IR Exam 1 Review

Where does Political Science fit into science? What are its subfields?

Political science is under Social Sciences. Other subfields include Economics, Sociology, Anthropology, etc.

What are the Big 3 IR Theories?

Realism - believes that international politics tends towards conflict and competition, rather than cooperation; agree that all states exist and compete in an anarchic international system

Liberalism - believes that states prefer cooperation to competition and states will eventually trend toward peaceful outcomes; believe international system is anarchic, but over time cooperation and international institutions can help to reduce lawlessness

Constructivism - believes that states and individuals have a great deal of freedom to change the nature of politics as they are conducted

Importance of the Treaty of Westphalia?

One of the first major treaties to conclude with recognition that states had sovereignty over their territory (states were represented rather than kings), contrasting earlier medieval period where the default unit of political organization tended to be nobles.

How do ethics and classical realism relate?

Foundational classical realist thinkers believe contemporary thinkers have gone too far in eliminating any moral analysis from politics; Classical realists think that power politics take priority over ethics

What are the major historical thinkers who influenced classical realism?

Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes

What is anarchy and how is it explained in classical realism and neorealism?

Anarchy is a state of political or social disorder resulting from absence/disregard of government or rule of law

As explained in classical realism: anarchy is because of HUMAN NATURE

As explained in neorealism: anarchy is because of STRUCTURAL/SYSTEMIC causes

Thucydides Trap definition and a modern-day example?

A phenomena in which a new rising power comes into major conflict with the great power of the current political order (the little guy confronting the big guy). A modern day example is the rising tensions between the U.S. (greater power) and China (lesser power).

Why are so many classical realists worried about Hubris?

Hubris, or believing you are stronger/better than you really are, can cause states with overwhelming power to discard things that made them successful in favor of unilateral action and force of arms; too much pride can cause you to lose everything and make irrational decisions

Prudence

Deliberation, Moderation, and Good Judgement. States exhibit this when they understand their limits, and by having a smaller goal, are generally more successful.

Why is the Peloponnesian War so important for IR scholars?

The scale of the war changed norms and longer/more brutal than anything Greek states had experienced up until that time. Also an example of a major Thucydides trap (Athens challenging Spartan dominance of Greek states) and a historical parallel with WW1. (This war led to end of Athenian Democracy and established the “Thirty Tyrants”, a group of pro-Spartan Leaders.)

What are the main events of Pericles’ Funeral Oration and the Melian Dialogue?

Pericles’ Funeral Oration: speech after outbreak of war with Sparta to fulfill custom of respecting the dead with a eulogy. Attempting to rally support for the war and encourage audience to rise to occasion of the conflict. Things he states are important to Athenian Success: Democracy, Equality of Opportunity, Respect for Law, Open/Tolerant Society, Willingness to face danger naturally, Prudence and Civic virtue (contributing to the public).

The Melian Dialogue: Athenian forces land on Melos and try to convince Melians to surrender. Melians point out that Athenians, by attacking them, will make other states feel threatened (self-destructive tendencies). Athenians insist they MUST conquer Melos because friendliness = weakness and hatred = evidence of power as the leader of an alliance. Melians refuse to surrender, believing weaker sides have prevailed in war. Athenians believe they are foolish and should save themselves now, contradicting Pericles who believed it was more honorable to die fighting than to save their lives (demonstrating a Realist perspective). Melians resist and are defeated.

What are Hobbes’ main points and how does he relate to Anarchy?

Hobbes: Equality = distribution of talents/abilities across people. All humans are equal, so no one person is invulnerable to weakness. War is an expectation of conflict, and the constant expectation of danger/harm keeps people in a state of war. Root cause of conflict = Equality of ability AND Equality of want; To end the state of war, 1. Agree that no conflict for self-interested reasons, and be willing to give up right to fight/ 2. Transfer power to a leader who will enforce basic rules/ 3. Punish those who disobey the covenant they agreed to or those who try to enforce it on people who didn’t sign up for it.
Overall: Human Nature is violent because we hav e

Anarchy: In this case, the “state of war” is anarchy, and to end this, we must give a leader power and have a centralized source of authority.

What is the state of nature/state of war and what concept is it related to?

Constant expectation of/exposure to danger and harm without security or peace, related to anarchy. The state of nature IS a state of anarchy, and is EXPECTED when there is not an overarching power (sovereign) to prevent it.

What is Machiavelli’s attitude about being loved vs being feared?

It is better to be feared than loved, but ideally both. It is more straightforward to be effective as a feared ruler, but it is more fickle to be effective as a loved ruler. Ultimate goal is to keep subjects united and loyal, so you may have to do bad things, but ensure you are not HATED. Demonstrate strength, but not cruelty towards citizens.

Machiavelli on Generosity and Meanness?

Believes generosity is self-defeating and contradictory. To be known as generous, you must spend and give away lavishly, but in order to have resources to do so you must tax more harshly. It is impossible to maintain a reputation for generosity without winding up poor or hated.

