New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

INTA 1110, Introduction to International Affairs - Exam 01 Notes (Fall 2015)

by: Keyes Gilmer

INTA 1110, Introduction to International Affairs - Exam 01 Notes (Fall 2015) INTA 1110

Marketplace > Georgia Institute of Technology > International Studies > INTA 1110 > INTA 1110 Introduction to International Affairs Exam 01 Notes Fall 2015
Keyes Gilmer
Georgia Tech

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Collection of all notes for Exam #1 with Dr. Jenna Jordan
Intro to International Relations
Dr. Jenna Jordan
Inta, international affairs, international relations, IR
75 ?




Popular in Intro to International Relations

Popular in International Studies

This 31 page Bundle was uploaded by Keyes Gilmer on Tuesday February 23, 2016. The Bundle belongs to INTA 1110 at Georgia Institute of Technology taught by Dr. Jenna Jordan in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 81 views. For similar materials see Intro to International Relations in International Studies at Georgia Institute of Technology.

Similar to INTA 1110 at Georgia Tech

Popular in International Studies


Reviews for INTA 1110, Introduction to International Affairs - Exam 01 Notes (Fall 2015)


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 02/23/16
Friday, August 28, 2015 Structural Realism Defensive Realism 1. Classical Realism A. Realism after WWII Reaction to Idealism • Reaction to the breakdown of International Order that led to WWII • B. Examples • E.H. Carr • George Kennan • Hans Morgenthau C. Realism is unattractive to Americans • We focus on liberalism and idealism 2. Neo - or Structural Realism A. Kenneth Waltz Theory of International Politics • Level of analysis - Indvidual to system or structural (3rd Image) • Different kinds of states act different (like people) • Reductionist vs. Systemic Theories • Theory of International Politics • Explain impact of international system on international outcomes • System not permissive, drives states to do things B. Waltz 1. Ordering Principle • Domestic systems are hierarchical • International systems are anarchic 1 Friday, August 28, 2015 2. Character of the Units: Functional Differentiation • Units are states • Same function - survival (THE SAME —> just vary in capability) • Function is not to gain power. Power is only for survival • States alike is tasks they face (survival, security) 3. Distribution of Capabilities • Distribution of power • Structure changes with changes in distribution of capabilities • How many poles in the system - Bipolarity - Multipolarity (more opportunities for conflict) C. Waltz’s Predictions 1. Security Competition - Self-help and struggle for power 2. Balances of Power - Tend to recut - States balance against more powerful states Internal (Increasing economic stability, military, etc) External (Strengthening alliances, etc) 3. Emulation - Socialization - Competition among actors 4. Cooperation is Hard - Relative gains 2 Friday, August 28, 2015 - Dependence 5. Bipolarity more stable than Multipolarity D. Robert Jervis 1. Security Competition is made worse by the security dilemma 2. What is the Security Dilemma? - The steps taken by one state to increase its own security make other states less secure - The result is that although each state is only trying to ensure its safety and security they actually end up being less secure 3. Why are states suck in SD? Why don’t they cooperate? • Anarchy • Relative Power • Desire to survive • Uncertainty about intentions • Dilemma on! E. Offense/Defense Theory 1. Basic Intuition • If easier to attack that defend, SD is worse • If easier to defend than attack, SD is better 2. Definitions • Offensive advantage: it is easier to destroy other army and take territory than defend one’s self • Defensive advantage: easier to protect and hold, then to move forward 3. Can you distinguish between offensive and defensive weapons? 4. Do offensive or defensive weapons have the advantage of the battlefield? Geography • 3 Friday, August 28, 2015 • Technology 4 Liberalism I Introduction to International Relations Reciprocity = critical to liberal perspective. States relate to each other based on mutual exchange Basic View • Agree w realist assumptions • Main impediment is fear of cheating or defection • Conditions that favor cooperation: • Mutual interests • Shadow of the future • Number of actors • Certain issue areas • Mutual Interests • If cooperation makes actors better off, then why do states sometimes fail to cooperate? • Interests – what actors want to achieve through political action • General level – interests are usually grouped into 3 categories: • Power of Security – Realism • Economic or material welfare – Liberalism • Ideological goals – Constructivism • Easiest Cooperation = coordination • Impediments to cooperation: • Problems of collaboration • Breach of Promise • Cheating • Cooperation depends on degree of conflicting interests • Some situations are severe – no mutual interests – Deadlock • Some situations are unproblematic – mutual interests Harmony • Most situations are of medium severity – mix of mutual and conflicting interests • Strategies for Cooperation • Unilateral strategies • Bilateral strategies – issue linkages • Multilateral strategies – institutionalism • Norms generated may be internalized by states and alter payoff structure • Shadow of the future • Evaluation of short term (immediate) against long term (future) gains • The more u care about the long-haul the easier it