POL 1080 Exam 1 Review Sheet
POL 1080 Exam 1 Review Sheet POL 1080
Popular in Introduction to International Relations
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Political Science
verified elite notetaker
This 6 page Study Guide was uploaded by Melanie Basinger on Sunday September 25, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to POL 1080 at University of Cincinnati taught by Ivan Ivanov in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 7 views. For similar materials see Introduction to International Relations in Political Science at University of Cincinnati.
Reviews for POL 1080 Exam 1 Review Sheet
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: 09/25/16
INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Fall Semester 2016 University of Cincinnati 15 POL 1080 Midterm Exam I Review Sheet I: Introduction Why using perspectives and levels of analysis? o Perspectives: what underlies or constitutes theses forces; are they material forces such as efforts to grab more territory or resources, ideological forces such as religious and political beliefs, or interactive forces such as failures to communicate, lack of economic and other contacts, or weak institutions? o Levels of Analysis: where are the forces coming from that drive the conflict? What is theory? Types of theories: o Theory: set of ideas that explains how the international system works Probabilistic and deterministic theories Logic of consequences vs. logic of appropriateness o Logic of Consequences: Rationalist Method X causes Y o Logic of Appropriateness: Constructivist Method X constitutes Y Evolving norms and expectations Methods of studying IR. Counterfactuals o Methods: rules for testing theories against facts Rationalist Methods: methods that disaggregate and explain events sequentially as on event preceding and causing a second event Constructivist Methods: see events as a whole as mutually causing or constituting on another rather than causing one another sequentially o Counterfactual Reasoning: method of testing claims for causality by asking what might have happened if one event had not occurred Correlation vs. causation o Correlation: relationship between 2 variables, but one does not cause another o Causation: one event causing another II: Levels of Analysis 1. Individual Level a. Human Nature (1930’s – 1960’s) 1 i. Inherently good or bad? (pessimistic vs optimistic or realist’s vs idealists) b. Leadership i. Objective vs Subjective ii. Style of Leadership (independent vs participatory) 1. Independent leaders tend to have strong egos and strong emotional ties to their country. They also tend to want to maintain control and power a. Ex: Charles De Gaulle 2. Participatory leaders tend to take longer to make decisions and have a desire to maintain friendly international relationships a. Ex: President Barrack Obama c. Rational Decision Making i. What is rational? We assume that leaders are rational decision makers ii. Cost Benefit Analysis iii. Aware of your environment iv. Problems? 1. Often don’t get all the information needed to make a rational decision 2. Solution is bounded rationality: you don’t need all the information, just sufficient information and past experience. This then creates an algorithm d. Psychological Features i. Belief system (formed by past experiences) ii. Cognitive consistency 1. Often ignore inconsistency 2. Distorted rationale 3. Simplified Information e. Weaknesses of the Individual Level i. Which factors actually matter? 1. Most leaders will not take any psychological or personality tests 2. State Level a. Types of Government i. Regime/System 1. Presidential Republic, Constitutional Monarchy, Parliamentary Republic, Parliamentary Monarchy ii. Democratic Governments 1. Elected by the people iii. Non Democratic Governments 1. Absolute monarchies, theocracies = authoritarian 2. Nazis, communism, fascism = totalitarian b. Democratic Peace Theory i. Democratic countries view International Relations differently and are less likely to become aggressive and start wars than non-democratic countries c. Bureaucratic Politics Model 2 i. Hierarchy: Only care about yourself d. Organizational Process Model i. Turf Battle 1. Ex: Taiwan vs Mainland China e. Type of Economy i. Market, informal, formal f. Demographics i. Younger countries = more resources, better future ii. Older countries = less resources, bleak future, lower birth rate g. Ethnic Homogeneity i. How are minorities treated? 