Intro to World Politics Midterm

Mercantalism

An economic theory and practice prevalent in Europe from the 16th to 18th centuries emphasizing the role of the state in managing the economy to increase national wealth, primarily through accumulating gold and silver and maintaining a favorable balance of trade (exports over imports).

Peace of Westphalia

A series of treaties that ended the Thirty Years' War in Europe and marked the beginning of the modern international system by establishing the principles of state sovereignty and non-interference in the domestic affairs of other states.

Sovereignty

The full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies; the authority of a state to govern itself or another state.

Hegemony

Dominance of one state or group over others in the international system, often through political, economic, or military means.

Pax Britannica

The period of relative peace in Europe and the world (1815-1914) during which the British Empire was the dominant global power and maintained stability through naval supremacy and diplomatic influence.

Gold Standard

A monetary system where a country's currency or paper money has a value directly linked to gold; countries agreed to convert currency into a fixed amount of gold.

Treaty of Versailles

The peace treaty that officially ended World War I, imposing heavy reparations and territorial losses on Germany and establishing the League of Nations.

League of Nations

An international organization established after World War I to promote peace and cooperation among countries, although it ultimately failed to prevent World War II

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

A military alliance formed in 1949 between North American and European countries aimed at collective defense against aggression, particularly from the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Bretton Woods System

An international monetary system established in 1944 where currencies were pegged to the U.S. dollar, which was convertible to gold; it aimed to promote global economic stability and cooperation after WWII.

Warsaw Pact

A military alliance formed in 1955 between the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellite states as a counterbalance to NATO during the Cold War.

Decolonization

The process by which colonies gained independence from colonial powers, mainly occurring after World War II, leading to the formation of new sovereign states.

Interests

The goals or objectives that actors (such as states or individuals) seek to achieve in international politics—such as security, power, wealth, or ideological goals.

Actors

The basic units in international politics—can be states, international organizations, corporations, terrorist groups, or individuals—that have interests and interact with each other.

States

Sovereign political entities with a defined territory, permanent population, government, and the ability to enter into relations with other states.

Anarchy

The absence of a central authority in the international system that can enforce rules; not chaos, but a system where no single actor has ultimate authority over others.

National Interests

The goals or objectives pursued by a state to ensure its survival and well-being—commonly includes security, economic prosperity, and power.

Interaction

The ways in which actors' choices affect one another; these can be cooperative (working together) or conflictual (working against each other).

Cooperation

When actors adopt policies that make at least one actor better off without making others worse off working together toward a common goal.

Bargaining

An interaction where actors must choose outcomes that make one better off at the expense of another—a zero-sum situation (e.g., negotiating over territory or trade terms).

Coordination

A type of cooperation where all actors benefit from making the same choices and have no incentive to defect (e.g., driving on the same side of the road).

Collaboration

A form of cooperation where actors benefit from working together but still have incentives to cheat or not follow through (e.g., reducing emissions in climate agreements).

Public Good

A good that is non-excludable (can't stop people from using it) and non-rival (one person's use doesn't reduce its availability to others), like clean air or national defense.

Collective Action Problem

The difficulty in achieving cooperation among actors to provide a public good, because each has an incentive to free ride rather than contribute.

Free Ride

When someone benefits from a public good without contributing to its provision, relying on others to bear the cost.

Iteration

Repeated interactions over time that increase the likelihood of cooperation because actors can punish each other for bad behavior or reward cooperation.

Linkage

Tying cooperation on one issue to cooperation on another—used to create leverage (e.g., linking trade deals to human rights agreements).

Power

The ability of one actor to get another to do something they would not otherwise do; can be military, economic, diplomatic, or ideological.

Coercion

The use of threats or force to get another actor to change their behavior—"Do this, or else."

Outside Options

Alternatives to a negotiated agreement; having better outside options gives an actor more bargaining power.

Agenda Setting

The ability to influence which issues are addressed or prioritized in international politics—often done by powerful states or institutions.

Institutions

Sets of rules (formal or informal) that structure interactions in specific ways—such as the United Nations, World Trade Organization, or international laws.

War

An event involving the organized use of military force by at least two parties that reaches a minimum threshold of severity (usually 1,000+ battle deaths).

