IR Theory: Correlation, Causation, and Power

Ice cream sales (orange) and shark attacks (blue) example: they rise together in summer due to a common cause (hot weather), not because one causes the other.
Correlation: two variables tend to occur together; Causation: one variable actually causes the other.
Caution: correlation does not imply causation. Seek a causal mechanism to prove causation.
In international politics: democratic peace theory shows correlation (democracies fight each other rarely) but not necessarily causation; other factors may explain peace.
Possible confounds for democracy and peace: wealth, shared values, interdependence, trade, identity.
Takeaway: distinguish correlation from causation; look for mechanisms and testing beyond surface associations.

Observation: democracies tend not to fight each other.
Initial inference: democracy causes peace.
More careful view: it may be correlation; democracies often share other traits that reduce war likelihood.
Potential confounds include: wealth, values, trade interdependence, identity, and inter-state ties.
Important lesson: avoid assuming causation from correlation; explore guiding mechanisms and alternative explanations.

Annual cycle: US-SK military exercises near Korea provoke NK threats; NK may respond with missile tests.
Deterrence logic: exercises deter NK by signaling capability; NK fears invasion and reacts defensively.
Costly signaling idea: credible commitments require costs; freezing exercises could signal seriousness and invite NK concessions, e.g., freezing nuclear activity.
First-mover problem: who initiates costly signaling first? Risky if the other side interprets it incorrectly.
Defensive vs offensive motives: whether NK is primarily defensive influences whether costly signals work.
Future uncertainty: agreements may unravel due to leadership changes or shifts in strategic thinking; past deals (Clinton era, 2002/2007) collapsed due to cheating or renegotiation.
Interconnectedness: actions (Iraq, Ukraine, Taiwan, etc.) affect how other states perceive credibility and threat.
China and nuclear capabilities: ongoing debate about whether China’s capabilities threaten U.S. strategic dominance; contrast with U.S. nuclear forces.
Ongoing tension: leadership dynamics (e.g., Xi, Putin) and regional security concerns shape risk perceptions and bargaining options.
Key takeaway: intentions are hard to discern; signals are costly but interpreting them depends on trust, perceptions of defensiveness, and future risk assessments.

Core idea: political realism centers on power; politics is guided by interests defined in terms of power.
Power definition: the capacity to influence the minds and actions of other states; broad view includes geography, resources, industry, population, weapons.
Potential vs actual power: resources you have vs resources you can actually deploy.
Security dilemma: showing power can make others feel insecure and build their own power, leading to a spiral of arms and mistrust.
The balance of power in practice: the need to demonstrate power while risking greater insecurity.
Morgenthau’s nuanced stance: critical of some US policies (e.g., Vietnam); not a blanket war hawk; emphasizes prudence and skepticism about institutions alone preventing power politics.
Intention problem: states’ true intentions are hard to know; costly signals aim to reveal genuine intent, but are contingent on perceptions of defensiveness and credibility.
Interconnections: domestic and international actions are linked; a seemingly separate decision can affect perceptions and actions elsewhere.
The role of psychology: peaceful self-image can distort a state's view of others’ perceptions; misperceptions are central to international politics.

Hobbes: state of nature leads to anarchy and self-help; no universal authority (Leviathan).
Thucydides: Athens vs. Melian dialogue shows power dynamics and fear driving war; rising power breeds fear in a rival.
Key contrast: early realists stress power and fear; modern contexts still test these ideas in nuclear and great-power competition.
Trust, or lack thereof: persistent suspicion underpins many foreign policy choices.

The course emphasizes big-picture concepts over minute details; aim to explain international events using core theories (e.g., realism, balance of power, security dilemma).
Expect final exam questions to probe understanding of concepts like trust, intentions, and the signaling logic in international politics.
Prepare by linking historical cases (Thucydides, Morgenthau) to contemporary tensions (Korea, China) and by thinking about how correlations in data may reflect deeper causal mechanisms.