International Politics Midterm

Waltz 1979

Waltz distinguishes between domestic and international political structures.

A structural analysis of international politics examines the distribution of capabilities among “like units” within an anarchic international system.

Walt 2023

Balancing powers as the prescription to anarchy

Balance of power vs. balance of threat

Glaser 2024

Chatterjee Miller 2024

Power transitions do not always end up in war

Rising powers often accommodate as well as challenge the existing international order.

The incumbent has the advantage in shaping and revising the current rules and norms

Doyle 1983

Liberal zone of peace → Based off Kant’s three pillars

Democratic peace theory

Democracies = free press (watchdogs), people hold government accountable

Mansfield and Snyder 1995

Brooks 2024

Globalization of production post 1945

Information economy and the reliance on innovation from highly-skilled workers with specialized training

But developing states do not appear to reap the same security benefits from globalized production.

Applebaum 2014

Fazal 2024

Berger 1996

Yan 2021

Blainey 1988

WWI — Realist

WWI — Liberalist

WWI — Constructivist

WWI — Domestic Politics

WWII — Realist

WWII — Liberalist

WWII — Constructivist

WWII — Domestic Politics

Snyder 1984

The Sources of Soviet Conduct (X)

International structure

“like units”

security dilemma

revisionist states

status quo states

rising powers

liberal regimes

“separate peace”

economic interdependence

norms

death watch wars

scapegoat wars

characteristics of post war Japan and Germany

Rosecrance: Rise of the Trading state → instead of military power → WELATH = determinant of power

China’s dual identity

cult of the offensive

offensive military doctrines and military organizations

the Soviet threat

containment policy

appeasement or deterrance

“abacus of power”

ANTI balance of power theory

Wars occur when states disagree on their relative strength because objective measurement of power is difficult

i.e Vendetta of the Black Sea: Russia and Turkey fought each other 10 times in 200 years (1678-1878) from enduring rivalry persisted due to religious tensions, commercial and strategic significance of Black Sea, ethnic Slavs under Ottoman rule, etc.

Three pillars of liberal (Kant) → zone of peace (Doyle)

Democratic political institutions - RL

Shared liberal ideas - RL

“Spirit of commerce” - CL

Commercial liberalism

peace through trade

“Spirit of commerce”

Advocates economic openness and free trade

Emphasis on mutual gains from trade

Economic interdependence as mitigator of conflict

- increase the costs of war

- increase the benefits of peace

PROBLEM: Doesn’t always prevent war, i.e. WWI; and conquest pays, like extraction

Republican liberalism

peace through democratic institutions

Democratic political institutions

Shared liberal ideas

Anarchy

U.S and China conflict

Realism

POWER POLITICS (economic + military, NOT soft power), self interested states want power (or power to defend)

Emphasizes competition for power among self-interested states

Liberalism

INSTITUTIONS AND INTERDEPENDENCE, power (soft power) is being tamed
Argues that power can be tamed through economic interdependence, democratic political institutions, or international rules and organizations

Reciprocity

Constructivism

IDENTITY AND IDEAS, the role of nonmaterial factors
Focuses on the role of nonmaterial factors, such as ideas, belief systems, norms, and identities, in shaping state interests and behavior

while realists consider conflict, and liberalists consider cooperation, constructivists can consider BOTH #bisexual

Domestic Policies

the CHARACTERISTIC of the states, organizations, and independent leaders

Focuses on the role of nonmaterial factors, such as ideas, belief systems, norms, and identities, in shaping state interests and behavior

WWI

WW2

Cold War

Classical realism

Based upon a pessimistic view of human nature as interested, noting individual leaders’/states’ tendency for aggression, domestic domestic politics
Think: Machiavelli or Hobbes “state of nature”

Structural realism

Proposed by Kenneth Waltz, where anarchy (lack of central authority) creates systematic pressure to drive state behavior, fear is self-help

Levels of analysis

International systems → States → Domestic groups → Individual leaders

4 TYPES of STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

1. Polarity

2. Offense-defense balance and the security dilemma

3. Defensive vs. offensive realism

Polarity

any of the various ways in which power is distributed within the international system; unipolarity, bipolarity, and multipolarity

Relative military capabilities

Measures of material power

Polarity and stability: bipolar vs. multipolar peace?

think: Centers of power

Offense-defense balance

Greater incentive → More offense → greater instability, heightens security dilemma

Tighter alliances (“chain-ganging”) create inflexible strategies and increase the likelihood of conflict escalation

Intentions must be signaled

Defensive vs. offensive realism

Debate whether states are GREEDY (offensive) or INSECURE (defensive)

Balance of power

When threatened, states may seek safety either by balancing, allying with others against the prevailing threat; or bandwagoning, aligning themselves with the threatening power.[2] Other alliance tactics include buck passing and chain-ganging

Balance of threat

Developed by Walt

in an attempt to explain why balancing against rising hegemons has not always been consistent in history, providing specificity

states balance against threats, rather than against power alone

Power transition theory

ANTI balance of power theory (as a solution)

Power transitions are dangerous, death/decline of leaders creates instability

Democratic peace theory

Absence of war among liberal states for 200 years.

Shows influence on American foreign policy decisions.

TWO MECHANISMS:

1. Institutional constraints: “Pacific publics” vs. belligerent leaders, checks and balances, greater information availability and transparency, elections as renewable contracts, constrained governments are less likely to go to war

   1. PROBLEM: The assumption of the “pacific public” ie Public war fever during the Spanish-American War; AND democracies fight NON democracies

2. Shared liberal norms: Unique political culture of democracies: nonviolence, compromise, accommodation; expectation of reciprocity

   
   

   
   

Military strategy vs. trading strategy

Military: maximize military = security, goal is self sufficiency

Trading: Specialization and interdependence, static + dynamic gains, trade = mutual gains