IR Midterm

Anarchy

Absence of overarching power

Politics in the absence of a common sovereign

no higher authority than the states

Self-Help

there is no higher authority than the states so states must look out for their own interests

Nobody will step in to save them as nobody is authoritatively above them.

Security dilemma

Every time a state amasses power to make itself more secure, it threatens other states.

This is because other states are unpredictable & states can never be sure what a state’s intentions are with this power.

Prisoner’s Dilemma

a particular "game" between two captured prisoners that illustrates why cooperation is difficult to maintain even when it is mutually beneficial

(rationally, both will defect to ensure a lighter sentence because neither of them trust that the other will cooperate)

Cooperate (Prisoner’s Dilemma)

a decision to refrain from threatening action, thereby cooperating with the other state

Deflect (Prisoner’s Dilemma)

a decision to engage in the threatening action

What is the classic outcome of a prisoner’s dilemma?

If rational, both states will deflect to avoid their own worst outcome

Kenneth Waltz

founder of the defensive neorealism school of thought

wrote The Man, State, and War

came up with the 3 levels of analysis

John Mearsheimer

founder of the offensive neorealism school of thought

What are the assumptions that all realists share?

\-States pursue power so they can survive in the international system

\-Assume that security is the most important issue

\-Assume that states are rational & will act in a cost/benefit manner

\-All states have at least some offensive capabilities & can do something to harm another

\-power is very important

\-we live in an anarchic system

\-concerned with security dilemmas

\-thinks states are trying to balance power

What are the types of realism?

classical realism

neorealism

neoclassical realism

Sovereignty

A state’s right, at least in principle, to do whatever it wants within its own territory

traditionally, sovereignty is the most important international norm.

Polarity

Number of great powers in the international system at one time

Unipolar System

1 great power in the international system

Bipolar system

2 great powers in the international system

Multipolar system

3+ great powers in the international system

Power

The ability or potential to influence others’ behavior, as measured by the possession of certain tangible and intangible characteristics

Ability to achieve one’s goals.

Great Power

Countries that have “power goodies”

Significant economic & military power

Influence politics beyond their borders (regionally)

Ex. France, US, UK, China, Russia

Superpower

Influence global politics & project power globally

Hard Power

Military & economic strength

Works through carrots (inducements & bribes) & sticks (threats of punishment)

Soft Power

attraction, Persuasion

Attracting other states as a result of our reputational effects

convincing states cooperation is in their best interests

How can we measure power?

GDP

Size of military

Military budget

Military technology

Collective Goods Problem

How can states cooperate to serve collective interests when doing so requires its members to forgo their individual interests?States prefer that other states provide the collective good while they “free ride”, enjoying the benefits without doing anything to help

Collective Good

something that everyone in the system gets to enjoy, REGARDLESS of who pays for it (ex. clean air, clean water)

When is it easier to provide a collective good?

it is easier when there are fewer actors because it is then easier to police freeriders

Nye’s Sovereignty Debate

rise of non-state actors causes people to reflect on the role of the state in there international system

3 main views:

\-Retreat of the state

\-Skeptics

\-Transformationalists

Retreat of the state view in the sovereignty debate

\-Believe the state is indeed in retreat

\-other actors are increasing in power (militarily & economically), like corporations & terrorist groups

\-structures above state can impose certain rules on what happens in the state, erosion of state sovereignty EX) EU's rules for members

Skeptic view in the sovereignty debate

Defend the idea that states are still sovereign & that the buck still stops with states.

International organizations are mere reflections of the state’s desires.

Transformationalist view in the sovereignty debate

States are still primary actors, but we cannot ignore nonstate actors

The context in which states act today involves nonstate actors

Think about the way state power is being transformed by nonstate actors

Levels of Analysis

a perspective on IR based on a set of similar actors or processes that suggests possible explanations to “why” and “from where” questions

provides different frameworks to understand the same events from different perspectives and behaviors

the three are individual, domestic, & systemic

Individual Level of Analysis

\-concerns the perceptions, choices, and actions of individual human beings

\-Does it matter who is making the decisions?

