Study Guide

Question 1

Clash of Civilizations

Answer 1

a. Huntington
b. The fundamental source of conflict will be cultural, no longer ideological or economic
c. With the end of the Cold War, international politics moves out of its Western phase, and interactions become focused on the West and non-Western civilizations
d. The very notion that there could be a “universal civilization” is a Western idea, directly at odds with the particularism of most Asian societies and their emphasis on what distinguishes one people from another.
e. Non-Western states can, like North Korea, attempt to pursue a course of isolation.
f. Second alternative, the equivalent of “bandwagoning” in international relations theory, is to attempt to join the West and accept its values and institutions.
g. Third alternative is to attempt to “balance” the West by developing economic and military power and cooperating with other non-Western societies against the West, while preserving indigenous values and institutions.

Question 2

International Regimes

Answer 2

general pattern of international activity that follows more or less established rules on how you should behave; no cost for leaving, more narrow in purpose than institutions (human rights, monetary policy), made up of principles, rules, norms, and decision-making procedures (Krasner); the sets of governing arrangements that affect relationships of interdependence (Nye and Keohane) establish legal liability, provide symmetrical information, and arrange costs of bargaining so that agreements can be more easily made (Keohane)

Stephen D. Krasner defined International Regimes as “Implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge in a given area of international relations

Question 3

Soft- Balancing

Answer 3

a. Soft balancingis a recent addition tobalance of power theoryused to describe non-military forms ofbalancingevident since the end of theCold War, particularly during and after the 2003Iraq War. Soft balancing as a strategy can be attributed to the work of Robert Anthony Pape and further developed by Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth.
b. Soft balancing occurs when weaker states decide that the dominance and influence of a stronger state is unacceptable, but that the military advantage of the stronger state is so overwhelming that traditional balancing is infeasible or even impossible. In addition to overwhelming military superiority, scholars also suggest thatdemocratic peace theorysuggests a preference toward soft, rather than hard, balancing among democracies.
c. As opposed to traditional balancing, soft balancing is undertaken not to physically shift the balance of power but to undermine, frustrate, and increase the cost of unilateral action for the stronger state. Soft balancing is not undertaken via military effort, but via a combination of economic, diplomatic and institutional methods. In other words, soft balancing uses “non-military tools to delay, frustrate and undermine aggressive unilateral U.S. military policies”
d. In contrast to hard balancing or bandwagoning

Question 4

Multipolarity

Answer 4

a. Multiple centers of power or influence
b. Pro-Deutsch and Singer-less instability than bipolar, system maintains characteristics
c. Realism says stable, Neorealism says, multipolarity isn’t sustainable in the long run, will become bipolar (Singer)

Question 5

End of History

Answer 5

a. Fukuyama
b. Hegel believed that history culminated in an absolute moment, a moment in which a final, rational form of society and state became victorious.
c. The state that emerged at the end of history is liberal insofar as it recognizes and protects through a system of law, man’s universal right to freedom, and democratic insofar as it exists only with the consent of the governed
d. This so-called “universal homogenous state” found real-life embodiment in the countries of postwar Western Europe
e. In universal homogenous state, all prior contradictions are resolved and all human needs satisfied
f. Liberalism triumphed over fascism and communism over the past century
g. But at the end of history it is not necessary that all societies become successful liberal societies, merely that they end their ideological pretensions of representing different and higher forms of human society.
h. While it is impossible to rule out the sudden appearance of new ideologies or previously unrecognized contradictions in liberal societies, the present world seems to confirm that the fundamental principles of socio-political organization have not advanced since 1806

Question 6

Biopolarity

Answer 6

a. Pro: Waltz (great powers conservative) Con: Gilpin (states can fail to counterbalance each other, thrown out of whack by minor changes)
b. BOP (but as a naturally reoccuring equilibrium, not a system consciously created by great powers - Waltz); BOP says bipolar systems more peaceful than multipolar

Question 7

Security Dilemma

Answer 7

a. refers to a situation in which actions by a state intended to heighten its security, such as increasing its military strength or making alliances, can lead other states to respond with similar measures, producing increased tensions that create conflict, even when no side really desires it
b. reflects the logic of offensive realism (Mearsheimer); stronger when offense is more potent than defense and when hard to distinguish between offensive and defensive weapons (Jervis) potential in US/China relations (Friedberg)

Question 8

Collective Action Problems

Answer 8

Problem of Collective Action: A situation in which each individual rational action (esp. failure to cooperate) leads to an outcome that is worse off for all group members, compared to if each member chose the alternative, individual irrational action