Interstate War

A war in which the main participants are states (countries). Example: World War II.

Civil War

A war between factions within the same state, often over control of the government, territory, or policy. Example: Syrian Civil War

Security Dilemma

A situation where one state's efforts to increase its security (e.g., building up its military) make other states feel threatened, leading them to do the same—potentially escalating into conflict.

Crisis Bargaining

A form of bargaining where at least one party threatens the use of force if demands are not met. It occurs during high-stakes international confrontations.

Coercive Diplomacy

Using threats (rather than actual force) to influence the behavior of another state. Example: "Do what we ask, or face military action."

Bargaining Range

The set of deals that both sides in a conflict would prefer over going to war. If a deal exists within this range, war could be avoided.

Compellence

An effort to change the status quo through the threat or use of force. Example: "Leave that territory or we will invade."

Deterrence

A strategy to prevent an action by threatening severe consequences. Example: "If you attack, we will retaliate massively."

Incomplete Information

When parties in a conflict lack full knowledge of each other's capabilities or willingness to fight, leading to misjudgments and potential war.

Resolve

A state's willingness to endure costs (like casualties or economic damage) to achieve its goals in a conflict.

Risk Return Trade Off

In crisis bargaining, the balance between trying to get a better deal (higher risk of war) vs. accepting a safer but less favorable deal (lower return).

credibility

The believability of a threat or commitment. A threat only works if the opponent believes you'll follow through.

Brinkmanship

A strategy of pushing a dangerous situation to the edge (or "brink") of disaster to force the other side to back down.

Audience Costs

The political price a leader pays domestically for backing down after making a public threat—often used to signal resolve.

Preventive War

A war started to prevent a future threat from growing stronger (even if there's no immediate danger). Example: War with a rising power.

First Strike Advantage

A significant benefit to being the first to launch an attack, usually due to the ability to disable the opponent's forces early

Preemptive War

A war fought in anticipation of an imminent attack by the other side. Example: "Strike before they strike us."

Terrorism

The use or threat of violence by non-state actors against civilians or non-combatants to achieve political, religious, or ideological goals by instilling fear.

Asymetrical Warfare

Conflict between parties of unequal strength, where the weaker side (usually non-state actors) uses unconventional tactics (like terrorism or guerrilla warfare) against a stronger opponent.

Separatists

Groups or movements that seek to break away from an existing state to form an independent country, often based on ethnic, religious, or cultural identity.Example: The Catalan independence movement in Spain.

Irredentist

Groups that seek to join a territory with another state that shares their ethnic or cultural identity. Example: Russia's claims over Crimea based on ethnic Russian ties.

Proxy Wars

Conflicts in which opposing powers support different sides in a war, without directly fighting each other. Example: U.S. and Soviet Union backing different sides in the Vietnam War.

Insurgency

A rebellion or uprising using irregular tactics (like ambushes or sabotage) by non-state actors aiming to challenge or overthrow a government or occupying force.

Extremists

Actors with radical beliefs that are outside the mainstream of society and often unwilling to compromise; typically, more likely to support or engage in violence to achieve their goals.

Coercion (in terrorism)

Using the threat or act of violence to make a government or population change its behavior or policies, by imposing costs or fear.

Provocation

A strategy where terrorists aim to provoke the target government into responding with excessive force, which can alienate the population and increase support for the terrorists.

Spoiling

A strategy where terrorists use violence to undermine peace efforts or negotiations between more moderate factions and a government, making the moderates look weak or untrustworthy.

Outbidding

A tactic where rival terrorist or militant groups compete for support by carrying out more extreme or visible attacks to show they are the most committed to the cause.