\-Something about the character of the individual causes this to occur

Rational

pursuing their goals & self-interests by MAXIMIZING these at the least cost

Domestic Level of Analysis

\-Something about the character of the state causes this to occur

\-Does the domestic character of the state or domestic politics matter for outcomes?

\-ex. regime type

Bureaucratic politics model of the domestic level of analysis

State is not a unitary actor

Where you stand on foreign politics depends on where you sit in domestic government

Ex. CIA has different foreign policy ideals than some members of Congress

State does not just have one goal, not everyone agrees on everything

Character of the state model of the domestic level of analysis

NOT dividing the state into parts & looking at the push & pull

you are looking @ the state as a whole & its characteristics (ex. regime type, economy, ideology)

Systemic level of analysis

State of the international system

Does the way that the international system is organized best explain the behavior of states?

looks at STRUCTURE & PROCESS

Four main subfields of political science

\-American

\-International Relations

\-Political Theory

\-Comparative Politics

what is scientific about political science?

Observes the cardinal rules of scientific logic

Steps of IR

\-Definition/Description

\-Explanation

\-Prediction

\-Prescription

What does IR study?

Relations between world governments or states

different historical systems

\-

Modern State System (Treaty Westphalia 1648)

\-World Imperial System -Feudal System

Why are states unique in the international system?

•Territory (Control Borders)

•Militaries

•Tax

Nation-State

\-Nation = people

\-State = territory a state where people all share a nationality, culture, language, etc.

there are few true nation states

Nationalism

intense love of the state that is an important ideational cause of war

non-state actors

groups other than states that attempt to play a role in the international system

IGO

intergovernmental organizations

state governments are members of these organizations (ex. European Union)

non-governmental organizations

an international organization not made of state actors (ex. Doctors Without Borders)

Multinational Corporations

Companies that operate across national boundaries (ex. McDonald's)

terrorist group

A group that utilizes violence to political ends (ISIS)

Globalization

increasing interconnectedness of states throughout the world

globalization is not new but...

the pace has increased, altered by technology

Free-Rider Problem

one state pays for a collective good, everyone else enjoys the benefit

marxism and feminism

different epistemologies

disagree with theories of the ability to do "value-free" science

Realists think state should…

balance against power prioritize self-help

subfields of IR

International security

international political economy

International law and organization

Rational Choice Theory

individuals act to maximize their own self-interest

Bounded Rationality

leaders aren't perfectly rational, they are boundedly rational (don't have enough time, correct info, emotionality)

Affective Bias

individuals are emotional beings, positive/negative feelings about another leader or country

Cognitive Bias

humans want to get rid of cognitive dissonance

when information doesn't match our expectations, we explain it away or don't give it value as truth

Groupthink

individuals in groups want to go along with majority so they don't do cost benefit analysis

groups are more likely to take risks because blame is dispersed

leads to irrationality

overoptimism

Prospect Theory

people are more risk averse in the domain of gains than in losses

more willing to risk to not lose something than to gain something

Crisis Management

in a crisis there isn't time for leaders to fully consider all options

ex. intense mental pressure, lack of sleep

Systemic Level of Analysis Strength

explain likelihood of events

Systemic Level of Analysis Weakness

doesn't explain timing or deviations from rationality

Domestic Level of Analysis Strength

useful for understanding why states might behave differently toward different countries that are similarly positioned in the international system

Domestic Level of Analysis Weakness

ignores that these domestic institutions are still a part of a larger international system and that may influence their behavior

doesn't explain all behavior (ex. US supported oppressive regimes like El Salvador)

Individual Level of Analysis Strength

helpful to understand timing of events

helpful for explaining events after the fact

Individual Level of Analysis Weakness

not good a predicting the future - individuals are unpredictable

Relative Power

ratio of power between two states

Balance of Power

Condition of roughly equal strength between opposing countries or alliances of countries.

