int. affairs terminology

Prisoner’s Dilemma

A game theory scenario where two rational agents must decide independently whether to cooperate for mutual benefit or betray their partner (“defect”) for individual gain.

Game Theory

A mathematical framework used to analyze strategic interactions between states and actors on the global stage.

Pareto Optimum Outcome

It’s impossible to make another actor better off without making one actor worse off.

Nash Equilibrium

No player has an incentive to change their strategy.

Levels of Analysis

Kenneth Waltz’s three “images of analysis” used to explain conflict in international politics:

1. Individuals: Human nature/passions, cognitive biases, risk propensity (risk-adverse or risk-seeking), experiences, and gender.

2. States: Regime type, economic system, bureaucracies and organizations, and military culture.

3. International System: Balance of power/polarity, power transitions, offense-defense balance, international institutions, economic interdependence, and global norms.

Anarchy

A lack of international authority to enforce agreements and prevent force. Basically, a world order that constantly threatens security.

Realism

A theory that the world is set in total anarchy, a world order that constantly threatens security. To achieve security in an anarchic world, states must either compete or cooperate.

Features of Realism

1. Anarchic global system

2. Power is key → It allows states to achieve their goals, and to avoid being dog food for another country.

3. Seeing states as unitary actors → Realists ignore the state's internal, messy politics and instead focus on a single external drive for survival.

4. Assumes states are rational actors

5. States judge each other by power level; internal factors like regime type or ideology are unimportant.

6. Seeing states as the key actors in the international system → Realists argue that international institutions play a less important role than states.

Neorealism/Structural Realism

States compete because the chaotic, anarchic system forces them to.

Even if every state just wanted to be left alone to survive (i.e., security seekers), the insecurity created by this anarchic system will inevitably push them into competition (e.g., arms races).

Classic/Motivational Realism

States compete because human nature causes leaders to lust for power, and not because of an anarchic global environment.

Defensive Realism

The international system does not create a general tendency towards competition. Under a range of conditions, states can achieve security through cooperation.

Offensive Realism

States try to maximize their power and pursue hegemony when possible.

Liberalism

A theory that the spread of democracy, global economic ties, and international organizations will create and strengthen peace.

Features of Liberalism

1. International Institutions → Set standard of behavior (rules), which details what members can and can’t do, making it possible to identify and punish violations.

2. Democratic Peace Theory

3. Economic Interdependence

Democratic Peace Theory

The belief that democratic nations are less likely to engage in armed conflict with each other.

Cost:

• Democracies have accountability systems.

• Rulers can be punished or rewarded by voters based on actions.

• Example: A costly or failed war reduces political support, risking a politician's office.

Institutions:

• Rulers have to navigate institutional checks and balances to declare war

• Open media shares vital information, making a democracy's moves transparent to opponents.

Norms

• Democratic states are less likely to engage in wars due to norms of mutual respect and nonviolence among themselves.

• These norms don't apply to interactions with non-democracies (seen as untrustworthy).

Liberals’ thoughts on Economic Interdependence

Liberals believe trade and other forms of economic interdependence promote peace.

• Trade-Disruption Hypothesis: Trade provides economic benefits; therefore, leaders avoid war due to fear of trade disruption, which would reduce these gains.

• You don’t want to go to war because you want to build the economy you’ve been investing in.

Mercantilists and Realists’ thoughts on Economic Interdependence

Mercantilists & Realists believe the liberalist take on economic interdependence = peace is bogus.

• Even if trade has a pacifying effect…states are motivated by power, and the economic costs of war are minor in the long-term struggle for power.

• Trade creates asymmetrical interdependence. State A will be more dependent on State B, than they are on State A.

Example: Were the Western powers truly concerned about trade when they decided to go to war against the hegemonic threats posed by Germany in 1914 and again in 1939?

Mercantilism

The economic doctrine that military and economic power go hand-in-hand. Birthed by European states trying to dominate one another.

Relative Gains

One state gains at another's expense (zero-sum game).

Example: Trade Deficit → Exports are less than imports

Absolute Gains

Specialization expands total global wealth, instead of gaining at another expense. (non-zero-sum game)

*Example: Capital Account Surplus → Bond, equity, foreign direct investment (FDI)

Constructivism

A theory that states that international politics is shaped by persuasive ideas, collective values, culture, and social identities.

International Laws

A body of rules that binds states and other agents in world politics and is considered to have the status of law.

Body of rules

Rules are woven together by one or more unifying principles, like sovereignty, in this case.

Status of law

A body of rules must include primary rules which regulate behavior, and secondary rules, which regulate how primary rules are made.

International Humanitarian Law (Laws of War)

A body of rules that seeks to limit the effects of armed conflict, protect noncombatants, and restrict means and methods of warfare for humanitarian reasons.