Characteristics of the Modern State

Institutionalization

Should be durable (permanent organizations)

Eventually new government, not new state

Military pressure

Coercive control of the population

Don't have a choice (belong to the state if you live within it)

Needed to raise armies and revenue

Obedience not based mainly on consent

"Monopoly of force" within state's territory (eliminate enemies)

Territorial sovereignty

Sovereignty: supreme legal authority (no one else has alternative say)

Authority confined to specific geographic area (other states can exist with their own sovereignty)

Functional specialization

Organizations within state handle separate, specialized tasks

Job specialization (King no longer focuses on battle)

Warfare creates pressure for more specialization

Taxation and the growth of state power

Specialization accelerates in the 19th and 20th centuries

Hierarchy

Singular executive authority at top of hierarchy (can't share power, however can be a group)

Need some power of coordination

Specialized parts of state subordinated

International recognition

Arbitrary rules for membership in club of states (Ex: China and Taiwan)

Recognition provides some protection (more likely to be protected)

The Peace of Westphalia in 1648

A series of treaties that ended the Thirty Years' War in Europe and is considered the beginning of the modern international system.

Key impacts:

Established the principle of state sovereignty

Recognized legal equality of states

Emphasized non-intervention in internal affairs

characteristics of the modern state?

Sovereignty - Ultimate authority within a territory

Defined territory - Recognized borders

Permanent population

Centralized government - Exercises authority

Recognition - By other states in the international system

Commitment Problem

Occurs when actors can't trust each other to stick to a deal in the future, especially in the absence of enforcement. A key cause of war—states may prefer war over risking betrayal later.

strategic interaction

Decisions made by one actor depend on the choices and possible responses of others. Common in diplomacy, bargaining, and conflict.

Prisoner's Dilemma

A situation where two actors could both benefit from cooperation, but due to mistrust and incentives to defect, they both end up worse off. Example: Arms races, where both sides keep arming instead of disarming.

Anarchy

The international system lacks a central authority, meaning no world government—states operate in a self-help system where survival is the top priority.

security dilemma

When one state's attempt to increase its security (e.g., building arms) makes others feel threatened, leading to an arms race or increased tensions—even if the original intention was defensive.

"Old" vs "New" Imperialism

Old Imperialism

(16th-18th century)

Focused on colonizing coastal territories and establishing trade routes

Led by Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, etc.

New Imperialism

(Late 19th-early 20th century)

Involved full control and occupation of inland territories

Driven by industrialization, nationalism, and competition among European powers

Example: Scramble for Africa

democratic peace

The idea that democracies rarely go to war with each other, due to:

Shared norms

Public accountability

Institutional checks and balances

Realism

A dominant theory in international relations that sees the world as:

Anarchic

Driven by self-interest and power politics

Focused on survival and national interest

Believes conflict is inevitable due to the competitive nature of states

Stag Hunt

A game where cooperation leads to the best outcome (hunting the stag), but if one defects (hunts rabbit), the other is left with nothing. It emphasizes trust and coordination. Example: Forming security alliances or global climate agreements.

Resolve

A state's willingness to endure costs to achieve its objectives in a conflict—shows how committed they are to fight or hold their position.

Compellence

Using threats or force to make an actor change its behavior or reverse an action. "Do this, or else."

Involves changing the status quo

Deterrence

Threatening severe consequences to prevent an actor from taking a specific action. "If you do this, I will retaliate."

Keeping status quo

Conditions Associated with State Failure

Economic Decline, Uneven Economic Development, Human Flight and Brain Drain

State Legitimacy, Public Serivces, Human Rights and Rule of Law

Demographic Pressures, Refugees and IDPs

Security Apparatus, Factionalized Elites, Group Grievance

External Intervention

Why Democracies Survive Longer than non-democracies

1. Institutional Stability

Checks and balances in democratic systems (e.g. independent judiciary, free press, opposition parties) reduce the risk of abuse of power or abrupt political shifts.

2. Accountability & Legitimacy

Democratic governments derive their power from the consent of the governed.

Citizens have avenues to express dissatisfaction (e.g., protests, elections) without resorting to rebellion.

This builds legitimacy, which makes governments more resilient to crisis.

3. Rule of Law

Democracies typically enforce the rule of law more effectively.

Predictable legal systems make policy more consistent, property rights more secure, and investments more attractive, supporting long-term development and political survival.

4. Responsiveness to Public Needs

Democratic leaders must respond to voters' preferences to stay in power.

This encourages policy adaptability and responsiveness to social or economic issues, reducing the chance of popular revolt.

5. Restraints on Executive Power

In authoritarian systems, power is often centralized in one person or small elite.

Without restraints, mismanagement or corruption can lead to collapse or rebellion.

