IR

cultural divide between U.S. and M.E. (no civilians= asleep due to Ramadan)

 -issue: air strikes are inaccurate and are based on too little information(blurry,

 short footage w/o viewing of civilians in hiding). The pentagon hesitates to Publicize

 -suing for peace in Trump admin: authority pushed down chain of command- rash,

Inexperienced decision

-quote: “In both scenarios, the targeting process essentially boiled down to

two questions: Could the presumed enemy target be positively

identified? And would any harm to civilians be proportional, in line

with the law of armed conflict — or would it exceed the “expected

military advantage gained”?

-"reasonably certain" for positive ID: analysts see it target works for enemy

 issue: sometimes needs more surveillance time than available quick decisions

• comp. Civil vs target use. Ex: Target is a mall that Isis uses as well as

Civilians. See traffic to weigh how many civilians might die if we strike at a cert.time

• Civilian factor (collateral damage estimate:) day-to-day life, pop.density,

Weapon used, target structure.

-why strikes go wrong:

             -misidentification of target: 17% of presented cases

             -not quantifying civilian #s:37% of cases (use vids as short as 11 sec before approving.

             - operating based on flawed/insufficient evidence, infos on video.

             -civilians walking into attack frame (more can be done to prevent)

            -underestimating effects of weapons (how far a blast stretched)

            - not taking accountability for missteps/ under reporting casualties

            -note: "target package” — including intelligence about the

                                     casualty estimate, actions to mitigate civilian harm, video     

                  footage and chat logs tracking each step of the process

           -often teams who strike de dan investigation=bias!!

          -video investigation I don't go to scene/ interview) = no full picture

          - glossing over mistakes for appearances and never speaking to mistakes

Jan 4th, 2025:armed drones and terrorism (Schwartz)

-pro UVA (drone warfare)= decreases terrorism by disrupting milt. Ops -more proof!!

-anti UVA = ppl will fight violence w/ violence

• Problems of control: terrorists think they can be violent since we use drones

• blowback: civilians/non-combatants will be scared, violence increases (1- civilians join terrorists in defiance or do not provide helpful intelligence ).

• signaling: terrorists wanna show big balls so they increase attacks

• Disrupting - terrorists fear drones, so cut back on activity

• Degradation- stops shit by blowing shit up

Two camps:

 H optimist: UVA decreased terrorism

H pessimists: UVA increased terrorism

To test, comp: acquisition of UVAs by countries  2001 - 2019 & # of attacks

• See terrorist attacks & deaths (decreases w drones)

• Controls/other factors: GDP, regime type, terrorism in other countries, civil war

Equ: Effect = (TerrorismIran 2013 − TerrorismIran  2012)−( TerrorismIraq 2013 − TerrorismIraq2012) -> comp countries that both adopt UVAs and accounts for controls above

below: shows that it decreased

conclusion: UVAs decrease terrorism by as much as 5.5x fewer attacks per year

Jan 4th & 5th: chapter 1 reading

Note=pink is imp ppl, blue is dates, green is ideas, yellow is vocab

• 1500s - 1700s: west euro is top dog

• Mercantilism:bolster military und eco (ex: buy colonial raw goods cheap and sell finish products to colonies $-more$!

• Want milt power & access to markets

• Peace of Westphalia: set up modern states systems, religious tolerances & sovereignty

• Why w/ colonialism: gold, god, glory

• w/ 1800s - 1900s euro alliances increased (wanting to maintain monarchies)

• Pax Brittanica: peace due to British military and economic openness

• Free trade: no tariffs!

• Gold standard by GB- back $ w/ gold (stable, non-inflate)

• w/ WWI- eco, social probs

• WWII - promises to fix crisis leads to right wing regimes

• overall, America dominates w/ $(loan sources to allies)

& milt (anchors in wwi&ii)

• Post WWII Us and Soviets were military top dogs

• US milt was NATO and e co was Bretton woods system ($ based the dollar) also had low tariffs internationally. Combined capitalism & social welfare

• GATT= reduction of trade barriers, IMF=gold & dollar linked

• - proxy wars- US & USSR could not fight each other (nukes &

Equal power) so they start/intervene in conflicts elsewhere (ex: Vietnam)

 -w/ Cold War, decolonization because world powers could not focus on colonies. Colonies became self -sufficient and nationalistic

• Post Cold War= financial crisis=globalization

• Populism= calling previous international agreements into question

• Two Americas= isolated or global

January 7, 2025 lecture 1 

• Not illegal for civilians to die

 -proportionality- IR -balance military benefits w/ harm

• Is there a reasonable benefit to be had?

