Lecture 2: Anarchy, uncertainty, and war

Question 1

3 characteristics of the international environment (from state perspective)

Answer 1

Anarchy, uncertainty, power distributions

Question 2

Definition: Anarchy

Answer 2

The absence of government over states

Question 3

2 definitions: Uncertainty

Answer 3

1. The quality of not being known beyond doubt
2. An existential condition inherent to all human relations

Question 4

Uncertainty is shaped and varies by

Answer 4

How it’s perceived and understood

Question 5

Two types of uncertainty

Answer 5

1. Unresolvable uncertainty
2. Uncertainty about the future

Question 6

Unresolvable uncertainty is created by these 2

Answer 6

1. Material factors (ambiguous symbolism of weapons and deployment: possible to distinguish between offensive/defensive weapons?)
2. Psychological factors (other minds problem: limited understanding of intentions, fears, and feelings of others)

Question 7

Uncertainty about the future means

Answer 7

Something you can make predictions about, but only know for sure after it happens

Question 8

4 Categories of power distribution

Answer 8

1. Superpowers: operate militarily globally
2. Great powers: influential in multiple regions
3. Regional powers: influential mostly within one region
4. Non-power: still have real effect on great powers and can drag them into conflict

Question 9

Which distribution of power is most stable vs. unstable?

Answer 9

Most stable is bipolarity (but risk of peripheral conflict and superpower war), and most unstable is multipolarity (risk of great power war)

Question 10

The security dilemma consists of 2 dilemmas

Answer 10

Dilemma of interpretation about motives/intentions and capabilities of the other

Dilemma of response about the most rational way of responding to the dilemma of interpretation

Question 11

Summarize the security dilemma

Answer 11

A state tries to become more secure from attacks and are driven to acquire more and more (material power), which makes other states feel less secure and they are driven to acquire more and more power -> vicious circle

Question 12

3 ways to solve the security dilemma

Answer 12

1. Fatalist logic: Define the other as rival and maximize own military power. May lead to security paradox: provoking rivals into increasing own security
2. Mitigator logic: Create security regimes or an international society; trying to decrease uncertainty and create greater predictability through mutual learning of intentions and capabilities. IIs create transparency, communication and cooperation, while international law creates reliability
3. Transcender logic: Create a different world order by identifying the problem creating uncertainty and abolish it, or form security communities where war becomes unthinkable

Question 13

Definition: War

Answer 13

The continuation of policy by other means - Von Clausewitz

Question 14

3 characteristics of war between states

Answer 14

1. Violent
2. Large-scale
3. Between organized political entities (=states)

Question 15

Paradox in studying security

Answer 15

The more we learn about threats, the more the would appear dangerous even if in comparative historical terms it is empirically not

Question 16

The long peace

Answer 16

Pinker: no wars between great powers (since 1963) and no states have been eliminated by conquest since 1945

Question 17

2 Criticisms of the long peace

Answer 17

1. From a statistical perspective, there is nothing special about the “long peace” -> would only be rare if it lasts another 100-150 years
2. The severity of WW” not a statistical anomaly

Question 18

Security dilemma implies that war is accidental and undesired, however…

Answer 18

Accidents do not cause war, decisions do. Accidents can trigger decisions but not on its own cause war

Question 19

Rationalist explanation of why war happens

Answer 19

The inherent destructiveness and costly nature of war means all actors would prefer peace to war and must identify the obstacle standing in the way of peaceful resolution

Question 20

3 structural obstacles that produce war, according to rationalist explanations

Answer 20

1. Information problems regarding strength of military (cannot identify which is stronger party)
2. Credible commitment problems (no higher authority to make sure possible peace agreement is kept + balance of power can change and change incentives)
3. Issue indivisibility (a potential dispute where there is no way to divide it up and reach an agreement - but is anything really indivisible if you have money to offer?)

Question 21

China’s GDP is expected to bypass the US by

Answer 21

2030

Question 22

In which 2 ways does China represent a threat to US Hegemony?

Answer 22

1. By seeking to redesign the rules of the international system
2. By constituting a security threat

Question 23

But why is the US international order hard to change?

Answer 23

It’s a liberal order (democracy, capitalism) wide wide array of participants and generates growth and power

It’s an integrated system that invites participation through non-discrimination, market openness, coalition leadership, and institutions

Question 24

The rise of China according to realist theories

Answer 24

Economic/political/security implications, current tensions is sign of escalation, offensive realists say war is likely while defensive realism says it can be prevented

Question 25

The rise of China according to liberal theories

Answer 25

The risks of anarchy can be overcome through trade, IIs, and democracy - China is likely to be integrated into the liberal order

Question 26

Explain the Thucydides trap

Answer 26

War is inevitable between a rising power (Athens) and a declining great power (Sparta), because of the firsts pride, entitlement and demand for greater influence, and the latter’s fear and insecurity

Question 27

Reading summary: The Thucydides Trap - Graham Allison

Answer 27

Preventing war between the US and China will takes tremendous action from both parties as China will inevitably challenge or revise the US liberal order, and fear about this can turn to paranoia which can lead to war. They must both undergo substantial, painful adjustments of attitudes and actions if they are to maintain a beneficial relationship