Poly Sci 140 Final Exam: Long essay questions format

Core thesis: Is the state system "under siege" in international relations?

Yes. While states are still important, they are now "under siege" because their monopoly on power is shared with powerful non-state actors like billionaires and international NGOs.

Issue 1 - war and security: How do wealthy individuals challenge state sovereignty in warfare?

Example: Elon Musk providing the Starlink satellite network in the Ukraine war.

• Significance: A private individual can control vital military command-and-control infrastructure, giving them a "veto" over state military strategy.

Issue 2 - environment: How do NGOs bypass the traditional state system?

Example: Greenpeace or World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

• Significance: They act as "norm entrepreneurs" by shaming governments into climate action and providing the technical expertise/rules that states fail to create on their own.

The takeaway: What is the main conclusion to write on the exam?

Sovereignty is no longer a hard barrier; states are now part of a porous network where non-state actors hold significant technological, financial, and moral power.

Core thesis of social theories: How do social theories (Constructivism, Feminist, and Critical Race theories) explain international relations?

• They argue that global politics is not fixed by nature but is based on shared beliefs, identities, and historical hierarchies.

• Rather than just chasing power, states act based on what is considered socially appropriate or accepted.

Constructivism and Ukraine: How does Constructivism explain the international response to the war in Ukraine?

• The massive Western support was driven by shared identity.

• Ukraine was successfully framed as part of the "democratic European identity," making the violation of its sovereignty a social crisis that demanded a collective response to protect the "civilized" global order.

Feminist theory and the UN: How do Feminist theories explain the lack of UN Security Council (UNSC) reform?

• The UNSC reflects a historical hierarchy (a "legacy of empire").

• The system privileges a 1945 status quo that values masculine militarism and colonial-era leadership, rather than inclusive, humanitarian definitions of security.

Key takeaway: What is the main difference between traditional theories and social theories?

Traditional theories (Realism) explain that states want security, while social theories explain why states seek security through specific alliances and why certain crises provoke outrage while others are ignored.

Core thesis: In the projected 2056 international system, how has global power shifted from the 2026 unipolar order?

The system has transitioned from US unipolar dominance to a multipolar order, led by economic and military powers in Asia (China and India), while global economic integration has been replaced by regional blocs.

Issue 1 - military and economic power: Why did the United States lose its status as the sole dominant military and economic power by 2056?

Military: Suffered from "imperial overstretch"; China achieved regional dominance in the Indo-Pacific while middle powers created independent coalitions.

• Economic: Surpassed by Asian economic blocs in GDP and innovation, with a shift away from the US dollar to alternative settlement mechanisms.

Issue 2 - The global economy: Is the global economy of 2056 more or less open than in 2026?

• Less open and integrated. 

• It shifted from hyper-globalization to strategic decoupling and regional "friend-shoring," with restrictive barriers on both trade and labor migration.

Key takeaway: What is the underlying theme of the 2056 international system?

A movement from an open, US-led system to a fragmented, multipolar network designed to withstand security and geopolitical shocks.