
2. All great powers have some offensive capabilities
3. Uncertainty about intentions
4. Main objective: national survival and security
5. Great powers are rational actors

need all five of these!!

49
Q

Schelling’s main idea

A

Focuses on the role of military power and coercion in international diplomacy, introducing the idea that military force is as much a tool for influencing and threatening adversaries as it is for direct combat. His central thesis revolves around the concept of coercive diplomacy—using the threat of violence, rather than actual violence, to influence the behavior of other states.

50
Q

Dual-Use technology

A

technology with both peaceful and a military use. ex. Nuclear reactors

51
Q

Enriched Uranium

A

Uranium where the total mass has had its isotopic composition altered.

52
Q

Nuclear blackmail

A

nuclear states use its nuclear arms as an explicit threat against a non-nuclear state

53
Q

Nuclear capable

A

are states that have all the infrastructure and knowledge to make nuclear weapons but have chosen not to. Ex. Canada

54
Q

Nuclear reactor

A

a facility/machine that produces nuclear fission chain reaction. are dual-use technology and need uranium to operate and produce plutonium as a waste product.

55
Q

Nuclear sharing

A

Nuclear power using a non-nuclear state to host its weapons.

56
Q

Plutonium

A

Artificial element and is used in nuclear bombs.

57
Q

safeguards

A

monitoring of dual-use technology

58
Q

Tethering

A

AKA - Bound functions of alliances
Witzman!!

The role alliances play in restraining or controlling the behavior of allied states, ensuring they act in ways that align with the collective interests and prevent destabilizing actions.

This function aims to “bind” allies to agreed-upon security objectives, often reducing the risk of unilateral or reckless moves by member states.

ex. what NATO does with Turkey

59
Q

Security Dilemma Proliferation

A
  1. A distrusts B and acquires power for defense
  2. B interprets A’s actions as offensive
  3. B acquires power for their own defense
  4. A interprets B’s actions as confirming initial basis for mistrust

this is how all the countries who have nukes, got nukes

60
Q

Scott Sagan

A

3 different models to explain why states build nuclear weapons or not

  1. the security model - emphasizes a states need for nukes as a response to nuclear threats - OFFENSIVE REALIST
  2. Domestic Politics Model - Influence of domestic actors who encourage/discourage nuclear programs - LIBERALISM - because domestic politics shape international politics
  3. Norms Model - Symbolic meaning of nuclear weapons as a reflection of a states identity in international system (if you’re a SP you have nukes) CONSTRUCTIVISM
61
Q

Counterforce

A

Attacking military basis such as nuclear basis, or ICBM

62
Q

Preventive

A

when a power is rising so you strike before they are able to get enough strength to become the SP

63
Q

evolution of warfare

A

Schelling:

war was a sport of Kings
Now, war is a national effort, this ties directly into what Clausewitz says “war is nothing but a continuation of our politics”

64
Q

War

A

An act of force to compel our enemy to do what we want

65
Q

Deterrence

A

the use of threats to dissuade an adversary from
initiating an undesirable act.

66
Q

Compellence

A

coercing an adversary to do something or to stop
doing something.

67
Q
A

Bilkent (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions