August/September notes from Intro to International Relations
August/September notes from Intro to International Relations INR2001
Popular in Introduction to International Relations
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Department
AP Environmental Science
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
This 20 page Bundle was uploaded by Ricardo Rauseo on Saturday October 1, 2016. The Bundle belongs to INR2001 at University of Florida taught by Zachary Selden in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 5 views.
Reviews for August/September notes from Intro to International Relations
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: 10/01/16
Monday, August 22, 2016 Big Themes in International Relations Conflict or cooperation? Globalization or Fragmentation? Anarchy or Order? Conflict or Cooperation Major actors in conflicts o States fighting other states o States fighting rebellions within the state o Conflict between non-state actors Not all conflict is between states, much if not most is below the level of state-state conflict Conflict may be driven by many interests- ethnic conflict, material resources, land, etc. Cooperation Lots of conflict but also lots of cooperation Examples? A lot of cooperation on economic issues, why? All sides gain from economic exchange so it literally pays to cooperate. o When you’re talking about security, it is much difficult to find this type of cooperation because you might never recover what you lost Is cooperation or conflict the natural state? Globalization or Fragmentation? What is Globalization? What are some examples? Ease and no cost of interconnectedness around the world What does globalization mean for international relations? o More interdependencemitigates conflict o Cultural aspects of globalization, both positive and negative Is globalization a new phenomenon? o We have globalization since the Roman empire, we now have it more spread out and uniformly organized. 1918 Spanish Flu Fragmentation Europe as example- integration into European Union has diminished power of national government Regional identities have become stronger: example-devolution in Scotland and Wales Not all fragmentation peaceful- Yugoslavia Globalization can lead to integration but also fragmentation Globalization can also facilitate smuggling and international crime Wednesday, August 24, 2016 Anarchy and Order What is anarchy? In the international system, no authority higher than the state o In the international environment there is order but there is also anarchy (there is no world police) Norms, guidelines and international law, but who enforces? Difference between order inside states and anarchy in international system Levels of Analysis Systemic level o Broadest level, looks at the structure of the international system to explain broad flow of events o It does not concern domestic issues in countries, it is a more general analysis o Treats states as unitary, rational actors o How states’ relationships and behaviors can be explained by the nature of the international system o The anarchic structure of the international system o States exist in a zero-sum world — your loss is my gain and vice versa o Prisoner’s Dilemma- game theory model to explain why states will often fail to cooperate They are afraid of being cheated and as there is no authority you may be cheated Short term relationships regularly produce defection o Anarchy is key, therefore you need to be really careful about what you do o Parsimonious: uses few variables to explain a lot o Forces that generate pressure in all states Like dealing with the anarchic nature of states Domestic level o Looks at what happens inside states to explain events o Having so many different states, at the domestic level you bring everything together and try to make sense of it o Domestic policy is key in the international system o What goes on inside the state is important o Focus on character of the state (e.g. democratic of authoritarian) o Bureaucratic politics inside the state might be important as well o Domestic politics also an important variable o More variables, what’s going on within the US is going to determine how the US acts in the world, but it doesn’t tell us how France will act in the world. o Democracies are less likely to fight each other(?) Individual level o Looks at individual leaders and their motivations, psychology see as important o Leaders can act Levels of analysis applied World War I Systemic level- complicated alliance system led Europe to war Domestic level- States had domestic political reasons for wanting a war Individual level- German leadership believed it was in a declining position relative to other states and needed to strike now to preserve itself Monday, August 29, 2016 Theoretical lenses Big paradigms: Realism and Liberalism Two ways of looking at the world with some similar assumptions Both start with assumption of anarchy in the international system, but diverge from here Both have many sub-variants depending on what they want to explain Presidential candidates, even if