Exam 1 study guide POLS 1020 Spring 2016
Exam 1 study guide POLS 1020 Spring 2016 Political science 1020
Popular in Introduction to International Relations
Popular in Political Science
verified elite notetaker
This 14 page Study Guide was uploaded by Eunji Kim on Saturday February 6, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to Political science 1020 at Clemson University taught by Aron G. Tannenbaum in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 88 views. For similar materials see Introduction to International Relations in Political Science at Clemson University.
Reviews for Exam 1 study guide POLS 1020 Spring 2016
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: 02/06/16
POLS 1020 exam 1 STUDY GUIDE Week 2 Part I The Westphalia State System of International Relations Period 1 Age of Absolutism and Limited Warfare 1648 - 1789 Period 2 Age of Revolutions 1789 - 1914 French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars 1789-1815 99 Years of General European Peace 1815 - 1914 Period 3 Age of Total War 1914 - 1945 Period 4 The Cold War Late 1940s – Late 1980s Period 5 The Post-Cold War World 1991 - present - American Unipolar Moment 1991 - 2001 - Challenge of Islamic Terrorism 2001 – present - China and Russia vs. US Power 2014 – present Historical Trends - Nationalism - Industrialization of warfare o Lethality of weapons o Destructiveness of warfare - Growing number of states - Shrinking number of Great Powers - Other? The State in the Westphalia System - Territory - Population - Government - Recognition - Sovereignty Meanings of sovereignty Supremacy: The government of a state has supreme political authority within that states Legitimacy: These is no legitimate authority (religious or political or economic higher than a state) Non-Interference: No state is allowed to interfere in the internal affairs of another state Warfare: there is no world government or world police force to prevent conflict – war – between sovereign states The Two Core Values of Every State Preserve political independence Preserve territorial integrity Week 2 Part II Westphalia Origins: Wars of Religion Cuius Regio, Eius Religio • Removes religion as a reason for one state to intervene in internal affairs of another state • Gives rise to theory of sovereignty, that one state has no business interfering in any internal affair (not just religion) of another state Westphalia Bedrock Principles • Core values of a Westphalia state: – Preserve political independence – Preserve territorial integrity • Corollary principle: – Non-interference in internal affairs (w/o consent) • Rationale of corollary principle: – Minimize conflict, warfare, over internal matters – Origin: allow co-existence of two religions Three Types of Challenges to Westphalian Principle of Non-Interference 1) Military invasion with no military necessity 2) “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P): intervention to protect persecuted minorities / to prevent genocide 3) Conditions created by modern life that bypass the power of state governments Traditional view of Non-Interference “No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason Whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law” UN General Assembly 1970 R2P: A New Interpretation of the Principle of Non-Interference • Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. • The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, [but] • We are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. UN General Assembly 2005 Type 3: Conditions of Modern Life: Globalization Principle of Non-Interference is a Legal but Useful Fiction. Some Examples of Ignoring that Principle • Dynasty intervention – Rival kings want to put relatives on empty nearby thrones • Humanitarian intervention – Overthrow dictator to liberate people from genocide, oppression Consequences of Violating the Principle of Non-Intervention • More use of military force – To protect vulnerable minorities from persecution • Reduced level of government protection of the individual citizen – International drug cartels penetrate neighborhoods – Your job depends upon decisions made by corporations based in foreign countries – Jihadist terrorists can kill individuals anywhere One Superpower, Many Great Powers Early 21 Century The World America Made (1) Democracy (2) Prosperity (3) No War among Great Powers for (almost) 70 Years American Hubris? - Try and stop us But: Is America In Decline? Week 3 part I Four-Minute World Briefing Iran – Regional Hegemon - War and Human Nature The “Nature-Nurture” debate as applied to international relations. Our Dismal statistics. - Only 292 years of peace in last 5600 years. - 3.5 billion people killed in 14,000 wars The three levels of analysis of international relation (IR) 1. Level 1: the individual level of IR analysis [individual] 2. Level 2: the state/society level of IR analysis [what countries live in] 3. Level 3: the systemic level of IR analysis [anarchy, no rules] The “Nature vs. Nurture” Debate (Shimko p.108) Q: Is warfare the product of human nature? Is it instinctual and in our genes? Or is warfare a learned behavior, meaning that we could “unlearn” it? A: No, we were born with instinct, genes or not. What is “human nature”? - The sum of all qualities and traits shared by human beings. - Ways of thinking that are common to all humans. - That which distinguishes human beings from other animals Which behaviors are instinctual and which are learned? - Having sex (instinct) - Attending classes (learned) - Eating and drinking (instinct) - Learning foreign language (learned) - Fighting (learned and instinct) “Nature: determines of Human behavior - Biology and genes What is “nurture”? - Socialization - Occultation - “Informal learning” - Society - Culture - Doing “philosophy”, “abstract thought” Realists and liberals - Realists – Nature - IR Liberals (aka Idealists) –Nurture (not necessary American political liberals) Realists say, - Humans are inherently brutal and warlike - Civilization tries to tame humanity’s savage heart - But humanity’s brutality often breaks through civilizations’’ veneer - Therefore warfare is inevitable - Answers “no” to “can’t we all just get along?” question. IR Liberals say, - Humans are inherently peaceful - But our societies produce aggression and war - If we change society and its values, we can eliminate warfare - Therefore warfare isn’t inevitable - Liberals try to change society in warfare situation - Answers “yes we can” to “can’t we all just get along?” Questions to think about: which is the main point of Edward Hilsan’s “Is war inevitable”? article in Shimko? (at the end of chapter 5, points of views) Realism and human nature - Ethology (study of animal behavior) - Lethal animals ex. Lions (attract) - Non-lethal animals ex. Bunny rabbits - What about human beings? The evolution of man: non-lethal, we don’t have the claws or teeth to kill. How do we get involved in warfare? - Curse of intelligence Review of Realism and Human Nature - Our instinctual behavior takes all the responsibilities. (“no” to “can’t we just all get along?’) Week 3 part II Four minute world briefing Oil’s fall: winner and losers War and Human Nature The “Nature vs. Nurture” debate Nature – realists Nurture – IR Liberals Liberal view of human nature and warfare Human beings are peaceful But our society produces aggression and war If we change society and its value can eliminate the war Is Warfare an instinct? – NO Warfare isn’t constant in human history Most people have never fought in the war “Nurture” determines of human behavior Society Nurture Liberal Evidence Peaceful societies 1. U.S 2. Europeans 3. The European Union (not necessary a state/country) sovereignty (28 countries) didn’t have wars for over 70 years. Reluctance to kill Social learning and conditioning Change society, change behavior Reluctance to kill: non – firers Reluctance of soldiers to use their weapons to kill others Ex. Christmas Trenches of 1914 Notes of McCutcheon’s Song 1. That the ones who call the shots won’t be among the dead 2. On each side of the rifle we’re the same Social learning and conditioning Dehumanization of the “other” Military training Teaching children to become warriors “How does society teach war?” – Shimko, P121 Nature vs. Nurture Ongoing debate Based on assumptions as yet unproven scientifically Become aware of such assumptions in studying international relations Week 4 part I Four-minute world Briefing Nature vs. Nurture? Prehistoric masseuse hints at War among hunter-gathers Topic: realism vs. liberalism. Analyzing UW policy toward Afghanistan Q: Why is U.S. involved in Afghanistan? 1. To liberate women? 2. To overcome poverty? 3. To defeat the Taliban? 4. To reduce the power of the warlords? 5. To establish a strong central government? 6. To eradicate drugs? 7. To clean up corruption? 8. To promote democracy? 9. To prevent another al Qaeda attack against the U.S.? 10. To modernize a backward country? Grouping the reasons [three MAIN reasons] 1. Improve Afghanistan society 1,2,6,7,10 2. Improve the political process 5,8,4 3. Promote American national security 3,9 Q: Which reason for U.S. involvement in Afghanistan is the best? Two Rival IR perspectives Realism: 3 Liberalism: 1,2 Realism, human nature and Rodney King’s Question A conservative perspective on international politics, assuming A pessimistic view of human nature Collective/group egotism Inevitability of social conflict And therefore concluding that there’s an Inevitability of conflict among states Centrality of power in relations among states Ever present threat of warfare among states A: No, we can’t just get along. The “security dilemma”, Shimko p. 34 “The problem … less secure.” European history – Germany surrounded (1914) WWI Geographic: France -> Germany <- Russia If France has 1 million people, Germany will have 1 million, and so will Russia. Security dilemma is like a dog chasing its tail. Good intentions 1. Security dilemma assumes that states are well – intentioned toward one another 2. Tragedy of the S.D.: high potential for conflict even if states are well- intentioned “ The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Bad intentions 1. What is states aren’t well-intentioned? 