Knowt
Poli Sci 20 Notes
Lecture 1 Notes: POL SCI 20 - World Politics
Key Questions in World Politics
Why is there no world government?
Why do states fight wars?
Why do some states support free trade while others do not?
What explains why some states are wealthy while others remain poor?
How does international law function without a global enforcement authority?
Why is climate change so difficult to address?
What roles do race and gender play in international relations?
How do treaties, international organizations, and ideas shape global politics?
Is the world ready for challenges to the existing order?
Some answers:
Key Questions in World Politics
Why is there no world government?
The international system is anarchic, meaning there is no overarching authority to enforce global laws.
Why do states engage in wars?
Wars result from power struggles, resource competition, and strategic calculations.
Why are some states wealthier than others?
Factors such as colonial history, economic policies, natural resources, and governance play a role.
How do treaties and international organizations impact global affairs?
Institutions like the United Nations (UN) provide mechanisms for conflict resolution and cooperation.
Framework for Studying World Politics
Puzzle: Observations that require explanation.
Question: What we seek to explain.
Theory: A logically consistent set of statements used to explain phenomena, often probabilistic rather than absolute.
Key Concepts
Interests: Goals actors seek to achieve in political action.
Interactions: How actors' choices combine to produce outcomes.
Bargaining: Gains for one actor come at a loss to another.
Cooperation: At least one actor benefits without harming others.
Institutions: Sets of rules that structure interactions, including organizations, norms, and ideas.
Levels of Analysis
International: Interaction between state representatives (e.g., the United Nations).
Domestic: Policy-making processes within a state (e.g., elections).
Transnational: Groups spanning multiple states influencing politics (e.g., Meta, ISIS).
Paradigms in International Relations
Realism:
Assumptions:
States are primary actors.
The world is anarchic with no central authority.
Implications:
States prioritize security and military power.
Cooperation is short-lived, and conflict is inevitable.
Liberalism:
Assumptions:
Multiple actors, including domestic and international NGOs, matter.
Implications:
Natural opportunities for cooperation exist.
Democracies and international institutions promote peace and cooperation.
Constructivism:
Assumptions:
Interests are shaped by identity, culture, and beliefs, not just material factors.
Implications:
Ideas and norms influence political actions.
Transnational actors play a key role in shaping the rules.
Final Notes
How did the global order develop, and why are states the dominant political units today?
Lecture 2 Notes: POL SCI 20 – World Politics
Lecture Outline: A Brief History of the Global Order
The Age of Mercantilism
Jockeying for Global Supremacy
Creation of the Modern State System
Britain at the Steering Wheel
The World Wars
The Cold War
The World Today
Key Historical Periods
1400s-1500s: The Age of Mercantilism
Global Exploration and Colonization: Triggered by Columbus and other explorers in 1492.
Mercantilism:
Imperial governments used military power to enrich themselves and boost their military strength.
Trade viewed as a zero-sum game — gain for one nation meant loss for another.
Heavy economic regulation to increase state power:
Restricted colonies from trading with other nations.
Encouraged monopolies for essential goods.
Focused on exporting more than importing.
Mercantilist policies fueled conflicts like the American Revolutionary War (e.g., Navigation Acts of 1651).
1494: Treaty of Tordesillas
Divided the world between Portugal and Spain, sparking early struggles for global dominance.
1618-1648: Thirty Years’ War and the Peace of Westphalia
Initially a religious conflict that expanded into a massive European war.
Peace of Westphalia (1648):
Established sovereign state borders.
Ended religious wars and recognized state sovereignty.
1648-1815: Britain Ascendant
1660s: Britain overtakes the Dutch in global trade.
1756-1763: Seven Years' War (French and Indian War) expels France from the New World.
1815: Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo and Congress of Vienna establish Britain's dominance as a global hegemon.
1815-1914: Pax Britannica
Britain’s dominance leads to relative peace among European powers ("Hundred Years' Peace").
Rise of free trade and globalization following the Industrial Revolution.
1871: Unification of Germany sparks anxieties among European powers.
1914-1918: World War I
June 28, 1914: Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand triggers war.
November 11, 1918: War ends.
Devastating consequences: 15 million deaths, $191 billion in costs (equivalent to $4.3 trillion today).
