polarity and war (8)

Question 1

what are the assumptions of realism?

Answer 1

1. Anarchy (no over-arching authority) pervades the system, so actors pursue self-
   help strategies.
2. The principal actors are powerful states, termed “powers,” not smaller powers or
   institutions.
3. Anarchy causes states to fear elimination, so states seek power in order to
   maximize their security (security = probability of survival), at minimum cost.
4. States are approximately rational, in that those states that seek not to survive are
   selected out.
5. States focus on the power of other states, rather than intentions, because intentions
   may change in the future.
6. States are defensive positionalists, their relative position in the IS: focusing on
   relative gains rather than absolute gains.

Question 2

what is “loss of strength gradient

Answer 2

defines a states’ reach beyond its frontiers.
_Assumed that most disputes occur at the intersection (cross-over) of two states’ LSGs.

Question 3

States, to strengthen themselves against external threats can pursue one of two strategies according to Kenneth Waltz:

Answer 3

external balancing and internal balancing

Question 4

what is internal balancing

Answer 4

(1). Internal Balancing: build internal resources, such as weapons, but this is often expensive, or:
_The declining effect of power over distance is measured by a Loss of Strength Gradient (LSG).

Question 5

what is external balancing

Answer 5

(2). External Balancing: make external alliances with other states against the threat to you. But this entails other costs.

Question 6

According to Stephen Walt, states exhibit two generally different types of alliance behavior:

Answer 6

(1a). Balancing Against Power: This means you oppose the threat (based on the enemy’s power) to you along with other states you were able to obtain as allies. China and USSR
(2).
_(1b). Balance against Threat (Stephen Walt): (1b). Stephen Walt: Balance Against Threat:
1. States prioritize balancing against power.
2. States will balance against ideological threats once basic security is secured.
3. Explains why coalitions tend to be overwhelming, and not rationally a minimum winning coalition.

Question 7

what are 4 Causes of Balancing against Threat:

Answer 7

_IV1: Aggregate power: bigger-more dangerous;
_IV2: Geographic Proximity;
_IV3: Offensive power;
_IV4: Aggressive intentions: more important than simply power.

Question 8

what is (2) Bandwagoning?

Answer 8

Here you join with the threat – in other words, you submit so that you do not appear to be a threat to the stronger party and hope that you are not attacked. This strategy is typically pursued when the state is too weak and there is no prospect of allies.

Question 9

what is Management alliances

Answer 9

contain potential threats

Question 10

Jackal Bandwagoning

Answer 10

Randall Schweller: some states are offensive bandwagoners in the sense that they side with the stronger side in order to have an opportunity to reap some benefits or spoils from a war, much like jackals benefit from the hunting of lions.It tends to occur also at the end of wars when the outcome is nearly certain. italy waited almost lost of france to support germany

Question 11

what is Burden Sharing

Answer 11

Every alliance must have some agreement on the distribution of the burden: since not all agreements are fair, how do you try to balance out the inequities?

Question 12

what is Free-Riding or buck-passing?

Answer 12

Free-riding in an alliance occurs when one alliance partner calculates that it can contribute less to an alliance because other states have less of a choice.

Question 13

what is the Commitment problem?

Answer 13

To keep states from distancing or defecting from their alliance and joining the enemy (abandonment), allies must demonstrate commitment (binding). This can be done by stationing troops in your ally’s territory: if the enemy attacks, you will automatically be at war with the enemy. ex;us in korean during the war

Question 14

what is Chain-ganging?

Answer 14

However, there is an inverse problem here too: if a state is too committed to an ally, the ally might drag that state into a war against its choosing (entrapment).
ex; germany too committed to keep austria-hungry as an ally let itself be dragged into the Serbian dispute

Question 15

what is Defensive Chainganging?

Answer 15

Restrain a country from going to war that otherwise would have.

Question 16

what is bait and bleed

Answer 16

arrange for threats to fight each other
ex; usa implication in the iran-iraq war. usa encouraged iraq to fight a long war with iran

Question 17

what is bloodletting

Answer 17

get other states to fight each other in a long war

Question 18

what is Collective Action Problem (CAP)

Answer 18

Organizing groups of states to cooperate together becomes exponentially more complex because of the:
_(1) calculation problem: coordination costs increase with the number of states in an alliance,
_(2) free-rider problem: cheating (tragedy of the commons)
_(3) sanctioning problem: no rational incentive to punish free riders since punishment is itself undermined by CAP.

