POLI 244 Cartes | Quizlet

International Relations

Interactions in an archaic political system

Role of the Treaty of Westphalia

In 50 BC for over 4 centuries the Roman empire maintained the centralization of political authority. By 400 the Roman empire was crumpling: decentralization. Feudal lords came into power. Religious authority remained centralized, through the pope. In the early 1500s the Roman Catholic church lost monopoly over Christianity via the Protest and movement at the hands of Martin Luther. Larger kingdoms began to consolidate themselves as large political units.

In 1618 a major way was fought in the territory of what is now Germany. It was very costly and lasted 1618-1648: 30 year war. Fought over control of the Holy Roman Empire.

The result of this war was the treaty of Westphalia, established the principles we understand the be the modern state system.

Importance of the Treaty of Westphalia

1. Territorial nature of political unit. Large number of small ones to small number of large ones.

2. New states were sovereign. Implies international anarchy. Sovereign political units: no authority above them. Brought the idea of non-interference into the affairs of other kingdoms. Intended to prevent another 30 years war. Would no longer go to war to impose ideals and views onto another territory. Morally sovereignty is tricky. It's good because it removes danger of foreign intervention. Bad because it removes the possibility of foreign intervention.

It put religion above politics. It was a gradual process.

State sovereignty=international anarchy. No authority above the states, like in the Roman empire. International anarchy: not disorder and chaos, means there is no super-national authority. Political authority is decentralized. This is implicated in the idea of sovereignty.

State Sovereignty

When ultimate political power resides in the state rather than the federal government

International Anarchy

No overriding power prevents sovereign states from conflicting.

Anarchy

Anarchy is not chaos

It is a kind of order

Implication for the role of organized

Violence-> self help system. Can never fully rely on someone else to help you.

Domestic vs. Intl. Society

Force (power resources): Centralized: unrivaled center of power (govt.)

Decentralized: Variety of polarity

What constitutes a legit use of force?: Centralized: Ultimate interpretive authority. Decentralized: Interpretive contestation

Control of the use of force: Centralized: Centrally planned and enforced. Decentralized: Unstable; self-regulating; concerted.

State Centrism

assuming that states are always and forever the dominant actors in international relations- and that they've always been structured internally and act pretty much like states of the 20th century

Modern statehood

territoriality + sovereignty= exclusive right to govern a territory. Is it an absolute right? Can you suspend a state's rights in a situation like the violation of human rights? Is intervention acceptable then? Used to be no. More recently it's leaning towards yes.

State

A body of people living in a defined territory who have a government with the power to make and enforce law without the consent of any higher authority

1. State as a unitary actor, individual (national interest)

2. State as an authoritative actor (sovereignty)

3. State as a resourceful actor (destructive capacity (more than a terrorist organization, can carry out a 30 year war for example))

Dimensions of statehood

Internal: de facto control/capacity (ability to control the territory and population + legitimacy (does not necessarily mean liberal democracy)

External: legitimacy (recognition from other states) + convenience

Levels of analysis

Three images of IR Theorizing, A useful way to answer why questions in International Relations is to pick a certain angle from which to look for the answer. There are three levels at which one can do this.

1st image: Individual level of analysis

Explain war by looking at decision makers and their characteristics.

-Insights from psychology. E.g. Issues of human nature, like human drive for power. This image is unpopular because of the ideas of human nature as fixed and unchanging. And can't explain why sometimes there is war and sometimes there isn't. can't explain the variation from the constant.

-Also pay attention to psychological constraints on rationality: groupthink, or cognitive factors, like cognitive consistency: psychological tendency to pay attention to the facts that confirm our preexisting beliefs and ignore the facts that contradict our preexisting beliefs.

-Gender: Country went to war because the decision makers were male instead of female.

-Personality

-Physical/ mental health

2nd image: State level

Insights come from combative politics (?)

-Political regime, type of govt. authoritarian governments behave differently from democratic ones.

-political culture: e.g. US foreign policy looking at American exceptionalism, American belief that they are the best and have the responsibility to make everyone else like them. "Do it on your own or we will force you to do it." Not like Sino-centralism, form the Chinese, who lead by example, instead.

3rd Image: International system level

Explain by looking at the structure of the international system.

Look at the organization of authority in a system Is political authority centralized or decentralized? Horizontal (all power even) of vertical? (power at the top)

Anarchical vs. hierarchical

Power relations

-polarity: distribution of power

-alliances: secret or public, flexible or inflexible? E.g. WWI had inflexible alliances.

