pols4500 finals

Question 1

what is democratic peace hypthotesis

Answer 1

democracy do not fight each other.

Question 2

liberalism and world politics Doyle

Answer 2

liberal states are peaceful, but are also prone to war. they have created a separate zone for peace in their relationship with non liberal states, they are insecure under anarchy.

Question 3

liberal internationalism kant- liberal pacism- scumpeter. liberal imperialism Machiavelli

Answer 3

liberal pacifism- most people don’t benefit from war. war only benefits military aristocrats and war profiteer.
imperialism- best form of state for imperial expansion. liberal state protect private property.
liberal internationalism- legal equality for all citizens and separation of power. federation, provides guarantee of respect and cosmopotalism for trade and tourism. liberal states respect other states as moral equals and fight with non liberal motives far beyond economic.

Question 4

moaz- normative and structural for democratic peace

Answer 4

normative model- shared democratic and liberal values. they regulate competition peacefully. favors compromise to disagreement. non democratic resolves conflict through violence and coercion.
structural model; democratic institutions make war unattractive for democartics government. because through elections citizens control government decisions.
more public opinions makes it more difficult for democracies to go to war. moaz find the normative more attractive

Question 5

rosato- both normative and structural model illogical:

Answer 5

is flawed because American power and its influence in Europe is the reason for this explanation. democracies do not externalize norms of conflicts resolution. and do not treat each other with trust and respect if they have conflict of interest. accountability with the structural model logic. Democratic leaders are removed more often, than autocratic leaders. most citizens do not go to war. leaders can be more influential over public opinion. effect of nationalism and rally around the flag. democracies keep secrets.

Question 6

rosato better explanation for democratic peace

Answer 6

democracies will only go trust each other if they consider each other democratic. the strong commitment of the us and Europe remain at peace does not means all democracies will be at peace with one another.

Question 7

bueno de Mesquita normative explanation for democratic peace flawed.

Answer 7

history shows democracies follow policies that do not fit with democratic norms examples. imperialism, colonialism, and fighting weaker states. democracies are very prone to war, rally around the flag effect can mobilize support for war quickly.

Question 8

peace based on domestic institutions. institutions differ the effect on democrtas vs autocrats

Answer 8

all democratic leaders try harder to win wars. and all political leaders want to remain in office. autocrats need to spend more resources for political survival, they dont fear losing in war as much because tehy can still stay in power. democrats dont fight wars they dont think they will win. they have more people to please.

Question 9

copeland- economic interdependence realist vs liberal

Answer 9

realist argue that interdependence increase the probability of war because it gives states incentives to initiate war, if only to ensure continues access to resources.
liberals argue that it decreases the likelihood of war because it increases the value of trade over aggressive actions.

Question 10

copeland theory to recocile the trade expectations between realist and liberals

Answer 10

how economically self-sufficient is the state and their expectation for future trade. liberals say trade provides valuable benefits dependent states should avoid war. absolute gain trade is more profitable than invasion. realist says economic interdependency higher the likelihood of war, states worry about them looking vulnerable, relative gain logic.

Question 11

effects on preferential trade arrangement PTA. violent conflict between the two.

Answer 11

state gain economic benefits by joining PTA. barriers to trade are reduced. better access to foreign markets. attractive to foreign investors. more leverage with 3rd party in Ir economic negotiations.
conflicts by: problems with relative gain. parties to the same PTA are less prone to conflict. less likely for trade flows to rise between them, strong negative relationships with commerce and conflict.

Question 12

how ptas commercials institutions produce peace

Answer 12

increase the cost of the military, give a greater incentive to consider a peaceful bargain. provide info over others states’ military capabilities. bring higher level of state leaders on regular basis.

Question 13

Gatzke explanation for liberal peace, and how capitalism explain the absence of war.

Answer 13

capitalism keeps the peace better than democracy. democracy reflects the popular will and popular will may be unhappiness. free markets and development bring greater prosperity and bring states closer together.

Question 14

contructivism explanation for war. contructivism and international relations

Answer 14

states acts differently between friends and enemy. people act towards things based on the meaning the things have for them. identity argument. how they identify with one another.

Question 15

contructivism on anarchy

Answer 15

anarchy does not tell us which states are friends which are enemies. us military power has significant new meaning to Canada than it does to cuba although they are similar in structural position in terms of global powers.

Question 16

wendt- cooperative, individualist, and competitive security system.

Answer 16

cooperative states identify positively with one another and they are responsible for each other’s security- an idealistic world.
individualist- states are responsible for their own security but collective and cooperation are possible. neoliberal world.
competitive security, states identify negatively with each other’s security. realist world.

Question 17

constructivist approach on the us invaded iraq not North Korea

Answer 17

although similar axis of evil. the us has a different identity with North Korea than iraq. identity-based on Iraq- 1991 gulf war. identity based on 1994 agreed framework. aggreement and war

Question 18

contructivst explanation for the us invaded iraq and not north korea vs a realist explanation

Answer 18

realist would predict a us invasion towards north korea and not iraq. because North Korea poses a gretaer military threat to the us than iraq. howard argue taht misperception of the north korea threat as weak and that yes it will be to costly but would benefit the us security more by elimnating the North Korea military threat

Question 19

huth- strenght of the effect of extended deterrence

Answer 19

the defender has better capabilities than attacker- at least to deny a cheap victory.
reciprocity of the defender willingness to use force
firm but flexible diplomatic strategy.