Question 19

what is Minimum Winning Coalitions:

Answer 19

States seek to minimize costs, and because of the constraint of CAP, will seek the smallest possible alliance to achieve its security goals.

Question 20

Statistics/impacts of alliance theory

Answer 20

• COW lists 414 alliances, of which 78.3% are bilateral
• Most alliances are created in anticipation of war, not a cause of war
• With the exception of WWI, overall in the last 500 years alliances do not precede war, and are not a cause of war
• However, very high or low clusterings of states in alliances leads to more sever and length wars
• Alliances do increase the size of war through chain-ganging

Question 21

3 types of alliances on COW

Answer 21

• Mutual defense pacts (like NATO) (49.5%)
• non-aggression agreements ( 35%)
• Consultation agreements (15.5%)

Question 22

Alliance asymmetry and war

Answer 22

• if only one state has an ally ear is more likely - proxies are more restrained
• Alliances are a function of states seeking general deterrence, so their effects have already be calculated by initiators
• War is locally contagious, but not between continents
• alliances reduce the likelihood of war, but increase its diffusion once it has begun.

Question 23

Kautilya

Answer 23

An advisor of Chandragupt, he probably wrote the treatise on the theory of the conduct of international relations (the Arthasastra - Manual of Politics) with an excellent treatment of the logic of alliances
His famous dictum: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”

Question 24

Traditional Balance of Power Theory

Answer 24

general tendency in all systems for the weaker states to ally together against the greatest emerging threat to the system. Therefore the system is always in equilibrium and domination of the system by a single state is impossible.
As a threat to the system is defeated and a new threat emerges, states readjust their balancing and forge new alliance
- Balance of power does seem to have a lot of validation: repeated attempts to unify Europe have repeatedly failed because they provoked overwhelming blocking coalitions
ex: decline of USSR and rise of china we can see countries change their allayment.

Question 25

Three ways in which a balance of power system provides stability

Answer 25

1 - The system retains all of its essential characteristics so that no single nation becomes dominant
2 - That most of its members continue to survive
3 - That large scale war does not occur

Question 26

Typified Balancing - 18th century

Answer 26

• The 18th century in Europe was also typified by a balance of power political-military system
• There were eight major global powers at the time: Ottoman Empire, Manchu China, and Mogul India were all in relative decline and isolated because o European naval dominance
• In Europe there were England, France Russia, Spain and Austria, all of which except the last has military reach outside of Europe. Each of the wars in Europe therefore were accompanied by wars on other continents, typically in North America, Africa and India.
• One power, Nadir Shah’s Iran, rose and declined quickly in this period

Question 27

War of Spanish Succession (1701-1714)

Answer 27

The war was fought over control of the Spanish throne. Frace and Spain vs. England, Austria and Holland. Accompanied by Queen Anne’s War in North America

Question 28

War of the Quadruple Alliance (1718-1720)

Answer 28

The war was fought over the succession in France. England, France and Holland opposed Spain

Question 29

War of Polish Succession (1733-1738)

Answer 29

The war was over succession in Poland. France, Spain and Sardinia vs. Austria and Russia

Question 30

Seven Years’ War (1756-1763)

Answer 30

Austria, France, Russia, Sweden and Saxony vs. Prussia and England. Accompanied by the French and Indian War in North America and the Anglo-French War in India.

Question 30

War of Austrian Succession (1740-1748)

Answer 30

The war was over the succession in Austria. France, Spain and Prussia vs. Austria and England. Accompanied by the First Carnatic War in India, and King George’s War in North America, between the English and French.

