psc exam 2
Democratic peace theory
It is a state level theory which argues that the ‘kind’ of state matters
o Main characteristic is regime type or system of government
o Domestic politics matter
o Main argument: democracies are more peaceful than other types of states
o No two-democracies have ever fought a war
o The dyadic model of DPT refers to the link between democracy and peace depends on the pair of states
o Peace is not a characteristic of state
o Depends on relationship between states
o Model must explain why democracies do not fight each other but fight non-democracies
4 levels of analysis in IR
1. System/ structural
2. State
I. State level theories are not typically general theories for all international politics
i. More accurately they are theories of foreign policy
II. Different kinds of sates in the world
ii. Categories based on shared characteristics
iii. Do comparative states behave similarly
iv. How do you differ from other categories of states
3. Group
4. Individual
Foreign policy analysis
o Understand and predict behavior in terms of actors and processes at the domestic level
o 3 main approaches from different levels of analysis:
i. Process of state decision making (state-level)
ii. Bureaucracies (group level)
iii. Psychological characteristics of leaders (individual-level)
o Mostly focused on leaders and executive branch
iv. Legislatures: power of purse, authorization of force
Rational actor model
o Compares actual decisions to an abstraction of how decisions should be made
o Assumes underlying rationality
o Rationality is about process, not outcome
o Even best choices can turn out badly
o Always degree of uncertainty
o Model assumes that state decision makers:
1) Have clear and ordered goals (preferences)
2) Calculate costs/ benefits of different actions
3) Have a level of risk propensity (risk averse or risk acceptant)
4) Choose action that best serves their goals
Expected utility theory
o Predicts actors will choose policy of greatest value, not policy of highest payoff
o Leaders evaluate policies by estimating:
1) Probability of success or failure of choices
2) Expected costs of possible choices
o Transactions costs: actual expenditures to commit to policy (money, time, and personnel)
o Opportunity costs: other alternatives the expenditures could be used for
3) Expected utility of that policy compared to the alternatives
o EU = probability (benefit – cost)
Bureaucracies in Foreign Policy
o Most foreign policy is designed and implemented by bureaucracies
o Gather information to make policies
o Implement and monitor policies
o Almost every country has a similar set of bureaucracies in executive branch
o State, defense, National Security Agency (NSA), intelligence
Gov’t bargaining model
o More incentive to fight for own interests rather than search for most ‘rational’ policy
o Political needs > foreign policy needs
o Bureaucracies have different interests rather because of mission (role) and budget (resources)
o Example: ‘rivalry’ between army, navy, air force and marines
Small group decision making
o Key decisions are made by leaders and closest advisors
o Problems inherent to small group decision making can lead to irrational decisions
o Groupthink: group quickly arrives a single, solution and shuts down any further debate
o Group members feel social pressure to reach consensus
· Teamwork is highly valued – hesitant to criticize
· Leader also responsible for individual’s success – strong disincentive to criticize or disagree
Individual decision making
o Most of the critical decision are made by single decision maker
o Psychology and personality matter
o Individual deals with ambiguity and uncertainty in different ways
o Leaders differ in reactions to same situation
o Subject to different information screens- subconscious filters through which people put the information coming in about the world around them.
Unmotivated bias
o Bias stemming from how individuals simplify and categorize information in an extremely complex and complicated world
o Central insight: decision making is characterized by bounded rationality
o Try to be rational but limited in their ability
o Limits to information access
o Limits to information processing ability
Sources of unmotivated bias
o Attribution bias
o You attribute intention from presented information based on pre-existing images
· Dislike actor
§ Bad behavior = bad intentions
§ Good behavior = uncontrollable circumstances
· Like actor
§ Good behavior = good intentions
§ Bad behavior = uncontrollable circumstances
o Historical analogies
o Belief that a current situation is like a past one. This belief frames the policy alternatives for dealing with present situations
o Usually, a poor guide for effective policy as situations are similar but never the same.
· Those differences have big consequences
Motivated bias
o Bias stemming for one psychological need
o Selective perception: individual sees what they want to see
o Different sources of motivated bias:
o Cognitive dissonance- discomfort when new info doesn’t fit pre-existing views
· Info gets discredited or reinterpreted to confirm prior beliefs
o Bolstering- tendency to increase certainty after difficult case.