2. What is one state wants to expand at the expense of a neighboring state? Revisionist states A state that is dissatisfied with its current power and status in the world. Ex. Russia, China, Iran A contemporary security dilemma Russia and NATO Expansion - 1990 Soviet Union -> 2009 Russia split with Ukraine (lost a lot of states) - 1990 NATO expanded, in 2009 Soviet Union, Ukraine wants to join Europe in NATO but Russia said not a good idea. Russian Aggression Against Ukraine Russian Army threatens Ukraine, not being aggressive but self-defense Russia feels threatened and encircled from NATO [security dilemma] Realists say No, we CANNOT get along Week 4 part II Covering it up for the visiting President on Iran [Realism vs. IR Liberalism] Day 2 Q: Which is NOT a “security dilemma”? A: The U.S. and Soviet Union sign treats to mutually reduce the nuclear weapons IR Liberalism, human nature, and the Rodney King Question A progressive perspective on international politics, assuming 1. An optimistic view of human nature 2. Nurture over nature: a belief that human reason and logic can create new and peaceful institutions 3. The inevitability of social progress based on human reason 4. And therefore concluding that a. Conflict among states is not evitable b. Warfare can be controlled, reduced and perhaps eliminated c. A harmony of interests is possible among states YES, we can get along. “Harmony of interests” Shimko p.41 “[A belief in’ the existence of common interests among peoples and nations. This contrasts with the [realist] assumption of the inevitability of social conflict” On each side of a bayonet we’re the same Everybody is same mother’s child Each individual, seeking his/her own self-interest, benefits the entire community A rising tide lifts all boats Let’s make a deal/compromise/bargain You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours. The European Union (EU) a harmonizing of interests a sharing of sovereignty IR Liberal Optimism - Spread of democracy - Economic inter dependence - Human rights - International law - International organizations Marxism and International Relations Marxism and the class struggle: Leninism and the struggle against imperialism Imperialist Exploitation - Developed (core) states, developing (Periphery) states Former appeal of Marxism – Leninism to third world states - Explains why they’re poor - Identifies an enemy against which they can rally 1. Local political elite, government 2. Western state propping up local elite - Follow examples of soviet union to develop itself by its own efforts Decline of Marxism Appeal - Soviet union collapse - Rapid economic growth in some third world states, including o Asian Tigers o China o India - Introduce limited free market reforms Old wine in new bottles, pursue the new method! Feminism “Women Hold up half the sky” Women in international relations Constructivism international relations as a social process Conclusion: - Focus on realism and IR Liberalism - Each Shimko chapter explains a given topic in realism and then in IR Liberalism terms - You decide! Week 5 part I Roots of American Exceptionalism America should spread democracy – America should spread the Gospel What is Democratic Peace Theory (DPT?) - Democracies are inherently more peaceful than non0democracies - When democracies do go to war, it is almost never against other democracies, but against non-democracies instead Who goes to War against whom? Dictatorship: Nazi Germany vs. Stalin’s USSR Dictatorship & Democracy: Japan vs. USA; USA vs. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq Democracy: NA Does DPT lead to Warfare? - Democracies are inherently more peaceful than dictatorships - If more countries become democracies, warfare should become less frequent - Corollary: let’s use American power to export democracy to the rest of the world 1. President Woodrow Wilson An IR Liberal (1912-1920) “We must make the world safe for Democracy!” 