p+d developments knowledge flashcards

At the end of WW2, the UN took the moral lead in trying to establish an international community in which the rule of law and universal human rights could challenge aggressive nationalism and racism. The Charter of the UN 1945 laid the foundations for a new world order based upon cooperation between nation-states rather than conflict. In 1948, the UDHR established an international standard of human rights.  Tragically …

1948 coincided with the Soviet takeover of Czechoslovakia and the Berlin Airlift - marking the beginning of the Cold War and  overshadowed the ideals of the UDHR. The deterioration of global relationships and the descent into the Cold War left the UN gridlocked, as each power would veto one another. It was in the interest of each superpower to advance its tactical interests at the expense of the other, meaning each state became engaged in proxy wars to advance the interests of its allies.

Between 1991, following the fall of the Soviet Union and the beginning of a ‘New World Order’, and 2003, the US became unipolar and the world's only superpower. Immanuel Kant's democratic peace theory argued that through democracy and cooperation we can attain perpetual peace. In the 60s, this theory became …

 more cohesive and a principle that many democracies became accountable to. Therefore, democracies became more amenable to multilateral engagement and less likely to engage in unilateral actions. US power became limited following 2003 during the War on Terror. The War undermined the USs commitment to democracy and human rights

 The rise of more authoritarian governments such as China and Russia at this time further challenged the importance of human rights and democratic principles. Human rights have not become irrelevant due to the rise of …

authoritarianism and populism (rise of the right wing in Europe especially). Humanitarian interventions have occurred in this time to varying degrees of success. To suggest human rights are no longer protected is misleading.

Global Issues (i) - Poverty

• Attempts to spread democracy in regions yet to experience it leads to short to long term instability eg. Tunisia and ‘power vacuums’.  

• Neoliberal economic policies have widened the wealth gap and allowed workers and those in developing countries to be exploited by richer states and TNCs. 

• Democratic states hold commitments to social welfare that reduce policy. The same can also be said for non-democratic countries, as a precedent has been set by the spread of liberal ideas to reduce poverty eg. in China lifting 800 million out of extreme poverty and India. 

• Economic interdependence could either help development or deepen poverty and exploitation.  

• Concentration of wealth = global inequality accelerates and the wealthiest grow richer, whilst the poor remain desperate. 

Poverty - example (1)

Free market policies have stimulated rapid economic growth in many nations such as Slovenia, elevating incomes and living standards. Economic expansion helps reduce poverty and generates jobs alongside those created by entrepreneurial individuals, which is valued in …

the liberal approach to economics. These policies attract foreign investment, fostering infrastructure development and economic diversification, particularly benefiting impoverished regions.

Poverty - example (2)

Free markets also drive innovation, leading to new technologies and industries e.g Taiwanese integrated circuits, thereby improving citizens' quality of life and contributing to economic growth. In free market economies, income inequality can widen due to uneven wealth distribution, creating …

significant gaps between the rich and poor e.g USA, where in 2022  income at the top of the income distribution was 13.53 times higher than income at the bottom( a 4.9% increase from 2020).

Poverty - example (3)

Unregulated markets - ‘laissez-faire’ can exploit vulnerable populations lacking social safety nets as a result of lower liberal government interference, perpetuating cycles of poverty. Profit-driven practices in these economies can cause environmental degradation e.g Amazon rainforest, especially affecting impoverished communities. Also …

 globalised free markets may lead to job outsourcing, potentially reducing employment opportunities in developed nations. De Soto - Increasingly globalised world, less developed countries must be actively welcomed and included in this market.

Global Issues (ii) - Environment

• Democracies often respond to public pressure for action, whereas non-democratic states do not. Rouge and autocratic states often seek stability over long-term commitments, meaning they will engage in destructive weaponry programmes, oil production and energy-intensive production in order to create a strong regime, short term economic gain etc. (eg. North Korea and China).

• International cooperation due to the spread of liberalism - international environmental goals eg. Paris Agreement. However, these depend on state alignment and shared responsibility, which many non-democratic states do not engage in well. 

• Global interconnectedness through globalisation and the spread of democracy through IGOs allow for shared, large-scale projects and innovation eg. Chinese wind turbine technology and solar. 

