midterm

Mercantilism

* system by which imperial gov’ts used military power to enrich themselves and their supporters → enhance their military power.
* favored mother countries 

Hegemony

The predominance of one nation-state over others

Decolonization

* The process of colonial possessions winning ind
* esp during the rapid end of the European empires in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean between the 1940s and the 1960s.

Cold War

* superpowers + allies sought to max global influence, wanted gains in wealth 
* **NATO**: US + Canada + W Europe, attack on any = attack on all 
* **Warsaw Pact:** Soviet Union + Eastern bloc 
* Eastern vs. Western blocs, rise of third world 
* most dominant countries occupied with war/rebuilding
* colonial areas neglected → pressure for ind → **de-colonization** 
* now world composed of sovereign states 

Interests

What actors want to achieve through political action

Actors

* The basic unit for the analysis of international politics
* states, bureaucracies, transnational NGOs, voters, elected representatives, corporations

State

* a central authority that has the ability to make and enforce laws, rules, and decision within a specified territory central 
* always composed of multiplicity of diff groups 
* however, ppl want safety and strong economic base 

Sovereignty

The expectation that states have legal and political supremacy—or ultimate authority—within their territorial boundaries.

Anarchy

The absence of a central authority with the ability to make and enforce laws that bind all actors.

National Interest

Interests attributed to the state itself, usually security and power.

Interactions

the ways in which the choices of 2+ actors combine to produce political outcomes

Cooperation

* interaction where 2+ actors adopt policies that make at least one actor better off relative to the status quo w/o making others worse off
* positive-sum game
* easier for smaller # of actors

how do institutions affect cooperation

* setting standards of behavior
* verifying compliance
* reducing transaction costs of joint decision making
* selecting rules of interaction that make coop more likely

Coordination

* type of cooperative interaction
* actors benefit from all making the same choices → have no incentive not to comply 

Collaboration

* type of cooperative interaction


* actors gain from working together, however, have incentives not to comply with any agreement
* (ex Prisoner’s Dilemma, Global public goods)

Bargaining

* interaction in which 2+ actors must decide how to distribute something of value
* outcomes make one better off at the expense of another
* zero-sum game

Public Good

* nonexcludable, nonrival
* ex. nat’l defense

Collective Action Problems

obstacles to cooperation that occur when actors have incentive to collab but each acts w the expectation that others will pay the costs of collabing 

Free Ride

fail to contribute to a public good while benefitting from it 

Iteration

Repeated interactions with the same actors

Linkage

link coop on one issue to interactions on a second one

Power

ability to have someone make concessions and do what you want w/o having to make concessions yourself 

Coercion

strat of imposing/threatening to impose costs on actors in order to induce a change in their behavior

Outside Options

The alternatives to bargaining with a specific actor

* for states, this is war

Agenda

Actions taken before or during bargaining that make the reversion outcome more favorable for one party

Institutions

* set of rules that structure interaction in specific ways 
* are not neutral, actors try to tilt them in their direction
* ex. NATO, world bank, world trade org  

War

* an event involving the organized use of military force by 2+ parties that reaches a minimum threshold of severity (sustained, 1000 battle deaths)
* if the thing fighting over is divisible, there should always be a split that both states should prefer to war

Prisoner’s dilemma

why do wars happen

* incomplete information (uncertainty about resolve + capabilities)
* commitment problems
* indivisible goods

purpose of war

* not to fight, but to obtain. disputes over: 
* territory, policies, regime type

incentives to misrepresent capabilities

* appear stronger
* downplay own costs
* keep adversary guessing

Interstate War

* main participants are states 

Civil War

* main participants are within the same state


* ex govt & rebel group

Security Dilemma

* arises when efforts that state makes to defend themselves cause other states to feel less secure
* can lead to arms races/war bc of fear of being attacked

costs of war diminish

the value of expected war outcome to each state 

Crisis Bargaining

at least one actor threatens to use force in the event that its demands are not met

Coercive Diplomacy

use of threats to advance specific demands in a bargain

Bargaining Range

* set of deals that both parties in a bargaining interaction prefer over the reversion outcome. 
* when reversion outcome is war, the BR is the set of deals that both sides prefer over war

Compellence

* an effort to change the status quo through threat of force (give me x or else)

Deterrence

* An effort to preserve the status quo through the threat of force. (don’t do x or else)


* extended deterrence: dont attack ally x or else 

Resolve

* actor’s willingness to endure costs in order to acquire a particular good 

communicating resolve

* costly signals
* brinkmanship
* tying hands: Obama states red line but does not follow through
* paying for power: committing resources, mobilizing troops 

credible resolve

* credible resolve - big problem is “cheap talk” 
* all countries should declare their willingness to incur costs in order to deter others, but not all would follow up

Risk-Return trade-off

In crisis bargaining, the trade-off between trying to get a better deal and trying to avoid a war.

