WOSC normal study gyude

How are theories of foreign policy different from theories of international politics?

Theories of foreign policy explain how states make decisions, focusing on domestic actors, institutions, and processes. Theories of international politics explain patterns of interaction between states, emphasizing systemic factors like anarchy and power. The main difference lies in the level of analysis—foreign policy is substate, while international politics is systemic.

Difference between the simple and dyadic versions of democratic peace theory?

The simple version argues democracies are more peaceful overall; the dyadic version claims democracies don’t fight each other but may fight autocracies. Evidence supports the dyadic version more strongly.

Structural, normative, and institutional arguments for democratic peace

Structural arguments focus on democratic checks and balances that slow decisions for war. Normative arguments emphasize shared democratic norms of negotiation. Institutional arguments stress transparency and accountability, which reduce uncertainty.

Evaluate democratic peace theory

Supporters argue democracies rarely fight each other due to norms and institutional constraints. Critics note exceptions and that economic interests or alliances may explain peace instead. It remains one of the strongest empirical regularities in international relations.

Impact of public opinion on foreign policy

Public opinion can constrain leaders, shaping what policies are politically feasible. It is often volatile and influenced by media framing, but consistent patterns exist on issues like war. In democracies, leaders must anticipate electoral consequences of foreign policy decisions.

Executive, media, and public opinion in foreign policy

The executive shapes policy but is influenced by media narratives and public reaction. Social media amplifies misinformation and polarization, complicating decision-making. Overall, the relationship is interactive, not one-directional.

Bureaucratic politics vs organizational process model

The bureaucratic politics model sees policy as the outcome of bargaining among agencies with competing interests. The organizational process model emphasizes standard procedures within bureaucracies that constrain choices. Both challenge the rational actor model.

Prospect theory and foreign policy

Prospect theory suggests decision-makers are risk-seeking when facing losses and risk-averse when facing gains. It helps explain irrational-seeming foreign policy choices like continuing unwinnable wars.

Bounded rationality

Bounded rationality means decision-makers cannot process all information, leading to satisficing rather than optimizing decisions. It acknowledges human limits in perception and time.

Misperception in foreign policy

Misperception occurs when leaders misunderstand the intentions or capabilities of others, often causing conflict. For example, U.S. misjudgments in Vietnam escalated war due to  false assumptions.

International organizations and international politics

International organizations facilitate cooperation, reduce transaction costs, and provide information. While they depend on state power, they also shape state behavior and norms. They represent a growing but not revolutionary force in world politics.

Transnational advocacy networks (TANs)

TANs are networks of activists and NGOs that promote norms like human rights and environmental protection. They influence states through information, pressure, and naming-and-shaming. They reflect globalization of political activism.

Significance of the United Nations

The UN provides legitimacy, coordinates collective action, and manages peacekeeping. Critics argue it reflects great power politics and suffers from inefficiency. Its importance lies in agenda-setting and norm promotion.

Most compelling explanation of war

System-level theories emphasize power imbalance and anarchy; realist theories often explain war as security dilemmas. The security dilemma and misperception remain the most compelling explanations.

One explanation for WWI, WWII, and Vietnam War

 Misperception and miscalculation explain all three—leaders underestimated costs or overestimated their strength. In each, flawed information and nationalist fervor contributed to escalation.

Underlying vs proximate causes of war

Underlying causes include structural factors like power shifts, while proximate causes are immediate triggers such as crises or incidents. Focusing on both is essential to prevent war, but addressing underlying causes ensures long-term stability.

War as rational policy

War may be rational if leaders believe benefits outweigh costs, such as securing vital interests or deterring future threats. For example, preventive wars seek to avoid future decline.

Obstacles to scientific explanation of war

Difficulty in experimentation, limited cases, and multiple causes make prediction hard. Definitions of war and measurement of variables vary. Human behavior and perception also limit precision.

Civil war vs international war

Civil wars occur within states and involve non-state actors; international wars occur between sovereign states. Civil wars often draw external intervention and spillover effects.

Civil war and contentious politics in international relations

Civil conflicts influence global security, refugee flows, and intervention policies. They can reshape alliances and destabilize regions. Contentious politics often blurs domestic and international boundaries.

Arms control and the security dilemma

Arms control reduces uncertainty and builds trust, mitigating the security dilemma. However, verification and compliance challenges limit success.

Peacekeeping vs peace enforcement

Peacekeeping maintains ceasefires with consent of parties, while peace enforcement compels compliance, often using force. Peacekeeping relies on neutrality; enforcement does not.

 Relationship between negotiation and coercion

Coercion and negotiation often complement each other—threats can motivate negotiation, but excessive coercion can backfire. Effective diplomacy balances both.

Dangers of coercion policy

Coercion can escalate conflicts, provoke retaliation, and damage reputation. Misperception of threats increases risks of unintended war.

U.S. strategy in Vietnam and its failure

The U.S. relied on military superiority to force North Vietnam’s surrender, misjudging

political and social dimensions. The strategy failed due to limited local legitimacy and public backlash. Ch. 9 Reference: Case analysis of coercion and limited war.

Gap in military capabilities and weak actor strategies

Weaker states or groups use asymmetric tactics—terrorism, guerrilla warfare—to offset conventional disadvantages. Technology gaps push them toward irregular warfare.

Political weaknesses of high-tech weaponry

High-tech warfare reduces casualties but can create overreliance on technology and political detachment. It may lower thresholds for intervention without public support.

Terrorism vs conventional force

Terrorism targets civilians to influence political behavior, unlike conventional force aimed at military goals. Yet both seek political outcomes through violence.

Explanations for terrorism

Causes include ideology, frustration, occupation, or state repression. Structural and psychological explanations coexist, but no single cause explains all terrorism.

WMDs vs conventional weapons

Weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological) cause massive, indiscriminate harm, unlike conventional arms. Their deterrent role shapes strategy.

Proliferation of WMDs and state security strategies

WMD spread increases deterrence complexity and crisis instability. States adjust by strengthening alliances and adopting counterproliferation policies.

Transnational terrorism and state security

Transnational terrorism erodes borders and compels states to coordinate intelligence and surveillance globally. It shifts focus from conventional deterrence to prevention.

Spread of nuclear weapons and stability

Some argue nuclear deterrence stabilizes relations; others fear accidents and irrational actors. Stability depends on control, communication, and doctrine.

Asymmetric conflict

Asymmetric conflict occurs when weaker actors use unconventional tactics against stronger ones. It challenges traditional warfare by exploiting political and psychological vulnerabilities.