• Resource competition may cause future conflict eg. water scarcity in the Middle East and Africa.

Environment - examples (1)

The democratic USA arguably acted as a ‘rogue state’ when Donald Trump pulled the country out of the Paris Climate Agreement- although the Biden administration has rededicated the country to tackling environmental issues, the debacle demonstrates how changeable attitudes are and …

how immensely powerful states like the USA can act as they please without conferring with other states e.g USA is too powerful to be threatened by sanctions to force it to act in the interests of the global community. 

Environment - examples (2)

China, a non-democratic state, leads the world in developing renewable energy, accounting for nearly ½ of the world’s low-carbon spending in 2022 ($546bn), nearly 4x the USA investments in 2022 ($141bn) and around 3x as much as the second largest contributor, the EU ($180bn). This arguably shows …

non-democratic governments are able to respond more effectively to climate change as there is an absence of the populist politics associated with democracy: as is exemplified by Sunak’s U- turn on key green targets e.g pushing back the ban on the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 5 yrs, from 2030 to 2035.

Global Issues (iii) - Economy

• The spread of liberal economics creates complex interdependence, creating global vulnerability as seen in the 2008 economic crash, aftermath of the Russia-Ukraine invasion etc. 

• Regional alliances and economies arise. For example, BRICS often work together economically and regarding trade. Economic ‘regions’ exist in eg. Hong Kong, Silicon Valley etc.

• Increased trade, manufacturing and exports by TNCs cause states to ‘race to the bottom’ so that companies choose to produce/trade with them, often worsening workers rights and living conditions.

• State power is given to the IMF and WTO increasingly to govern over economics and interactions between states.

Global Issues (vi) - Conflict

Interstate wars are wars fought between sovereign states and generally between their professional armies. However, since the 1980s , 95% of wars have been civil wars -wars within states

• Last pre 2022 ‘proper’ state vs state war = 2023 US and UK invasion of Iraq (US 150,000 soldiers, UK 50,000 and some small resources/soldiers from Australia, Poland and Canada). So everyone thought inter-state war capability is becoming less relevant to state power.

• But then Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine 2022-ongoing may well have ‘ripped up the rule book’. Or was this simply a one off aberration that doesn’t reflect the overall global trend? 

• The variety of types of states internationally shape diplomacy and IR differently: whilst democracies are more likely to prioritise human rights and cooperation, autocratic and rogue regimes might act unpredictably and prioritise stability, arms and control. Different priorities will result in a lack of consensus globally. 

Power imbalances will arise as a result of more powerful states (eg. US and China) and weaker states will have to seek alliances, creating greater competition and greater risks of war. Stable democracies are able to prevent interstate conflict and encourage a peaceful resolution, however the transition towards this isn’t simple. Eg. in Afghanistan. This can lead to …

greater conflict and friction globally. The promotion of democratic ideals as ‘better’ than other systems can create backlash, both internally and externally, leading to populism and coups. As more states change, the global power dynamic shifts (Eg. China and the US, the rise of regional powers eg. India and Iran) create tensions over trade, territory and influence.

Relevance of war in modern global politics:

Interstate wars are wars that are fought between sovereign states and generally between their professional armies. However, since the 1980s , 95% of wars have been civil wars -wars within states. The last pre 2022 ‘proper’ state vs state war  was the 2023 US and UK invasion of Iraq (US 150,000 soldiers, UK 50,000 and some small resources/soldiers from …

Australia, Poland and Canada). Everyone thought inter-state war capability is becoming less relevant to state power - but then Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine 2022-ongoing may well have ‘ripped up the rule book’. Or was this simply a one off aberration that doesn’t reflect the overall global trend?

Difficulty of resolving conflict using military:

• Terrorist threats eg. Al Qaeda / ISIS are not a state, they do not have professional armed forces to be met in conventional battle, and don’t often have territory that can be captured.

• So to have control over Al Qaeda / ISIS a large military in the conventional style may really not help.

• The change from wars being ‘state vs state’ conflicts to other forms of combat, has led to the use of the term ‘New Terms’. 