is to cooperate • Attributes of iterated games • States must continue to deal w each other • Payoff structures must not change substantially over time • Size of the discount rate affects the game • How do you lengthen the shadow of the future? • International regimes • Provision for surveillance – increase in transparency • Number of actors • Effective cooperation is harder as the number of actors increases • Basic problems • Increase in transaction costs • Increase in chance of defection • Harder to identify common interests • Harder to identify defectors • Harder to punish defectors • Issue Areas • Cooperation is easier in some areas than in others • Big difference is security v. economics • Stakes are huge in security • Defection fast and retaliation fast • Security is often more zer0-sum • Monitoring is harder in security INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS Institutions = sets of rules agreed between states that stipulate how states should behave. They prescribe acceptable forms of behavior and proscribe unacceptable forms. Can be organizations like the UN, agreements like the non-proliferation treaty, formal or informal, explicit or implicit, strict rules or just norms of behavior • How do institutions help states to cooperate? • Altering payoffs • Increase the number of transactions b/w states • Provides information and procedural rules • Establishes focal points Friday, September 11, 2015 Institutions - Mearsheimer Questions • What is at stake? • Can institutions push states away from war and promote peace? • Causal effect: do they actually change state behavior? • Do they force or persuade states to do something that they would otherwise not do? Conclusion: “they have a minimal effect on state behavior and thus have little promise for promoting stability in the post-CW world” Definitions - Institutions A set of rules that stipulate the ways in which states should cooperate and compete with one another. They prescribe acceptable forms of behavior and proscribe unacceptable ones Page 1 of 1 Wednesday, August 26, 2015 Theories of IR Subject 1. Realism Basic view of international politics - its a struggle for power among self-interested actors - pessimistic about war - anarchy+survival+uncertainty+power —> security competition - use of force - in realm of hard power Founders - George Kennan (Founder of Containment) - Hans Morgenthau (Human Nature/ Classical Realism) - Kenneth Waltz (Structural Realism) Thinkers - John Mearsheimer - Stephen Walt - Sebastian Rosato Dominant Tradition in Cold War Two Divides in Realism • Classical versus Neorealist/Structural Realists - Classical Realism - Morgenthau - First Image (focuses on the individual) 1 Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - Neorealism - Waltz - Third Image • Offensive (Classical) vs. Defensive (Neorealist) Realists (all are Structural) 2. Liberalism Basic view of International Politics - Share many realist assumptions: states, anarchy, uncertainty, relative power - realists too gloomy, cooperation possible • International Institutions (rules) • Well-behaved states (democracies) Founders: - John Locke - Immanuel Kant Thinkers: - Robert Keohane - Michael Doyle Two Types of Liberalism • Institutionalism (Keohane) - Third Image - Anarchy, survival + institutions (rules that prescribe and proscribe behavior) - there are gains from cooperation - need rules that make people cooperate (catch and punish cheaters) • Democratic Peace (Doyle) 2 Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - 2nd Image - State differences = differences in international outcomes - Democracies behave differently, don’t fight each other 3. Constructivism Basic View of International Politics • Transform Entire System • Ideational Factors • Ideas and Identities - Creation, evolution, and how they shape the way states act and understand their situations • Discourses of norms and behavior Alexander Wendt • “Anarchy is what states make of it” - Can have different anarchies - Prisoners Dilemma is not inevitable a). Becomes a PD if states see each other as enemies b). If see each other as friends, will form communities 3 Monday, August 24, 2015 Levels of Analysis Subject 3 Levels of Explanation for how to understand International Politics (according to Kenneth Waltz) 1. First Image/Individual Level: international outcomes are a result of characteristics and decisions of individual human beings • Individual people - personalities, histories, etc • Human nature • Other approaches - actors don’t act “rationally” - cognitive psychology - motivational psychology - behavioral economics - prospect theory - psychobiography 2. State Level/ Second Image Explanations: International outcomes are the result of different kinds of states in the international system. It is a function of domestic politics. Political Regimes differ (democracies, socialists, etc) • • Economic system - Capitalist states are expansionist (Marx-Lenin) - Capitalist states are peaceful (Interdependence Theory) • Other - Fundamental goals: revisionist v. status quo states - Geography: island states peaceful, continental states aggressive - societal and cultural factors, e.g. religion • Bureaucratic Politics 1 Monday, August 24, 2015 3. Third Image Explanations/ International System: • Relative power between states —> international outcomes The Prisoner Dilemma: • If both stay silent, only 1 year of jail • If one testifies, other gets 10 years • If both testify, both get 5 years We can’t be certain of another’s intentions - if