-Density of interactions: intl. systems can see states being internationally integrated and interdependent. Makes a difference on how they behave.

-Normative framework. E.g. Norms against the use of chemical/nuclear weapons. Then they will behave differently when they go to war than they would if those norms did not exist.

Sovereignty

Ability of a state to govern its territory free from control of its internal affairs by other states.

Realism

A theory of international relations that focuses on the tendency of nations to operate from self-interest.

Structure of political systems

1. Ordering principle-> hierarchy vs. anarchy. This is fixed.

2. Functional differentiation: how are different political functions allocated within units. Anarchy does not allow for functional differentiation between states. Each state must perform all the relevant political functions. In that sense there is no difference between them function-wise and so they are like units

3. Distribution of capabilities-> number of Great Powers. In modern IR, anarchy is a constant. Functional differentiation between units is dropped out. It is not really a relevant element. Variation can be explained by the distribution of military capability. This is varied.

Aggressive intentions

Where do states' aggressive intentions come from?

Human nature: aggressive intentions->competition for power.

Intent to dominate others.

Offensive realism

A branch of Realism that predicts that insecurity will cause states to seek absolute security through dominance, and perhaps offensive war, rather than through balance of power.

5 Assumptions about the international system

1. Anarchy

2. Great powers are rational unitary actors: states pursue goals and choose courses of action in order to achieve that goal.

3. Every great power has some offensive capability. Ability to hurt each other.

4. Survival is every great power's primary goal, not domination.

5. Uncertainty of others' intentions

Security dilemma

In an anarchic international system, one with no common central power, when one state seeks to improve its security it creates insecurity in other states. Could solve by communication? No. Each has an incentive to lie.

Information will always be incomplete. Safest thing to do is arm yourself.

Consequences of 5 Systemic Assumptions

1. Great powers fear each other. No supreme authority. Not an irrational fear given destructive capacity.

2. Self-help -> security autarky

3. power competition intense -> the stakes are high

4. great powers maximize relative powers.

5. power competition intense-> zero sum. The power that matters is relative power, not absolute power. To be strong states have to be strong, but not absolutely. If a state has 1 million men, it doesn't mean they're strong because the other army may have 3 million.

6. Defensive motives-. Offensive intentions

7. Every great power seeks world domination.

Offensive intensions

Ultimate goal survival->offensive intentions (Relative power maximization)->aggressive behaviour?

Why are states never content with the power advantage they might have? Because another state could get more.

Offensive intentions do not necessarily translate into aggressive behaviour. To understand this we must look at distribution of power.

Kenneth Waltz

Structural Realist. Starting point for the analysis of war. Ignoring human nature, used systems theory to explain how the interaction of sovereign states can be explained by the pressures exerted on them by the anarchic structure of the international system, which limits and constrains their choices., believes there is a difference between domestic and international politics because there's a separation between hierarchy and citizens. This works because there are people who give orders and people who are made to adhere to them.

Stephen Walt

("defensive" realism) balancing and bandwagoning, countries should bandwagon when they are weaker and have no allies available. Stronger countries should balance for more influence and to reduce the losses that would be created through war.

Cynthia Weber

sovereignty is neither well defined or consistently grounded

John Mearsheimer

Offensive Realist (Claims all great powers are potentially revisionist, none are status-quo, unlike Waltz, he blames security competition among great powers on the anarchy of the international system, not on human nature., Powers will seek hegemony, rather than balance and cooperation.

States may sacrifice better welfare for security. (Not that one has primacy and would never be sacrificed for the other).

Randall Schweller

Balance of Interests theory: Wolves, Lambs, Lions, Jackals.

Robert Gilpin

Neorealist. seeks to explain the relationship between government and the international economy. Says the state is concerned with the political pursuit of power, while markets are concerned with the economic pursuit of wealth, causing conflict. Lists three approached to international trade: Liberalism, Marxism, Mercantilism. The greater the imbalance of power in the international system, the less likely the outbreak of war

Robert Art

Proposed Selective Engagement; Precautionary strategy between isolationist and unilateralism-selecting basic goals (what are the America's national interest) and choosing appropriate means (how can America's military power best protect these interests)

Robert Jervis

notes that the balance between offense and defense is important in determining security dilemma?, challenges the rational-choice view of international relations; arguing misperception can undermine the real-world accuracy of game theoretic model, REALIST

Balance of Power

Condition of roughly equal strength between opposing countries or alliances of countries.