Democracies have distributed authority, reducing the chance of total system failure.

6. Lower Risk of Violent Overthrow

In autocracies, when power is lost, it often means exile, imprisonment, or death, so leaders cling to power at any cost—often provoking instability.

In democracies, peaceful retirement from leadership is normal, reducing incentives for political violence.

📉 7. Better Conflict Management

Democracies are better at managing internal dissent, through negotiation, compromise, and institutionalized opposition.

Non-democracies often suppress dissent, leading to radicalization or civil conflict.

Trends in state power and democracy

Increasing military power

The Face of Battle

Capacity of states over time increased

Increasing revenue extraction

States get better at raising money

Increasing state intervention in economy

Ex: unemployment

Increase democracy

Democratic Advantages

Faster economic growth

Protect economic activity

Institutions to protect the people (Monarchs favor in legal problems)

Greater ability to borrow

Monarchs are not viable to pay money back

Ex: Spanish effort to control the Netherlands, 1566-1648 (interest rates)

Britain: King loses Civil War (beheaded)

Superior decisionmaking institutions

Electoral incentive to pursue broadly beneficial policies

Much more difficult for a democracy to accept a partial outcome compared to victory

Better deliberation through democratic debate

Autocracy gets worse military advice than democracies

Nationalism and its paradoxes

Nation: group of people united by language, culture, ethnicity, religion, or shared historical experience

Nationalism: ideology holding that the political and the national unit should be congruent

Paradoxes of nationalism as an idea

Imagined Communities - Benedict Anderson

Objectively modern but subjectively ancient to adherents

People think nationalism feels older than it is

Ex: Braveheart (1995)

Formally universal but objectively different for each nation

People have different ideas of what nationalism is

Politically powerful but philosophically weak and incoherent

Fake historical events/ideas

Connection to past is appealing

Military advantages

Recruiting

Resistance to foreign occupation

Tactical advantages (noble cause to be there)

Linkage to democracy

Empires and Imperialism

Empire: a relationship, formal or informal, in which one state controls the effective political sovereignty of another society

Ex of informal: US troops in Cuba in 1906. The intervention was authorized under the Platt Amendment

Imperialism: ideas and practices upholding the desirability and legitimacy of empire

Scientific racism

Product of imperialism

People believe their group is special compared to others

Claim one race is better than another

Contemporary vs. older state formation

Presence of existing states as models

Potential pitfalls better understood

Nationalism existed as a widespread public sentiment before the states

Expectations higher

People now expect the state to provide for us

People expect things like health institutions

International institution environment denser

More rules, organizations, etc. internationally

Institutions regulate political relations between states

Ex: UN

States and the sovereignty norm (now breaking down)

Institutions regulate economic relations between states

Well defined rules regarding economy

Legacy of old imperial world order

Many empires that ruled over organized imperial societies

Differences in wealth and status of states around the world

The G7 (imperialist countries still powerful)

Intangible differences in states, but still real

Potential for help or harm from more powerful states

States can help and hurt smaller states

Problem and Causes of State Failure

Definition: inability of a state to exert effective control over its territory and population

Takes a long time to consolidate an effective state Ex: Syria

Why do other states worry?

Humanitarian concerns

Enormous number of people (citizens) were killed during the civil war

Many citizens have to flee their homes

European countries are worried about the political effects of bringing in refugees

Inability of failed state to fulfill its international obligations

Protecting citizens from other countries

Unable to stop deprivation Ex: Somalia

Source of conflict among other states

States are tempted to intervene to expand their territory

Feel they have to intervene because if not, other states will

State failure is contagious

If one state fails, its neighbors become statistically more likely to fail

Can use a failed state to attack another state.

Causes of state failure

Characteristics of the state

Grievances of the population

Ease of resistance to state authority

Characteristics of the state

Regime type: democracy or autocracy?