• New wars are often: civil wars, where people fight for a particular social identity/group, fought between forces of different strengths (called asymmetric warfare) and/or include groups using all methods to achieve their aims, including the brutal treatment of civilians. 

Types of War:

Wars are diverse. Wars tend to arise from different situations and play different sorts of roles in bargaining over conflicts. 

1. Hegemonic war: is a war over control of the entire world order. This class of wars (with variations) is also known as …

 world war, global war, general war, or systemic war. The last hegemonic war was World War II. This kind of war probably cannot occur any longer without destroying civilization.

2. Total war is warfare by one state waged to conquer and occupy another. Total war as we know it began with the mass destruction of the Napoleonic Wars, which introduced large-scale conscription and geared the entire French national economy toward the war effort. In total war, with the entire society mobilized for the struggle, the entire society of the enemy is considered a legitimate target.

3. Limited war includes military actions carried out to gain some objective short of the surrender and occupation of the enemy. For instance, the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 1991 retook the territory of Kuwait but did not go on to Baghdad to topple Saddam Hussein’s government. Many border wars have this character: after occupying the land it wants, a state may stop and defend its gains, as Russia did after expelling Georgian troops from disputed Georgian provinces in 2008, for example. Raids are limited wars that consist of a single action—a bombing run or a quick incursion by land. 

4. Civil war refers to war between factions within a state trying to create, or prevent, a new government for the entire state or some territorial part of it. (The aim may be to change the entire system of government, to merely replace the people in it, or to split a region off as a new state.) The U.S. The Civil War of the 1860s is a good example of a secessionist civil war. The war in …

El Salvador in the 1980s is an example of a civil war for control of the entire state (not secessionist). Civil wars often seem to be among the most brutal wars. The 50,000 or more deaths in the civil war in El Salvador, including many from massacres and death squads, were not based on ethnic differences.

5. Guerilla war includes certain kinds of civil wars, warfare without front lines. Irregular forces operate in the midst of, and often hidden or protected by, civilian populations. The purpose is not to directly confront an enemy army but rather to harass and punish it so as to gradually limit its operation and effectively liberate territory from its control. Rebels in most civil wars use such methods. U.S. military forces in South Vietnam fought against Vietcong guerrillas in the 1960s and 1970s, with rising frustration. Guerrilla wars hurt civilians, who suffer most when no military force firmly controls a location, opening the door to banditry, personal vendettas, sexual violence, and other …

such lawless behavior. The situation is doubly painful because conventional armies fighting against guerrillas of ten cannot distinguish them from civilians and punish both together. In one famous case in South Vietnam, a U.S. officer who had ordered an entire village burned to deny its use as a sanctuary by the Vietcong commented, “We had to destroy the village to save it.” Warfare increasingly is irregular and guerrilla-style; it is less and less often an open conventional clash of large state armies. 

Theories of the causes of war:

The Roman writer Seneca said nearly 2,000 years ago: “Of war men ask the outcome, not the cause.” This is not true of political scientists. They want to ….

know why countries fight. Similarly, Prussian military theorist von Clausewitz said “war is politics by other means”. 

The individual level -   On the individual level, theories about war center on rationality. One theory, consistent with realism, holds that the use of war and other violent means of leverage in international conflicts is normal and reflects rational decisions of national leaders. An opposite theory holds that conflicts often escalate to war because of deviations from rationality in the …

individual decision-making processes of national leaders. Some wars clearly reflect rational calculations of national leaders, whereas others clearly were mistakes and cannot be considered rational. Certainly some individual leaders seem prone to turn to military force to try to settle conflicts on favorable terms. But a maker of war can become a maker of peace, as did Egypt’s Anwar Sadat. Individuals of many cultural backgrounds and religions lead their states into war, as do both male and female leaders

The domestic level -   The domestic level draws attention to the characteristics of states or societies that may make them more or less prone to use violence in resolving conflicts. During the Cold War, Marxists frequently said that the aggressive and greedy capitalist states were prone to use violence in international conflicts, whereas Western leaders claimed that the expansionist, ideological, and …

totalitarian nature of communist states made them especially prone to using violence. In truth, both types of society fought wars regularly. Likewise, rich industrialized states and poor agrarian ones both go to war. Anthropologists have found that a wide range of preagricultural hunter-gatherer societies were much more prone to warfare than today’s societies.