it doesn’t seem so, are always under one of these two paradigms Realism Oldest school of thought in international relations Thucydides’ Pelopennisian Wars first Realist books Athens and Sparta were doomed to fight because they could not trust each other Growing power of one would come at the expense of the other Strong do what they can, weak do what they must Strong can get away with it because there is no one to stop them You can’t rely on someone to come to your aid Survival of the fittest You can do alliances, but it is ultimately down to you International system is anarchic/ No one will necessarily come to your assistance Self-help system. Amass power to protect yourself Classical-realism— dark interpretation of human nature In the absence of enforceable law, states will tend to conflict We’re not all bad, but some are and you have to be able to protect yourself They are focused on their interest; they only want to help themselves They don’t see morality as having a role in international relations (maybe domestically) Structural realism Structural (neo-realism) focuses on structure of the system Nature abhors a vacuum so we expect to always have some balance of power o While one state gets powerful, you would expect that others rise up and balance things out so they are not vulnerable Bipolar with two roughly equal superpowers o If some small states change alliances, it won’t make much of a differenceIdea that it is the most stable o There is a lot of opportunities for miscommunication, there are alliances between the small statesIdea that it is the most conflictive Multipolar with several great powers Unipolar o Not stable because, small states would want to rise and the major power will try to stop this from happening Which is most stable and least prevalent to war? Expects states to balance power but sometimes they might want to join up with the stronger side- why? o They might profit from it Do states balance against power, or against threats? o Who gets to decide what is a what is not a threat? Structural realism is parsimonious- uses a few variables to explain a lotThat’s good as a theoretical perspective But can we really treat all states the same? o Not that realistic though Security Dilemma How do you make yourself secure without threatening to others? Everyone sees their actions as defensive In anarchic situation how can you build up defense with creating spiral towards conflict? o Every state has a ministry of defense but no one has a ministry of offense, and that is misunderstood Liberalism If realism sees the glass half empty, liberalism sees it half full Lots of cooperation in international arena and potential for more Problem is how to have confidence in anarchic situation Intellectual roots- the Enlightenment Liberalism basis of American system of government Big theorists of the Enlightenment- Locke, Hume, Adam Smith Immanuel Kantperpetual peace Democratic peaceif you have more democracies in the world, you’ll have less conflict Basic ideas in liberal international relations theories Cooperation is beneficial and more of it is possible Global politics is a variable sum game- mutual gains are possible Cooperation is facilitated by interdependence and institutions Character of state matters- democracy important Liberal see the world as not a place of conflict, but were all of the states are interdependent and that creates cooperation o Do not shoot your costumer It is anarchic but we are not slaves to that Liberalism roots Idea or just war- when is war legitimate? What should be the standards of conduct? Anarchy can be controlled Liberalism agrees international system is anarchic, but sees that at something to be tamed John Locke focused on what goes on inside states Social contract between the governed ad the government Guarantee of property rights, limited state Wednesday, September 7, 2016 Realism and Liberalism Realism o International system is anarchic o States are the highest authority o International relations tend toward zero-sum game o You have to help yourself o International institutions are expressions of power relations Liberalism o International system is anarchic o More cooperation and mutual gains are possible o Maybe some people can win (perhaps not equally as everyone else) o International institutions can mitigate anarchy o Interdependence and democracy are important o What goes inside of states is awfully important o International institutions have power independent of states Constructivism All relationships are socially constructed Anarchy is what we make of it- why make assumptions? Why do we assume international system is prone to conflict? o Why do you assume anarchy should tend to go in that direction? o Anarchy is what we choose to make it What happens if people decide to view it differently? o We decide what is a threat (very subjective) Identity as important factor in international relations All relationships are socially constructed Anarchy is what we make of it o States are focused on their interest and on their power, but they can work together (that’s what makes