Detailed Study Guide for The Future of International Relations (PSC 124.2)

Upcoming Course Logistics and Final Examination Details

• Important Dates and Schedule Changes     * Class Meetings: The final class session will be held this Wednesday, April 23 (4/23).     * Sections: YES sections will hold their final meetings this week. There will be NO sections next week.     * Office Hours:         * Professor McD will hold regular office hours today.         * Professor McD will hold extra office hours on Friday, April 25 from $1:30$ to $3:00\,PM$.     * Cancellations: There is NO class next Monday, April 28 (4/28).     * Final Exam: Thursday, May 1.

• Final Examination Logistics     * Date: Thursday, May 1.     * Time: $3:00\,PM$ - $5:00\,PM$.     * Location: Same as regular class meetings.     * Requirements: Students must bring their own pen (BYOP).     * Format and Weighting:         * Part I: Multiple Choice: $5$ questions worth $2$ points each for a total of $10$ points. This section covers $100\%$ post-midterm material.         * Part II: Matching: $5$ questions worth $2$ points each for a total of $10$ points. This section covers $100\%$ post-midterm material.         * Part III: Short Answer: $9$ questions provided; students answer $6$ questions worth $5$ points each for a total of $30$ points. This section is comprehensive.         * Part IV: Essay: $2$ questions; students answer both worth $25$ points each for a total of $50$ points. This section is comprehensive.     * Essay Preparation: Four potential essay questions will be posted to Blackboard after the final meeting. Two of these will be selected for the actual exam.

Summary of International Relations Fundamentals

• The Framework of Anarchy     * All international issues occur in an environment characterized by the absence of a central authority, a condition known as "anarchy."     * The Three Functions of Government (and issues resulting from their absence):         1. Upholding Law and Order: In the absence of this, the result is War.         2. Enforcing Contracts: In the absence of this, the result is Economic Conflict.         3. Protecting Common Resources: In the absence of this, the result is Pollution.

• Semester Review: Core Pillars of PSC 124     * Tools: States, Power, International System, Strategic Interaction, and Theory.     * Military Conflict and Cooperation: Anarchy, Game Theory, the Security Dilemma, and Bargaining.     * Economic Conflict and Cooperation: Mitigation of Anarchy, Democratic Peace, the Shadow of the Future, Institutions, International Trade, International Finance/Money, Geoeconomics, and Economic Statecraft.     * Transnational Problems: Terrorism, Human Rights, and Environmental problems.

The Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

• Current Global Landscape     * Nuclear Powers: There are currently nine states with nuclear weapons: United States, Russia, Great Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea.     * Developing Programs: One state (Iran) is actively seeking to develop nuclear weapons, with expert-level talks documented around April 19, 2025, involving figures such as Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.     * Technical Capacity: Approximately $20$ states possess the technical capacity to develop nuclear weapons.     * Chemical and Biological Weapons: Fewer states are suspected of these programs, but a handful maintain illicit stocks.

• Theoretical Perspectives on WMD and Deterrence     * While WMDs are destructive, some theories suggest nuclear weapons may reduce the likelihood of war by increasing its cost and lowering the "expected value" ($EV$) of fighting.     * Expected Value Calculation:         * $EV = P(\text{win}) \times \text{Payoff}(\text{win}) + P(\text{lose}) \times \text{Payoff}(\text{lose})$         * Probabilities exist between $0$ and $1$.     * Bargaining Scenario Example (No WMD):         * Two people find $\$100$. Fighting costs each $\$20$ in medical bills. Each has a $50\%$ chance of winning.         * $EV_{\text{fighting}} = 0.5 \times (\$100 - \$20) + 0.5 \times (\$0 - \$20)$         * $EV_{\text{fighting}} = \$40 - \$10 = \$30$         * The bargaining range exists where outcomes provide at least $\$30$ to both parties.     * Bargaining Scenario Example (With WMD):         * If the cost of fighting rises to $\$50$ due to high-destruction weaponry:         * $EV_{\text{fighting}} = 0.5 \times (\$100 - \$50) + 0.5 \times (\$0 - \$50)$         * $EV_{\text{fighting}} = \$25 - \$25 = \$0$         * The bargaining range becomes huge because any outcome above $\$0$ is preferable to the total annihilation of war.

• Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)     * Definition: A situation where the full-scale use of WMDs by two or more states results in the total annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.     * Requirements for MAD:         1. Second Strike Capability: Each side must possess a survivable capability to retaliate after being hit.         2. Rationality: Leaders must prioritize their own survival.         3. Verification: Each side must be able to verify the origin of an attack.     * Historical Evidence: Only one instance of nuclear weapon use in history (WWII); conventional wars between nuclear-armed states are extremely rare.

• Concerns and Prevention of Proliferation     * Risks: Distributional consequences (shifting power balances), states failing to meet MAD requirements (irrationality), and the risk of non-state actors (terrorists) acquiring weapons.     * Management Strategies: Security guarantees for potential proliferators, international institutions like the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), and Coercive Disarmament (compellence).

The Rise of China and Power Transition Theory

• Shifting Distribution of Global Power     * Economic Projections (Goldman Sachs):    * Military Spending: The US military spending is projected to slow to $3\%$ of GDP ($\approx \$1.8\,trillion$), while China's spending may reach $\$0.6\,trillion$ at $2.1\%$ of GDP.

• The Problem of Shifting Relative Power     * Bargaining at Time 1 ($T_1$):    * Bargaining at Time 2 ($T_2$): If China becomes more powerful (e.g., $75\%$ chance of winning):         * China's $EV = 0.75 \times (\$100 - \$20) + 0.25 \times (\$0 - \$20) = \$55$         * USA's $EV = 0.25 \times (\$100 - \$20) + 0.75 \times (\$0 - \$20) = \$5$     * Preventive Incentive: The US may have an incentive to fight today rather than settle if it knows China will grow assertive and renege on deals in the future. China cannot credibly commit to not changing the deal later.

• Current Flashpoints: China's Maritime Disputes     * China is building artificial islands and making claims in the South China Sea (Spratly Islands, Paracel Islands, Scarborough Shoal).     * The US conducts Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOP) near Mischief Reef to challenge these claims.     * US Strategies:         1. Containment: Denying access to US markets; maintaining Asian military presence and alliances.         2. Engagement: Promoting Chinese membership in institutions (WTO, IMF, ASEAN) to give them a vested interest in the status quo.

The Future of Globalization and Economic Integration

• Definitions and Trends     * Globalization: The spread of activities and ideas globally.     * Economic Globalization: Increasing integration of national economies through movement of goods, services, and money.     * Trend: Global trade grew twice as fast as the global economy from 1980-2008, but crashed after the 2008 crisis and never returned to pre-crisis trends.

• Challenges to Globalization (Backlash from Below)     * Stolper-Samuelson Theorem: Free trade raises income for owners of locally abundant factors and reduces income for owners of locally scarce factors.     * Case Study (US vs. China):         * China: Locally abundant in Labor. Labor owners WIN; Capital owners LOSE.         * USA: Locally abundant in Capital. Capital owners WIN; Labor owners (workers) LOSE.     * The "losers" from trade (e.g., US manufacturing labor) support protectionism and tariffs.

• Challenges to Globalization (Backlash from Above)     * Security Concerns: States fear "Relative Gains" (partners gaining more) and "Interdependence" (vulnerabilities in strategic resources), a concern shared by Kenneth Waltz.     * Supply Chain Vulnerabilities: COVID-19 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine highlighted the risks of relying on overseas supply chains for critical equipment like semiconductors and rare earths.     * Institutional Decay: The WTO is struggling; the US has blocked appellate judges since 2016, and the Doha round of negotiations has stalled.

• Possible Future Outcomes     1. Geoeconomic blocs.     2. Disorder and autarky.     3. New rules for a new liberal order.

Closing Thoughts: Goals of the Course

1. Learn to think like a (social) scientist.

2. Learn to see patterns and logic in world events.

3. Foster an interest in international relations (PSC 124).

Questions & Discussion

• Short Answer Example:     * Question: Explain what a "Transnational Advocacy Network" (TAN) is and give an example of how they can influence state behavior.     * Implicit Answer Context: TANs (discussed in previous meetings) typically use information sharing, social pressure, and "boomerang" patterns to shift state norms and policies.