The interstate level -   Theories at the interstate level explain wars in terms of power relations among major actors in the international system. Power transition theory holds that conflicts generate large wars at times when power is relatively equally distributed and a rising power is threatening to overtake a declining hegemon. At this level, too, incompatible theories compete. Deterrence is supposed to stop wars by building up power and threatening its use. But the theory of arms races holds that wars are …

caused, not prevented, by such actions. No general formula has been discovered to tell us in what circumstances each of these principles holds true. Some political scientists study war from a statistical perspective, analyzing data on types of wars and the circumstances under which they occurred. Current research focuses on the effects of such factors as democracy, government structure, trade, and international organizations in explaining the escalation or settlement of “militarized interstate disputes.”

The global level -  At the global level, a number of theories of war have been proposed. Of the several variations on the idea that major warfare in the international system is cyclical, one approach links large wars with long economic waves (also called …

Kondratieff cycles) in the world economy, of about 50 years’ duration. Another approach links the largest wars with a 100-year cycle based on the creation and decay of world orders.

Iraq as a ‘new war’:

The Iraq war 2003 - 11 could be seen as an Old state vs state war that then morphed into a new war (inter religious civil war, with outside intervention) where the: 

• Fight was against insurgents (suicide bombers, religous groups etc. not regualar soldiers)

• Troops were used to pacify the population and stop the country descending into civil war - they didn’t just leave when the state vs state fighting was over. 

• Economic aid and weaponry given to different religious military groups.

Recent examples of where military hard power mattered: (1)

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war = Azerbaijan (with Turkish help) versus the breakaway Armenian Republic of Artsakh and Armenia on the other side. Fighting lasted 6 weeks and included the use of long range artillery, missiles and online ‘info wars’ to galvanise domestic and international opinions. Azerbaijan's widespread use of drones was seen as crucial. As a result of the conflict Azerbaijan gained territory including the …

2nd largest town in Nagorno-Karabakh called Shusha. A ceasefire ended the conflict in November. But no-one thinks this matter is settled for good. Indeed it wasn’t - in 2023 the Armenians were driven out of Nagorno-Karabakh altogether by another Azerbaijan offensive -in part because the Armenian government rather abandoned supporting the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Recent examples of where military hard power mattered: (2)

Ukraine and Russia war 2022-present, Gaza since 2023 (sort of). This isn't a state-vs-state war, it is more of a …

new war. But Israel’s use of hard power is clear. As it is in its attacks in Syria, Iran, Qatar, Lebanon etc.

Are interstate wars a thing of the past?

Since the late C19th, ideas such as the “new wars” thesis have suggested that the …

‘traditional’ conception of war as organised violence between two or more nation-states is becoming less relevant.

Yes - no more declarations of war …

Whereas interstate wars were once something the belligerents proclaimed in the form of official declarations, this is now very rare. The US, for example, has played a leading role in many of the largest-scale wars since WW2. This means that its wars in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Afghanistan and its dozens of counter-insurgency and …

counter-terrorism operations in Africa and the Middle East, were all ‘undeclared’. The US doesn’t consider itself at war with the state or population of the country in question, rather with a particular government or non-state group. 

Yes - The rise of civil war and counter-insurgency: From Cote d’Ivoire’s 2 civil wars and the ongoing civil war in Syria, to Afghanistan's 2 decades of unsuccessful counter-insurgency against the Taliban (2002-21) under …

the governments of Hamid Karzai and Ashraf Ghani, wars between or against substrate actors are now more common than wars between states. 

Yes - Non-state actors in conflict:

Increasingly, armed conflicts are led by non-state actors. From insurgencies and militant groups to private military and security companies, such actors are now …

able to fulfil almost all the roles that state violence once did. Militant networks such as ISIS have found themselves at war not only with Syria and other states, but also Kurdish separatist militant groups, and even other ‘Islamist’ networks.