Brinksmanship

* strategy in which adversaries take actions that increase the risk of accidental war, with the hope that the other will lose its nerve first and make concessions
* JFK put missile crews on alert against Cuba 

Audience Costs

* negative repercussions for failing to follow through on a threat/commitment

Preventative War

* war fought w the intention of preventing an adversary from becoming stronger in the future 
* arise because a state whose power is increasing cannot commit not to exploit that power in future bargaining interactions
* ex the US vs Iraq in 2003 to prevent WMD development

Preemptive War

* fought w the anticipation that an attack by the enemy is imminent 

First-Strike Advantge

* situation when military tech/strategies and/or geography give a significant adv to whoever attacks first

length of wars

* 40% of interstate wars last six months or less.


* longest wars have been fought between declining and rising states when preventive motivations are the largest.

war less likely now bc

* democracies less likely to go to war
* Raise costs—nuclear weapons, international trade
* Increase transparency—satellite monitoring, international organizations (IAEA)
* Outside enforcement—UN peacekeepers; great power securit
* Declining interest in territorial expansion—the norm of “territorial integrity”

Indivisible Good

* A good that cannot be divided without destroying its value.


* ex Jerusalem
* Claims of indivisibility may be more strategic. - may well be divisible after all.

Nationalism

* political ideology that prioritizes attachment to one's nation
* nations are groups defined by common origin, ethnicity, language, or cultural ties.

Bureaucracy

the collection of orgs (military, diplomatic corps, intelligence agencies) that carry out most tasks of governance within a state

Interest Groups

Groups of individuals with common interests that organize to influence public policy in a manner that benefits their members.

Rally Effect

* a short term boost in gov’t approval from a foreign policy crisis


* rally for - reelection, to reestablish legitimacy if nondemocratic 
* makes bargaining range smaller 

Diversionary Incentive

* The temptation that state leaders have to start international crises in order to rally public support at home.


* right before invading Falkland Islands, there was many protests 
* war w Britain shifted public’s attention away from domestic issues
* Britain distracting from their econ recession - Thatcher approval ratings went from 29 to 51% 

Military-Industrial Complex

An alliance between military leaders and the industries that benefit from international conflict, such as arms manufacturers

military may favor war 

* its purpose is to wage war
* war = increased budgets, promotion opportunities 
* most important bureaucratic actor about war; best info  abt capabilities + resolve
* yet in practice, military often cautious/reluctant to go to war 
* ability to topple a gov’t (Zimbabwe) gives them sig influence over politics

negative economy effects of war

* less trade btwn states 
* less interest in investing (ex build factory) if it could be destroyed
* people don’t work in normal jobs if they are fighting 

private companies generally opposed to war except

* arms dealers
* firms that own/want to own resources in other countries 

collective action

* smaller groups tend to be better organized
* larger groups suffer from free riding (ex consumers) 
* special interests are more successful when there are: conc benefits + diffused costs

hawks

* favor war: perceive lower costs from war 
* hawkish interests not sufficient to cause war on their own 
* to tamp down hawkish interests: free and fair elections, party comp, free media 

doves

*  oppose war: perceive higher costs from war
* bargaining w dovish interests in state a = bargaining range shifted more toward state b (ovv) 

democratic institutions may discourage war

* forces consensus btwn elite + masses
* leaders accountable 
* masses bear costs
* promotes norms of negotiation 
* more transparent (open debate on policies) = less incomplete info 
* democratic process is slow, leaves time for interstate bargaining
* public can protest abt war  
* democracies do not CAUSE peace, maybe its their shared institutions/strategic interests 

Democratic Peace

*  norms of nonviolence in their dealing with each other as they may see themselves as a shared community of states
* public support for war among them is low 
* risk voter support by declaring war 
* democracies much less likely to go to war w one another 
* democracies are no less likely to go to war with autocracies

Democracy

political system in which candidates compete for political office through frequent, fair elections in which a sizable portion of the adult population can vote

Autocracy

political system in which an individual or small group exercises power with few constraints and no meaningful competition or participation by the general public

Accountability

* the ability to punish or reward leaders for the decisions they make
* frequent, fair elections enable voters to hold elected officials responsible for their actions by granting or withholding access to political office

challenges to “democracy causes peace” argument

* spread of democracy = young democracies = may empower groups like United Fruit that face huge gains from war 


* Common (alternative) cause: what if economic development makes democracy more likely and thus reduces likelihood of conflict? 
* Reverse causation: what if peaceful int’l relations are necessary for the est of democracy? 
* Spurious association: what if what really matters is that democracies happened to be allies after WWII against Russia? 

sources of order in int’l relations

* alliances
* collective security orgs

Alliances

Institutions that help their members cooperate militarily in the event of a war. Compare collective security organizations.