· Exaggerate benefits, downplay costs, no contingency plans
Internal wars
Wars within states (civil conflicts)
o Often have significant international consequences
· Often have significant international consequences
§ Outside intervention by governments
§ Outflow of refugees
§ Int’l trade of natural resources and weapons
§ Cross-border insurgency groups
o The number of internal wars has increased dramatically near the end of the Cold War but has declined since the 2000s
· From 1946-99, 127 internal wars
§ Over 16 million deaths
§ Examples: former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sudan (Darfur)
§ More common than interstate conflicts
Types of internal wars
o Civil wars: war between factions within a state trying to change the entire system of government, to replace the people in it, or split a region off as a new state.
o Examples: U.S. (1860's), Libya, Syria (current)
o Among the most brutal wars
o Requires a source of support for the rebels
· Neighboring states, ethnic communities, revenues from natural resources or narco-trade
o Guerrilla wars: wars in which there are no identifiable frontlines
o Insurgencies: irregular forces operating amid civilian populations
o Purpose to harass and punish enemy – no direct confrontation
o Wear down enemy to effectively liberate territory
Causes of internal conflict
o Failed states
o Decolonization from 1940-1970 resulted in many financially, bureaucratically, and militarily weak states
o States that lack the capacity to maintain order within its borders
o Breeding ground for insurgencies and civil war
o Resource curse = high levels of income inequality
o Grievances
o Theory of relative deprivation: groups that perceive themselves as relatively worse off to mobilize to seize goods
o An explanation for ethnic political mobilization
o Greed
o Conflict over control of lootable natural resources
· Diamonds (blood diamonds), precious metals, oil
Ethnic and religious conflicts
Consequences of internal conflicts
o Conflict traps: internal conflicts tend to repeat themselves over time
o Conflict = higher chance of future conflict
o Reasons:
o Economic reasons: conflict hurts future growth
· Damage to infrastructure
· Harder to attract investment: higher cost due to higher risk
o Exacerbate societal decisions
· Internal conflict rarely settled “decisively”
· Higher intolerance; lower trust
o Democracy
· Elections too soon (within 2 years) are destabilizing
· Problem: most int’l interventions require quick democratization
Ethnic conflict: cause of civil war
o Ethnic conflict: militarized conflict between 2 or more groups organized along ethnic divisions
o Conventional wisdom: ethnic conflict is primarily caused by primordial hatred
o Deeply flawed with almost no support in the empirical data
o Thought experiment: 100’s of neighboring hostile ethnic groups that live peacefully in the world
o Many ethnic groups associated with the worst civil conflicts were recent inventions by elites (Yugoslavia or Rwanda)
o In ethnic conflicts, there is often pressured to redraw borders by force
o When ethnic populations are minorities in territories controlled by rival ethnic groups, they may be driven from their land (ethnic cleansing) or systematically exterminated (genocide).
o Causes of ethnic hostility:
o Historical conflict over specific territories or natural resources
o One’s group economic exploitation or political domination over another
o When combined with ethnic and territorial conflicts, religion often becomes a central and visible division between groups. (there’s nothing inherent in religion that mandates conflicts)
o Fundamentalist movements:
· Marked by willingness to fight and die for religious beliefs
· Present throughout much of history
§ Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and other religious
· Seeks to challenge values and practices of secular political organizations
o Islamist movements:
· Sunni Muslims (the majority) and Shi’ite Muslims (concentrated in Iran, southern Iraq, southern Lebanon, Bahrain)
· Advocate basing government and society on Islamic law
o For ethnicity or religion to cause conflict, causation must be true. Critical difference between correlation and causation.
o Alternate explanation: elites use ethnicity/religion as an organizing principle
· An organizing principle is a group of identity, ideology, or cause used by organization elites to recruit and motivate followers to achieve a political goal.
§ Primary means used by elites to attract, recruit, and motivate members to engage in political violence
§ Often only loosely related to the underlying political goals of the organization.
Types of international conflicts
1. Interstate wars: wars between 2 or more states in the int’l system
2. Internal wars: civil wars occurring within states
o Domestic unrest (insurgencies)
o Sharp increase in internal wars since WWII
3. Terrorism: politically motivated violence
o Unconventional means
o Noncombatant targets
What causes peace?