sense according to liberalist What are the values that you have that bring you to the poin of making decisions o Your nation’s history International State System What led to the creation of the system we have today? European history based in feudal system, overlapping lines of authority Ended with 30 Years War (1618-1648)- gave us principle of sovereignty o It began as a reformation (Protestant pushing against corrupt Catholics) o The result was a pact trying to avoid that from happening again Redrawing map of Europe literally and conceptually-lasting legacy for today Much of what you see today in the International system comes out of European history o Therefore, we have to study European History instead of Latin American or African Thirty Years War Ends with Peace of Westphalia that established basic ideas that endure to this day Principle of sovereignty- rulers can do as they see fit within their borders Creates idea of nation-state: a place and people united by language, culture, etc. Sets up idea that political legitimacy comes from secular authority not divine right of kings Big changes but not necessarily leading to stability Weakening of empires and growth of new powerful states Holy Roman Empire and Ottoman empires in decline, Austria, Russia, Prussia, France and Britain become great powers What is great power? o States are able to project some power abroad, some military force abroad that gives them advantage in the international environment Leads to multipolar system with shifting alliances and lots of war o Peace of Westphalia opens up new routes to conflict Some even has effect on development of the US-British tried to pass on costs of Seven Years War with France to the colonists in North America French tried to get back at Brutish by helping the American Revolution All of this war cost a lot- especially France Helped lead to French Revolution 1789- now something new in Europe: a revolutionary state What does this change besides France? Fallout of French Revolution Revolutionary states seek to create more like them Napoleon comes to power to spread revolution across Europe Napoleon completely changes nature of war in Europe Levée en masse: a popular army Friday, September 9, 2016 Realism, Liberalism/Idealism, Constructivism, Feminism, Marxism Systemic, Domestic, Individual Unipolar, Bipolar, Multipolar Prisoner’s Dilemma Realism: everybody is out for their own self, and you have to account for that when you make decisions Liberalism: Cooperation is the way to mitigate the negative outcomes of anarchy Constructivism: The culture of the state, how these values developed is what really matter. They can approach different aspects with realism and idealism. Feminism: Gender is the category of analysis, social constructed notions, they broaden our mind by talking about how women are always affected first. Big decisions are made by men (it is masculine based). Marxism: Conspiracy in the sense that the people who are rich and own wealthy business are taking advantage of everyone else Systemic: How does international system works? Domestic: What is going on within states? Individual: What is the leader for that state like? Prisoner’s Dilemma: Metaphor of the difficulty of achieving cooperation in the international system 2 players, no communication between them One shot deal You are more likely to defect If they both cooperate they both win, if they both defect no progress, if just one defects then it has a strategic advantage, it is on each state’s interest to defect DOMESTIC AND INVIDIVIDUAL THE MOST IMPORTANTCrimea Monday, September 12, 2016 After Napoleon Now what? Austria, Prussia, Russia and Britain did not have a lot of common interests But they all wanted to prevent another huge war o France couldn’t be a problem anymore o Prevent conditions that led to the French Revolution and the rise of napoleon o They all wanted to create stability Lead to a grand compromise: The Concert of Europe o They agreed they would meet o France has a seat, they wanted to bring a big power to the discussion Concert of Europe Accordance or agreement Pattern: Massive destructionManaging anarchy thoughtsInternational Institutions o Peace of WestphaliaConcert of EuropeLeague of NationsUN Basic idea- create balance of power and avoid major war Contain France and guarantee independence of small states Agree to meet occasionally and review to ensure stability of the system- what is this a precursor of? Also collective defense against resurgent France Conservative in truest sense- wanted to conserve present order Prussia, Russia, Austria and Britain all understood that France’s expansion came from its revolution So important to contain and prevent revolutions Gave themselves the right to intervene to prevent challenges to existing order o Les Mis Was everyone happy with this arrangement? No, but best compromise to ensure stability There were still conflicts, but not between major powers until 1850s Revolutions of 1848 put Concert to the tests but it still endured to some extent Aftermath of Napoleon’s revolution Prevent the