Question 20

weakness of extended deference

Answer 20

past bullying, reduce the defender’s credibility for bargained solution.

Question 21

why did the us go on nuclear alert in 1969

Answer 21

sent a message to the soviets and north vietnam about laughing a major attack on north vietnam if they did not negatione settleemnt. try to deter soviet attack against china. evidence says it was more about Vietnam. Nixon wanted alert to be risk-free but lost control caused military complexity. alert was ineffective. soviet did not get the signal and launched an attack in a unsafe manner, mistake could have causes ww3

Question 22

assumptions on nuclear weapons diplomacy and why dod not fit nuclear alert of 1969

Answer 22

cheap signaling, secret from the public, the signal was a bluff. nixon did another nuclear alert against Arab Israeli. nuclear signaling choice rather tah the internal domestic politics going on in the us

Question 23

sangan and suri- madman theory of nuclear weapons.

Answer 23

it can be beneficial in coercive bargaining to appear to the other party as mad or insane.

Question 24

sagan and suri- application of madman theory to rogue states

Answer 24

it can be rational for a leader with nuclear weapons to act by being a madman, but the problem can escalate out of control and a misunderstanding can result in a failure of deterrence and cause nuclear war no one wants.

Question 25

powell- chicken game and brinkmanship

Answer 25

chicken game is a game of brinkmanship, during a crisis states put coercive pressure on each other.
brinkmanship- kind of auction bidders bid until no one is willing to bid more than the last bid, the highest bid wins. the states that back down first determine their risk level. how close they car gets before they swerve to avoid collision

Question 26

Powell- dynamics of brinkmanship un nuclear state confrontation

Answer 26

balance of resolve favors small states with nuclear weapons. that will be able to deter the us from trying to overthrow its regime

Question 27

brinkmanship in confrontation between rogue state and us.

Answer 27

rogue state has more to lose, and have higher resolution. more willing to run into suffering a retaliation outcome

Question 28

development of a national missile defense system effect on nuclear states.

Answer 28

us will run a greater risk, national missile defense will make a balance of resolve between the us and a rogue states more ambiguous and crisis more likely.

Question 29

asymmetric conflcit

Answer 29

employed to strengthen a weak actor in pursuit of greater goals.

Question 30

asymetrics tactics

Answer 30

such as guerrilla warfare and terrorism. lower the ability of military strengths. deterrence over states that are not willing to fight dirty

Question 31

outcomes of asymmetric conflicts

Answer 31

actors plan for using arm forces to achieve military or political objectives. strong actors’ strategy are direct attacks. barbarism and weak actors strategy is direct defense and guerrilla warfare.

Question 32

ideal strategy response for great powers involved in asymmetric conflict.

Answer 32

direct approach targets the adversary capacity to fight., indirect approach target the adversary’s will to fight. strong states should use direct-direct approach in order to win and weak states should use an indirect direct approach to use. weak states, opposite, strong states the same approach.

Question 33

primary goals of terrorists.

Answer 33

regime change- overthrow ruling government. 31
territorial change- create a new state 19
policy change 4
social control- change behavior
keep status quo- support existing regime against opposition-1

Question 34

interactions between groups that could lead to ethnic violence.

Answer 34

information failure, info is private or misrepresented.

Question 35

how can ethics conflict be managed

Answer 35

demonstration of respect, power-sharing, elections, ensure representation in government offices. allow minority power at the regional level. federalism and regional autonomy.

Question 36

fearon and laitin- greater likelihood for civil war

Answer 36

conditions that favor insurgency, weak states with poverty, large population, and political instability. are more prone to civil war than ethnic diversity, religious, economic inequality or democracy or discrimination

Question 37

why do they dismiss argument that ethnic division makes a country more prone to civil war

Answer 37

civil wars resulted from decolonization than the end of the Cold War. decolonization gave birth to financially bureaucratically and military weak states from the 2940 to the 1970s

Question 38

strategies of terrorist violence. response government can take.

Answer 38

Terrorists need to promote credible information to audiences, the government can grant territory and the public can provide resources.
favorable conditions; states interest. ability to retaliate, sensitivity to violence, right-wing authoritarians, and hawkish government are less sensitive.
we can make concessions on inessential issues in exchange for peace.
increase security, deny access to weapons of mass destruction.
minimize the psychological effect of terrorism- via public education, drunk driving is more a of danger.

Question 39

lake and Rothschild, reject the argument on ethnic conflict due to intergroup differences.

Answer 39

intense ethnic conflict is most caused by collective fear for the future, due to information failure, problems with credible commitment, and security dilemmas.

Question 40

peace negotiations in civil wars and peace negotiations in interstate wars.

Answer 40

civil adversaries cant retain separate independent armed forces if they settle their dispute

Question 41

third party guarantee in civil wars.

Answer 41

can change the level of fear and insecurity that accompanies, treaty implementation and facilitates settlement

Question 42

peace settlement without third party guarantee

Answer 42

internal power-sharing arrangement, long-term durable peace needs both the Security guarantee and the power-sharing arrangement.