- Permissive conditions (anarchy)
- Underlying causes (distribution of power, capitalism, human nature)
- Proximate causes (crises, misperceptions, madmen)
- Decision to initiate war
System-level theories
Realism
- Anarchy creates a competitive environment
- War occurs because nothing prevents it
o Power considerations at the center of who starts and who wins wars
o Focus on power imbalances
- Explains existence of war, not specific proximate causes
o Proximate causes: events that immediately precede outcome
Role of power of realism
- Realism predicts that more powerful states:
o Almost always initiates conflicts
o Are more likely to seize territory. From neighbors
o Almost always win their wars
- Main problem with realists’ claims: power is not a very reliable predictor of state behavior
o Empirical evidence is weak at best
Power and military victory
- Most states co-exist peacefully despite power asymmetries between states- even neighbors
- Conclusions and implications:
o 4 out of 10 wars were started by weaker states
o Weaker states defeated stronger states in 4 out of 10 wars
o 1 out of 10 wars were started and won by weaker states over more powerful states
- Implications:
o Other factors are involved in occurrence of war
o Other factors influence a state’s decision to start a war
o Other factors besides relative power improves a state’s chance of victory
Free trade and peace
Liberalism theory
- Free trade in int’l system = lower chance of war
- 1) cost of raw materials: free trade < war
- 2) interdependence = higher cost of war
State level theories
- Regime type
o Democratic peace theory
- Expected utility theory
o War occurs when utility of war > peace
o Explains why states start wars even when odds of winning are low
· War can be rational even if aware they will lose
· Highest expected utility > successful strategy
o Persian Gulf war
· Saddam wanted to keep power in Iraq
· Losing war < making weakening concessions
Other state-level explanations
- Nationalism (national self-determination)
o Group tries to gain control over territory
o Conquest of other states’ territory
· Irredentism: war to liberate or unite ethnic or religious groups in another country
- Diversionary war
o Initiate war to distract public (i.e. “wag the dog)
o Example: Falklands war (1982)
- Capitalism
o Lenin’s thesis (Marxist perspective) that capitalist countries are more likely to engage in conflict to secure resources to feed their economies
o Used to explain WWI
Dyadic explanations- rivalry
- Characteristic of the relationship between states conditions conflict behavior
- Certain pairs of states are more war prone than others
- Rivalry formation: disputes over territory or policy
o Escalate over time
o Rival perceived as enemy by decision-makers
o Most information about the rival is interpreted through this enemy lens
Territorial conflict
- Territorial rivalries are the most war-prone dyads in the int’l system (example: India-Pakistan)
o Territorial disputes were the primary cause 54% of all interstate wars since 1816
- Territorial conflicts are more severe than other forms of conflict (higher battle deaths, duration)
Summary
- Primary causes of war
o Distribution of power, territory, rivalry
- Factors for peace
o Democracy, economic interdependence, int’l orgs
- What might be some future issues that may cause conflict?
o Territory, nuclear weapons…
International regimes
- Regimes are a collection of norms that have been institutionalized through organizations and international laws
o Formalized arrangements between states, international organizations, NGOs, and international law designed to reinforce a single norm or a set of norms
- Regimes emerge from consistent cooperation
o Does not matter if the cooperation is a result of strategic calculations or national interest
o Over time, what matters is the principle of appropriate behavior is recognized by enough important states
International law
A set of rules, norms, and standards that offer normative guidelines and a common conceptual framework to guide states across several issues.
Disagreement over the effectiveness on int’l law:
- Realism: int’l law is not important- no enforcement mechanism
o States abide by int’l law only if it is in their interest
- Liberalism: int’l law is important- creates incentives and punishment dependent on cooperation
Reality: the effectiveness of int’l law is somewhere between these 2 perspectives
Sources of int’l laws according to the international court of justice:
- International treaties
- International customs
- Recognized principles of law
- Previous judicial citizens
- Writings of respected legal scholars
The 2 most important and recognized sources of law are treaties and customs
International organizations
These are ways states institutional diplomacy and collective efforts for peace
- Permanent structures, membership, and formal procedres
- 1st int’l orgs formed as a way for states to organize for int’l security
o Congress of vienna, concert of Europe
o Focus on collective security
- Current int’l orgs moved well beyond those early, simple attempts and have many different functions in the int’l systems
- The most prominent int’l org is the U.N.