1918-1939: Interwar Period
Treaty of Versailles imposes heavy reparations on Germany, leading to economic ruin and hyperinflation.
Rise of fascism (Italy, Germany) and socialism (Soviet Union).
1929: Global Great Depression worsens instability.
1939-1945: World War II
September 1939: Germany invades Poland; WWII begins.
1941: US enters war after Japan attacks Pearl Harbor.
August 1945: Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki lead to Japan's surrender.
1945-1991: The Cold War
US and USSR compete for global influence, divided by the "Iron Curtain."
Key events:
Marshall Plan ($14 billion to Western Europe).
NATO vs. Warsaw Pact alliances.
Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), Korean and Vietnam Wars.
1989: Fall of the Berlin Wall.
1991: Dissolution of the USSR.
1991-Today: Pax Americana?
US emerges as the sole superpower.
Early optimism with events like the Persian Gulf War.
Complications over time:
1994: Rwandan Genocide.
2001: September 11 attacks and War on Terror.
2008: Global Financial Crisis.
Rise of China and renewed Russian aggression.
Modern issues: Anti-globalization movements, far-right resurgence, COVID-19, and ongoing conflicts.
Next Time
Revisiting foundational concepts: Interests, Interactions, and Institutions.
Lecture 3 Notes : Interests and Bargaining
Lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War
August 2, 1990: Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein, invades Kuwait.
January 1991: U.S. and global coalition launch Operation Desert Storm against Iraq.
April 3, 1991: UN Security Council Resolution 687 establishes a ceasefire and mandates the removal of WMDs.
2002: President George W. Bush accuses Iraq of violating Resolution 687 by possessing WMDs.
March 17, 2003: Bush issues a 48-hour ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to step down.
March 20, 2003: U.S. and coalition forces invade Iraq.
Key Questions
Why did the U.S. engage Iraq?
Why did Saddam Hussein refuse to back down?
Why did the UN fail to facilitate a peaceful resolution?
Why did the UK and other nations join the Coalition of the Willing despite widespread opposition?
Understanding Interests and Actors
Actors: Basic units of analysis; can be individuals or groups sharing common interests.
Key Actor: The state, defined by sovereignty and operating within an anarchic system.
Other Actors:
Politicians (e.g., Bush, Hussein) — motivated by ideology and reelection.
Classes/Firms (e.g., defense contractors) — motivated by material gain.
Bureaucracies (e.g., State Department) — seek influence and policy preferences.
International Organizations (e.g., UN) — blend member preferences.
NGOs (e.g., Amnesty International) — pursue ideological or policy goals.
From Interests to Outcomes
Interactions: Choices by multiple actors combine to form political outcomes.
Assumptions:
Actors know what they want and aim to achieve desired outcomes.
Actors choose strategies based on the anticipated moves of others.
Iraq Example:
Bush's interest: topple Hussein.
Hussein's interest: maintain power.
Even rational choices led to war.
Cooperation
Definition: Interactions that improve at least one actor's position without worsening another's.
Examples:
Sharing leftover resources (Pareto-efficient outcomes).
Positive-sum interactions.
Challenges: Bargaining over the distribution of benefits.
Bargaining
Definition: Interactions that benefit one actor at the expense of another.
Examples:
Zero-sum interactions like territorial disputes.
Economic negotiations where gains for one are losses for another.
Types of Cooperation
Coordination:
Actors benefit from making identical choices.
Example: Drivers avoiding collisions by swerving the same way.
Collaboration:
Actors gain from working together but have incentives to defect.
Example: The Cold War arms race.
Obstacles to Cooperation
Collective Action Problems:
Incentives to free ride on others.
Example: Voting apathy.
Ringelmann Effect: Decline in individual effort as group size increases.
Factors Enhancing Cooperation
Group Composition: Smaller groups communicate and monitor more easily.
Iteration & Linkage: Repeated interactions build trust; issues are linked together.
Information Sharing: Reduces uncertainty and misperception.
Bargaining Strategies
Coercion: Imposing costs to induce behavior change.
Example: Threats backed by credible consequences.
Outside Options: Better alternatives provide leverage.
Example: U.S. unilateral action in Iraq.
Agenda Setting: Controlling choices and framing discussions.
Example: Colin Powell’s presentation at the UN.
Role of Institutions
Functions:
Set behavioral standards.
