psc exam 2

interstate war

Militarized conflict between 2+ states that results in over 1000 battle deaths total

Militarized interstate disputes

show/threat/use of force

1-999 battle deaths

Irredentism

wars to ‘liberate’ ethnic or religious groups in another country

Diversionary War

Initiate war to distract public

Ex: falklands war 1982

Capitalism

Lenin’s idea that capitalist countries are more likely to engage in conflict to secure resources to feed their economies

Expected utility theory

War occurs when utility of war>peace

Explains why states start wars even when the odds of winning are low

Regime Type

type of government

ex:

• dyadic

• dpt

Nationalism (national self determination)

Group tries to gain control over territory

Conquest of other states’ territory

Dyadic Explanations

Characteristics of the relationship between states conditions conflict behavior

Certain pairs of states are more war prone than others

Rivalry formation in dyadic explanation

disputed over territory or policy

Escalate over time

Rival perceived at the enemy by decision making

Most info interpreted through its enemy lens

Territorial Conflict

Territorial rivalries are the most war prone dyads in the intl system (ex: India-Pakistan)

• Primary cause of all interstate wars since 1816

• most severe form of conflict; more deaths/ longer duration

primary causes of war

Distribution of power

Territory

Rivalry

factors for peace

Democracy

Economic interdependence

Intl orgs

Terrorism from 1960- today

Kidnappings, hijackings, bombings, ect— low fatalities

Suicide attacks

Shootings, bombings, rocket attacks

Terrorism in late 1800s- early 1900s (Europe and Asia)

Targeted assassination was preferred tactic

• Czar Alexander II 1881, King Umberto I of Italy 1900, Pres William McKinley 1901, Franz Ferdinand 1914

US Dept of Defense Terrorism definition

“unlawful use of -or threatened use of- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate govs or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives”

• grey areas

4 main components of terrorism

The use/ threat of unlawful force

Non military/ gov targets– civilian populations

Coercion–desire to intimidate/create fear

Politically/ ideologically motivated

asymmetric conflict

Conflict between different kind of actors w different strengths and weaknesses

ex: terrorism

• Terrorist groups cannot be deterred; nothing of value to be threatened

• Terrorist groups are hard to defend against; the group dictates when the event happens often times without warning

Main problem with realist claims

power is NOT a reliable predictor of state behavior

• Empirical evidence is weak at best

• Power and Military victory

• Most states coexist peacefully despite power asymmetries between states

system level theories

• liberalism

• realism

• capitalism

• regime type

• nationalism

• diversionary

Liberalism

Free trade in intl system= lower chance of war

Cost of raw materials: free trade<war

interdependence= increase costs of war

realism

predicts that more powerful states:

• Almost always initiate conflict

• Are more likely to seize territory from neighbors

• Almost always win their wars

war

“War is the continuation of politics by other means”- Carl Von Clausewitz

War is a political act for political goals

Diplomacy by other means

interstate wars

wars between 2+ states in the intl system

internal wars

occur within state

• Domestic unrest

• Sharp increase in internal wars since WWII

4 levels of analysis

system/structural

state

group

individual

Foreign Policy Analysis

understand/predict state behavior in terms of actors/processes at the domestic level

3 approaches

• Process of state decision making-state level

• Bureaucracies- group level

• Psychological characteristics of leaders- individual level

Rational Actor Model

Compares actual decisions to an abstraction of how decisions should be made

• Assumes underlying rationality

assumes that state decision makers:

• Have clear and ordered goals/preferences

• Calculate costs/benefits of diff actions

• Have a high level of risk propensity(risk averse or risk acceptant)

• Choose action that best serves their goals

Expected Utility Theory

Predicts actors will choose policy of greatest value, not policy of highest payoff

• payoff= greatest benefit

Expected utility of that policy compared to alternatives

• EU=probability (benefit-cost)

Gov Bargaining (Bureaucratic Politics) Model

Incentive to fight for own interests rather than search for most rational policy

• Political needs > foreign policy needs

Bureaucracies have diff interests bc of mission and budget

• Ex: rivalry between army/navy/air force/marines

Policies that result from bureaucratic politics are often limited

Small Group decision making

Key decisions made by leaders and closest advisors

• problems= groupthink

groupthink

Group quickly arrives a single solution and shuts down any further debate

Group members feel social pressure to reach consensus

• Teamwork highly valued- hesitant to criticize

• Leader responsible for individual success- strong disincentive to criticize or disagree

Individual decision making

Most critical decisions are made by single decision maker

• Psych and personality matter

Individuals deal with ambiguity and uncertainty in diff ways

• Leaders differ in reactions to same situation

• Subject to different info screens: subconscious filters through which people put the info coming in about the world around them