Balance of Power Theory

explains a systemic tendency towards equilibrium.

When states intend to keep the sytem in balance. When they see one of them becomes too powerful they will do something with the intent to bring back power.

Even when states have no intent to keep power or to upset it in their favour, the unintended outcome is that the system will always remain in balance.

Mechanisms of BOP theory

What do states seek? What do states seek?

1. A balanced distribution of power: (concerted)

power-gap minimizers

An unbalanced distribution of power

(tilted in their favour) (unintended)

power-gap maximizers

Some would say it is hard/nonsensical to show restraint because other great powers won't and they will take advantage.

The system falls back into balance because they all check each other, not because of wanting to keep the balance, but because they all want the power in their favour.

Types of Balancing

Internal: Militarzation

External: Alliances:

-defensive

-offensive

Internal Balancing

where a state uses internal efforts such as moving to increase economic capability, developing clever strategies and increasing military strength

External Balancing

when states take external measures to increase thier security by forming alliances.Tend to be short lived because the DOP is never fixed because uncertainty of allegience is always there.

Alliance power will be faithful in the case of a common threat.

Offensive alliances

states combine to become more powerful and mutually benefit. A form of militarization. Offensive alliances are quite rare because if it works out as expected, one partner will probably gain more.

Global hegemony

dominant power or authority over the world. States have a goal of dominating the world, though this may not be feasible.

Unipolarity

a condition in which the global system has a single dominant power or hegemon capable of prevailing over all other states, (ex: USA, 19th Century Great Britain)

Unbalanced multipolarity

A multipolar system with a preponderant power. When this power feels its supremacy is at risk, this system is more likely to lead to war. Major example is pre-WW1 Germany. Copeland explains this.

Universal Systems

Since the system tends towards a BOP, it cannot remain an unbalanced multipolarity. Cannot be thought of as a stable system.

Universal systems can only be bipolar or multipolar for balance to exist and there must be a balance, or we are at the end of politics under an anarchical system.

Regional hegemony

state in an area that has shitloads of power and influence. E.g. America.

Is the existence of one compatible with the idea that intl. systems always tend towards power?

Yes.

Strategies for Survival: gaining power (power upsetting)

-War

-Blackmail

-Bait and Bleed

-Bloodletting

Strategies for Survival: checking aggressors (balance maintaining)

-Balancing

- Buck passing

Strategies for Survival: Other Strategies

-Bandwagoning

-Appeasement

Bait and Bleed

proactive; get another country to go to war, watch on sidelines as the injure each other (hard to accomplish)

Bandwagoning

Smaller states joining a larger state or coalition to increase power relative to a rising hegemon.

Side dependent on compatibility of political interests and the effects of that political action.

World of bandwagoners not necessarily more competitive/unstable than a balancer world, depends on who they bandwagon with.

1. revisionists: yes, it will be

2. status quo state: makes the system more stable.

Appeasement

A policy of giving into the demands of a hostile power in order to avoid conflict and maintain peace

Buck Passing

The act of passing the possibility of war to other states by not taking responsibility.

Greater power=Greater Security?

Offensive realism's answer is yes. The more relative power you have, the more relative security you have. There is no such thing as too much power.

Defensive realism: there is an optimal level of power you can have that will give you the greatest security. You can have too little (people will take advantage of your weakness) or too much power (others will feel threatened and gang up against you)

Even a defensive realist agrees that past a certain threshold, your security becomes really good, once you become a hegemony

Relative Power

a states power position in relation to other states

Unipolar Threshold

once you have so much power no other state will want to take the risk to challenge it. But getting to that point is difficult.

Why Balance?

To curb a potential hegemon

To gain more intra-alliance influence, because someone in the alliance must have the upper hand.

But intentions can change and perception is unreliable, states would prefer to go with the security of balancing. EXCEPT for small states in close proximity to a great power. But their position will not have a lot of weight in the BOP.

Why bandwagon?

To divert an attack on oneself

To share the spoils of victory.

More money=more money

bandwaggonner: more power=more power

Power=Threat?

Not necessarily. A state can become more powerful, but not more threatening. States react to threat, not to power.

Sources of Threat

1. Aggregate power: population, tech. prowess, etc. -->intermediate. (either way)If power can be threatening, it can be prized.