Verify compliance.
Reduce decision-making costs.
Resolve disputes.
Bias: Institutions reflect power imbalances but remain valuable for fostering cooperation.
Reflection Questions
Why did the U.S. invade Iraq?
Why did Saddam Hussein resist?
Why did the UN fail to maintain peace?
Why did the UK join the coalition despite unpopularity?
Next Lecture
War as a rational yet tragic phenomenon.
Lecture 4 Notes: War, Part 1: Definitions, Bargaining, and Information
Key Questions:
What is war?
What interests are states fighting over?
Why do wars happen?
Classic but insufficient explanations
The bargaining model of war
Defining War:
Definition: War is an event involving the organized use of military force by at least two parties that reaches a minimum threshold of severity.
Interstate war: Main actors are states.
Civil or intrastate war: Main actors are within states.
Often defined by a threshold of 1,000 deaths (arbitrary).
Historical Statistics:
Since 1816: 96 interstate wars and 442 civil wars.
Approximately 40 million deaths in the 20th century alone.
Significance: War is extraordinarily costly.
Carl von Clausewitz: “War is a continuation of policy/politics by other means.”
Interests States Fight Over:
Territory:
Material value (wealth/resources)
Strategic value (security advantages)
Symbolic value (ethnic, religious, or identity connections)
Example: India and Pakistan fighting over Kashmir
Policies:
Disputes over possession of nuclear programs, ethnic cleansing, etc.
Example: U.S. invasion of Iraq over alleged WMD program
Regime Type:
Disagreements about government composition and leadership
Examples:
British rule in the Revolutionary War (1775-1783)
U.S. invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein
Relative Power:
Fear that adversaries will become too powerful to manage
Example: The Korean War (1950-1953) during the Cold War
Classic Explanations for War (Incomplete/Seminal Theories):
Realism:
War as a consequence of an anarchic international system
Security dilemma: Arms races driven by fear (I arm myself; you get scared and arm yourself; I escalate further, etc.)
Problem: Overlooks the immense costliness of war
Misperceptions and Mistakes:
Decision-makers miscalculate success or costs of war
Problem: Mistakes are frequent but do not necessarily lead to war
Domestic Politics:
Focus on the interests of actors within states
Problem: Can be incorporated into broader models
The Key Puzzle of War:
Inefficiency Puzzle:
War is incredibly costly.
Theoretically, there should always be an agreement preferable to war.
Why does war still happen?
Solution: The Bargaining Model of War
Simplifies reality to understand bargaining failures that lead to war
Bargaining Model of War:
Setting Up the Model:
States seek their ideal outcomes but are often willing to accept less.
Simplify the contested good (e.g., territory or policy) as a continuum.
Actors A and B both want it all and must bargain over it.
Expected Outcomes:
Each state evaluates the expected outcome of war.
Example: State A may win 70% of a contested resource, while State B wins 30%.
Factoring in Costs:
Fighting is costly for both sides.
Example:
A wins 70% but loses 25% in costs, reducing net gains to 45%.
B wins 30% but suffers 15% losses, reducing net value to 15%.
Finding Deals Preferable to War:
Actors prefer deals worth more than the expected value of war.
Costs create a "bargaining range" where both sides can agree.
Strength of the bargaining model: Highlights strategic issues that prevent agreements.
Challenging the Status Quo:
States may initiate challenges when war offers better outcomes than the status quo.
Two types of threats:
Compellence: Forcing change through threats ("Do this, or else...")
Deterrence: Preventing change through threats ("Don't do this, or else...")
Example:
Status quo: A controls 25%, B controls 75%.
A could win 50% through war but incur 15% costs, yielding a net gain of 35%.
Since 35% > 25%, A has an incentive to challenge the status quo.
Crisis Bargaining:
In an anarchic world, no reliable institution resolves conflicts.
Conflicting interests lead to crisis bargaining under the threat of war.
Coercive Diplomacy: Uses threats to demand specific actions.
Example: Cuban Missile Crisis (1962)
Cuban Missile Crisis Highlights:
October 16, 1962: Spy plane photographs missile facilities in Cuba.
October 21, 1962: Kennedy orders naval blockade.
October 27, 1962: Near nuclear disaster; secret deal ends crisis.