Ways of Making International Law/Secondary Rules

1. Custom or accepted practice: Customary International Law

• International law usually develops slowly over time as states come to recognize practices as appropriate and correct.

• It occurs in topics where countries benefit from cooperation and gain little by breaking the rules (e.g., crimes against humanity).

2. International Treaties

• General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) becomes the WTO

Types of International Law

• Public international law: The regulation of interactions among states or between states and other actors.

• Private international law: A separate body of law regulates private but transnational legal battles.

3 Dimensions International Laws Vary In…

1. Obligation: The degree to which states are legally bound by an international law.

• High-obligation laws: Unconditional and require reparations to the injured party if they are breached (e.g., crimes against humanity).

• Low-obligation laws: Only aspirational, urging states to live up to some standard of behavior.

2. Precision: The clarity of international legal obligations. More precise rules allow less room for interpretation.

3. Delegation: The extent to which third parties (i.e., courts, arbitrators, or mediators) have the power to implement, interpret, apply, and resolve disputes over international legal rules, or to create additional rules.

Hard vs. Soft Law

• Hard Law: Obligatory. Precisely defined. Gives tons of power to third parties, esp. international courts.

• Soft Law: Aspirational. Ambiguous. Does not give tons of power to third parties.

Spurious Factor

A situation where two variables appear to be causally related to each other, but they actually aren't. They only correlate because they are both being driven by a hidden third factor (i.e., a confounding variable or common cause).

Animus dominandi

A Latin phrase that means the "spirit of dominating" or the "lust for power.” Popularized in IR spaces by Hans Morgenthau, famous political scientists and classical realist.

Transactionalism

A foreign policy approach focused strictly on short-term, direct, and measurable benefits (like financial gains, trade deals, or immediate security favors) rather than long-term alliances, shared values, or mutual obligations.

Unilateralism

A foreign policy where a country acts alone or takes action without seeking the approval, agreement, or assistance of other nations.

Peace of Westphalia

A treaty made after the 100 year war that stated states must respect one another’s sovereignty (i.e., can’t interfere with another’s internal affairs)

International Norms

Standards of behavior for actors with a given identity; norms define what actions are “right,” or appropriate under certain circumstances.

Constitutive Norms

What makes an actor legitimate in a given social context.

Because they shape identity and meaning, they operate through a logic of appropriateness—actors follow them because they are internalized, taken for granted, and feel natural ("this is just how things are done")

Procedural Norms

How decisions involving multiple actors should be made.

Regulative Norms

Constrain and govern the behavior of actors in their interactions with other actors.

Because they act as external rules, actors obey them largely through a logic of consequences—meaning compliance is often driven by calculating the costs, sanctions, or rewards of violating them.

Realism: Balancing

• Joining the weaker side to offset the stronger side's power advantage.

• Safer on weaker side 

• State’s value is greater on weaker side

Realism: Bandwagon

• Join stronger side 

• Not essential to alliance’s security, danger of attack

• Vulnerable to domination/Compromises independence

Prospect Theory

A theory of behavioral economics, judgment and decision-making. It believes that people judge outcomes as gains or losses relative to specific baseline (like their current situation). For example, someone in the loss frame would feel like they have nothing to lose, and therefore take more risks to gain something. Whereas, if you feel like you have something to lose, you’re not going to take any risks that’ll deplete your gains.

Archetype: The Revolutionaries

• Definition: Leaders that radically transform the country whether negatively or positively

• Example: Mohammad Bin Salam defied domestic policies to turn Saudi Arabia more secular. For instance, he ignored religious establishments in his nation to give women more freedom, like driving.

Archetype: The Deciders

• Definition: Leaders who make the ultimate choice of which current to ride when the impersonal forces are in conflict.

• Example: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, picks and chooses whether he’ll listen to the two opposing groups in Iran: reformists that seek to curb Iran’s aggressive foreign policy, and pragmatists that like aggressive foreign policy and repressive domestic policy.

Archetype: The Survivors

• Definition: Leaders who hold onto power, despite their desired absence being beneficial to their country, domestically and foreign-wise.

• Example: Before his arrest, Nicolás Maduro—and the Venezuelan elites who supported him—refused to think of a future where he steps down. However, his disposal would satisfy the grievances of Venezuelan opposition, and foreign adversaries like the US, possibly leading to the removal of sanctions.

Archetype: The Opportunists

• Definition: Leaders who boldly seize opportunities as soon as they arrive.

• Example: Russian President Vladimir Putin has defied his nation’s power decline and descent into appeasement with the West by capitalizing on oppositional events, like annexing Crimea or taking sides in Libya’s civil war.

Archetype: The Egoists

• Definition: Leaders who act and believe as if the glory of the state is supposed to reflect one person.

