IAF 253 Exam 1

Criteria of Statehood

1. Permanent population

2. Defined territory

3. Government

4. Capacity to conduct international relations

Sovereignty

In its ideal form:

• State governments have authority over their external autonomy and foreign policy

• State governments have authority over their internal law enforcement and domestic politics

Power

Ability of an actor to cause another to do something it would not otherwise do

Hard Power

• Calculating resourceful power

• Often relates to coercive power:

  • Making another take action

• Mostly measurable and material

  • Military size, combat capabilities, economic resources

Soft Power

• Evaluative relational power

• Often relates to persuasive power

  • Convincing another to take certain action

• Mostly non-military and social

  • Cultural relations, religious legitimacy, commercial production

Levels of Analysis

1. Individual

2. Internal

3. International

Individual LOA

• Outcomes (DVs) are explained through assessing the personalities and mis-(perceptions) of individual leaders and states-people

• Focus on the leaders of the country

Internal LOA

The features of a country’s domestic economic, political, and societal institutions and/or interests

International LOA

The structure and distribution of capabilities and power between states

Anarchy

• Absence of a global authority to fully enforce or regulate interactions between sovereign states

• There is no world government

Security Dilemma

• Under conditions of anarchy…

  • Measures that one party takes to increase its security (like acquiring arms) will make others feel less secure

  • The others seek to increase their own security

  • This undermines the original party’s security

Logic of Consequences

• Rationalism (realism and liberalism)

• Actions based on a rational cost-benefit calculation of the expected material consequences

Logic of Appropriateness

• Constructivism

• Actions based on concepts of appropriate actions derived from beliefs and identities

Intersubjectivity

The tendency for meanings and concepts to be collectively constructed and shared (not reducible to an individual)

Identities

Understandings and expectations about oneself which form the basis of interests

Norms

Shared expectations about appropriate behaviors held by a collectivity of actors

Cultural Match

• Checkel (1999)

• The degree to which an international norm connects with historically constructed domestic norms

Triple Alliance

• WWI

• Italy, Germany, Austria-Hungary

Triple Entente

• WWI

• Great Britain, France, Russia

Truman Doctrine

• U.S. policy to support Greece and Turkey with economic and military aid to prevent them from falling to Soviet influence

• Cold War

Marshall Plan

• U.S. economic program to rebuild Europe. Offered to the U.S.S.R. and Eastern European States, but it was not accepted by them

• Cold War

Three Worlds

• First World, Second World, Third World

• Cold War

First World

• The U.S. and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and East Asian allies

• Cold War

Second World

• The U.S.S.R., the Warsaw Pact, China, and Cuba

• Cold War

Third World

• The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)

• Cold War

Glasnost

• Cold War

• Domestic reform → political openness

Perestroika

• Cold War

• Domestic reform → economic restructuring

Operation Desert Shield

• 1990

• Early August

• U.S. forces based in Saudi Arabia

Operation Desert Storm

• 1991

• January 17

• U.S. led multinational intervention to expel Iraq from Kuwait

Operation Desert Fox

• December 16-19, 1998

• U.S. and UK bombings of Iraqi military installations

Operation Enduring Freedom

• October 7, 2001

• U.S. invasion of Afghanistan

Operation Iraqi Freedom

• March 19-20, 2003

• U.S. led invasion of Iraq to depose Saddam

Evaluation of main arguments and evidence from Mearsheimer (2001)

Five Bedrock Assumptions:

1. Anarchy: International system is anarchic

2. Offensive military capability: All great powers possess this and every state has the power to harm one another

3. Uncertainty about intentions: States can never trust another’s intentions

4. Survival as the primary goal

5. Rationality: States are rational actors, think about consequences of their actions, want to have security and power

Three General Patterns of Behavior

1. Fear: States distrust and fear each other because other nations have offensive military capability

2. Self-help: No central government (anarchy) so each nation must rely on self-help so they can survive

3. Power maximization: States strive to maximize their power and advantages over rival nations, viewing regional hegemony as the best ultimate security

A useful example is World War I, where major powers competed for influence, military strength, and security. Germany's rising power created fear among other European states, contributing to rivalry and conflict.

Evaluation of main arguments and evidence from Wendt (1992)

Wendt argues that anarchy does not automatically lead to conflict because states create the meaning of anarchy through their interactions. His famous claim is that "anarchy is what states make of it." Rather than focusing only on power, Wendt emphasizes identities, norms, and shared beliefs. He identifies three possible security systems: competitive, where states see each other as threats; individualistic, where states act independently but are not necessarily enemies; and cooperative, where states view their security as interconnected and work together. The Cold War illustrates a competitive security system, as the United States and Soviet Union defined each other as rivals. Wendt argues that changes in these social relationships can make cooperation and peace possible.

Three Security Systems:

1. Competitive: States identify negatively with each other's security so that ego’s gain is seen as alter’s loss

2. Individualistic: States are indifference to the relationship between their own and other’s security

3. Cooperative: States identify positively with one another so that the security of each is perceived as the responsibility of all

Evaluation of main arguments and evidence from Sagan (1986)

Sagan critiques the cult of the offensive, the idea that World War I happened mainly because military leaders believed offensive warfare was superior. Instead, he argues that states adopted offensive military plans because of their strategic interests and alliance commitments. Countries like Germany, France, and Russia needed offensive strategies to support their allies and protect their own interests. Sagan's main point is that the causes of World War I were rooted more in states' political and strategic goals than in military leaders' belief in attacking first.

