IR conflict and cooperation

What is causal analysis:

→ established to simplify realities and make sense of a broader pattern

What does it mean for a theory to be falsifiable?

It must be inherently disproveable (you can complete it with a chance it may fail)

Causation v correlation

Correlation: x and y present at same time

Causation: x actually cause y and each step in causal chain is a separate hypothesis

STAG HUNT

• Two players A and B

• Deer = more units of meat, require cooperation, rabits = 1 each but together 2, can hunt on own

• best solution is cooperate because get 3,3 (nash equilibrium)

• defect by trying to hunt rabbits on own

• Need coordination

• e.g US and USSR cooperating WW2 defeat axis powers

PRISONERS DILEMMA

• A cooperate by staying silent = gets longer sentence

• B defects by telling = gets shorter sentence = incentivised to defect

• Both defect and then both get a longer sentence than they would have if they cooperated

how is bargaining cooperative and competitive

competitive because each sides makes offers, cooperative as there is outcome with both sides have an interest in reaching it.

War definition

War: an event involving organised use of military force by at least parties that reflects minimum threshold of severity (1,000 battle deaths)

realist causes for war

anarchy causes self help

insecurity and motivation for power causes security dilemma.

Bargaining range

• if cost of war is positive, then there is a range of things that are mutually preferrable to war

incomplete information

increases the chances for war because the reality bargaining range does not overlap with the bargaining range of the overly optimistic state.

Power shift

cause commitment problem as a rising state will not want to commit to an agreement it can break in the future

a declining state wants to fight now while it is still relevant, causing a preventative war

First strike advantage

states may engage in pre-emptive war with the element of surprise and choice of location to increase their chance of winning e.g Six Day War Israel launched surprise attack on Egyptian air force.

Issue indivisibility

when the issue is not able to be divided.

Crisis bargaining

 when one state attempts to influence outcome of bargaining with a threat of military force (coercive diplomacy)

Compellence

coerce target into making a concession or changing a current policy

Deterrence

preserve status quo through threat of force

Brinksmanship

strategy where adversaries take actions that increase the risk of accidental war, with hope that other will blink first and make concessions -> may try make threats credible

How do political leader’s background matter in the occurrence in war?

E.g a rebel background will increase war, western education will decrease conflict, older leaders increase conflicts

Diversionary Theory

leaders generate a crisis to increase their popularity

How are national interests determined?

Domestic economic structure and ideology and culture form competing interest groups, these depend on the distribution of power which then influence policymakers who form national interests.

Difference between compromise and capture

Compromise: foreign policy reflects all society (Democracy)

Capture: foreign policy reflects narrow interest groups (non-democracy)

Bureaucratic organisations and national interests

Each organisation has their own interest and wants policies that will give it a more prominent role in decision making.

Three different explanations for democratic peace theory:

1. Normative democratic peace theory -> where society externalises norms and respect other states, which leads them to distrust other non-democracies

2. Institutional democratic peace theory -> because the public will bear the costs of the policies and because the leader can be punished through elections

Informational democratic peace theory -> because democracies have free press their information will be of a higher quality and thus it has more credibility and countries can do better bargaining power.

Critiques of DPT

Critiques include the differing definitions of democracy, and that forcing countries to democratise makes them unstable.

What are alliances and the types

Alliances are formal agreements to use military force under conditions, they include symmetrical members that have similar responsibilities to contribute equally.

come from the realist thought either balancing or band wagoning.

Asymmetrical: more powerful states shape

Offensive: states join in attacking third states

Defensive: open ended, aid one another against any attacks

How do alliances promote peace

• solve information problem (must be credible though) this is shown through public alliance commitment, military coordination and weapons deployment

• can solve the commitment problem by restraining the rising state.

How do alliances promote conflict?

However, they can promote conflict by increasing the information problem and making it difficult to guage their capabilities. It can exacerbate the commitment problem because the imminent power shift.

How are CsO’s different from collective security organisations?

They have inclusive membership and they do not alter the bargaining outcomes of states, because the ensure changes to the status quo occur peacefully, the entire membership is to aid victims of aggression.

How do collective security organizations like the United Nations contribute to peace?

The UN has inclusive membership to all sovereign reognised states.

They contribute to peace by the UNSC authorising peacekeeping missions.

They also have peace enforcement help ongoing conflict where they choose a side e.g the korean war om the gulf war.

They have peacekeeping missions where they are deployed post-conflict. Keep peace by resolving the information problem as able to verify commitments and actions on peace agreements, and they resolve the commitment problem by enforcing agreements, decreasing prevenative war as declining state can rely on someone to defend it and reduce the First strik advantage risk because increase transparency.

Why is it so hard for the international community to prevent and punish acts of aggression?

1. There is an ambiguous criteria for intervention

2. It is difficult to distinguish aggression from self-defence

3. There is the collective action problem e.g the UN relies on voluntary contributions for example for troops, weapons, deployments and organisations

When will the UN intervene with something?

When the costs are low and it is not contrary to their national interest in the P5.