Rationalist Explanations for War:
Despite the costs, crisis bargaining may still fail, leading to war due to:
Incomplete Information:
States lack information about each other's capabilities and resolve.
Private information creates uncertainty.
Key Problem: How to communicate credible threats?
Bluffing undermines credibility.
Strategies to increase credibility:
Brinksmanship: Risk-taking to force adversaries to back down.
Tying Hands: Making threats costly to abandon.
Paying for Power: Sinking costs into public military mobilizations.
Example: Cuban Missile Crisis brinksmanship nearly led to nuclear war.
Recap:
Incomplete information can rationally lead to war.
States bluff or misrepresent their capabilities and resolve.
Efforts to increase credibility may inadvertently escalate conflict.
Next Time:
Commitment problems and issue indivisibility as rationalist explanations for war
Factors that bring wars to an end
Changing nature of war
Lecture 5 Notes: War, Part 1: Commitments and Indivisibility
Key Topics:
Recap of the bargaining model
Why do wars happen?
Incomplete information ("They might be lying.")
Commitment problems ("They might cheat on a deal.")
Issue indivisibility ("We can’t share.")
How and why do wars end?
The changing nature of war
The Inefficiency Puzzle of War
Key Question: Why do costly wars happen when there is likely a negotiated agreement that all sides would prefer to fighting?
Answer: The bargaining model of war provides a framework to understand this puzzle, explaining why wars persist despite potential agreements.
Recap of the Bargaining Model (So Far)
War outcome: Determines shares for sides A and B after war
Bargaining range: Deals that each side prefers over war
Puzzle: Why not make a deal without fighting?
Rationalist Explanations for War
1. Incomplete Information
States have private information about:
Capabilities (material abilities)
Resolve (willingness to endure costs)
Problem: States have incentives to misrepresent their true positions to gain a better bargaining outcome.
Methods to increase credibility:
Brinksmanship
Tying hands (e.g., audience costs)
Paying for power
Risk: Increasing credibility can inadvertently raise the risk of war.
2. Commitment Problems
Difficulty in making credible commitments not to revise agreements later.
Analogies:
Stand-off: “Put down your gun, then I will too.”
Prisoner’s Dilemma and arms race scenarios
Sources of Commitment Problems:
Bargaining Over Future Power
Disputed goods may increase future bargaining power.
Example: South China Sea dispute (strategic shipping, resources)
Libya's nuclear disarmament (2003) and subsequent downfall (2011)
Preventing Shifts in Power
States fight preventive wars to stop rising powers from gaining strength.
Example: Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905)
Japan preemptively attacks Russia to stop its regional expansion
Preempting Fear of Imminent Attack
Fear of first-strike advantage prompts preemptive war.
Example: Six-Day War (1967)
Example: China’s entry into Korean War (1950)
Recap: Three situations for commitment problems:
Bargaining over future power
Preventing power shifts
Preempting imminent attacks
3. Issue Indivisibility
Definition: A good that loses value if divided, creating “all-or-nothing” bargaining.
Example: Religious significance of Jerusalem
Challenges:
Indivisibility is often shaped by politics and rhetoric, not inherent.
Possible solutions: Linkages to other issues or shared control arrangements.
How and Why Wars End
Two Key Factors:
War length
Manner of termination (negotiated vs. military victory)
War Causes and Endings:
Incomplete Information:
War ends when states learn enough about each other's capabilities.
Tends to end sooner with negotiated agreements.
Commitment Problems:
War ends when the source of the commitment problem is neutralized.
Tends to last longer and often ends with military victory.
Case Studies:
Changkufeng Incident (1938): Short conflict, negotiated ceasefire.
Paraguayan (López) War (1864-1870): Long war, total defeat of Paraguay.
The Changing Nature of War
Post-1945 Trends:
Interstate wars are less frequent.
Territorial conflicts have declined.
Reasons:
Decreased value of territory for power.
Rise of the territorial integrity norm.
Higher costs of war due to nuclear weapons and economic interdependence.
Increase in democracies and international organizations.
New Forms of Conflict:
Cyber and drone warfare: Significant damage with fewer costs.
Rules around these types of conflict remain in flux.
Conclusion: Why Understanding War Matters
Interstate wars are less common but remain a critical global concern.
Civil wars have not declined in the same way.
