Exam Review
Exam Overview
The exam focuses on six main areas:
Interstate War (Week 6, Chapters 3 & 5)
Domestic Politics and Interstate War (Week 7, Chapter 4)
Democratic Peace and Liberal Peace (Week 8, Chapter 4)
The UN and Collective Security (Week 8, Chapter 5)
Civil Wars and Peacebuilding (Week 9, Chapter 6)
Eight Sample Short-Answer Questions
Key skills to master: memorizing definitions, explaining causal mechanisms (step-by-step reasons why things happen), applying concepts to historical examples, and explaining the bargaining-range diagram.
Section 1: Interstate War
1.1 Definition and Basic Concepts
War: Organized use of military force by at least two parties that reaches a minimum level of severity
Interstate war: A war fought between two or more independent countries (states).
Incompatibility: A conflict of interest where two states want different outcomes that cannot both happen at once (such as claiming the exact same border or wanting different leaders in power).
1.2 The Central Puzzle: Why Do States Fight?
The Puzzle: War is terrible, bloody, and expensive. Because fighting destroys wealth and lives, both states would always be better off reaching a compromise that avoids those costs. So why does war happen?
The Answer: Bargaining failure. War happens when two states fail to reach or stick to a peaceful deal.
1.3 The Three Causes of Bargaining Failure (Must Memorize)
Incomplete Information (with incentives to bluff)
Neither state knows the true military strength, resolve, or secret plans of the other side.
States often exaggerate their own strength to demand a better deal, causing both sides to miscalculate and fight.
Example: A country bluffs about having superior weapons, leading the opponent to attack anyway.
Commitment Problems
States cannot credibly promise that they will honor an agreement in the future.
Example: State A expects to become much stronger in five years. State B fears that State A will break any current deal later, so State B launches a preventive war now while it still has a chance.
Issue Indivisibility
The disputed item cannot easily be divided into pieces that satisfy both sides.
Example: Two countries claim exclusive religious or historical ownership over the exact same piece of land, and neither side is willing to split or share it.
1.4 The Bargaining Range
The Bargaining Range: The set of possible negotiated agreements that both states prefer over fighting a costly war.
Because fighting has guaranteed costs (casualties and destruction), there is almost always a range of peaceful settlements that leaves both states better off than war.
A war occurs only when states fail to find or trust an agreement inside this range.
1.5 Making Commitments Credible
When a state makes a promise or a threat, opponents may doubt it. States make threats believable using three strategies:
Brinkmanship: Deliberately escalating a crisis to the edge of catastrophe to make the other side blink first (e.g., the U.S. naval blockade during the Cuban Missile Crisis).
Tying Hands: Making a public statement or promise that would severely embarrass or politically destroy the leader if they backed down (creating "audience costs").
Costly Signals: Taking actions that are too expensive, difficult, or risky to fake (such as deploying massive troops or spending enormous funds), proving real resolve.
1.6 Alliances
Alliance: A formal agreement where states agree to cooperate for defense and security.
Balancing vs. Bandwagoning:
Balancing: Teaming up with other states to stand up against a dangerous, powerful country.
Bandwagoning: Joining the dangerous, powerful country to stay safe or share in the spoils.
Alliances and the Bargaining Range: An alliance makes an attack much riskier and costlier for the enemy, which can deter war. However, the enemy must truly believe the ally will show up to help.
Two Alliance Risks:
Abandonment: The fear that your ally will ditch you when you are attacked.
Entrapment: The fear that your reckless ally will drag you into an unwanted war.
Section 2: Domestic Politics and Interstate War
2.1 Leaders
Rally-Around-the-Flag Effect: A sudden spike in public support and patriotism for a national leader during an international crisis (e.g., George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks).
Diversionary War: When a leader starts or escalates a foreign conflict to distract citizens from domestic troubles (such as economic problems) and boost their own popularity.
Class Example: The Falklands War, where Argentina's military government invaded the islands to distract from severe domestic unrest.
Key Distinction: The rally effect is the increase in public approval; a diversionary war is the intentional use of conflict to get that boost.
2.2 Bureaucracies
Miles' Law: "Where you stand depends on where you sit."
Meaning: An official's opinion on foreign policy is shaped by the agency or organization they work for.
Cuban Missile Crisis Example: Military generals favored air strikes and invasion, while diplomatic advisers supported a naval blockade.
2.3 Interest Groups
Small, highly organized interest groups often exert huge influence over policy because they enjoy concentrated benefits while the costs are spread across the whole public.
Class Examples: The military-industrial complex (arms manufacturers who profit from defense spending) and oil companies during the Iraq War.
2.4 The General Public
The general public acts primarily as a constraint on national leaders.
Leaders must consider how voters will react to rising casualties, tax burdens, and economic fallout before deciding to fight.
Section 3: Democratic Peace and Liberal Peace
3.1 The Peace Scale
Negative Peace: The simple absence of active armed conflict or physical violence (a ceasefire).
Positive Peace: The presence of justice, stable institutions, and resolved grievances that make future war unlikely.