Question 31

Key observation to be taken from 18th century conflicts

Answer 31

In this period states changed sides as it suited them, EG: England, for example, fought both with and against France and Austria. This is not a sign of inconsistency, but of good statecraft. England’s policy was to oppose any state from becoming preponderant in continental Britain. In fact, the only time Englad was threatened by invasion was by the Spanish in 1588, Louis XIV, Napoleon, and Adolf Hitler: all at times when power on continental Europe was consolidated

Question 32

Criticisms of the Balance of Power (Problem of trade-offs between the goals of a balance of power system) (4)

Answer 32

1 - War to stop domination of system ( exww2)
2 - Domination of system to stop war (democracy)
3 - War to prevent conquest of similar powers (usa protect Kuwait)
4 - Conquest to preserve the characteristics of the system

Question 33

Criticisms of the Balance of Power (Some argue the balance of power only works under special conditions) (3)

Answer 33

1 - Moderate competitive behaviour among the states, typically caused by religious or cultural restraints
2- A norm against the annihilation of states
3 - No impediments to the free balancing of states, such as pacifism or democracy

Question 34

Criticisms of the Balance of Power - other (4)

Answer 34

A - Critics argue that the balance of power system is dysfunctional because it often requires an invulnerable neutral state like England to repeatedly join the weaker side
B - The Balance of Power does not always succeed - sometimes multi-state regions do unify
C - Balance of power applies to land warfare only, and therefore cannot explain the tendency for global hegemony that is reliant on the Oceans
D - Balance of power is a theory to explain the absence of terrestrial hegemony, not peace. In fact, balance of power needs war in order to work.

Question 35

Misperceiving the Balance of Power

Answer 35

• The most frequent cause of over-expansion is the misperception of the balance of power process. Specifically, it is the belief that the international system operates not according to balancing principle, but according to the bandwagoning principle
• In a bandwagoning world, strength attacts allies, causes states to submit through bandwagoning, spreads like dominoes, and leads to spheres of influence
• They therefore behave very aggressively, thinking they could intimidate states to bandwagon with them and not balance against them
• Instead their aggressive behaviour provoked an overwhelming coalition of all the other states in the system
  EG: In the 1930s, it seemed Hitler was right at first - his intimidation slowed down the process of coordinated balancing, so that France, England, and Poland were unprepared to fight Germany

Question 36

Questin of the bipolarity v. Multipolarity Controversy

Answer 36

Does a system of a few major powers or many medium powers create greater peace?
- We can focus on a dispute between classical realists and neo-realists over the effect of polarity on war and peace. A world of two great powers or many medium powers - which is safer from major war and domination?
- The essence of the arguement centers on the impact of uncertainty, and the effect this has on decisions to go to war.

Question 37

Classical realist

Answer 37

Uncertainty leads to peace because action is deterred by the threat of third party intervention; certainty leads to war because certainty simplifies the aggressors’ calculations for war.
- Certainty creates war: opportunists will attack. Uncertainty creates peace by causing aggressors to think twice
- Therefore, multipolarity creates peace

Question 38

Waterbird dilemma

Answer 38

Exploiting external rivalries. Striking while the defending state is engaged elsewhere and can’t spare the resources, or threatening to strike to achieve policy preferences.

Question 39

Cross cutting pressures (alliances)

Answer 39

• Self balancing system
• Reduced allocation of attention
• Calculation problem (brawl example from class)

Question 40

Wagner on classic realism (Will states act to eliminate each other?)

Answer 40

Believes that uncertainty of the future will foster conflict and create stability
EG: Tripolar - inevitable elimination and reduction to a bipolar system from a fear of division.

Question 41

Exception to classic realism (Mearsheimer)

Answer 41

Multipolarity causes more war because balancing more is more certain (less buckpassing under bipolarity).
- Unbalanced multipolarity (where a state seeks hegemony) vs. balanced multipolarity.

Question 42

Neo-Realists

Answer 42

Certainty leads to peace because there are fewer wars that are caused by miscalculation. Uncertainty leads to war because aggressors are permitted an opportunity to act. Mearsheimer argues that multipolarity causes more war because balancing is more certain, so there is more buckpassing, and in effect less balancing.

Question 43

Waltz’s Neorealism

Answer 43

Bipolarity is most stable: (IV) predictability.
- Can count the number of states: therefore states practice restraint. Balance of power does not work.