2. The Neocon Iraq Policy of George W. Bush (2000-2008) – Support Democracy in Iraq 3. Barack Obama and DPT Cairo Speech 2009 Obama, “A New Beginning” AL- Azhar University, Cairo - “America does not presume to know what is best for everyone.” - “I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose.” - THREE arguments for democratic Peace Theory - The Rational/pacific Public Thesis - The Institutional Thesis - The political Culture Thesis Summary of Rational/Pacific Public Thesis People are naturally good and peaceful A democratic government is chosen by and reflects the views of the people People know that the burdens of warfare fall mainly on them So people will oppose going to war And democratic governments, reflecting the will of the people, will not go to war USA Wars since WWII ISIS 2014-? (Syria 2013 – failed) Libya 2011 Iraq 2003 – 2011? Afghanistan 2001 - ? Kosovo 1999 Somalia 1992 – 1993 Persian Gulf 1990 – 1991 Panama 1989 Grenada 1983 Bay of Pigs 1961 Vietnam 1961 – 1975 Korea 1950 – 1953 The Institutional Thesis in Support of DPT Main Idea: dispersion of political power within a democratic government Checks and balances, separation of powers So no one individual can send country to war Political Skills in a Democracy A successful democratic political leader knows how to put together coalitions to get enough votes to win office A democratic political leader must appeal to voters, not threaten or browbeat them Support for democratic Peace theory? Mixed results The rational/pacific public thesis is nor supported by the evidence The institutional (dispersion of power) thesis is not well-supported The political culture thesis offers the most support for the Democratic Peace theory Week 5 part II Migration from the Global South to the Global North - Population pressure - Climate change Exam 2/9 Theory of the Democratic Peace - American exceptionalism o Democracies are inherently more peaceful than dictatorships o If more countries become democracies, warfare will get less - Support for democratic peace theory? o The rational/pacific public thesis is not supported by the evidence o The institutional (dispersion of power) thesis isn’t well-supported o The political culture thesis offers the most support for the democratic peace theory - Realist critique of DPT, they’re skeptical 1. Statistical insignificance o Few democracies until middle of last century o Few wars between sovereign states 2. Definitional problems o What counts as democracy? o France vs. Germany in WWI o Were the states democratically different? What counts as a war? o U.S. civil war: Were both sides equally democratic? Was the confederacy recognized as a sovereign state? 3. Democracies not all that peaceful in other ways Evaluation of the theory of the Democratic Peace o Democracies seem not to go to actual war against other democracies o But democracies aren’t inherently peaceful o Valid but limited o Don’t push it! The case for using IR liberalism (DPT) o Fight terrorism by “Draining the swamp” o The Arab spring: High hopes “ Winning the Arab Spring” The United States and the Arab Spring o The US wants Arab peoples to be free to make their own decisions (IR Liberal) o But the US wants Arab governments to make/keep peace with Israel (Realist) o And the US wants the oil to continue to flow freely (mainly to Europe and Asia) (Realist) o And the US wants Arab voters to reject jihadists, terrorists, extremists (IR Liberal) o But what if Arab voters choose to elect jihadists, terrorists, extremists and who go toward against Israel? The Case for Using Realism in American Policy in American Policy in the Middle East: o “illiberal Democracies”, pushing it too far o No love lost: the US and Iran o Iran: Rapprochement? o Syria o The Line-Up in Syria o The Assad regime (Shia) Ruled Syria brutally for 40 years Supporters: Iran, Russia, Hezbollah Opposed by: ISIS, non-ISIS jihadists, United States o ISIS (Suuni) Controls Sunni areas of Syria and Iraq Supporters: none Opposed by Iran, United States, other Sunni states o Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey With Whom Should the US cooperate in fighting against ISIS? The ayatollahs of Iran? (Shia) The Assad regime in Syria? (Alawite /Shia) The monarchial dictatorship of Saudi Arabia? (Sunni) The military rulers of Egypt? (Sunni but anti-jihadist) Pushing it too far Palestinian Elections 2006 West Bank o Fatah o Palestinian Authority o “Moderates” Gaze Strip o Hamas o “Terrorists” American Invasion of Iraq 2003 Goal: Liberate the Iraqi people from a cruel dictatorship from a cruel dictatorship Goal: Establish a democracy, one person one vote Result: The Iraqi Shia government becomes friendly with Iran Result: (2006-2008) Al Qaeda enters Iraq, coming to the rescue of the Sunni Result: (2014-?) ISIL enters Iraq, coming to the rescue of the Sunni Does the United States support Arab Dictators? Should it? The U.S., Arab Dictators, and Arab Democracy Realists say Support Dictators o Who make peace with Israel o Who keep the oil flowing o Who fight against terrorists and jihadists o Who consistently support US foreign policy o But encourage dictators to be less harsh, more benign (IR) liberals oppose dictators o Who deny their people basic human rights o Who make frustrated people turn to extremists, jihadists, and terrorists o Who discredit the good name of the U.S.? o But make sure the people do not vote extremists into power Democratic peace theory and the future of World politics Distinguish between academic theory and the practice of diplomacy Pre-requisites of democracy Don’t push it.
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'