No - Proxy wars: Since the Cold War there have been frequent 'proxy' wars, where a confrontation between 2+ states plays out indirectly. The Korean and Vietnam Wars were classic examples of proxy wars, with the US and Western allies indirectly facing off against China and the USSR, by fighting communist forces in key neighbouring countries that these two superpowers armed and supported. More recent examples include French and UN forces, which intervened in the First Ivorian Civil War (2002-7), seeking to …

halt the advance of insurgent groups armed by Russia and its allies. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov even declared that the country's war with Ukraine in 2022 was “a proxy war”. In a few weeks, the US sent over $800 million of arms and equipment to Ukrainian forces - including thousands of advanced missile systems, rifles and other small arms, and more than 20 million rounds of ammunition, grenades and mortars.

No - Regime change as interstate war:  The USA argued through its 'war on terror' that it wasn’t in fact invading or 'at war with' Afghanistan or Iraq as states, but rather launching humanitarian missions to protect the populations of. these countries from their own governments and dangerous non- state actors. But waging war for what is often called …

'regime change' within a state - aiming to replace a specific government, leader, or constitutional arrangement - still tends to entail the invasion, occupation, and defeat of official state forces, of a sovereign power. This suggests that the discursive framing of war has become more important, rather than interstate war being necessarily in decline.

No - the ‘return of history’: China’s hardening stance over Hong Kong and Taiwan suggest that the use of force may be seen as reasonable in reasserting territorial control over what it considers 'breakaway' regions that have been granted too much autonomy. Meanwhile, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine constituted a …

direct interstate war between two neighbouring powers, with the more-or-less explicit goal on the part of Russia being the annexation of further Ukrainian territory (following its successful annexation of Crimea in 2014) and replacement of the national government in Kyiv, as well as more nebulous plans for ‘de- Nazifying' the country once occupied.

Has military power become redundant?

Military power has traditionally been viewed as the chief currency of international politics. However, some argue that in recent decades the threat and use of …

 force have become increasingly obsolete as a means of determining global outcomes.

Yes - Obsolescence of War: The spread of democratic governance has led to widening 'democratic zones of peace', democratic states being reluctant to go to war with one another. The emergence, since 1945, of a system of international law centred around the UN has also changed moral attitudes towards the use of force, making wars of …

plunder non-legitimate. The advent of total war, and especially the development of nuclear weapons, means that the impact of war is so devastating that it has ceased to be a viable instrument of state policy. 

Yes - trade: Globalisation has reduced the incidence of war in at least three ways. First, states no longer need to make economic gains by conquest because globalization offers a cheaper and easier route to national prosperity in the form of trade. Second, by …

significantly increasing levels of economic interdependence, globalization makes war almost unthinkable because of the high economic costs involved (trade partnerships destroyed, external investment lost, and so on). Third, trade and other forms of economic interaction build international understanding.

Yes - unwinnable wars: Changes in the nature of warfare have made it increasingly difficult to predict the outcome of war. This is reflected in the difficulty developed states have in winning 'asymmetrical' wars, such as the Vietnam War and in the …

counter-insurgcency wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the USA as the world's only military superpower is unable to wage war with a guaranteed likelihood of success. 

No - war as endless: Realists dismiss the idea that war has, or could, come to an end, on the grounds that the international system continues to be biased in favour of conflict. Military power remains the only sure guarantee of a state's survival and security, and the …

irresolvable security dilemma means that fear and uncertainty persist. Moreover, 'zones of peace' may contract due to the 'rolling back' of globalization and a shift towards economic nationalism and intensifying great-power rivalry.

No - New security challenges: The decline of interstate war does not mean that the world has become a safer place. New security threats such as terrorism and WMDs have emerged. Such threats underline the …

need for states to develop more sophisticated military strategies, both to ensure tighter domestic security and, possibly, to attack foreign terrorist camps and maybe states that harbour terrorists.

No - Humanitarianism: Since the end of the Cold War, the purpose of war and the uses to which military power is put have changed. Humanitarian considerations go hand in hand with considerations of national …

self-interest. Without military intervention from outside, civil wars, ethnic conflict and humanitarian disasters often threaten regional stability and result in migration crises.