First is war the negative peace and positive peace and than make a bracket after war and positive peace.
3.2 Democratic Peace
Definition: The empirical observation (real-world historical pattern) that democracies almost never go to war against other democracies.
It is an observation about relationships between pairs of democracies, not a claim that democracies are always peaceful.
Why does it happen?
Democratic Institutions: Free elections, open debates, and legislative checks force leaders to be accountable to voters who bear the costs of war.
Democratic Norms: Democratic cultures value negotiation, compromise, and the rule of law, which leaders extend to other democracies.
Realist Skepticism: Realists argue that democracy is not the true cause of peace; instead, shared strategic interests, common enemies, and the distribution of power during the Cold War explain the pattern.
3.3 Does War Between a Democracy and an Autocracy Disprove the Theory?
No. The democratic peace only claims that democracies do not fight each other. Democracies fight authoritarian regimes quite frequently.
3.4 Liberal Peace
A broader argument that three conditions work together to build long-term peace:
Domestic Democracy: Democratic accountability restrains leaders.
Economic Interdependence: Heavy international trade makes war financially disastrous for both sides.
Global Institutions: International organizations (like the UN) improve communication, build trust, and help settle disputes peacefully.
Section 4: The UN and Collective Security
4.1 Collective Security
A system where a broad group of states agrees that an attack on one member is treated as an attack on all of them, prompting a united response.
4.2 Why Collective Security Often Breaks Down
Collective Action Problems: Everyone wants the security benefits of peace, but individual states try to "free-ride" so they do not have to pay the financial or troop costs.
Joint Decision-Making Problems: States frequently disagree on who the real aggressor is, which response is fair, or whether action is worth taking.
4.3 UN Security Council
Permanent Five (P5): United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China.
Veto Power: Any single P5 member can instantly block any substantive decision, which often paralyzes the UN during major international crises.
4.4 Four Peace and Security Tools
Economic Sanctions: Imposing trade bans or asset freezes to pressure a state without using immediate military force.
Peace Enforcement: Using combat troops to force compliance or defeat an aggressor, without needing the consent of all fighting parties.
Traditional Peacekeeping: Lightly armed troops deployed with the consent of both sides to monitor an existing ceasefire and keep forces separated.
Developed during the Cold War (linked to the 1956 Suez Crisis).
Requires: an existing ceasefire, consent of both sides, absolute impartiality, and clear separation of forces.
Aims only for negative peace (stopping the shooting).
Peacebuilding: Long-term programs designed to fix the underlying causes of war, rebuild institutions, and create sustainable positive peace.
Section 5: Civil Wars and Peacebuilding
5.1 What is a Civil War?
An armed conflict inside a single country between the recognized government and organized domestic rebel groups fighting for control of the state or territory.
5.2 Civil War Onset: Willingness and Opportunity
Willingness (Why rebel?): The motivation to fight.
Driven by grievances (discrimination, political repression), material incentives (money, resource loot), or political goals.
Opportunity (Can they rebel?): The practical ability to organize and fight.
Driven by state weakness (a broke or corrupt government, poor military reach) and rebel group strength (weapons, hiding spots, rough terrain).
Bougainville Example:
Willingness: Anger over environmental destruction and unfair distribution of profits from the giant Panguna copper mine.
Opportunity: Island geography far from the capital and the weak military capacity of Papua New Guinea.
5.3 Ending Civil Wars
Mutually Hurting Stalemate: A deadlock where both the government and rebels realize neither side can win and continuing to fight will only cause more painful losses. This creates a window for peace talks.
5.4 The Core Problem: Mistrust and Commitment Problems
To end a civil war, rebels usually must go through DDR:
Disarmament: Giving up their weapons.
Demobilization: Disbanding their military units.
Reintegration: Returning former fighters to civilian life.
Why Neither Side Trusts the Other:
Rebels' fear: If they disarm and dismantle their army, the government can easily break its word, arrest them, or slaughter them.
Government's fear: If the rebels keep weapons, they might use future talks to rearm and launch surprise attacks.
5.5 Overcoming Mistrust
Third-Party Guarantor: An outside country or international body (such as the UN) that monitors the disarmament process, protects former rebels, and guarantees that neither side cheats.
Institutional Solutions:
Security Sector Reform: Integrating rebel fighters into the national military or reforming police forces so they are trusted.
Power-Sharing: Guaranteeing both sides representation in the postwar government.
5.6 Why Traditional Peacekeeping Fails in Civil Wars
Traditional peacekeeping requires consent, an agreed ceasefire, and clear frontlines between distinct state armies.
Civil wars involve messy frontlines, deep hatreds, and fractured militias where consent constantly breaks down.
Traditional peacekeeping only brings negative peace (temporary halt in shooting). Civil wars need peacebuilding (DDR, power-sharing, institutional reforms) to solve the underlying grievances.
Section 6: Model Answers for the Eight Short-Answer Questions
Question 1: Issue Indivisibility
Key Point: An issue is indivisible when it cannot be split into shares that both sides accept (such as a holy city or exclusive sovereignty).