Ongoing global disputes (e.g., South China Sea, Kashmir) could escalate.
Understanding war is essential for maintaining peace.
Next Lecture:
Focus on domestic politics within states and their influence on war.
Lecture 6 Notes: Domestic Politics and War
Key Themes Covered
Actors Inside the State and Their Incentives for War
Politicians: Focus on reelection, ideology, and policy goals
Example: George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein
Firms: Aim for material well-being and profits
Example: Defense contractors, oil companies (Halliburton)
Bureaucracies: Seek larger budgets, influence, and policy preferences
Example: State Department, Department of Defense
National vs. Particularistic Interests
National Interests: Security, power—generally beneficial to the entire state
Particularistic Interests: Serve specific groups, not all citizens
Example: U.S. oil interests
National: Oil for economic stability and military capabilities
Particularistic: Profit for oil companies such as Aramco and ExxonMobil
State Actors and Influence in War Decisions
Leaders
Primary Decision-Makers: Control foreign policy decisions
Goal: Maintain power by responding to key influencers
Leaders can shape politics themselves but respond to actors affecting their survival
The Rally Effect
Definition: Public becomes more supportive of government during international crises
Example: George W. Bush’s approval ratings surged after 9/11
Effects:
Increased patriotism
Opposition may reduce dissent
Distraction from domestic issues
Diversionary Incentive
Leaders may create international crises to distract from domestic problems
Example: President Trump’s rhetoric on immigration to rally supporters
Historical Example:
Wag the Dog (1997 movie) depicted diversionary war strategy
Clinton-Lewinsky scandal timeline:
August 20, 1998: Operation Infinite Reach in Sudan and Afghanistan
December 16-19, 1998: Operation Desert Fox in Iraq
December 19, 1998: Clinton impeached by the House
Costs of War for Leaders
Starting vs. Ending Wars: Leaders often face backlash for prolonged conflicts
Example: Vietnam War
1964: President Johnson escalates U.S. involvement
1968: Tet Offensive shocks the nation
March 31, 1968: Johnson announces he will not seek reelection
Military-Industrial Complex Warning
Alliance between military leaders and industries benefiting from conflict
Historical Warning: President Eisenhower’s farewell speech (January 17, 1961)
Bureaucracies in War
Military: Executes war operations (e.g., Department of Defense)
Diplomatic Corps: Handles negotiations (e.g., Department of State)
Intelligence Organizations: Gather information (e.g., CIA, MI6)
These groups seek more influence, resources, and promotions
Example: State vs. Defense Department control post-invasion Iraq
Is the Military More War-Prone?
Historical Examples:
Japanese militarism leading to WWII
Confidence about Iraq within the Defense Department
However: Military leaders may oppose conflict but prefer more troops when fighting
Example:
January 2003: General Eric Shinseki recommends "several hundred thousand soldiers" for Iraq
March 2003: Operation Iraqi Freedom begins with only 112,000 American personnel
Military Influence
Controls information provided to leaders
Capable of force and, in some cases, coups (e.g., Egypt 2013 coup led by General el-Sisi)
Interest Groups in War
Profit-Driven Interests
Defense contractors benefit financially from war
2023 U.S. military defense contracts totaled $609 billion
Key contractors:
Lockheed Martin ($61 billion)—F-35 fighter jets
Raytheon ($24 billion)—Missiles
Boeing ($20 billion)—Tanks and aircraft
War Profiteering Examples
Halliburton in Iraq War: $37 billion in contracts by 2015
Blackwater’s private military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan
Issues of accountability and the "privatization of war"
Ideological Influence
Groups pushing for policies aligned with ideological interests
Example: American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)
Why Do Interest Groups Have Influence?