conditions that led to Napoleon Contain FranceThey gave them a seat so it eventually would have joined them Wanted to keep the balance of power It entails a challenge of the idea of sovereignty Challenges to the Concert New powers began to emerge- changed the balance of power in Europe Germany and Italy both become nation-states in 1860s-1870s Italy no longer a contested area between France, Austria and the Pope Germany unifies through wars with neighboring states o For the first time in history o Not a peaceful process Denmark, Austria, France France has to pay indemnifications for damages done during war Remember in WWI Nationalism as an important underlying force o New concept growing in Europe German Unification Bismarck mastermind of German unification His diplomatic skill creates complex series of alliances that defines European system until WWI Bismarck a Prussian- saw unification as a way to extend Prussian influence Use of nationalism to unify Germany and extend power Bismarck studied Clausewitz- Prussian military strategist Saw war as the natural extension of politics and diplomacy Prussia fights series of short wars that unify Germany and make is a major power Bismarck identified with realpolitik- use any means necessary to achieve the national interest By 1871 Germany the strongest power of continent This changed balance of power and Bismarck understood potential danger Creates web of alliances to prevent other states from seeing Germany as threat they had to attack Basic idea- keep Germany, Russia and Austria on the same side and make sure France was relatively isolated. Austria and Russia had issues with each other- both wanted same territory Bismarck managed to play them both off each other and prevented them from allying with France Big challenge was Balkan region. Still under Ottoman rule but that is weakening and nationalism Is a big factor there Nationalism What do we mean by nationalism? o You can pull together people that share cultural identity and language th Growing force in late 19 century Both a uniting force and dividing force o Ottoman empiredividing o Italy and Germany unifying Big Social Changes Changing economy- more urban population, spread of industrial revolution, development of concentrated working class Huge technological change- pulls power away from traditional agricultural elite But uneven process with varying effects across Europe o Unification of the working classIdeas that are surging Industrial revolutionform of globalization o Ease on communication, trade and travel o Introduced new tensions too, for: People working in factories People who were running the industrial operations Great Britain benefited from industrialization and weakened the elite classes U.S. was nothing for Europe by then o But it is becoming a massive economic power and export Wednesday, September 14, 2016 Lead up to war By 1910 the world is very different than the one during the Concert of Europe Balance of power changed with new powers and declining old powers o The U.S. is starting to be someone in the international environment New forces- nationalism and industrialization create new tensions o How people live and how people act is being influenced by industrialization Comes together in bloodiest war in history WWI WWI WWI set off by act of an anarchist- who were these people and what did they want? Anarchist as a transitional terrorist movement- compare to today? Systemic level factors o When there is instability, states have incentives to act Balance of power o The alliance network of protection for small states started to pull up conflicts Austria vs. Serbia Catalyst for war Alliances o If Russia steps in to help Austria, someone has to step in to help Serbia Security dilemma o Defensive movements from certain states were viewed as offensive Domestic level factors What is going on inside the countries that might lead to war? Austria- problems with nationalism o Sometimes fighting a war is what brings a country together Russia- revolution brewing o Russia was weak for all of what has happened to the entity o They had to give the people a common enemy France- wants to get back at Germany for loss in 1871 Franco-Prussian war o The cult of the offensive o You have to attack now because it is now that you have the advantage of the surpriseWrong, but it was what people believed Individual level factors Why did people think it would be easy? o Quick and easy warDeceived German high command thought they were losing ground but were in an objectively strong position o You are pushed to act because not acting is more dangerous o They had to hit France first and hard since Russia wasn’t that much of a threat Perception of loss position means more risk-acceptant o We don’t challenge ideals Instead of rapid victory, settles into horrific trench warfare on two fronts US gets involved in 1917- tips the balance against Germany and its allies Armistice declared November 11, 1918 how is that different from a surrender? o Germany does not surrenderThey didn’t give up o They actually agreed to stop fighting