Can be overcome by institutions, arrangements built by man/states based on principles, have procedures for how to deal with principles; modify state behavior by reducing uncertainty, lowering transaction costs, solving collective action problem; most needed when hegemon declines (Keohane) or after hegemonic victory (Ikenberry) Sticky because formal, legal, binding; create transgovernment connections, can become vehicle for other organizing activity (Ikenberry) Institutions improve actors’ ability to implement rationality, which leads to an environment for greater cooperation

Question 9

Balance of Power

Answer 9

state of stability between competing forces. In international relations, it refers to equilibrium among countries or alliances to prevent any one entity from becoming too strong

a. Aim is to insure the survival of independent states; prevent preponderance of power of one member of system, preserve individual states through preservation of system, need watchfulness, can keep through coalitions or alliances (Gulick) several actors of relatively equal power, states must want to survive, states able to ally with each other to promote short-run interests, war is a legitimate instrument of statecraft (Jervis); a competitive system

1. The self-help system in which states compete with one another, causes states to behave in ways that tend to toward the creation of balances of power
2. balancing is achieved while actively competing, it is not an intended or desired result, and is predominant behavior in foreign policy
   b. the BOP is fairly stable because states are rational and prioritize security over maximization of power

c. the position in BOP can offer clues about what alliances states might form, and whether a state will engage in regular balancing, soft balance or bandwagoning or soft bandwagoning

Question 10

Anarchy

Answer 10

a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority

independent states with no central authority above them (Mearsheimer) not incompatible with economic interdependence (Bull) Anarchy spurs you to pursue hegemony (Gilpin) world politics is decentralized rather than hierarchic, states are subject to no superior govt (Keohane); for realists, leads to self-help system with no international system(Waltz); for liberals possibility of harmony of interests through trade and comparative advantage; for constructivists anarchy doesn’t necessarily lead to self help

Question 11

Offensive Realism

Answer 11

a. Offensive realismis a structural theory belonging to the neorealist school of thought first postulated byJohn Mearsheimer[1]that holds theanarchicnature of the international system responsible for aggressive state behaviour in international politics. It fundamentally differs fromdefensive realism, as originally put forward byKenneth Waltz, by depicting great powers as power-maximizing revisionists privilegingbuck-passingoverbalancingstrategies in their ultimate aim to dominate the international system. The theory brings important alternative contributions for the study and understanding ofinternational relationsbut remains nonetheless the subject of criticism.

Question 12

Two-Level Games

Answer 12

a. political modelof international conflict resolution between states derived fromgame theoryand originally introduced in 1988 byRobert Putnam.
b. The model views international negotiations between states as consisting of simultaneousnegotiationsat both the intra-national level (i.e. domestic) and the international level (i.e. between governments). Over domestic negotiations, the chief negotiator absorbs the concern of societal actors and builds coalitions with them; at the international level, the chief negotiator seeks an agreement that is amongst the possible ‘wins’ in his state’s ‘win-set’. Win-sets are the possible outcomes that are likely to be accepted by the domestic interest groups who either must ratify the agreement or provide some other form of government backing. International agreements occur when there is an overlap between the win-sets of the states involved in the international negotiations.

Question 13

Interpretations of anarchy (Neorealism, Neoliberalism, Constructivism)

Answer 13

1. Neorealism: Positive sum (but infrequently), Can slightly mitigate security dilemmas (Robert Jervis); Stress anarchy as a natural structure
2. Neoliberalism: Complex interedependence and regimes mitigate anarchy (Joseph Nye, Robert Keohane)
3. Constructivism: Derived from social institutions (chess board came from social relations that we created, and that can be changed!), “Anarchy is What States Make of It” (Alexander Wendt), process not structure

Question 14

1. What is the role of international institutions in international relations according to Keohane’s neoliberal institutionalism? To what extent does this argument challenge neorealism? How would neorealists respond?

Answer 14

1. What is the role of international institutions in international relations according to Keohane’s neoliberal institutionalism? To what extent does this argument challenge neorealism? How would neorealists respond?