• Example: Under Idi Amin, Uganda’s foreign policy swung wildly and approached absurdity. Uganda went from a pro-Western, pro-Israeli stance to soon having close relations with the Soviet Union and its allies. When his support started shrinking, he even went as far as to blame and go to war with Tanzania. 

Psychological Biases

Cognitive Biases: Flaws in human capacity for processing information + brain’s need for cognitive consistency

1. Failure to update: Cannot assimilate new  information to preexisting beliefs

1. Reliance on analogies: Cognitive shortcuts to make sense of a complex world

2. Fundamental attribution error: Attribute’s adversary’s behavior to disposition (i.e., character); ignore situational factors → “Oh, he only does that because he’s evil.”

Motivated Biases: Biases that stem from our desires, wants, and needs

• Seeing the necessary as possible: Allowing the value you put on an outcome to affect your assessment of its likelihood

Security Dilemma

A state rushing to defend itself makes another state feel threatened, prompting an arms race, and maybe resulting in war.

War

1. Violent (Use of force)

2. Two-sided

3. Fought by organizations (in this case, states)

4. Serious/sustain — thresholds of violence

5. Not random or a force of nature! Groups are organized and have goals.

• Interstate War = Conflict between two states

• Civil War = Conflict within a state

What do states fight over?

Whatever “good” they consider valuable.

1. Territory

• Could contribute to wealth if it has valuable resources

• Has military or strategic value (e.g. Syria has the Golan Heights, which allows it to land devastating attacks on Northern Israel below it)

• Ethnic, cultural, or historical reasons. (e.g., Israel vs. Palestine)

2. States’ Policies

• One state enacts a policy that benefits itself, but harms the interests of another state (e.g., Ukraine’s perusal of closer economic ties to the West, which threatened Russia)

• A state’s mistreatment of its citizens (e.g., US and allies waging war against Serbia for its treatment of the people of Kosovo)

• War, or the threat of war, is used to encourage policy change

3. Regime Type

• e.g. The US saw communist regimes as allies of Russia and indicators of its spreading influence, so it tried to prevent it

Bargaining

Actors trying to resolve disputes over the distribution of a “good.” For example, in terms of territory, they may try to agree on border/division lines.

Crisis Bargaining

A bargaining interaction where the consequence of not reaching an agreement can result in war. Occurs when an actor believes its demands have not been met.

Coercive Diplomacy

The use of threats to promote demands in a bargaining interaction. Can be explicit (“You got 24 hours…”) or implicit (Russia set troops along the Ukrainian border).

Bargaining Range

A compromise that benefits both parties. It doesn’t necessarily benefit them equally, but it gives them more than they expect to get from fighting a war

Types of Threats

1. Compellence: An effort to change the status quo through the threat of force. “Give me [blank] or else.”

2. Deterrence: An effort to preserve the status quo through the threat of force. “Don’t do that, or else.” 

• General Deterrence: To deter attacks on one’s own country.

• Extended Deterrence: To deter attacks on one’s allies.

Failures of Bargaining / General “rationalist” causes of war

1. Incomplete information: A situation in which actors in a strategic interaction lack information about another actors' interests and/or capabilities.

• A state met with demand may yield too much or too little.

• A state may demand too much under the belief a state will give-in.

• This allows states to lie/exaggerate to get a better deal: risk-return trade off

• This allows states to have the element of surprise.

2. Commitment problems: When a good is too advantageous to pass up.  Especially when it can leave a state vulnerable, and it doesn’t know if another state will exploit that vulnerability in the future or not.

• Territory with military significance

• Weapon programs

3. Indivisible goods: A good that cannot be divided without destroying its value. 

• States can not reach mutually beneficial agreements because of this

• Bargaining becomes “all or nothing”

Resolve

The willingness of an actor to endure costs (e.g., death of soldiers) to acquire a particular good (e.g. land).

Total Wars

States mobilize their entire military and economic resources.

Limited Wars

States fight with less than their full potential, because their aims are limited or of low value.

Risk-return trade-off

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

Credibility

The belief that a state will not only go to war, but also fight long and hard enough that the other party would rather give-in to demands than fight a costly war.

Brinkmanship

A strategy where states will push a conflict to the "brink" of war hoping its opponent will back down first.

Preventive War

A war fought only to prevent an enemy from becoming strong in the future, and from using the future strength in aggressive bargaining.

First-strike Advantage

When there’s benefits to being the one that strikes first.

E.g. One state launching nuclear missiles and destroying all of its enemy's missiles on the ground before they could be launched.

• Really risky: Unless one state can ensure the other won’t attack, both might hurry to deal the first blow.

• Is used when leaders believe offense is stronger than defense

• Is used if secrecy and surprise are possible

Preemptive War

Both sides seriously believe the other will launch an attack and will try to beat the other to the punch. Any negotiations made at this point will ring insincere, and merely a ploy to keep the other from mobilizing.

Power Transition Theory