States are arrayed on a continuum

Openness to international trade

More open to trade, the less likely you are to fail. Correlation, not causation

"Reverse causation" Probability of state failure decreases, more likely to trade

"Spurious correlation" (no casual institutions) Strong domestic institutions affect these things

Elite polarization (party leaders)

Agree with the same people for everything, and disagree with same people

Bad through regional differences Ex: North and South states in the US

People ignore formal institutional rules, especially when it's to your political advantage

Hard for wealthy states to fail

Past episodes of state failure

Once institutions are undermined, they are very hard to put back together

Do everything in your power to avoid the first state failure Ex: South Vietnam

Ease of Resistance to State Authority

Rough terrain

More difficult to exert authority over geographic boundaries

Rebellions are easier as well Ex: Philippines/Pakistan

Lootable resources

Light weight and can be carried away. Ex: open-pit diamond mine in Sierra Leone

Ethnic homogeneity among potential rebels

Must overcome collective action problem

Hard to group people together to overthrow the state

Easier to convince people to overthrow the state with similar ethnic traits

Availability of external support

Help from an outside source Ex: US and USSR during the cold war.

War in social science

Theory: abstract account of a casual process

Causation

Chain of events that lead to a certain outcome (like war)

Theory that can explain things across states

Why is theory necessary

Needed to understand reality

Hard to understand infinite possibilities of outcome

Implicit theories

What makes a theory scientific?

Plausible account of causal process

Observable implications (need something to observe)

Theories have unobservable parts,ideas within the head of actors

Falsifiable hypotheses

Has to be possible for you to know the hypothesis is wrong

Evaluating competing scientific theories

Parsimony (want simple theory)

Usefulness

Don't think whether theories are true or not true

60% theory, can't get rid of old theory without new one

The limits of social science

Can not explain normative claims (how things should work)

Levels of analysis

The problem of war

Center to the field of international relations

Damaging to mental health and can dehumanize

Bad for society: caused states to fall apart

What are "levels of analysis"?

Degree of aggregation of the unit whose behavior is explained

Ex: individuals vs. states vs. system (level of aggregation)

Ex: Washington commanders and why they are bad. Individual, organizational, and system level explanations

Levels of analysis in international relations theory

Individuals

States

The international system

Individual, State, Systematic Levels

The individual level of analysis

The "Devil Theory of War": bad individuals cause it

When war starts, people look to blame someone

Ex: Hitler blamed for starting WW2

Explanation of why people support these "bad people"

Human nature causes war

Optimistic version: people can change!

Pessimistic version: no, they can't

Education is not enough (learning of other cultures does not make you like them)

Altruism invites exploitation

Counsel of despair (idea of human nature)

The state level of analysis

Democracies should be less warlike than other regimes

Things gained from fighting usually does not pay off for loses

Some people may gain more than others

Evidence: democracies rarely fight other democracies

Regime type does not have an affect on who starts war

Economic development should make states more peaceful

Find war unprofitable

Only launch wars if states believe they will gain something economically

Sometimes wealthy states will start war (can because they are powerful)

The systemic level of analysis

Theory of International Politics

What is a system?

Composed of separate but related parts

Individual parts do not explain output of system as a whole

How are all the parts are arranged together

Negative and positive feedback affects

Complexity of system increases unintended consequences

Difficult for state leaders to know the actions of other leaders

Role of international anarchy

Anarchy: lack of central authority able to resolve disputes

Security Dilemma: one state's defensive measures may threaten others, whose reactions may negate the effect of the defensive measures

Criticisms of systemic theories

Strong assumptions about state's motives and behavior

Leaders may launch wars to try and gain popularity

Used to absolve state leaders of moral responsibility

Why fight a war instead of making a deal?

War is costly, even for the winner

Many explanations focus on irrationality

Focus of bargaining research: when would rational states fight?

Rationality: selecting the best option available, given your goals and the information you have

Does not mean your goals are "reasonable"

Are you choosing your best option to reach your goals?

Rational actors may be uncertain about facts, but not biased

reasons for bargaining failure

Incomplete information

Commitment problems

Issue indivisibility

Why not other reasons?

Incomplete information

Value of war to each side is "private information"

Formula for value of war P(V) - C

P: probability of victory

V: value of prize

C: expected cost of fighting

Resolve: willingness to endure costs to acquire a particular good

Consequences of incomplete information

Negative Consequences of Incomplete Information II: Not Conceding Enough

US approach toward the border of China and North Korea

US did not expect China to intervene

Why not just tell the other side?