• State actions depend greatly on prevailing institutional arrangements, the ability of states to communicate and cooperate depends on human-constructed institutions
• arrangements built by man/states based on principles, have procedures for how to deal with principles; modify state behavior by reducing uncertainty, lowering transaction costs, solving collective action problem; most needed when hegemon declines (Keohane) or after hegemonic victory (Ikenberry) Sticky because formal, legal, binding; create transgovernment connections, can become vehicle for other organizing activity (Ikenberry) Institutions improve actors’ ability to implement rationality, which leads to an environment for greater cooperation
• Realists: Powerless/meaningless
• Neorealists: false promise, merely extension of self-interested states so minimal influence on state behavior, unable to promote peace; NATO just reflected bipolar BOP order during Cold War, didn’t need NATO to maintain stability(Mearsheimer)
• Neoliberalism: Have power; Need an international arbitration court (Jeremy Bentham); democratic institutions constrain public desire for war (John M. Owen)

Question 15

Trace the development of realist thought (classical realism and neorealism)

Answer 15

1. Trace the development of realist thought (classical realism and neorealism). Who are the major thinkers? In what ways were their perspectives similar? In what ways were they different? Have these insights stood the test of time?
   a. Realism: Ancient Greece (400s BCE), Neo: Post-WWII (1960’s)

b. Similar on:
i. Human nature: Hobbesian: “self help”, Darwinian, warlike, self-interested, competitive, no morality, greedy
ii. Actors: states, but neo some flexibility – Singer says nation states could disappear
iii. War is inevitable, both
1. But differ in that real says bipolar systems and multipolar systems with ridged alliances are likely to go to war, but neo says bipolar is actually the most stable (Layne), multipolarity isn’t sustainable in the long run, will become bipolar (Singer)
iv. Culture not important (but then how to explain clash of civilizations)
v. Neo better at explaining why cooperation is difficult: Cooperation possible in limited situations (doesn’t explain when), but explains why cooperation is difficult better than realism, insecurity from cheating, unequal gains, vulnerability, uncertain about others’ intentions, worried cooperation could produce higher relative gains for some (Waltz)
vi. Criticism: how do we measure power? States only actors interested in power, biased towards explaining war, less relevant to non-European world, importance of institutions and international cooperation to avoid war?
vii. Neoliberalism may explain why the US and China haven’t gone to war, bipolar most stable since Cold War
viii. NATO wasn’t needed to maintain peace during Cold War, understood each other as a threat, false promise of institutions (Mearsheimer)
ix. Thinkers:
1. Real: Machiavelli, Thucydides (father), Hobbes, Morgenthau (neo-classical), Stephen Walt (father neo-classical), Robert Gilpin, Henry Kissinger
2. Neo: Mearsheimer (offensive realism -want hegemony, never sure when revisionist power might emerge), Kenneth Waltz (father - defensive realism - states have few expansionary interests b/c costs), Karl Deutsch & J. David Singer, William Wohlforth, Charles Doran, Christopher Layne, Robert Jervis, Robert Gilpin

Question 16

Democratic Peace

Answer 16

1. What is the democratic peace? What theoretical explanations exist for the democratic peace? How would realists or critics respond to its proponents? What can we take away from this debate?

Owen: Democracies accommodate fellow democracies, but sometimes call for war with non-democracies (perception that non-democracies may be interested in conquest or plunder); come from institutional constraints or ideas/norms; perception of other country as liberal democracy is the key to dem. peace theory; democracies build institutions that enhance peace

Structural democratic peace (institutions) + normative democratic peace (ideology); but to work liberal democracies have to truly believe others are genuine liberal democracies (can’t be illiberal democracies either); opinion leaders can affect things vida the media

Anti-Democratic Peace Theory (Christopher Layne - correlation w/o causation, David Spiro - random chance

Question 17

Two Competing Theories to explain WWI or WWII

Answer 17

1. Apply two competing theories of your choice to the onset of a major war (World War I or World War II). For each theory, take a paragraph or two to carefully spell out its key assumptions, logic, and observable implications (what would we expect to see in the historical case if the theory is right?) before telling us what actually happened. What can (and can’t) we learn about the usefulness of each theory from the exercise?

a. WWI
i. Triple Entente (Balancers=Russia, France, Britain, then later + US (Wilson: war to end all wars), Japan, Serbia, became “Allies”) VS Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, later Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria)
ii. Realist: Germany maximizing power for power’s sake; Germany couldn’t tolerate uncertainty about British military allegiance; multipolar w/ rigid alliances unstable; coalitions that defeated Germany were strong states working together with far superior total resources to Germany, but they united against Germany because they saw Germany as the greatest threat, despite Germany being weaker in terms of total resources. Germany and Japan misthought bandwagoning was dominant tendency (Walt - Balance of Threat); ottoman empire sick man of Europe power vacuum
iii. Neorealist: Security dilemma: Germany maximizing power (especially naval), Britain saw need to counter-balance; arose from attempt by the system to constrain rising power rather than adjust to it (Charles Doran - Power cycle Theory)
iv. Liberalism: This is what happens when no int’l institutions; ideology matters, war framed in ideological way by Wilson who said states have “right of self-determination”; British and French parliaments/more democratic regimes buffered nationalistic pressure (Germany didn’t have this buffer)
v. Constructivism: Nationalism played defining role, especially about German vs British sea power; cultural connections between Russia, Serbia