• Planned aerial target - know targets before drones go up

• Micro: drone casualty within a nation, domestic principles

• Macro: war between countries, alliances,  economics

Definitions:

States: actors who use force/ exercise power in a given area

sovereignty: ultimate power in a given area, no higher power than the state

Peace of Westphalia: German princes choose religion - ultimate power (1848)

Anarchic - no higher power

Nations- group of ppl w/ similar cultures, religion, history (not the same as states)

Non state actors - corporations

Hw: -fls inquisitive section  questions

    -Fls chapter 2 reading

   -Fls introduction- integrated insights

Schwartz summary:

Q: does drone warfare increase or decrease terrorism?

R: note - arguments laid out before evidence

Is presented

lays out 2 existing arguments

Pessimistic: increases terrorism

Optimism: decreases terrorism

E: look at 2001 - 2019 acquisition of drones vs. Terrorist attack #s

•  conclusions/why: about all countries(

not just USA)

• Problems of control, signaling, disrupting, degrading, terrorism

• assumption: can't compare 1st world country to 3rd world country, 2001&2019 are similar, UVA programs are

•                              

Public.              Ideas      ppl     definitions    Dates

Interesting insights

      realism- states are main actors, institutional system of politics is ruled by anarchy (no central authority/ ruler of the world [states rule civilians])

• w/ no central world power, all states live in fear of each other, which inspires a fight for power

• To achieve security and power, states make military advances, but= security dilemma - by increasing military, you undermine another state, who increases its military

• War is always looming because it benefits states, but can be mitigated by alliances and diplomacy

• International institutions (UN or NATO)are weak

Liberalism -many actors (states, individual, etc) and wealth is the main goal

• Interests de not necessarily conflict

• Cost of war, cooperation is preferred

• Institutions can be story and helpful

Constructivism-many actors and ideas, culture, and belonging are the goals

• Interest don't always conflict

• Pursuit of norms (set by institutions [ ex: it all states say nukes are bad, we wont use Nikes]) motivates

Chapter 2

• As actors develop interests ( $,power, security) they interact (war, discussion, treaty) w/ influence from institutions (NATO, UN)

• Interest categories: power/security, economic/material welfare,

Ideological goals

• Power/security- people must first feel safe to operate (could spur power desire to protect people, desire to dominate, etc)

• China could threaten USA security 

• Eco/material - want good Q.O.F. & income (w/ security comes $)

• Ideological - pursuit of what is good (religious, environmental).

           -national interest- interest of the entire state

• If you cause tension w/ another country, you increase your chance of reelection

• Interactions category: actions of 2+ actors lead to political outcome.

       - actors act to achieve a desired result & in anticipation of others

       - two types : cooperation or bargaining

• Cooperation- one actor benefits and the other is the same

      - could cause issue elsewhere: (ex: If china and us cooperative, may hurt citizens in a domestic, economic sense)

• Pareto frontier - maximum feasible benefit

• Cooperation moves actors towards the Pareto frontier, increasing welfare of all

• Bargaining- deciding how two actors will divide something of value ( discussions, sanctions, threats, war)

-w/ bargaining, actors move along Pareto frontier, gaining and loosing as a result

• Bargaining results in a lesser deal, but it is better than the alternative (war)

• Usually a combo of both ( both make gains but someone gains more)

• Type of cooperation: 

      * coordination- actors make all the same decisions for mutual benefit, no point in defecting (ex: what side of the road)

     *collaboration- both actors would benefit  from coordination, but have incentives not to ( ex: Cold War- could have saved $ by stopping nukes production, but didn't want to loose superiority to the other)

     * public goods- things provided to everyone w/o it causing a depletion for someone else