Incentives to bluff prevent credible communication

Solving the credibility problem (Communicate to other states how serious you actually are)

Brinkmanship: increase risk of war

Tying hands: increasing the cost of backing down after making a threat

Ex: President George H. W. Bush and the aggression against Kuwait

Mobilization: costly action to increase military power

Ex: Jimmy Carter's speech announcing that the US will stop outside powers from seizing control of Persian Gulf

Issue indivisibility

Are there things that cannot be divided without losing their value?

Reasons for skepticism

Incentive to bluff about indivisibility

Alternative ways of dividing things

Limits of bargaining model

Origins of disputes

Assume there is something states are arguing about

Rationality of states

States are a collective actor

War may not be costly to decisionmakers

Model is a simplification of reality

"Isms" in international relations

Courses are often organized entirely around realism, liberalism, etc.

Problems with this approach

Exaggerating the unity of these schools of thought

Paradigm: a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated

Paradigms exist better in natural sciences

Does not reflect how research is actually conducted in the field

The isms are a relic of early ways to think about politics and scientific theory

Why discuss "isms" at all, then?

Reading older work in political science can be important, unlike other sciences

People talk about the isms all the time in the real world

What is realism?

Body of thought stressing the pursuit of power by states in international anarchy

Realists are pessimistic about what happens when states interact

"Power has its own logic"

People with power will force people to behave in particular ways

Ex: Al Pacino as Michael Corleone in "The Godfather" (1972) and Harry S. Truman, President of the US, 1945-53

Realism is not necessarily more "realistic"

Realism gives people an excuse to do whatever they want

The development of realist thought

Historical antecedents

Realist writers can be seen as prestigious

Thucydides (ca. 460-400 BCE)

Book about the Peloponnesian War

rejected the ideological rivalry as explanation of the war

Rejected arguments that either side was to directly blame

Amorality of power: make the point leaders should pay attention to problems

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)

Witness of intra state political turmoil in Northern Italy

The Prince: advice to rulers

Better to be feared than loved

Can't leave enemies any chance to come back

Need to do bad to get good in many cases

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

17th century English writer

Lived during the era of the civil war (authority over taxes and religion)

The life of a person in war is brutal and short (anarchy is bad)

While individual people didn't live in state of war, leaders did

Modern Realism

The myth: realism is a longstanding tradition revived and sharpened by debate with "idealists" during 1920s and 1930s

Idealists believe in progress and the regulation of power by reason

No evidence of debates between realists and idealists

The reality: "tradition" is mostly invented after WW2

US needed to play different role to balance German power

Major realist theoretical claims

The state is the most important actor

Other actors are dependent on the state (individuals, corporations, etc.)

Unlike individual people, states are intrinsically selfish

Ex: Moral Man and Immoral Society

Collective Selfishness of States

Leaders must serve interests of constituents

Majority of people in a group will always favor its interests over other groups

State can channel individual altruism to collectively selfish ends

Anarchy is the defining feature of the international system

Anarchy: lack of central authority able to make and enforce law

Anarchy can not be abolished or diminished

Need for "self-help in anarchy (for protection)

States can behave in any way they want (states can't be friends, even closest allies)

Do law, morality, or justice exist in anarchy?

Some realists argue they do not

States pursue their national interests

"National" is unclear as to what it means (realists use what motivates states

Defensive realists: states try to maximize their security

Offensive realists: states try to maximize their power

Moral and ideological concerns are irrelevant

Can find yourself in bad situations (becoming allies with enemies and fighting allies)

Many self conscious realists

States balance against the power of other states

Balance of power as prediction of state behavior

Countries that face a common threat will be forced to alliance/cooperate

If one country acquires too much power, other states will come together to go against that country. Ex: 1990-91 Persian Gulf War

Before invasion of Kuwait:

Gulf states back Iraq against Iran

No major US bases permitted in region

After invasion of Kuwait

Gulf states unite against Iraq

US bases subsidized by Saudi Arabia

Balance of power as policy prescription

How smart nations should behave

Realists argue Britain and France should have done more to balance power with the Germans

Ex: The balance of Power as Prescription: Keenan's Containment Strategy

Keenan argued that the US went too far (blamed democracy)