there is no one there to ensure both stay silent, self-protection overcomes (anarchy) • Ex: Mafia boss can be the Leviathan • Problem is even more prevalent in the international system Example: • Security: 2 states building militaries to defend themselves —> arms racing (bad outcome) - Lack of Leviathan added to desire to survive (anarchy) • Political Economy - if everyone participates in free trade, then all will be richer. However, if you are protectionist, then you are better off —> everyone protectionist Cooperation is hard in international politics —> 3 MAIN COMPETING THEORIES (next document) 2 Wednesday, September 16, 2015 Constructivism Material vs. Ideational Factors I. Realists vs. Liberals a) role of material factors (distribution of power, number of democracies) b) extent to which state action is determined by structure or institutions c) identities and interests of agents are exogenously given d) institutions can change behavior, but not identities and interests e) self-help system does a low of work and results in security dilemmas - Liberalism do see processes that generate cooperative behavior Constructivists: liberalists and realists are wrong because they view the world as unchanging • In continually discussing competition, we are just reenforcing its existence - doesn’t mean its existence is necessary (culture of self-help) • These discussions prevent moving on to a better world II. Constructivism A. Emphasizes the impact of ideas and identities, which are endogenous to the international system B. Identities are mutually constituted (actions are not given - emerge through interaction and through relationship with one another) 1. Threats are socially constructed in the process of identity formation 2. Different way of understanding security Page 1 of 4 Wednesday, September 16, 2015 III. Ideas 1. Define the values, norms and beliefs that governments and international institutions hold and for which they pursue and apply power 2. Ideas, taken together, define or construct an actor’s identity 3. Interests are not just defined by anarchy, geopolitical circumstances, or rules. they are defined by collective identities 4. Beliefs: comprehensive views about how the world works • Interests are not defined only by anarchy or rules, but instead by collective identities IV. Identities A. Shape and give meaning to material and institutional realities B. How are identities constructed: 1. a process of discourse by which actors define who they are and how they behave toward one another a) Actors behave on the basis of how they construct their identities (1) Iraq Nukes vs. Britain Nukes (2) Realism: fear them either way (3) Constructivism: we take into account their identities Social constructivists: 2. a) Identities are collective and shared and can be constructed only through repetitive social interactions (1) communicative actions (2) social discourse (3) shared knowledge b) Discourse (1) For both liberalists and realist, identities are already set - we dont care about discourse Page 2 of 4 Wednesday, September 16, 2015 (2) For constructivism: it is essential to take into account when considering culture (what forms our identities) as a whole V. Anarchy is What States Make of It A. Alexander Wendt 1. Structure, but itself, says little about state behavior. Does not identify whether states will be friends or foes 2. Without assumptions about the structure of identities and interests in the system, Waltz’s definition about structures cannot predict the content or dynamics of anarchy 3. Self-help is one of the intersubjective structures!!! 4. Key principle of constructivist social theory is that people act toward objects on the basis of meanings that the objects have for them 5. Distribution of power affects states calculations, but how it does depends on the intersubjective understandings and expectation that constitute ideas of self and other B. Identities: 1. stable, role-specific understandings and expectations about self 2. Relational 3. Identities are the basis of interests. Interests are defined in the process of defining situations C. Institution 1. A stable set or structures of identities and interests 2. Institutionalization is a process of internalizing new identities and interests D. Self-Help Security System 1. Self-help an institution, not a constitutive feature of anarchy 2. Self-help security systems - states do not positively identify the security of self with that of others. Security is the individual responsibility of each 3. Types of self-help security systems Page 3 of 4 Wednesday, September 16, 2015 a) Competitive: prone to security dilemmas b) Individualistic: state more concerned with absolute gains E. Cooperative Security System 1. Produces altruistic prosocial security practices F. Anarchy and distribution of power only have meaning within the context of the understandings that constitute institutional identities and interests G. Self-Help only emerges from interactions!!! VI. Cultures of Anarchy Constructivists have imagined three cultures of IR based on the nature of shared A. understandings of anarchy 1. Hobbesian culture: no holds barred power politics 2. Lockean culture: current system clearly not Hobbesian, is Lockean a) Recognition of right of sovereignty b) Expectation states will recognize sovereignty c) Less war… less concern of relative gains d) Warfare accepted, but with constraints e) States NOT power maximizers 3. Kantian culture: friendship, nonviolence, team-play states expect each other to observe two simple