b. WWII
c. Allies (Balancers=Britain, Russia, US - France fell+Pearl Harbor pulled US in later) vs Axis (Germany, Italy, Japan)
d. Realist: Germany aggression; US/European policy of appeasement & neutrality…didn’t balance soon enough; Failure of Treaty of Versailles (punished Germany, US didn’t join League of Nations or attain progressive Wilsonian war goals ie 14 points); coalitions that defeated Germany were strong states working together with far superior total resources to Germany, but they united against Germany because they saw Germany as the greatest threat, despite Germany being weaker in terms of total resources…and Mussolini declared war on France in hope of territorial bandwagoning spoils gain (Walt - Balance of Threat)
e. Liberalism: Lacked proper institutions to uphold Wilson’s 14 points
f. Constructivism: Ideology and social values

Question 18

Two theories to make predictions about Sino-US relations

Answer 18

3. Choose two competing theories to make predictions about the future of Sino-U.S. Relations (NOTE: Optimism and Pessimism are not theories). For each theory, take a paragraph or two to carefully spell out its key assumptions, logic, and observable implications (what would we expect to see in the empirical case if the theory is right?). Which of the two theories do you find to be more likely to be proven right? On what existing evidence, however preliminary, do you base this conclusion? (twice)
4. Clash of Civilizations: Those countries that for reason of culture and power do not wish to, or cannot, join the West compete with the West by developing their own economic, military and political power (ex. China, North Korea, and several Middle Eastern states).
5. In the post-Cold War world, the primary objective of arms control is to prevent the development by non-Western societies of military capabilities that could threaten Western interests.
6. Centrally important to the development of counter-West military capabilities is the sustained expansion of China’s military power and its means to create military power.
7. Its military buildup and assertion of sovereignty over the South China Sea are provoking a multilateral regional arms race in East Asia.
8. Realist: “War” inevitable …cyber war? (but problem with this logic is how to define war today - nuclear/conventional war unlikely)
9. Neorealist: War quite likely eventually, but can be mitigated to a limited degree; Bipolar world actually most stable, so US-China led world order would be great for the world, best since Cold War; but adjustment role vs power could be difficult (Power Cycle Theory - Charles Doran); China’s rise due to differential growth (William Wohlforth)
10. Liberalism: Not clear if war is avoidable because China is not a liberal democracy
11. Neoliberalism: War possibility greatly reduced via complex interdependence, institution building and increased diplomatic ties
12. Constructivism: Ideological differences major

1) China is desperate to be accepted as “normal” within the international community. It also seeks status. China is angry about “century of humiliation”, Western imperialism, and being excluded from the more recent international society. the CPC has very different values that the current liberal international system. Authoritarian regimes are not viewed as good or “normal” regimes within the current international community. China doesn’t believe it can be “normal” within the current international system
2) So China has set out to create its own system, China is now in the position where it can change the balance of power. It has ambition, the change in BoP had an immediate effect on China I) China said no to G2, it wants to create its own international order we can see this through started SCO to create its own international norms II) the idea of minyun gongtongti, III) 2004 Confucius Institutes soft power ambush to shape opinion about China, IV) yidai, yilu and AIIB will allow China to establish its own monetary norms, China is striving to create a new Sinocentered community with a shared common destiny in Asia. It is practicing economic diplomacy and actively expanding its influence and control globally.
Ultimately China seeks to create a new national order and system in which China is not only “normal” but it is also the leader. It was to revive and rejuvenate the great China.

Chinese core values/ideology:

3) Sincocentrism/tianxia: informs Chinese identity as the historically great middle kingdom, the tribute system gives China a cultural script for how to behave in foreign policy, at its core China is independent because historically it was the only great power that it encountered, it did not have to cooperation and negotiate with powers that were equal to it
4) National humiliation: historic humiliation from foreign invaders, colonization and unequal treaties informs Chinese core values in that it holds a lot of grudges and is constantly seeking respect that it feels it was previously denied, China cares so much about respect and how other countries view it to that point that it is not rational
5) China wants to feel “normal”, it wants to be recognized and accepted by the international system

Concrete ways:

1) Behavior in the South China Sea: China feels that because of past humiliation and territory loss that it rightfully has a historic claim to the South China Sea
2) confucious institutes
3) minyun gongtongti: SCO, yidai yilu and AIIB, through this China is actively creating a sinocentered order and community

World order:
Because of China’s historic greatness and desire for respect and acknowledgement, China envisions a Sinocentric world order. It is a revisionist great power and is currently seeking to reorganize the balance of power in the international system