Collective Action Advantage: Smaller groups cooperate better
Relationships with Policymakers: Durable and influential
Incentive to Focus: More knowledgeable about niche issues
Lobbying: Defense companies spent $140 million across 396 clients in 2023
Domestic Politics and the Bargaining Model
Domestic politics can make governments either dovish or hawkish
Dovish Governments: Higher perceived costs of war
Hawkish Governments: Lower perceived costs; more aggressive threats
Democracy and War
Democratic Peace Theory
Few or no clear cases of war between mature democratic states
Potential Reasons:
Accountability through elections
Transparency and credible threat signaling
Audience costs for unfulfilled threats
Mutual respect and compromise norms among democracies
Democracy vs. Autocracy
Democracy: Competitive elections with broad participation
Autocracy: Power concentrated in an individual or small group with minimal competition
Accountability Differences
Democracies: Elections hold leaders accountable for war decisions
Autocracies: Harder to remove leaders; consequences may be severe
Autocratic leaders may "gamble for resurrection" to avoid consequences
Bargaining Model and Democracy
Democracies reveal more credible information due to transparency
Democratic leaders face stronger audience costs, making threats more credible
Challenges to Democratic Peace Theory
Democracies tend to be wealthier and capitalist; capitalism may explain peace
Peace may enable democracy rather than democracy causing peace
Cold War alliances may have contributed to peace
Women’s suffrage may have influenced more peaceful policies
Next Steps
Exploring international institutions and their impact on war
Lecture 7 Notes: International Institutions and War
Professor Eric Min
Outline of Topics Covered
Making the Best of Anarchy
The world operates without a global government or police force.
Anarchy requires states to rely on self-help for security.
Institutions: Defined as shared rules that structure interactions between states.
Alliances
Definition: Institutions that help coordinate military actions between member states.
Types of Alliances:
Offensive Alliances: Agreements to jointly attack a third state (e.g., Convention of London, 1861).
Defensive Alliances: Commitments to defend another state if attacked (e.g., NATO, 1949).
Key Historical Example: World War I Alliances
Triple Entente (Allied Powers): Russia, France, Britain.
Triple Alliance (Central Powers): Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy.
Timeline:
July 28, 1914: Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia.
August 1: Germany declares war on Russia.
August 4: Britain declares war on Germany.
Rationale for Alliances
Balancing Power: Small states align against stronger threats.
Balance of Threat: Sometimes states bandwagon with stronger powers.
Historical Example: Congress of Vienna (1815) sought balance post-Napoleonic Wars.
Challenges to Alliance Credibility
States may not fulfill promises, leading to credibility issues.
Solutions:
Station troops on allied territory.
Joint military planning.
Publicizing alliances to “tie hands.”
Entrapment Risk: Alliances may lead states into unwanted wars (e.g., U.S. strategic ambiguity with Taiwan).
Three Eras of Alliance Politics
Pre-WWI: High uncertainty about commitments (e.g., Britain's unclear intentions).
Interwar Period: Low credibility (e.g., France’s failure to defend the Rhineland).
Cold War: Low uncertainty, high credibility (e.g., NATO vs. Warsaw Pact).
Collective Security Organizations (CSOs)
Definition: Institutions promoting peace and security among members.
Key CSOs:
League of Nations (1919-1946).
United Nations (1945-present).
Differences from Alliances:
Alliances: Limited membership, favor specific states.
CSOs: Universal membership, promote peace for all.
How CSOs Encourage Peace
Third-party interventions change incentives to fight.
Enforcement helps resolve commitment problems.
Peacekeepers prevent first strikes and monitor agreements.
Challenges to CSOs
Free-riding: States may shirk costs of interventions.
Defining threats: “What constitutes a threat?” often depends on interests.
Institutional Design of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)
Membership:
5 Permanent Members (P5): China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States.
10 Non-Permanent Members elected for two-year terms.
P5 Veto Power: Any P5 member can block resolutions.
Strengths: Quick decision-making.
Weaknesses: Biased toward P5 interests and maintaining the status quo.
UN Military Operations
Peacekeeping: Monitoring ceasefires and peace agreements.
Peace Enforcement: Using force during ongoing conflicts.
Examples:
Peacekeeping: Haiti (2004-2017).
Peace Enforcement: Korean War (1950), Libyan Intervention (2011).
Post-Cold War and Contemporary Challenges
Cold War Era (1945-1989): Limited UNSC action due to U.S.-USSR rivalry.
Post-Cold War (1990-2001): Increased UNSC activity (e.g., Gulf War).
1992-2000: Weak responses to crises (e.g., Bosnia, Rwanda).
2001-Present: New urgency post-9/11 but fractured global support (e.g., Iraq War).
Why the UN Still Matters
Effective post-conflict peacekeeping.
Legitimacy for state actions.
Stable framework for cooperation.
Next Time:
Discussion on civil and intrastate wars.