     * collective action problems - when ppl want a good but expects others to provide the means of obtaining it ($, troops)

     * free ride- failing to contribute to what you benefit from

• Easier to cooperate w/ small group

• Ppl are tempted to defect or free ride unless iteration -don't cheat today if you expect to work with them tomorrow

• Linkage - actors linking other actors to past transgressions, therefore excluding them from future deals

• info- cooperation may not occur/ break down because deals cannot be verified  ( reduction of arms cannot occur if they are built in secret)

• Power: ability for A to have B make concessions A doesn't want to make

     * compulsory power - compels B to do something by A

     *fear monger via military, economic, or nuclear superiority

    * reversion outcome - outcome when no deal is made

          ( bargaining power belongs to actor most satisfied by reversion outcome)

• Coercion - threaten ppl w/ costs to get them to change behaviors

• Outside options - ppl can threaten to walk away to another option

• Agenda setting - setting course of a meeting so that the other actor must respond

• Institutions- sets of rules/norms that govern interactions ( usually embodied by organizations like Congress or NATO)  

     * can be through threat of punishment (work-together -shirt)

          * aim to facilitate cooperation/ overcome issues btwn actors

How they help self cooperation (cannot police/enforce)(states hold each other accountable)

• Setting behavior standards- ppl can police each other

• Verifying compliance- countries self report, other countries examine & verity (also diplomats)

• Reduce joint decision making- provides space for discussion

• Resolve disputes-see is an action violates a standard of an institution

      * no institution is neutral - a reflection of a winner’s bargaining- policy bias. (Ex: world bank rose post WWII, communist china had no say, did not join until 1980 [too western])

• Comply w/ institutions because it is better than creating a new one & they facilitate cooperation

Game theory:

• Outcome in a combination of what one actor wants & what they anticipate of the other

• Dominant strategy - doing what you want w/o consideration of others

• Equilibrium- all part get maximum benefit

January 9th, 2025

-interests- what actors hope to achieve via political action (make actions based on interests [ex: interest to sleep in, prefer a 12pm to 10am class)

-national security:

            * absence of war, security of citizens/states/allies

• Power- of actor A to get actor B to do something B wouldn't do otherwise [soft power-ideas/ideological power]

• Interest= security, economics, suppressing threats from abroad

Strategic interactions: actors strategy depends on anticipating other actors outcomes (act to serve interests while considering wants of others)

Interaction types:

•  cooperation: 2+ actors adopt policies to make one actor better off than under the status quo while the other actor stays the same

• Pareto frontier: maximum division of the benefit [graph line]

          *status quo-conditions if no deal occurs (original)

• Bargaining: 2+ actors decide how to distribute something of value

(the more A gets, the less B gets)

          * IR interactions is usually a combo of c+b

• Cooperative interactions: 

     -coordination: all actors follow same decision(no benefit to non-compliance) (ex:national language)

    -collaboration: working together but having incentive to defect

-(ex: arms race- could stop building weapons, would increase global safety, but resist vulnerability [game of chicken-public victory])

        -prisoners dilemma- all actors are best off to cooperate, but all have incentive to defect despite actins of other actors

       - collective action problem: ppl benefit even w/o action, so no one acts (ex: climate change)

      - public goods- available to all and one persons ownership doesn't diminish another

     - free ride- don't contribute to what you benefit (ex: tax evasion)

Cooperation success:

• Fewer actors (less dispute)

• Repeated interactions (dent betray if future trade)

• Institutions

         * establish rules, dispute resolutions, solve issues, gain      information (can check self-reports w/ other countries), make decisions easier w/ standards

Winning in bargaining:

• coercion- threat punishment

• Reversion outcome- outcome w/o bargain (can act to move rev. Out in your favor [ex:seizing a piece of land before negotiations])

• Outside options- other deals

isms:

• realism- state is dominant actor, world is anarchic (live in fear of other actors), institutions are nut important, key interest = security

• Liberalism- states, institutions, and market actors matter, democracy/economic connections/int. Organizations help, war is not inevitable, goal=$

• Constructivism - many actors are important, influenced by ideas/ values/norms, institutions define identifies/norms, n