• Strategic Interests: The “political objectives and alliance commitments of the great powers” led to offensive war

• Cult of the Offensive: A shared and mistaken belief in offensive advantage held by military organizations led to war

Evaluation of main arguments and evidence from Wohlforth (1994/95)

Wohlforth argues that the end of the Cold War can be explained through realism and changes in Soviet power. He identifies three keys: leaders' perceptions of power, the Soviet Union's role as a declining challenger, and the idea that decline on the losing side of a rivalry is less likely to cause conflict. He argues that Soviet leaders recognized their declining position relative to the United States and responded with reform and cooperation rather than continued competition. Overall, Wohlforth concludes that the Cold War ended because the Soviet Union no longer believed it could successfully compete with the United States.

• Three Keys to Understanding the Cold War’s End

  1. Decision makers’ assessment of power matter most

  2. Declining challengers are more likely than declining hegemons to try to retrench and reform rather than opt for preventative war

  3. Sudden decline or civil strife on the losing side of a struggle is less destabilizing globally than such decline or strife on the winning side

Evaluation of main arguments and evidence from Flibbert (2012)

• Benevolent Hegemony: The United States should lead the world because American power was viewed as beneficial and necessary for global security

• Manichaean Primordialism: The world is a struggle between good and evil

• Regime Centrality: Dictatorships create conflict while democracies promote peace

• Efficacy of Military Force: Military action was the most effective way to eliminate threats and achieve political goals

Realism

• Explains causes of competition and conflict

• Focuses on security, power, and war

• B.L.U.F.: Primacy of self-help security and survival

• Actors of Focus: States - especially great powers

• Causality: Zero-sum competition for power and/or security

• Evidence: Indicators of military power/material capabilities

• Policy Prescription: Balancing others’ power or threats

• Outcome(s) of Focus: Conflict, competition, and war

Classical Realism

• First level of analysis

• Human nature is a permissive cause of conflict

• Leaders are hardwired to act in their self-interest and to seek power

Neorealism

• Splits into Defensive and Offensive

• Third level of analysis

• Anarchy is a permissive cause of conflict

  • Structure of the international system is anarchic

Defensive Neorealism

• Sub-variant of Neorealism

• Waltz

• States should seek “enough” military power to defend themselves

Offensive Neorealism

• Sub-variant of Neorealism

• Mearsheimer

• States should seek to “maximize” their military power to become hegemons

Gilpinian Realism

• 2nd and 3rd level of analysis

• Power transition is a permissive cause of hegemonic war

• Uneven growth of power between a rising challenger and existing hegemons

Liberalism

• Keohane

• Explains causes of peace and cooperation

• Focuses on law, commerce, and institutions

Republican Liberalism

• Explains the prevalence of peace between liberal states with democratic regime types

• B.L.U.F.: Democracy and trade can flourish despite anarchy

• Actors of Focus: Rational states & their differentiated characteristics

• Causality: Democratic peace | Economic Interdependence

• Evidence: Regime type(s) of states | Trading figures

• Policy Prescription: Strengthen democracy | Promote free trade

• Outcome(s) of Focus: Peace/absence of war

Commercial Liberalism

• Explains the prevalence of peace between states with interdependent economic ties

• Trade increases the costs of war and the benefits of peace

• B.L.U.F.: Democracy and trade can flourish despite anarchy

• Actors of Focus: Rational states & their differentiated characteristics

• Causality: Democratic peace | Economic Interdependence

• Evidence: Regime type(s) of states | Trading figures

• Policy Prescription: Strengthen democracy | Promote free trade

• Outcome(s) of Focus: Peace/absence of war

Neoliberal Institutionalism

• Keohane (1998)

• Liberalism

• Explains the possibility of cooperation between states through their interactions in international institutions

  • Absolute gains

• B.L.U.F.: States can use institutions to forge cooperation

• Actors of Focus: Unitary & rational states seeking material gains

• Causality: Collective gains achieved by self-interested states

• Evidence: Case studies and game theory

• Policy Prescription: Build and sustain international institutions

• Outcome(s) of Focus: Cooperation

Domestic Liberalism

• Explains foreign policy behaviors by evaluating how “bottom-up” societal interests shape “state preferences.”

• Assesses states as differentiated and non-unitary

• Accounts for conflict, cooperation, and/or coordination

• B.L.U.F: “State preferences” drive foreign policies action

• Actors of Focus: Societal actors and their material interests

• Causality: The state = “transmission belt” for soc. demands

• Evidence: Public polling, press reports, case studies

• Policy Prescription: Reflect the demands of key social actors

• Outcome(s) of Focus: Conflict, cooperation, and/or coordination

Constuctivism

• Wendt (1992)

• Explains the social and non-material aspects of international politics

• Focuses on ideas, beliefs, and discourse

• B.L.UF.: “Intersubjective” social interactions create interests

• Actors of Focus: Any - states of all sizes, NGOs, MNCs, militias, etc.

• Causality: “Mutual Constitution,” between structure and agency

• Evidence: Social interaction | Discourse & Speech

• Policy Prescription: Norms and values change over time and space

• Outcome(s) of Focus: Aspects of social construction - (non-) conflictual

International Level (Wendt, 1992)

Structure of social interactions that shape states’ identities

Wendt argues that international politics is shaped by ideas, identities, and relationships, not just power or material interests. States develop meanings about each other through their interactions, which can lead them to see other states as friends, rivals, or enemies. His main idea is that “anarchy” does not automatically cause conflict; how states understand and interact with each other shapes their behavior.

Domestic Level (Checkel, 1999)

Societal norms and internal structure shape (non-)adoption of international norms

Checkel focuses on how norms, ideas, and social learning can influence states from within. Domestic actors can adopt new ideas and norms through interaction with international organizations and other countries. These ideas can become accepted within a society and influence how governments behave. The main idea is that international norms can shape domestic beliefs and, in turn, a state's actions.