Lecture 8 Notes: POL SCI 20: World Politics - Civil War
Lecture Outline
Finishing prior discussion on international institutions and war.
Shifting focus to non-state-based violence, including civil wars.
Topics covered:
Issues driving civil wars.
Causes, strategies, and management of civil conflicts.
Key Historical Contexts
"I Don’t Feel Like It" Period (1992-2000)
Lack of motivation rather than political tension led to global inaction.
The UNSC main actors had no significant interests, unlike the Gulf War’s oil motivations.
Weak responses to genocide characterized this period:
Rwanda (1994):
Conflict between Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups.
April 1994: Hutus commit genocide against Tutsis.
Approximately 800,000 people (75% of the Tutsi population) were killed.
UN forces withdrew after 10 troops were killed, and the international community largely avoided involvement.
State Department distinction between “genocide” and “acts of genocide.”
"Not Getting Along" Period (2001-Present)
9/11 Attacks: Heightened global security concerns.
2001 Invasion of Afghanistan: Initially backed by international support.
UNSC Resolution 1386 (December 2001): Established ISAF for Afghan security.
2003 Invasion of Iraq: Global support deteriorated.
UNSC Resolution 1441 authorized weapons inspections in Iraq.
The US justified the invasion by invoking Resolution 678 (1990).
Recent vetoes by Russia (Syria, Ukraine), China (South China Sea), and the US (Israel).
Civil Wars
Changes in Patterns of Violence
Shift from state-to-state violence to intra-state violence.
Definition of Civil War:
Armed conflict between organized actors within a state.
Meets a minimum severity threshold, often defined as 1,000 deaths.
Terrorism: Violence targeting non-combatants for political purposes.
Importance:
Civil wars and terrorism affect international relations.
States play roles in managing these conflicts.
Both phenomena often cross national borders (e.g., ISIS).
Challenges for Non-State Actors
States hold authority and resources (Max Weber’s “monopoly of legitimate physical force”).
Rebel groups and terrorists face resource limitations, organizational weaknesses, and lack formal standing.
Recruitment obstacles due to the dangers of violent methods.
Collective action problem: Free-riding undermines group cohesion.
Asymmetric Warfare: Necessary for weaker groups; tactics include hit-and-run strategies.
Persistence of Civil Wars
Between 1945 and 2016, there were 285 civil wars compared to only 35 interstate wars.
Civil wars caused at least 8.5 million deaths, compared to 3.5 million from interstate wars.
Civil wars last over 1,500 days on average, compared to 375 days for interstate wars.
Key Grievances and Greed Motivations
Grievances:
Discrimination, repression, denial of cultural practices, lack of political representation.
Greed:
Economic or resource control desires.
Example: Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka sought to protect historical advantages.
Options for Aggrieved Groups
Leave the State (Separatist Movements):
Tamil Tigers (Sri Lanka, 1983-2009).
Confederate States (US Civil War, 1861-1865).
Irredentist Goals:
Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine wanting annexation by Russia.
Catholics in Northern Ireland desiring union with Ireland.
Alter State Policies:
Sunni minority opposing Shia majority in Iraq (2006-2008).
Change the Regime:
Syrian Civil War against Bashar al-Assad (2011-present).
Mobilizing Groups to Violence
Overcoming collective action and free-riding requires:
Strong beliefs (religious, ideological, or ethnic) that encourage action.
Material compensation (diamonds, drugs, public services).
Forced recruitment (child soldiers in Somalia, Sudan, DR Congo).
Country-Level Factors
Regime Type:
Democracies offer peaceful influence mechanisms.
Autocracies suppress dissent effectively.
Intermediate regimes face heightened risks.
Terrain and Population Size: Difficult terrain and large populations hinder government suppression.
Wealth: Affects citizens’ well-being and government capacity.
International Factors
Foreign state support:
For rebels: Soviet support for South Vietnam communists.
For governments: US aid to South Vietnam.
Proxy Wars: Long-lasting conflicts involving indirect state involvement (e.g., Yemen, Syria).
Civil Wars and Bargaining Model
Incomplete Information: Difficulty in gauging rebel strength.
Commitment Problems:
Governments may renege on deals after regaining strength.
Rebel groups face challenges maintaining unified agreements.