rules: a) (1) Disputes will be settled without war or threat of war (2) They will defend anyone who is threatened b) True collective security c) States identify with each other Page 4 of 4 Wednesday, September 9, 2015 Democratic Peace Theory • Agrees with assumptions of realism and liberal institutionalism - Anarchy - States most important actors - Survival - Power is important tool - Cannot be 100% certain about intentions • This is second image (not structural) • Takes on realism - indirectly • Popular with Americans • For Institutionalism the problem is cheating, for DPT it is uncertainty about intentions What is Liberalism • Freedom of the Individual - belief in the importance of moral freedom - Negative Freedoms - Positive Freedoms - Democratic participation/representation • Liberal Traditions - Laissez-faire - Social welfare - Shared commitments to four institutions (1) Citizens have juridicial equality (2) State sovereigns derive authority from consent of electorate (3) Recognition of rights of private property Page 1 of 3 Wednesday, September 9, 2015 (4) Economic decision based on supply and demand Perpetual Peace Kant - Perpetual Peace - 1795 Republics lead to peaceful relations… Why? • Constitutional guarantees - Consent of citizens - Rotation of office • Guarantee of respect through international law • Cosmopolitan law Explanation for DPT - Two Explanations (Normative and Institutional) Normative 1. Normative a) Externalization b) Trust and Respect (1) More likely to come to a cooperative solution 2. Institutional - Accountability a) Institutions (1) Free Speech (2) Governments can be voted out of office b) Anti War Groups (1) Public (2) Economic interest groups (3) Opposition parties (4) Liberal opinion leaders Page 2 of 3 Wednesday, September 9, 2015 Casual Logics • Trust and Respect (Normative) • Public constraint (Institutional) • Group constraint ( “ ) • Slow mobilization ( “ ) • Surprise attack ( “ ) • Information ( “ ) • War fighting ( “ ) Page 3 of 3 Wednesday, September 2, 2015 Offensive Realism John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics Overview • The overriding goal of states is to maximize their share of world power. Their ultimate aim is to be a hegemon • In contrast to defensive realism, states have revisionist intentions • Perpetual power competition • Why? - Structure of the internal system - States want to survive and the best way to guarantee that is to become the global hegemon • Great Powers - military capabilities sufficient to put up a serious fight in a conventional war against the most powerful state - Example: have nuclear retaliation capabilities • Descriptive and prescriptive - This is how the world works and states should do this to survive 3 Main Points of Realism 1. States are main actors 2. States influenced by external environment 3. States influenced by desire for power Assumptions • System is anarchic (Waltz) Page 1 of 3 Wednesday, September 2, 2015 • All states have some offensive capability (power) • States can never be certain of the intentions of theres, intentions can change • Survival is primary goal (Waltz) • Rational Actors - calculate costs and benefits to make decisions Consequences • States fear each other • It is a self-help world • Power Maximization 1. At the expense of rivals 2. States cannot know if they have enough power 3. States aspire to be regional hegemony - Global vs. regional hegemony - The stopping power of water - State want to be the only regional hegemony - Then status quo power - It pays to be selfish States don't know how much power they need… But they know the more power you have, the safer —> States wish to be regional hegemons - Water is a stopping force Page 2 of 3 Wednesday, September 2, 2015 Strategies for Survival State Goals • Hegemony • Wealth • Land Forces • Nuclear Superiority Strategies for Gaining Power • Wars • Blackmail • Bait and Bleed • Bloodletting Strategies for Checking Aggressors • Balancing • Buckpassing • Explanatory Power • Self help and security competition • Emulation • Cooperation is difficult • Balances Recur - Distribution of Power Bipolarity Balanced Multipolarity Unbalanced Multipolarity - Geography Page 3 of 3 Monday, August 24, 2015 Power Subject Thucydides - “Father of Realism” • Tension between morality, statecraft, and power in the study of international politics • Melian Dialogue - “The strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept” - Power key to understanding why Athens and Sparta went to war 1. Spartan fear of Athenian growth in power 2. Sparta launches a preventative war (war was inevitable in their eyes - get the upperhand) - Athenians: if we are friendly to Melians, it will be seen as weakness Building defenses is natural consequence after perceiving a threat - but war benefits • no one… Why do we resort to it? Hans Morgantheau: Humans have an innate desire for power • Founding father of realism • Universal standards of morality cannot be a guide to statecraft - Tension between moral command and successful political action • Politics Among Nations - Positive Theory of International Politics - Argument 1. Humans are hardwired to dominate 2. States are collections of humans - who are hardwired to dominate 3. Interest defined in terms of power 1 Monday, August 24, 2015 2 Friday, August 21, 2015 Anarchy, Power, and Morality Intro to IR Domestic Versus International Politics Domestic Politics • Central Authority (Government) • Democracies: chosen by the people • Non democracies: government represents a