StudyGuide - Exam 1 - International Relations
StudyGuide - Exam 1 - 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 15 page Study Guide was uploaded by Ricardo Rauseo on Saturday September 24, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to INR2001 at University of Florida taught by Zachary Selden in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 11 views.
Reviews for StudyGuide - Exam 1 - 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: 09/24/16
Studyguide: Conflict and cooperation o Major actors in conflicts States fighting other states States fighting rebellions within the state Conflict between non-state actors o Not all conflict is between states, much if not most is below the level of state-state conflict o Conflict may be driven by many interests- ethnic conflict, material resources, land, etc. Cooperation o Lots of conflict but also lots of cooperation o Examples? o A lot of cooperation on economic issues, why? o All sides gain from economic exchange so it literally pays to cooperate. When you’re talking about security, it is much difficult to find this type of cooperation because you might never recover what you lost o Is cooperation or conflict the natural state? Globalization and fragmentation o What is Globalization? What are some examples? Ease and no cost of interconnectedness around the world o What does globalization mean for international relations? More interdependencemitigates conflict Cultural aspects of globalization, both positive and negative o Is globalization a new phenomenon? We have globalization since the Roman empire, we now have it more spread out and uniformly organized. o 1918 Spanish Flu Fragmentation o Europe as example- integration into European Union has diminished power of national government o Regional identities have become stronger: example-devolution in Scotland and Wales o Not all fragmentation peaceful- Yugoslavia o Globalization can lead to integration but also fragmentation o Globalization can also facilitate smuggling and international crime Levels of analysis: Systemic, Domestic and Individual o Systemic level Broadest level, looks at the structure of the international system to explain broad flow of events It does not concern domestic issues in countries, it is a more general analysis Treats states as unitary, rational actors How states’ relationships and behaviors can be explained by the nature of the international system The anarchic structure of the international system States exist in a zero-sum world — your loss is my gain and vice versa 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 Anarchy is key, therefore you need to be really careful about what you do Parsimonious: uses few variables to explain a lot Forces that generate pressure in all states Like dealing with the anarchic nature of states o Domestic level Looks at what happens inside states to explain events Having so many different states, at the domestic level you bring everything together and try to make sense of it Domestic policy is key in the international system What goes on inside the state is important Focus on character of the state (e.g. democratic of authoritarian) Bureaucratic politics inside the state might be important as well Domestic politics also an important variable 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. Democracies are less likely to fight each other(?) o Individual level Looks at individual leaders and their motivations, psychology see as important Leaders can act o Systemic level factors When there is instability, states have incentives to act o Balance of power The alliance network of protection for small states started to pull up conflicts Austria vs. Serbia Catalyst for war o Alliances If Russia steps in to help Austria, someone has to step in to help Serbia o Security dilemma Defensive movements from certain states were viewed as offensive o Domestic level factors o What is going on inside the countries that might lead to war? o Austria- problems with nationalism Sometimes fighting a war is what brings a country together o Russia- revolution brewing Russia was weak for all of what has happened to the entity They had to give the people a common enemy o France- wants to get back at Germany for loss in 1871 Franco- Prussian war The cult of the offensive You have to attack now because it is now that you have the advantage of the surpriseWrong, but it was what people believed o Individual level factors o Why did people think it would be easy? Quick and easy warDeceived o German high command thought they were losing ground but were in an objectively strong position You are pushed to act because not acting is more dangerous They had to hit France first and hard since Russia wasn’t that much of a threat o Perception of loss position means more risk-acceptant We don’t challenge ideals o Instead of rapid victory, settles into horrific trench warfare on two fronts o US gets involved in 1917- tips the balance against Germany and its allies o Armistice declared November 11, 1918 how is that different from a surrender? Germany does not surrenderThey didn’t give up They actually agreed to stop fighting 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. Marxism and feminism o 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). o Marxism: Conspiracy in the sense that the people who are rich and own wealthy business are taking advantage of everyone else Liberalism, Realism and Constructivism 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 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 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 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 point of making decisions? o Your nation’s history Pages 40-41 Prisoner’s DilemmaPage 26-27 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 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 Peace of WestphaliaWhat led to it what came out of it, purpose 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 Sovereignty This is our state we will decide which religion is practice here Concert of EuropeWhat led to it what came out of it, purpose 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 Nationalism, examples o What do we mean by nationalism? You can pull together people that share cultural identity and language th o Growing force in late 19 century o Both a uniting force and dividing force Ottoman empiredividing o Italy and Germany unifying Unification of Germany and Italy 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 WWI & WWIIGeneral processes 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 League of Nations 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 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 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? 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 out 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 is 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?
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'