Morgenthau’s Principles of Realism

1. Politics is governed by laws in human nature

2. Political theory should be based around power

3. State Interests in terms of Power = center of study of IR (what do I want and how do I get it)

4. Moral Thinking should not be absent from political decision making

5. No nation is inherently good in its foreign policy (4 and 5 are related)

6. Politics is its own field alongside econ, law, etc.

Morgenthau’s Definition of Power

Power may compromise anything that establishes and maintains the control of man over man (money, prestige, professionalism, cultural obligation, force, etc)

How does Morgenthau understand the study of politics relative to other fields?

Politics is a distinct field of study, as interest and power is the “subject” of politics we study while other fields focus on their relevant aspects.

Status Quo vs Revisionist/Imperialist States

Status Quo = Countries whose policies focus on keeping their own power

Revisionist/Imperialist = Countries whose policies focus on increasing their power

Polices to DEMONSTRATE power = unique to Morgenthau. involves prestige, diplomacy, positioning; most states engage in this to some extent

Neorealism vs. Classical Realism

Classical Realism: States want power because their leaders want it due to some inherent aspect of human nature. (Eg. Hobbes: human nature is violent due to unlimited wants and equal ability to achieve them)

Neorealism: Human nature = not a relevant factor in state behavior. Assume states are rational actors responding to systemic pressures in order to maximize security. Sates act the same way bc of the same pressures, and are “black boxes” = internal politics are irrelevant for predicting behavior

What kind of actor do neorealists consider states?

Rational Actors: states that will always act in a way to maximize SECURITY. (Main idea of neorealism)

Polarity

Distribution of power in international system

Unipolar (1 option), Bipolar (2 options), Multipolar (many options)

Offense-Defense balance

Idea that in some eras, due to a combination of military tactics and technology, effectiveness of attacking or defending may vary. States are more likely to find situations threatening when they believe offense is favored in offense-defense balance; this increases likelihood of security dilemmas/wars. (eg. Invention of nuclear weapons has greatly shifted offense-defense balance in favor of the defense.)

Offensive vs. Defensive Realists

Defensive Realists (WALTZ) - believe that states should pursue an OPTIMAL amount of power to maximize their security, and any more power after this amount is too threatening and states will balance against it. Also believe wars emerge due to miscalculations/misunderstandings

Offensive Realists - believe best strategy to ensure security is to pursue hegemony or amass as much power as possible; believe this strategy reflects the real empirical history of IR. Also believe wars emerge from rational choices made by states

Security Dilema

Occurs when the actions a state takes to make itself more secure ends up provoking another state (who then balances, provoking first state further). Leads to a spiral and eventually war

Waltz’s definition of a theory

A depiction of the organization of a domain and of the connection among its parts; Indicates that some factors are more important than others and specifies relations among them

What does Waltz mean when he talks about a unit and system?

Units = states, “players” that behave a certain way, what is within the system

System = what influences the units

What is the main attribute of the international system for Neorealists?

Anarchy - absence of central force: creates insecurity and in re-gaining security, causes states to go to war

What is the difference in behavior between mutipolar and bipolar alliances?

Mutlipolar alliances - very fragile, must find common ground between several diff partners, cannot afford to show weakness or risk falling apart. Fail to address emerging issues.

Bipolar alliances- more long term but little freedom which side you are on. Within that power bloc, greater degree of freedom to set policies and participate. Great powers can afford to go against allies often due to lack of alternatives for their security. Issues are addressed immediately. (WALTZ prefers this)

How does Waltz think nuclear weapons have changed international politics?

Nuclear weapons are a unit-level change which affects the entire system. Offer deterrent ability and are sufficiently powerful that they change appetite of risks for states considering their use.

What tends to provoke alliances (WALT)? What factors provoke threat?

Aggregate Power = measure of states total resources
- Population, Industrial Capability, Military Capability, Technological Prowess

Geographic Proximity = states that are nearby are more threatening than those who are far away

Offensive Power = states with large offensive capabilities are more likely to provoke an alliance than those incapable of attacking

Aggressive Intentions = states viewed as aggressive are likely to provoke others to balance against them

Power vs. Threat in alliance formation?

Leaders do not ONLY consider power in alliance formation, but treat power as ONE FACTOR among many. THREAT is the most important of these factors in responding to changing international conditions.

What can a state do to respond to danger?

A state can balance or bandwagon with other states and form alliances.

Balancing Definition and Politics when Balancing is more common?

Forming Alliances with other states against a threat. When balancing is more common, the international system is more stable, as aggressive states are not tempted to attack due to threat of other states balancing against it. States want to keep a revisionist power from winning.

Bandwagoning Definition and Politics when Bandwagoning is more common?

Aligning with a stronger power in order to avoid being conquered. When bandwagoning is more common, the international system is more unstable, with rising powers leveraging momentum to conquer many states. States want to get on the winning side as fast as possible.

Internal Balancing

Building up power within ones own state without relying on alliances

External Balancing

Gaining power with the help of other states