* shared security concerns, common ideology/identity

cost of alliances

* high
* typically commit to spending blood + treausre to defined ally
* limit freedom (must consult w allies)

types of alliances

* bilateral (among several states, NATO) vs multilateral
* offensive (Axis powers in WWII)  vs defensive (US/SK, US/Japan)
* asymmetric (powerful state commits to defending a weaker, US/SK)

why form alliances?

* weak state: gains protection


* strong state: signal its resolve to defend weak state
* combining resources may economize → greater defense
* temper conflicts
* formalize a sphere of influence (Warsaw Pact)

Balance of Power

A situation in which the military capabilities of two states or groups of states are roughly equal.

Bandwagoning

A strategy in which states join forces with the stronger side in a conflict.

bargaining model

* if A & C become allies → reduces likelihood that B invades
* should reduce likelihood of war..right? 
* however, by making outcome more favorable to A, this could actually increase chance of war (entrapment, moral hazard) 

Entrapment

emboldened ally may trap protector

* ex. some fear that Israeli attack on Iran’s nukes would drag US into war

do alliances work?

* no: WWI/II: any local conflict could suddenly rope in unrelated countries 
* yes: Cold War: no direct conflict happened, allies centered around 2 superpowers

NATO

* NATO expansion: formed during Cold War (vs Warsaw Pact)
* continued post-Soviet Union collapse in 1991
* deepen security cooperation

Warsaw Pact

* collective defense treaty during cold war of Soviet Union + allies

League of Nations

* post WWI
* first intergovernmental org to promote international coop, peace, security

United Nations

* General Assembly: all members, vote on commitee budgets 

United Nation Security Council

* main governing body of the UN
* authority to identify threats to international peace and security and to prescribe the organization's response, including military and/or economic sanctions.


* P5 + 10 on rotating 2 year term basis. Decisions binding on all members

Permanent Five (P5)

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council:

* the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia, China.

Veto Power (P5)

* Russia vetos resolutions to condemn killing of civilians in Syrian civil war
* US vetos “ in Israel vs. Palestine 

Collective Security Organization

influence interactions in pacifist ways (deter, end, prevent recurrence of interstate and civil wars)

* ex league of nations, UN

\

CSO problems

* joint decision-making: diff prefs


* free rider: if you’re going to benefit from the peace whether you intervene or not, why intervene?
* most likely to see successful intervention when large states have vested interest ex. Iraq invasion of Kuwait threatened US oil
* scope

Genocide

Intentional and systematic killing aimed at eliminating an identifiable (ethnic, religious, etc) group of people

Humanitarian Interventions

Interventions designed to relieve humanitarian crises stemming from civil conflicts or large-scale human rights abuses, including genocide.

Peace enforcement Operation

A military operation in which force is used to make and/or enforce peace among warring parties that have not agreed to end their fighting.

* intervene in active conflict iot coerce aggressor to stop 
* authorize use of force against agressor

Peacekeeping Operation

An operation in which troops and observers are deployed to monitor a cease-fire or peace agreement.

* impartial monitor of cond on the ground
* send peacekeepers as a buffer (Korean war, Gulf war)
* probably raises cost of aggressor action since they would need to harm neutral int’l actors to get to opponent
* help w stability tasks ex. election
* quite a few going on rn

UN peacekeeping ex

* Yugoslavia 92: Serbs ethnic cleansed Muslim Bosnian men 
* UN peacekeeprs lightly armed, scattered, fire in self-defense
* conflict ended when NATO intervened 

p5 problem

* uneven implementation
* ex Cold War, Russia v Ukraine, China’s activity in South China Sea

R2P

* R2P initiative: responsibility to protect pops from “genocide, war, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity”
* UN designed to limit int’l conflict
* joint request technically needed for peacekeeping (both countries must ask)
* but if one is committing atrocities and doesn’t want attn..R2P

civil war

* civil conflict: 25+ battle deaths
* civil war: 1000+ bds
* actors in civil wars often supported by int’l agents + have far reaching repercussions

reasons for civil war

* gov’t mistreatment of specific pops 
* ex Egypt / Coptic Christians
* greed: desire to control natural resources
* ex. CAR diamonds, gold, oil
* territorial: separatism
* ex US South
* irredentism (want to leave one country + join another) 
* coups
* ex Syria + Libya 
* conflicts of interest 

why resort to war?

* civil war = bargaining failure
* information asymmetries btwn gov’t/rebel groups 
* commitment problems
* how can rebels ensure state will live up to promises?
* resolution usually req rebel group to disarm 
* indivisible goods, or considering divisible goods (oil) as indivisible

groups organize for rebellion when

* they share ethnic/tribe/religious/linguistic affinity
* have access to resources to garner support 
* provide benefits only obtained by joining rebel group (blood diamonds, cocaine)
* share a sense of injustice directed @ gov’t