Friday, September 16, 2016 30 years’ War Peace of Westphalia o Sovereignty o This is our state we will decide which religion is practice here French RevolutionNapoleon o Wake up call on how the people had the power to create instability in the monarchy that dominated in Europe o Dangers of nationalism and expansionism Concert of Europe o Sometimes seen as a façade because the cooperation is only done between major states o Embracing the anarchic system Unification of ItalyGermanyOtto von Bismarck o Gaining power for Germany o NationalismLed to World War I British Empire, tradeIndustrialization o Uneven IndustrializationLeads states to rise up and challenge this system World War I Systemic World War IDomestic o Russia wanted unity and modernizationThe war would beneficial o France had still some resentment because of the Franco-Prussian War o Cult of the offensive World War IIndividual o Germany thought they were losing ground, back against the wall makes you think taking action is important Monday, September 19, 2016 WWI Instead of rapid victory, settles into horrific trench warfare on two fronts US gets involved in 1917 – tips the balance against Germany and its allies Armistice declared November 11, 1918- how is that different from a surrender? Aftermath Wilson sees opportunity to implement his vision o Wilsonian arquetipe Based on liberal ideas: democracy, ethic self determination o All of this empires were a big part of causing this conflict, because they oppressed these multiethnic nations that wanted to break free. o We need to come up with a system based on self-determination Idea was to prevent future war Build institutions to control anarchy o It requires institutions to manage the system Vision vs. Reality French and British want to punish Germany o France was the most affected by the war Germany forced to give up territory and pay reparations Germany treated as defeated power and forced to demilitarize o Even though they were thinking they just signed peace Instead of peace for all time, puts in place conditions leading to WWII 20 years later Which explanation is most convincing to you? Post WWI changes WWI led to WWII which in turn set up the Cold War End of WWI changed balance of power in Europe and rest of world Germany, Austria, Ottoman empires down Other European states weak US emerges as most powerful player Reshaping the world Wilson wants to eliminate sources of conflict As a liberal- what would he do? Believed state structures in Europe were a cause of war Wilson’s worldview If all states are democratic they won’t fight each other o Democratic states only will go to war when the people really think it is necessary If ethnic conflict makes states unstable then get rid of the cause So democracy and ethnic self-determination become critical parts in his plan for Europe After WWI Did ethnic self-determination prevent conflict? o No, wars keep happening in Asia Institution building- the League of Nations Why did it fail? Why did the US fail to join it? o Self-determination doesn’t necessarily prevent conflict o You might create more potential conflicts creating borders German being trapped in Poland or Czechoslovakia o Collective security didn’t work o The institution needs a power behind it, but the U.S. was not part of it Because it doesn’t make sense to get involved in Europe affairs (Hardings) If someone declares a war, the U.S. HAS to helpAgainst constitution Public opinion in the US and Europe European states want to contain and weaken Germany Force Germany to pay reparations for war to Britain and France o A lot of this money was borrowed from the US But Britain and France heavily in debt to the US Settlement of WWI tries to put in place ways to avoid war but makes it more likely When depression hits, Germany stops paying and cycle of money collapses Trade protectionism makes it worse So now economic and political situation ripe for radicals who can promise more Wednesday, September 21, 2016 WWII Direct follow on to the failure to resolve issues from WWI Attempt to appease Hitler fails and Germany launches push to dominate Europe Most destructive war in history and ends with introduction of nuclear weapons Can we apply levels of analysis of WWII? Systemic level Focus on Germany and Japan as rising powers that want to challenge existing system Rising states take advantage of growing power and clash with states that preserve existing order Institutions failed to control anarchy so a violent clash was inevitable o Because of the instability of the balance of power Domestic level Germany and Japan did not have to go on genocidal rampage just because they were rising powers Driven by domestic politics; ideology of national socialism, nationalism and racism Democratic states weakened by doubts about their abilities and the system after great depression Individual level Focus on the leaders of the critical states Hitler as messianic figure leading Germany to a golden age Mussolini wanted to bring back Roman glory Tojo believed in Japanese racial superiority Chamberlain seems naïve to contemporary