1. Ex: Burma. The minorities are extremely oppressed h. Political Stability i. Natural Resources i. Mineral, geographic location 1. Ex: Switzerland and the Alps 3. System Level a. Anarchy i. 1648: Peace of Westphalia 1. Principalities 2. Protestants vs. Catholics 3. Sovereignty b. International Rules III. Perspectives to IR Prisoners’ dilemma and cooperation in IR: realist, liberal and constructivist perspectives o Igor and Rogi Cannot communicate with each other Options: 1. Igor fesses and Rogi stays silent – most preferred, Rogi goes free 2. Both are silent 3. Both fess up 4. Igor stays silent and Rogi fesses – least preferred, most jail time for Rogi Both usually tend to fess up. Why? Cannot share information with each other, depends on the sentencing Realists: assume the worst – case scenarios Liberalism: trust? “shadow of the future” – the probability that they will meet up and do whatever got them arrested again Nuclear weapons can force states to cooperate Core assumptions of realism. 3 Link between anarchy, uncertainty, self-help and security dilemma in IR. Realist explanation about war and conflict in IR. o According to realists, war is a consequence of anarchy. Realists also worry more about the zero – sum effects of technological change than they do about the non – zero – sum effects In these anarchic systems, actors have to rely on self – help the defend themselves This means that a tribe, city – state, or nation – state must provide for its own protection or it risks succumbing to another actor They also face a security dilemma similar to that of the prisoner’s dilemma If one state arms and another doesn’t, the second one may lose security. To prevent this dilemma, both states defect and pursue a balance of power Link between anarchy, self – help, and the security dilemma (from lectures) Unilateralism and/ or minilateralism – National power and geopolitics – The role of the distribution of power across the system – The role of great powers (# of poles in the system) and alliance configurations Major realist frameworks (classical/ human nature, defensive, offensive). o Classical Realism: emphasis is on human nature o Neo – realists (structural) realism: focus on the structures of the international system Offensive (Mearsheimer): says that states always seek more power because more power brings more security Also says that geography does not permit the projection of land across land power across large bodies of water Defensive (Waltz): focuses primarily on the systemic structural level of analysis Measures capabilities by size of population and territory, resource endowment, economic capability, military strength, and political stability and competence Seek enough power to be secure Common assumptions of the three liberal approaches. Complex Interdependence: o Refers to the frequency and intensity with which states interact o Systemic variable 4 o States have strong ties to each other (primarily economic or social ties) o Examples: ICTY, NATO, UN Neoliberal Institutionalism o Core argument: There are situations where mutual interest exists (i.e. is there is a gain to be made from relations) o International institutions (governmental and non- governmental) provide information, reduce transaction costs, establish focal points of coordination, facilitate reciprocity o Institutions make a difference in conjunction with power realities, they matter independently of the power realities o Systemic level of analysis Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) o Democratic countries tend to behave more peacefully o State level of analysis o Observation One: Liberal democratic states do not go to war with other liberal democratic states o Observation Two: Democracies are more likely to win the wars they fight (democratic triumphalist’s) The relevancy of ideas: constructivism, Marxism, Feminism, critical theory. How ideas matter in international relations? The role of values, norms and beliefs in construction of identities. o Values: moral convictions o Norms: ideas that govern behavior o Beliefs: comprehensive views about the world Constructivism o Ideas play the dominate role and they operate at the systemic structural level o Social Constructivism States and other actors acquire their identities from intersubjective discourses in which they know who they are only by reference to others o Agent – Oriented Constructivism Attributes greater influence to independent rather than collective actors Feminism o Central argument: gender makes a difference in International Relations o Critiques international relations as a male – centered and dominated discipline Marxism o Central argument: working class makes a difference in International Relations (structure + agency) 5 o Emphasizes the dialectical or conflictual relationship between capitalist and communist states in the international system, leading to the triumph of communism, not democracy Critical theory o Offer broad critiques of international relations and generally advocate radical solutions such as revolution o All ideas, institutions, and power are historically bound and contingent o Tells us the direction in which history is moving and therefore what likely, although not certain, futures we may contemplate 6
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'