Power Conversion

knowing what is the most valuable power resource at any specific time & being able to convert this power when needed

Ex. convert economic power to military power

realism

dominant paradigm for explaining Great Power War and conflicts

realism prioritizes

power

security dilemma

every time 1 state takes steps to increase their power, everyone else's power and security decreases bc they can't be sure of that state's intentions and capabilities

Principles of Realism

\-anarchy and self-help world

\-states are primary actors

\-Power very important

\-war is always a possibility

realism assumptions about states

goal = survival

rational

they all have SOME offensive capabilities

definition of power

ability to get others to do what you want

relative power

the ratio of power between states

can states trust each other in realism

no :) and they shouldn't

How can states balance of power in realism?

alliances- an agreement between states to pool their power against another power/alliance

bandwagoning- ride along w/ stronger power to secure themselves

build up military & economic goods

prisoner's dilemma for realists

it is rational for both to defect because they cannot trust that the other prisoner won't betray them! this is how you avoid your worst outcome (which is you cooperating & the other defecting)

Strands of Realism

classical realism

neorealism

neoclassical realism

classical realism

machiavelli, Hobbes, morgenthou

1\.systemic and domestic level

2\.Acknowledge the importance of statecraft (domestic) and systemic level factors (balance of power)

3\.Multipolar view is most stable, more opportunity for balancing power

Neo-Realism

1\.purely systemic theory- black boxes the state

2\.hard power shapes foreign power

3\.multipolarity is least stable (more likely for someone to balance ineffectively offensive vs. defensive vs.balance of threat

Offensive Neorealism (Mearsheimer)

states strive to be a hegemon

best defense is a good offense

pre-emptive strike policy

unipolar (hegemon) is most stable

GOAL IS POWER

Defensive Neorealism (Waltz)

GOAL IS SURVIVAL

don't go and grab too much power

only get involved in conflict as a last resort

bipolarity is most stable

Balance of Threat Theory (Walt)

states don't balance against power, they balance against threat

(ex. US doesn't balance against United Kingdom because it is not a threat, US balances against North Korea because they are a threat)

Neoclassical realism

1\.why a particular state chose a particular policy when it did based on domestic level analysis

2\.systemic and domestic factors

3\.power capabilities filtered through domestic structure like regime type (internal factors like the Great Depression prevented US from joining WWII earlier)

Hegemonic stability theory

Is cooperation possible for realists?

sort of?

alliances are fleeting & intergovernmental institutions allow for great powers to perpetuate their influence

No real meaningful trust in these alliances, more as a defense against a common enemy

How do realists solve the collective goods problem?

A hegemon should provide collective goods

EX) defeating the Taliban was a collective good but when everyone else pulled out, the US as a hegemon had to do it themselves

Liberalism Principles

Explains Peace and Cooperation

States are Primary Actors

Shadow of the Future

shadow of the future

when states are concerned with long term interests instead of short term interests, states are less likely to defect and more likely to cooperate because they will have to continue interacting in the future

prisoner's dilemma for liberals

states don't only play the game once, they continually play it and talk with each other, so to avoid it becoming tit for tat, they cooperate with each other

Absolute Gains (Liberalism)

due to cooperation, states don't need to care about relative power, but about absolute gains (increasing the whole pie so everyone's slices get bigger)

3 strands of liberalism

neoliberalism

economic

social

neoliberalism

International institutions...

\-create and enforce rules

\-increase transparency

\-increase contact and communication

\-reduce transaction cost

(SYSTEMIC LEVEL THEORY)

Democratic Peace Theory

liberal democracies don't fight each other because of norms and institutions

(DOMESTIC LEVEL THEORY)

Critiques of Democratic Peace theory

realists- DPT is a coincidence of the nuclear age, not about values and institutions

constructivists- definition of democracy has changed so much over time that it can be made to fit whatever case you are arguing

Economic liberalism

economic interdependence may make war less likely

social liberalism

transnational contacts promote understanding, like letting the prisoners talk in the prisoner's dilemma game