small group, single party, individual, ethnic group International Politics • Anarchy - no central authority to: - Make/enforce laws - settle disputes - enforce agreements - protect survival and security of states • “Self-Help” System Thomas Hobbes: 17th Century Philosopher Leviathan • Human beings are equal - there is strength among the weakest to kill the strongest —> leads to distrust • Anarchy = state of war • Solution: Leviathan - Government to exert power and threaten punishment - Security Dilemma: to create your own security, break down the security of another 1 Friday, August 21, 2015 - Different views of how anarchy affects International Politics: realism, liberalism, and constructivism Power Meanings: - ability to produce wanted outcome - behavioral: power as influence or control - resource: power as material assets Five Logical Points: - relative - need to know preferences - situational - military power fungible - dynamic Hard Power: ability to get others to do what they otherwise might not do • natural resources • population • economic resources • military resources • political resources Soft Power: ability to get desired outcome through attraction rather than coercion • attraction of culture, political ideals, and policies • ability to set political agenda, setting preferences • hard and soft power are related 2 Wednesday, August 19, 2015 Introduction to IA Basics to World Politics 3 Basic Forms of World Politics 1. World Imperial System: One government controls most of the world (Example: Rome) 2. Feudal System: Loyalties and obligations are not fixed by territorial boundaries - Loyalties to specific lords - Wars not typical - happened within, or across territories 3. Anarchic System of States: - States with no higher authority above them - The Peace of Westphalia (Ended 30 Years War - Prot. v. Cath War): sovereign state as the dominant political unit What is a State? • States did not exist before 1648 (until ToW) • ToW recognized each other’s sovereign authority and agreed to noninterference with internal affairs • Identities often overlapped - religious and secular rule (ex: in Florentine state under rule of the Church) • IR more than relationships between states - States to international organizations - States to transnational actors - States to individuals 1 Wednesday, August 19, 2015 State: political unit with two characteristics 1. Territoriality: governs an identifiable portion of territory 2. Sovereignty: the right to govern that territory Nation: used to demote a group of people who have some combination of common language, culture, religion, history, mythology, identity —> ethnic group Nation-State: state whose citizens are overwhelmingly members of a single nation What is a Theory? Two Kinds: 1. Normative Theory: argument for how something should be 2. Positive Theory: attempts to explain how things actually are Theories are a hypothesis and a causal logic Hypothesis: basically a description Causal Logic: Basically an explanation (have dependent and independent variable) Good policy must have good theory International System: system governed by some degree of rules and practices European: sovereignty and nonintervention - Uncivilized outside of Europe not deserving of these rights - Bull found this to be source of order Structure: patterns of relationships 2 Wednesday, August 19, 2015 International Society changes as rules, practices, norms change 3 Central Institutions: 1. Formal Communication (by diplomats) 2. Rules (International Law) - Can’t be binding on states without their consent 3. Order only emerges from struggles between states (over balance of power) French Rev. led to idea sovereignty based in nation NOT rulers Great Powers created with aim of maintaining balance of powers - shift from decentralized IS to more organized —> led to European domination 3 Monday, August 31, 2015 Defensive Realism Alliances Stephen Walt - Origins of Alliances - How do states choose friends? A. How do states respond to threats? 1. Two options • Balancing - pair with weaker states who wont dominate alliance • Bandwagoning - combine with major state 2. What does this mean for security? • If balancing is more common, then states are more secure • If bandwagoning is dominant tendency, then security is scarce B. Are states with similar internal characteristics more like to ally than states with different domestic orders? C. Can certain policy instruments cause other states to alter their alliance preference This all implies that an appearance of weakness could damage international position The Argument Balancing is more common than Bandwagoning. State balance against threats (rather than power alone) A. Factors that will affect the level of threat 1. Aggregate power 2. Geographic proximity 3. Offensive Power 4. Aggressive Intentions B. When do states balance or bandwagon Page 1 of 2 Monday, August 31, 2015 1. The weaker the state, the more likely it will bandwagon than balance (will ally with state seen as greatest threat) 2. Availability of allies - states are tempted to bandwagon when allies are unavailable Peace and War - states are more likely to balance in peacetime 3. or in the early stages of war Page 2 of 2


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

75 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Janice Dongeun University of Washington

"I used the money I made selling my notes & study guides to pay for spring break in Olympia, Washington...which was Sweet!"

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.