Indivisibilities: Territorial conflicts often involve identity-based stakes.
How Civil Wars are Fought
Insurgency:
Hit-and-run tactics by small units.
Aim to impose costs over time (attrition strategy).
Provocation: Encourage government attacks on civilians to boost recruitment.
Countering Insurgencies
Indiscriminate Attacks:
Pro: Potentially discourages civilian support.
Con: Can backfire, increasing rebel recruitment.
Hearts and Minds Approach:
Build relationships, conduct aid projects.
Mixed success (e.g., Iraq post-2007 surge).
Drone Strikes:
Effective in reducing insurgent violence but pose legal and ethical concerns.
Managing and Preventing Civil Wars
International Institutions:
Monitor peace agreements and assist with reconstruction.
Overcome commitment problems during disarmament.
Preventive Measures:
Promote economic growth and democratization (risky strategy).
Strengthen state capacity while acknowledging risks of abuse.
Next Lecture
Topic: Non-state violence and terrorism.
Lecture 9 Notes: Terrorism
Key Topics for Lecture 9: Terrorism
1. Defining Terrorism
Definition: The use or threatened use of violence against noncombatant targets by individuals or nonstate groups for political ends.
Key Characteristics:
Conducted by nonstate actors (can be state-sponsored).
Targets are typically noncombatants.
Politically motivated.
Can be domestic or transnational.
"Propaganda of the Deed": Use of violence to inspire mass rebellion or revolution.
2. Historical and Modern Examples
Historical Groups:
Narodnaya Volya (Russia) — Targeted killings, including Tsar Alexander II in 1881.
Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) — Birmingham pub bombings (1974).
Modern Groups:
Hezbollah (Lebanon) — Hijacking of TWA Flight 847 (1985).
ISIS (Middle East), Boko Haram (Nigeria), Al-Shabaab (Somalia), White extremists (US, Europe).
3. Rationality of Terrorism
Rationality Defined: Terrorism may appear irrational but is often a calculated strategy to achieve goals.
Extremists: Actors whose interests are politically weak or costly for most to support.
Reasons for Becoming a Terrorist:
Revenge (57%)
Desire for respect/fear (23%)
Seeking belonging (17%)
Poverty (15%)
Religion (9%)
Additional Motivation Factors: Grievances related to foreign occupation or state oppression.
4. Terrorist Strategies
Coercion: Imposing costs on a target to induce behavioral change. Example: Planned kidnapping of Michigan governor Whitmer.
Spoiling: Sabotaging peace between target and moderate leadership. Example: Palestinian attacks during peace processes (1993-2001).
Provocation: Triggering a disproportionate response to alienate moderates. Example: September 11, 2001 leading to anti-US sentiment.
Outbidding: Competing with other groups to demonstrate superior commitment. Example: Palestinian suicide bombings.
Intimidation: Creating fear to control populations and suppress dissent.
5. How States Respond to Terrorism
Deterrence: Threaten attackers with severe consequences (limited success due to difficulty finding terrorists).
Preemption: Stopping terrorists before they strike. Example: US War on Terror (drones, surveillance, torture).
Defense: Increasing security to raise costs of attack (e.g., TSA).
Criminalization: Convicting terrorists, enhancing international cooperation.
Negotiation/Compromise: Rare due to fear of legitimizing demands.
Intelligence Gathering: Crucial for anticipating threats and understanding terrorist networks.
6. Challenges in Counterterrorism
Asymmetric Methods: Similar to insurgency tactics but targeting civilians instead of military targets.
Hiding Among Civilians: Decentralized networks help terrorists avoid detection. Example: Boston Marathon bombers.
Use of Social Media: Recruitment and mobilization strategies by groups like ISIS and white nationalist movements.
Radicalization Processes: Factors contributing to the development of extremist ideologies.
7. Terrorism and the Bargaining Model
Incomplete Information: Terrorists often misrepresent capabilities and resolve.
Commitment Problems: Difficulty ensuring future adherence to agreements.
Indivisibilities: Ideological issues perceived as non-negotiable.
8. Key Takeaways
Conflict, including terrorism, is often a bargaining problem rooted in rational behavior.
Understanding state-based conflicts provides valuable insights into nonstate actor dynamics.
Counterterrorism efforts require a mix of proactive and defensive measures.