Impact on Bargaining: Because the good cannot be divided, no middle-ground deal can be found inside the bargaining range, causing negotiations to fail and leading to war.
Question 2: Credible Commitments
Key Point: States struggle to make credible commitments because they cannot guarantee they will not break the deal later, especially if power shifts.
Mechanism: A state can use costly signals (taking an expensive, hard-to-reverse action like deploying troops or spending funds) or tying hands (making public commitments with audience costs) to prove its promise is genuine.
Question 3: Diversionary War
Key Point: A diversionary war happens when a leader uses a foreign war to distract the public from domestic failures and artificially boost support.
Falklands Example: Facing severe domestic economic crisis and public unrest, Argentina's military junta invaded the Falkland Islands to spark nationalist pride and unite the public behind the regime.
Question 4: Democratic Peace
Key Point: Democratic peace is the empirical observation that democracies rarely fight other democracies.
Mixed Wars: A war between a democracy and an authoritarian state does not violate this theory because the rule strictly applies to relationships between two democracies (dyads).
Question 5: The Peace Scale
Peace Scale: Distinguishes negative peace (absence of direct violence) from positive peace (fixing root causes for sustainable harmony).
Democratic Peace: Corresponds primarily to negative peace (the observed absence of war between democracies).
Liberal Peace: Combines democracy, trade, and institutions to address root conflicts, helping foster positive peace.
Question 6: Willingness and Opportunity
Willingness: Motivation to fight (grievance, greed, political goals).
Opportunity: Practical ability to fight (weak government, rough terrain, rebel funding).
Bougainville Example: Willingness came from local anger over environmental pollution and stolen profits from the Panguna mine; opportunity came from the island's isolation and the weak enforcement capacity of Papua New Guinea.
Question 7: Mistrust and Civil War Agreements
Why Mistrust Exists: Both sides face a severe commitment problem. Rebels fear being arrested or killed once they disarm, while the government fears rebels will renege and attack again.
Solution: A third-party guarantor (like the UN or an outside power) is used to verify compliance and protect disarmed combatants.
Question 8: Traditional Peacekeeping and Civil Wars
Why It Fails: Traditional peacekeeping requires an established ceasefire, consent of both sides, impartiality, and clear frontlines—conditions rarely present in chaotic civil wars.
Type of Peace: It only seeks negative peace (halting gunfire), which leaves root causes untouched. Resolving civil wars requires comprehensive peacebuilding (DDR, security sector reform, and power-sharing).
Issue indivisibility occurs when a contested issue or resource cannot be divided into pieces that satisfy both sides, such as exclusive claims over sacred land. Because the good cannot be split, states are unable to find a viable compromise inside the bargaining range, which causes negotiations to fail and leads to conflict.
States struggle to make credible commitments during negotiations because neither side can guarantee that it will not renege on a deal in the future if power balances shift. To make these commitments credible, states can employ costly signals to prove their intentions are genuine. This involves taking actions that are too expensive, risky, or difficult to bluff, such as mobilizing troops or spending massive financial resources, to demonstrate true resolve.
1. Diversionary War and the Falklands War: A diversionary war occurs when a national leader intentionally initiates or escalates an international conflict to distract the public from internal failures, such as severe economic crises or domestic unrest, and artificially boost their political approval through the rally-around-the-flag effect. In the Falklands War, Argentina's military junta faced massive public opposition and deteriorating economic conditions at home. To distract the population and unify the country behind the government through nationalist pride, the regime invaded the Falkland Islands. While the rally-around-the-flag effect refers to the surge in public patriotism during a crisis, a diversionary war is the deliberate political decision to incite conflict to obtain that boost.
2. Democratic Peace: Democratic peace is the empirical observation that democracies almost never fight wars against other democracies. It is rooted in democratic institutions, which force accountable leaders to answer to cost-bearing voters, and democratic norms that prioritize compromise and rule of law. A war between a democracy and an authoritarian state does not violate the democratic peace theory. The theory applies strictly to pairs of democracies (dyads) rather than arguing that democracies are peaceful overall; democratic states frequently engage in military conflict with non-democratic regimes.
3. Theories of Peace:
a. The Peace Scale: The peace scale differentiates between negative peace, which is merely the absence of direct armed conflict or active violence (such as a ceasefire), and positive peace, which represents the presence of justice, stable political institutions, and resolved underlying grievances that make future armed conflict unlikely.
b. Democratic Peace and Peace Type: Democratic peace describes the empirical lack of armed conflict between democratic states. Because it fundamentally marks the observed absence of war between democratic dyads rather than the complete resolution of root grievances, it corresponds primarily to negative peace.
c. Liberal Peace and Peace Type: Liberal peace posits that three interlocking conditions—domestic democracy, economic interdependence (international trade making war financially catastrophic), and global institutions (such as the UN enhancing dialogue and cooperation)—work together to dismantle the causes of conflict. Consequently, liberal peace creates sustainable positive peace.