Question 44

Statistical evidence (neorealism)

Answer 44

Bipolar periods have a greater number of small wars, and multipolar periods are less war-prone but have more large wars

Question 45

Parity vs. Preponderance Controversy

Answer 45

Within a bipolar world or a world dominated by two coalitions, does parity (approximate equality between two sides), or preponderance (where one side is stronger than the other), create peace?
- Some argue that the parity of a balance of power or bipolarity brings war because each state is tempted by the fact that there is an even chance of victory in a war. And that only preponderance brings peace.
- Others argue that preponderance encourages war because the larger state is undterred, and therefore attacks the smaller states. Peace is therefore schieves by having a parity so that no one state can dominate any other.

Question 46

Statistics on parity and preponderance

Answer 46

Although there are studies that provide findings in both directions, the prevailing evidence is that preponderance is associated with peace, and parity is associated with war. The balance of power is therefore more war prone
- (Reed) - dyadic parity is more likely to experience a dispute, but less prone to escalate (presumably because there is less of a prospect of victory). Power parity decreases the probability of escalation by 5%.

Question 47

Unipolarity

Answer 47

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the U.S. has been the largest economic and military power in the world. U.S. strategy with regard to the Eurasian continent remains the same as England’s with regard to Europe: to oppose the consolidation of the continent under any single power, whether German, Japanese, Soviet or Chinese.
- The main problem with being the most powerful state in the world is that according to the logic of balance of power, it will provoke a counter-coalition.
- The Problem is that there is no counter-coalition. The most likely reason is that it is too early in the process to tell, or that the peaceful nature of democratic regimes has overpowered the logic of the balance of power.
Statistical Evidence - Unipolar systems are most peaceful.

Question 48

what are the two paradox of the security dilemma?

Answer 48

The first paradox of the security dilemma is that because of the defensive reaction of your opponent, attempts to increase your security by increasing your power (such as by buying arms), may actually decrease your security if it provokes your opponent into buying even more.
_The second paradox of the security dilemma is that two states, even if both want peace, may inadvertently aggravate their relations so that they end up in war neither wanted. _The surprising implication of Jervis’ model is that states can sometimes increase their security by decreasing their power relative to your enemy.

Question 49

what is the security dilemma model?

Answer 49

many of the means in which a country tries to increase its security, decreases the security of others

Question 50

what does classic realist think about uncertainy

Answer 50

Uncertainty leads to peace because action is deterred by the threat of third party intervention; certainty leads to war because certainty simplifies the aggressors’ calculations for war.

Question 51

Blainey: what is Third Party Behavior

Answer 51

(states that are not directly involved in a dispute but have the opportunity to intervene and take advantage of either states’ distraction): This is termed the ‘Waterbird Dilemma’ from Okubo Toshimichi over Japan’s 1873 attack on Korea: exploit external rivalries. So many state actor creates an overwhelming calculation problem (see CAP).

Question 52

what does the Neo-Realists say about Certainty?

Answer 52

Certainty leads to peace because there are fewer wars that are caused by miscalculation. Uncertainty leads to war because aggressors are permitted an opportunity to act.

Question 53

what is Offensive Realism (Mearsheimer)

Answer 53

1. states have offensive military capability; 2. states seek power rather than security. _(Mearsheimer’s argument rejects the argument of the Security Dilemma (Jervis, 1978; Herz), which argues that increased power reduces a state’s security, therefore security rather than power drives state defense and foreign policy).
   All states, even democracies, expand till they encounter d

Question 54

what are the arguments for Offensive Realism (Mearsheimer)

Answer 54

1. Because of water barriers, global hegemony is impossible, but regional hegemony is attainable.
2. States are risk acceptant (desperate) and will make war when they have an opportunity to achieve regional hegemony.
3. Regional hegemons play the role of offshore balancers in other regions where allies can challenge potential regional hegemons by bridging the water barrier.
4. Regional hegemons will jealously exclude other regional hegemons from their own region.

Question 55

Mearsheimer argues that: multipolarity causes more war Because:

Answer 55

(1). balancing is more certain…
(2). so there is more buckpassing…
(3). and in effect less balancing.
(4). This uncertainty of the functioning balance of power mechanism leads opportunistic leaders to risk war.