experts. Back then he was a hero. Outcome of WWII Very different from WWI- total surrender and collapse of defeated powers Germany and Japan rebuilt based on American ideals What lessons learned? End of European domination of Africa and Asia End of European great powers Bipolarity- US and Soviet Union as major powers The institutions that were done after WWII were really badly designed New Institutions Most modern international institutions today come our of the settlement of WWII United Nations (security) International Monetary Fund and World Bank (economics) World Trade Organization (trade) Built on liberal premise that stronger institutions could prevent further conflict They learned certain lessons o The League of Nations had very limited power, everyone had to agree, and if there are no major powers, is not going to work. What have we learned? History shows a distinct pattern: each war leads to attempt to prevent the conditions that led to it End of 30 years’ war gives us Peace of Westphalia and principle of sovereignty End of Napoleonic wars gives us the Concert of Europe and more formal institution for ensuring balance of power End of WWI gives us the League of Nations which ends in a failure End of WWII give us the institutions we have today- do they work? Friday, September 23, 2016 Studyguide: Conflict and cooperation Globalization and fragmentation Levels of analysis: Systemic, Domestic and Individual Marxism and feminism Liberalism, Realism and Constructivism Structures of international system: unipolar, bipolar and multipolar Pages 40-41 Prisoner’s DilemmaPage 26-27 Peace of WestphaliaWhat led to it what came out of it, purpose Concert of EuropeWhat led to it what came out of it, purpose Nationalism, examples Unification of Germany and Italy League of Nations WWI & WWIIGeneral processes ______________________________________________________________________________ Monday, September 26, 2016 Examples of conflict and cooperation? Mutually exclusive? Anarchy o It is important because of the schools of thought in INR RealismOldest school of thought o You better be powerful or ally yourself with powers that are strong o Balance of power Not taking into account what goes inside states or between individuals o Structural realism Zero-sumYour loss is my gain Conflict is the basic reality of international relations Liberal o International environment is anarchic o Economical perspective o But that doesn’t mean you can’t do anything about it o At the end of the day people gain from cooperation o The solution is to create institutions where people can cooperate in Mitigating the anarchy… o It doesn’t all rely on who has the power, it goes beyond that o In a democratic state, the government solves their problems cooperatively If the democratic state wants to go to war, it has to convince the people of getting involved in it Authoritarian leaders don’t have that constraint Constructivism o You are assuming under this idea that there is anarchy o You are asking yourself the wrong questions o Things are fluid and flexible, not everything is given o Sociological perspective o Rooted in the idea of anarchy is what we chose to make of it Doesn’t have to be anything, everything around us is a social construction o Things don’t stay statics, they are constructed and they change o Aspects of identity might arise in different times Game Theory – Prisoner’s Dilemma o Analogy to states working in an anarchic environment Where they can’t trust each other Sub-optimal outcome Levels of analysis o Systemic State system Balance of Power Alliances o Domestic Democratic/Authoritarian History Why states do what they do? Character Make up o Individual The state doesn’t run on itself There is people behind it Need to understand people Human psychology Backgrounds of leaders For their decision taking Peace of WestphaliaEnding 30 years’ war o Sovereignty What happens inside the borders of the state? That’s up to the leadership of the state No conflicting authority, no one else can tell you what to do. Napoleonic Era Concert of Europe o They realized the problems that lead up to it: You can intervene in other states because you want to put down revolutionary movements We have to make sure France is never a problem again o Truly conservative o Recognized that they had to meet regularly to keep this values It was the first time they did that o New powers arise, the environment is not static Germany and Italy unify There is a change in the balance of power o Shift in technology, in communication o Bismarck makes it so Germany doesn’t seem threatening to other states But that doesn’t last after he leaves WWI and League of Nations o It was thought that it was a unipolar system where the U.S. was on top o The U.S. was being taken aback and tried to go back to normalcy leading to WWII o League of nations wasn’t that very effective States wouldn’t agree on things o It wasn’t unipolar because the U.S. didn’t want to act on it More multipolar
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
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'