Studied by 3 people
Thucydides, The Melian Dialogue summary
2 hegemons, Athens and Sparta
Refused to join the Athenian empire and were neutral
Became enemies with Athens after they tried forcing an alliance
Melians argue there’s hope in standing against Athens
Athen’s says hope is dangerous because they’re sure to destroy them
Hope is by nature an expensive commodity
If one follows self interest one wants to be safe
If one follows justice and honour involves one in danger
When you are allowed to choose between war and safety, you will not be so insensitive arrogant as to make the wrong choice
Melos decided to resist Athens and stand up for liberty -- Hope that Sparta helps them and try to save themselves from slavery
War commenced, Melians surrendered to the Athenians in the winter
Thucydides, The Melian Dialogue Thesis
The strong do what they have the power to do, the weak accept what they have to accept
Argues: the change in distribution of power sparked Peloponnesian war
the state is a sole actor
the state is the main actor
the state is a rational actor
the state protects itself from anarchy
3 components of classical realism
state power
states are sole actors and competitors
Human nature explains world politics
three phases of realism
classical (pre-20th century)
modern (1939-1979)
Neorealism/structural (1979-present)
realism define
state’s main goal is power
pessimistic
Machiavelli classical realism
power politics logic is universal
power politics > principals
ethics and morality don’t matter
most effective leader will know power politics and understands changes in power (potential rising powers)
Thomas Hobbes classical realism
The IR system is anarchic and states care only about the security dilemma → lack of overarching authority
Anarchy compels states to be obsessed with survival
the state has a moral right to protect itself
War is only stopped with overarching authority (a leviathan) but that threatens state sovereignty
Security dilemma (thomas hobbes classical realism)
when one state does something to increase security, but makes other states to do the same (domino effect)
Modern realism (reaction to WW1)
Hans Morgenthau
economic and military power matters for coercion for self protection
states only concerned with relative gains
cooperation difficult
power politics: state behavior, only entity that matters is the state itself (non-state actors are irrelevant)
Survival in anarchic system → acquire and project power
Powerful states do what’s in their best interest
Neorealm/Structural realism
Propose theories/laws to explain events in IR system
Waltz’s theory that the amount of peace and war in an anarchic system depends on the distribution of power (unimodal, bimodal, multimodal)
Defensive realism (Waltz) 3 elements
organizing principal (anarchy)
Yes, affects state behavior
differation of units (dem. vs. non-dem.)
doesn’t matter in anarchy
Polarity
states seek to acquire secuirty before power
Waltz and defensive realism
Neorealism 2 subtheories (defensive and offensive realism)
disagrees with mearsheimer, states don’t just want power but consider pros and cons of an action if it will affect security--thinking longterm not mindlessly going on offense
Mearsheimer and offensive realism
Neorealism 2 subtheories (defensive and offensive realism)
States want as much power as possible and that leads them to make offensive moves--short term thinking
Realist World
Thesis: raw power competition, US and China different self-interests
IR politics will always be about power competition, but the players change
Rise of China and eventual replacement of Japan as Asia’s hegemon
China’s rise not possible if not for US geo-political security and free trade after WW2
Soultions:
US policy needs to balance incentive vs. punishment
China needs to rely on soft power instead of hars power
Western policymakers need to figure out how everyone can benefit from globalization
Need a miracle for Taiwan
What does free trade prevent
war
interdependence deters violence and war
facilitate diplomacy
Offshore balancing (realist argument)
Opposses liberal hegemony
argues that regions should self-balance local players against rising hegemons without US intervening until needed
US stays offshore and steps in only when needed
Calculated intervention
If not spending resources where not needed, resources could be put to use at home
3 key regions
Europe (buffer between Russia)
NE Asia (keep an eye on China)
Persian Gulf (oil)
Difference between realism and liberalism
differ in interpretations on consequences of anarchy on state behavior
both acknowledge anarchic system
Liberalism define
a positive view that asserts change and cooperation
states can change behaviors and alliances
Classical liberalism
Kant founder (Perpetual peace)
Human nature is good and all want life, liberty, happiness
Peace and cooperation between states
Morality, law, norms influence state behavior and matter
Kant’s 3 arguments
concerns League of Peace- International organization, venue for diplomacy
every nation needs to be Republican democracy to form League
Cosmopolitan law: encourage hospitality and exchange of culture to lead to trade and working together
Connect through regime, economy, trust and diplomacy
Precursor to Democratic Peace Theory
Modern liberalism
no major difference from classical liberalism
adds the ideas that non-state actors affect state behavior and the enlightened self-interest
Neoliberalism
Nature/consequences of anarchy (agree with classical and modern)
International cooperation (there’s conflict but also agreement)
States have absolute gains too
power projection will change
Institutions and norms affect state behavior
Mutual Assured Production
China and Japan not going to war over island territory disagreement because of economic interdependence
Neither country can afford to go to war with each other
Mutual deterrence: both states deterred from declaring war
Relates to Kant’s 3rd definitive article cosmopolitan law
China’s Soft-Power Push: search for respect (liberal argument)
Thesis: China investing billions to expand soft power to improve its international image and gain respect
reputation tarnished by regime and government
Argues you can’t buy soft power → it isn’t working
education: attracting international students to spread message
conferences: hosting in China to spread message
Confucius institutes: spread favorable message in Africa