Unmotivated Bias

Bias stemming from how individuals simplify and categorize info in an extremely complex and complicated world

• Biological limits

bounded rationality

suggests that human decision-making is limited by cognitive constraints, time, and available information, leading to "satisfying" (choosing a good enough option) rather than optimizing

Attribution bias (sources of unmotivated bias)

You attribute intention from presented info based on pre existing images

• Dislike actor

  • Bad behavior= bad decisions

  • Good behavior=uncontrollable circumstances

• Like actor

  • Good behavior= good intentions

  • Bad behavior= uncontrollable circumstances

Historical analogies (sources of unmotivated bias)

Belief that a current situation is similar to a past situation. Belief frames policy alternatives for dealing with present situation

• Usually a poor guide for effective policy as situations are similar but never exactly the same

• Common analogies: Munich(appeasement), Vietnam (quagmire)

democratic peace theory

state-level theory that argues that what ‘type’ of state matters

dyad

pair of states

argument of Democratic Peace Theory

democracies are more peaceful than other types of states

• two democracies have never fought each other in a war

empirical record of democratic peace theory

democracies are just as likely to start a conflict with non democracies as non-dems are with other non-dems

normative theory

democracies dont fight each other because of mutual respect

institutional theory

political institutions make war between democracies less likely

• leaders wanna stay in office and in a democratic society, the people have the power to vote them out

policy implications of democratic peace theory

• promoting democracy=promoting peace

  • justifies military force and economic aid

• desire to extend zones of peace

intl consequences of civil conflicts

• outside intervention

• outflow of refugees

• intl trade of resources/weapons

• cross-border insurgence groups

civil war

war between factions within a state trying to change the system of government or replace the people in it or split a region into a new state

guerilla wars

no identifiable frontlines

insurgence

irregular forces operating in the midst of civilian populations

cause of intl conflict: failed states

states that lack order within their borders

decolonization

decolonization from 1940-1970

large # of weak states…

• financially

• bureacratically

• militarily

causes of intl conflict: grievances

income inequality

explains ethnic political mobilization

resource curse

high levels of income inequality

theory of relative deprivation

groups perceive themselves as relatively worse off to mobilize in an attempt to seize goods

cause of intl conflict: greed

conflict over control of lootable natural resources

• diamonds

• precious metals

• oil

conflict traps

internal conflicts repeat themselves overtime and create an endless cycle

ethnic conflict

militarized conflict between 2+ groups organized along ethnic divisions

conventional wisdom

ethnic conflict caused by systematic hatred

• no support in empirical data

genocide

the systematic killing of an ethnic group

ethnic cleansing

when an ethnic group is driven from their land

fundamentalist movements

• willingness to fight/die for beliefs

• seeks to challenge the values/practices of secular political organizations

organizing principle

group identity/ideology/cause used by elites to recruit/motivate followers to reach a common goal

islamist movements

sunni muslims (maj.) shi’ite muslims(min.)

want government to be based on islamic law

individual terrorism

motivated by personal grievance/ strong identity

group terrorism

Use organizing principles to attract recruits and motivate individual violence

profile of a terrorist

there is none

why is terrorism effective

• creates fear in the public

• sense of vulnerability in society

• public pressures their gov to change policies that instigated the attack

prisoner’s dilemma

• you and your friend are charged w a crime

• Police separate you from your friend and offer you each a reduced sentence

  • Either 5yrs off the 15 year sentence if your friend confesses too= 10 years total

  • Or 5yrs off the 5 yr sentence if ONLY YOU confess= 0 years in jail

dominant strategy(overcoming prisoner’s dilemma)

rational response for the individual regardless of the actions of others

reciprocity strategy(overcoming prisoner’s dilemma)

actors evoke cooperation if they cooperate on the first move and then do whatever the another player does on subsequent moves

Every defection is met by defection, every move is reciprocated

shadow of the future

a fixed end point in time to interactions between actors

Invoking the shadow of the future turns intl pol into every man for himself scenario

Other Explanations for Intl Cooperation

States driven by concerns for absolute gains

Clearly est norms/rules/principles promote cooperation: self enforcing

Converging interests: transnational communities w specialized knowledge create institutions

intl norms

Entail a collective evaluation of behavior by members of the state system in terms of what ought to be, as well as a collective expectation as to what behavior will be

common norms in the intl system

Sovereignty: est 1648

• Consistently reinforced by other states throughout the modern state system (napoleonic wars)

Opposition to slavery: one of the first human rights norm in the intl system

• Based on morality: british navy’s suppression of intl slave trade in the 1800s