2. Offensive capability--> intermediate.

3. Proximity--> closeness of states may trigger balancing or bandwagoning.

4. Offensive intentions: PERCEIVED. -->balancing. If a state is seen as benevolent, all other variables make you seem like a good ally. If you seem threatening, then the other variables seem negative.

Potential threat (revisionist?)--> balancing

Potential ally (SQ?) --> bandwagoning)

Doesn't solve issue of uncertainty.

Lions

Immediate security threat -->Balancing. Balance restoring

Lambs

Immediate security threat -->Abdicative bandwagonning. balance upsetting.

Jackals

Potential threat->Immediate opportunity for self expansion -->Opportunistic bandwagoning. balance upsetting.

Wolves

Potential threat->Immediate security threat -->/Immediate opportunity for self expansion --> Aggression. balance upsetting.

Will take any opportunity in the form of aggression to upset the balance and change the system .

Systemic effects of bandwagoning

Revisionism or status quo consolidation. bandwagoning has a balance upsetting effect:

1. current imbalance (lion bandwagon)

2. new imbalance (wolf bandwagon)

Revisionism

The socialist idea that we should embrace socialism in a gradual advance, with no bloody war

States under realism

security maximizers. Can never be fully secure, main goal is survival.

In anarchy, only your own military capabilities can protect you from others.

Conquering weaker states by military force is a way to increase your relative power: War.

Also by weakening threatening states through military attacks: War.

Why states go to war

War can be empowering

Power gets you security

Security means survival

There is nothing to prevent war.

War is a permanent consideration, but it is not always chosen

To war or to not war?

When states don't go to war, it then must be because they have been deterred from doing so.

Victory is not assured, so going against a powerful enemy if you are not powerful may be unbeneficial.

Expectation can be an enabler or a deterrent.

War deterrents

Individual relative weakness: less relevant for great powers

Balancing coalitions: International community tends to a balance of power. Balancing coalition is not to fight a potential aggressor, but to deter a would-be aggressor from acting. Preemptive strike.

When balancing fails to deter aggressions

Why?

Uncertainty of the future actions of potential aggressors

Contradictory commitment

In a Bipolarity

High credibility of commitments

Less likely to contradict commitments

Low intra-alliance military independence

Low incentive to "pass the buck"

Low flexibility of alignment

Internal balancing strategy

In a Multi-polarity

Low credibility of commitments

More likely to contradict commitments

Hugh intra-alliance military independence

High incentive to "pass the buck"

High flexibility of alignment

External balancing strategy

Multipolarity

the distribution of global power into three or more great power centers, with most other states allied with one of the rivals; regarded by many as a factor in the onset and expansion of WWII

Bipolarity

an international system in which there are two great powers or blocs of roughly equal strength or weight

Military interdependence

Allies have to intervene if a member of their alliance is threatened

Uncertainty is lower in bipolar systems. Less risk of security.

Minor allies make minor, trivial contributions to your balance of power

Multipolarity and war

Multi-polarity: more uncertainty than bipolarity

Consequences more severe than in a multiparty system

Multi-polarity tends to be more war prone because there is more uncertainty.

Uncertainty

More likelihood of war?

Uncertainty means, misinformation, means miscalculation, you underestimate the risk and think war might be a good idea.

But little information may make you overestimate the risk, so you think war isn't a good idea and don't pick it.

Indifference curve

a curve that shows the combinations of consumption bundles that give the consumer the same utility

satisfied states

Satisfied with current level of utility. Order-takers, status-quo. U.S, Japan, France, Canada. Change will not happen because the strongest states are satisfied. But the left out dissatisfied states could eventually become stronger. How: Law of Uneven growth

dissatisfied states

Aspires to greater utility levels AND has ability to get there.

Order-makers, revisionist. China, North Korea, Russia, Iran. Small states are dissatisfied because they see a better future so they create a coalition with other dissatisfied states.

Utility

Ability or capacity of a good or service to be useful and give satisfaction to someone.

pareto frontier

the line of all possibilities, the line on which if one wins the other must lose. Ideal is to reach it.

Law of Uneven growth

relative distribution of power changes over time, and differential growth rate of power causes conflict. Hegemony will eventually decline and no. 2 will grow.

declining hegemony

Relative power can decrease when absolute power increases. The no.2 has more incentive to increase while the hegemony can slack and depend on its security. Some states won't let the BOP reflect change because they don't want to. Power distribution vs. hierarchy of prestige.