Trying to create alternative to western media → control the narrative
Not working because lack of political reform and censorship
The Next Liberal Order (liberal argument)
Thesis: the age of contagion (COVID) demands more internationalism not less
talking about the world’s democracies
COVID example of a threat to the IR system, the current liberal order isn’t working as well as it could → change
Problems of modernity: doesn’t respect boarders, can’t hide or defeat it in war
States to work together and be more integrated
The US needs to step into a hegemon role and lead the IR system
The foundation (Kant): a club of democracies that respect rules and institutions
The liberal world order after WW2 is collapsing but can survive if more internationalism, cooperation, integration
FDR: the new deal at home leads to a new deal for the world
build lib order, work together, allow states to improve domestic politics
Levels of analysis- ways to explain events in IR system in three approaches
individual (leaders+their views, relationships w others, desires, self-interests)
State/domestic (economy, gov legitimacy, political system, culture, interest groups, history)
International (alliances, hegemonic standing)
Realists vs. Liberals on the three levels of analysis
Realists don’t think individual and state levels matter, just the IR system affects state behavior
Liberals argue all three levels matter
Polarity
number of hegemons in IR system
Stratification
levels of economic development
act as a hibernate for states who want power/influence
The Compulsive Empire (realist argument)
alternative explanation to why the US invaded Iraq
Thesis: has nothing to do with individuals, it’s what global hegemons do (solely IR level of analysis)
The compulsive empire is the US
The US is a hegemonic empire following the behavior of empires
Needed to invade Iraw to project power (US needed an enemy) and would lose hegemon power unless it reminded people of status
Compelled to expand in an anarchic IR system
Anarchy and polarity
State definition
territory, stable population, allegiance to a gov (loyalty), other states recognize the entity diplomatically
Nation define
group of people that shares a common culture, language, history, characteristics
abstract concept, no clear boarders
state building
building gov institutions
nation building
taking groups of people and unifying them through a new identity
Hard power
tangible
military
Soft power
intangible
infleunce, image
Sources of power
geography, population, economy, military, image/leadership, quality of gov, morale
uses of power
diplomacy (preventative, crisis, coercive), sanctions, force
Preventative diplomacy
see an arising problem and prevent tension from turning into a crisis
Crisis diplomacy
after crisis happened, behind closed doors, small group of people trying to make a decision to resolve issue
Coercive diplomacy
bullying another state to comply to end the disagreement
Negative sanctions
punishment on a state to change state behavior (common in crisis- stronger)
Positive sanctions
incentives to change state behavior through rewards
realism define
states main goal is power
Difference between classical, modern and neorealism
classical is specific in terms of providing explanations of war and states
Modern focuses on how powerful states do what’s in their best interest
Neorealism defines behavior through theories
Difference between classical, modern and neoliberalism
Classical: cooperation emerges from humanity’s good nature and the institutions that allow cooperation
Modern: no major difference, non-state actors and enlightened self-interest affect state behavior
Neoliberalism: it’s in the state’s self-interest to cooperate
Saint Augustine realism
blames war and conflict on evil human nature
Modern Realism, Hans Morgenthau 6 claims
Power politics affects state behavior and non-state actors don’t matter
Anarchy drives state to acquire and project power
Tragedy is inevitble
Political vs. military power (non-violence vs. violence)
Human’s list for power causes power politics
Proection from death
States do what’s in their best interest
enlightened self interest
states follow their self-interests but simultaneously aware that their self-interest can benefit other states and that OK
Helping others isn’t bad or a threat
Saddam’s Delusions: The view from the inside
liberal argument because analysing domestic level of why US won Iraq so quickly
Thesis: Saddam firmly believed US wouldn’t invade Iraq, and if they did the US would lose, but domestic facotrs lead to the fall of Iraq
Convinced US wouldn’t invade because strong economic ties with France and Russia (but didn’t end up helping)
US invaded despite vote against (anarchy and hegemonic powers)
Negative sanctions weakened Iraq’s military → deteriorated
People afraid of Saddam and lied about military success
Delegated power to unqualified family members and ineffective military decisions lead to the fall
How do states use force
states either threaten or use force to compel a state to do something or deter a state from doing something
pressure points
domestic level pressure on a government to take action (lobbyists, interest groups)
Relative gains (realists)
Benefitting at others expense
Realists say states top goal is to come out on top
Absolute gains (liberals)
Both parties win
Tied to enlightened self-interest
Modern liberalism 6 claims about state behavior
Anarchy exists and causes cooperation for security
There’s soft power too
Enlightened self-interest
The state has multiple self-interests (other than power) and have pressure points
Non-state actors
States learn from their mistakes/successes
Anarchy and its Consequences (realists)
Thesis: how to deal with consequences of anarchy
State behavior is contingent: what one state does is dependent in part upon what others do
Mutual dependence caused by anarchy
States are afraid of cooperation, they fear unfair benefits
Differences in opinion among realists on the consequences of anarchy
“Offensive realists”: anarchy forces states to become power maximizers (dog-eat-dog world)
“Socially constructed”: aggression stems from the actors’ interpretations of others’ behavior
The Mitigation of Anarchy
Diplomacy is good
States balance against emerging threats
Regimes and institutions can help overcome anarchy and facilitate cooperation
Note
Flashcard