o Established after WWII, successor to the League of Nations
o Intended to promote collective security but evolved into a much bigger organization
o Primary purpose is to promote peace throughout the world through the use of collective action
· Peacekeeping, state-building, humanitarian missions
United Nations
- Organization of the UN
o General assembly
o The Secretariat
· Secretary general; agencies
o Security council
· Permanent: U.S., Russia, China, France, U.K.
§ Veto power
· 15 member council: 10 non permanent menbers elected to 2 year terms
o Sepcialized agencies
· Int’l courts of justice, economic and social council
Terrorism
- The unlawful use of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments and societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives
4 main components:
o The use of unlawful force
o Non-military or gov’t targets – civilian populations
o Coercion – desire to intimidate and create fear
o Politically or ideologically motivated
- Key feature: actions designed to influence others beyond the target – rather than just to hurt the victim
- Terrorism is a form of asymmetric conflict
o Conflict between different kind of actors with different strengths and weaknesses
· Terrorist groups cannot be deterred (hold nothing of value to threaten)
· Terrorist groups are hard to defend against (dictate terms of engagement)
- Terrorism is not a new phenomenon
o Roman historian Livy describes terrorists evident in 500 BC
o Weapon of the weak against the state
- Terrorism in late 1800s – early 1900s (Europe & Asia)
o Linked to revolutionary radicalism (anarchist, anarcho-communist)
o Targeted assassination was preferred tactic
· Czar Alexander II (1881), King Umberto I of Italy (1900), President William McKinley (1901), Archduke Franz Ferdinand (1914)
- Terrorism from 1960 to today – high profile
o Kidnappings, hijackings, bombings, etc. – low fatalities
o Suicide attacks – bombs, IEDs
o Shooting, bombings, ‘rocket’ attacks
Terrorist motivation: individual vs group
- Must draw a clear distinction between motivation and decision-making process between individual terrorist and terrorist groups
o Individual terrorist – motivated by personal grievance or strong identity
· Think organizing principle (religion, ethnicity, class)
o Terrorist groups – motivated by political goals
· Use organizing principles to attract recruits and motivate individual violence
The logic of suicide terrorism
- Suicide terrorism reveals this distinction between the motivations of the individual and the group
- Conventional wisdom is based on flawed early research:
o Viewed suicide attacks as irrational, especially for individuals carrying out the attacks
o Consequently, studies focused on individual motivation:
· Religious indoctrination (esp. Islamic fundamentalism)
· Psychological predisposition
- Current studies suggest these early explanations are inadequate
o Religious motivation may matter, but suicide attacks are not limited to Islamic fundamentalists
Characteristics/ Demographics of attackers
o Early theories/ conventional wisdom: uneducated, unemployed socially isolated, single men in their late teens or early 20's
o Reality: no real profile
World leaders in attacks: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
- While suicide terrorism may seem irrational from the perspective of the individual carrying out the attack, it is rational from the perspective of the overall group.
Effectiveness of terrorism
- Creates anxiety and fear in a target group larger than (or beyond) the immediate victims
- Creates a sense of vulnerability in society
- Create a sense of fear and uncertainty regarding the prospect for future attacks
- Once afraid, people will pressure the government to change whatever policies to accommodate the attackers
International cooperation
- Working together for a common benefit or purpose
- Major increase in the last 60 years
- This is due to liberalism (states want absolute gains- cooperation is the most efficient way to achieve it) and economic structuralism (wealthy states have incentive to cooperate on trade to repress poor states)
- Liberalism States driven by concerns for absolute gains
Prisoner’s dilemma
- Dominant strategy – rational response for the individual regardless of the choice of the other actors
- Provides insight into why irrational consequences can result from rational behavior
o Ex: Nuclear standoff between U.S. and Soviet Union
- First strike eliminates the other country’s ability to strike back
- To overcome PD:
o Hegemonic state
· A state powerful enough to enforce cooperation through threat of force
· Hierarchical international structure