Power distribution

A value orientation that refers to the extent to which less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a culture expect and accept an unequal distribution of power.

hierarchy of prestige

to what extent other states recognize the power you have.reputation of power. Recognition from other states. "How much should I listed to this actor?" If it is recognized that he is powerful= more prestige. Will follow command. If it is not recognized, because there is no power, or the system hasn't been updated, there is less prestige.

System disequilibrium:

Disjunction between distribution of power and hierarchical recognition my states.

If states purposely don't update the system to purposely keep a growing power down.

Gilpin's theory of systemic change

Rising power wants a change in the hierarchy of prestige to represent the power it now has.

Eventually war becomes inevitable for everyone in the system.

Bipolarization: because war seems inevitable, states begin to pick sides. War between challenger and declining hegemon often involves other states.

Hegemonic war and peace settlements results a redistribution of the relative power in the system, putting it back in equilibrium. Until, given the law of uneven growth, the pattern repeats itself.

Theory cannot predict if the old hegemon will retain its position, or the challenger will succeed, or they will both weaken each other and a third state will emerge. Like in the Peloponnesian war, where Athens and Sparta fought but Persia was victorious.

Why does war break out

1. Preventive war by hegemon

2. Opportunistic war by challenger

Stability usually associated with balance. Why multipolarity more war prone than bipolarity. According to Gilpin, the more unbalanced a system is, the more stable it is.

Types of change in an international system

1. Systemic change

2. Interaction change

Systemic change

Not of the system but in the system. nature of the unit remains unchanged, but major changes made to hierarchy of prestige in the system. Usually brought about by hegemonic war. Can be done peacefully, but it's unlikely.

Interaction change

: Changes in HOP, minor changes. Might involve limited wars, most frequent type of changes in the Intl. system. Very small parts of the rules are changed.

Strategic function of military force

1. Defense

2. Deterrence

3. Compellence

4. "Swaggering"

Defensive use of force

Purpose:

Dissuade an adversary from attacking

Minimize damage if attacked

Means:

Adversary's victory is made less likely and more costly

Employment:

Passive- "these weapons work even if I don't use them against you" like a fortress

Active- like defensive landmines

-repellent (second) strike

-offensive (first) strikes

Deterrent use of force

Purpose: Dissuade an adversary from attacking (same as defensive)

Means: "although we are defenseless, if you attack, you will be punished."

Credible threat of retaliation with unacceptable damage. Other side has to believe that you have deterrent capabilities. You have to have second strike capabilities, not just first.

Employment:

Passive

Necessary when dissuasion by defensive forces is weak.

Compellent use of force

Purpose: persuade an adversary to change her behaviour

Employment: active.

"I am beating you up, and will continue to do so until you stop doing x and start doing y"

. "Swaggering"

purpose: increase "prestige" (reputation for power)

Means:

-visible displays of military might and/or technology

Employment

-passive

Nuclear proliferation

Horizontal: Getting new members in the nuclear club. Having more states acquire nuclear powers.

Vertical: getting more nuclear weapons.

More Nukes vs. Less Nukes

Why may more nukes be better?

Lesser obtainable gains from war -> limited wars only. Victory isn't as sweet and tempting as it used to be. Large gains off the table because they are too risky. Can still start a limited war to obtain small gains, but wars can escalate.

Greater potential costs of war

Security seeking-> nuclear deterrence in an alternative to conventional war

Less war-producing miscalculations

-paralyzing uncertainty

Greater cautiousness

Security dilemma alleviated

-power comparisons less relevant

Scott Sagan

"The Spread of Nuclear Weapons" 2003. Political Science Professor at Stanford. Characteristics of military organizations will determine the actual behavior of new proliferators as a result of the spread of nuclear weapons. Civilian population has little control over military forces. Military biases will lead to an increased likelihood of preventive war, and more new proliferators will lead to an increased chance of accidents.

Neoliberalism

A strategy for economic development that calls for free markets, balanced budgets, privatization, free trade, and minimal government intervention in the economy.

Neorealism

a version of realist theory that emphasizes the influence on state behavior of the system's structure, especially the international distribution of power,

, Sometimes called Structural Realism, this explains patterns of international events in terms of the system structure--the international distribution of power--rather than the internal makeup of individual states. Compared to traditional realism, neorealism is more "scientific" in the sense of proposing general laws to explain events.