×
Log in to StudySoup
Get Full Access to Lehigh - IR 11937 - Study Guide - Midterm
Join StudySoup for FREE
Get Full Access to Lehigh - IR 11937 - Study Guide - Midterm

Already have an account? Login here
×
Reset your password

LEHIGH / OTHER / IR 11937 / Why did Europe Rise?

Why did Europe Rise?

Why did Europe Rise?

Description

School: Lehigh University
Department: OTHER
Course: Introduction to World Politics
Professor: Professor
Term: Spring 2017
Tags: international relations
Cost: 50
Name: International Relations - Quiz #1 Study Guide
Description: International Relations - Quiz #1 Study Guide Realism + Liberalism
Uploaded: 09/14/2020
11 Pages 8 Views 9 Unlocks
Reviews


IR 10 - Study Guide


Why did Europe Rise?



1500s (Ming Dynasty)

China was the

Largest military, advanced technology, largest economy

1300-1500s - Isolationism — restricted foreign trade

Piracy problem — cut off shipping links

In 200 years, the Chinese put their backs; they lost their advantage Isolationism - Fell Behind

1500s (Ottoman Empire )

Turkey, North Africa & the Caucasus

Expanded

Conservative government — did not accept capitalism

Stagnant economy

Expensive war costs due to expanding their territory.

Spent their resources in the military

*Did not compete economically with Europe

QUESTION: Why did Europe Rise???

*Political organization

No central government

Diversity of Ideas about religion, how to govern, economic systems, competition of ideas Made it so that the most innovative ideas won


Why was there no single Hegemon in Europe?



*There was no HEGEMON in Europe

Competition drove economic development

Very start of capitalism

*Fierce Military Competitions — led to Arms Races — stimulates economy Money is put in INVESTMENTS

Stimulates Tech Dev & Science & Innovation

*Gave Europe a military

Developed better weapons

Allowed them to attack non-Europeans & succeed

Dominance @ Seas — led to better trade

Allowed them to accumulate MORE wealth

**Why was there no single HEGEMON in Europe**

They tried — the European forces tried to accomplish HEGEMONY

Hegemon : the most powerful state in a system — USA as the global superpower *Has to be DOMINANT power — superpower level — SIGNIFICANT power to COERCE other countries

Hegemony: the predominance of one state over others We also discuss several other topics like ncs study guide

When there is a Hegemonies, the world is in Hegemony


Who is Chancellor Otto von Bismarck?



*Idea: a world can

*Argument: China rising pretty fast

We can be in a period of transition wherein China becomes the new hegemony

A. Habsburg

B. French

C. Pax Britanica (1800s - 1900s)

D. America

1500s - 30 Years War

*Started with Martin Luther

Between Protestants & Catholics

Austria-Hungary & Spain (Europe) vs. Germany, Sweden, Norway (Protestant) France entered war — France joined the Protestant side although it was predominantly Catholic

Not pure war of religion — struggle of balance of power

France joined the other side of the religion to be the HEGEMON

Balance of Power over IDEALS

Treaty of Westphalia —

*Commitment to Freedom of Religion (free from the influence of the church) = religious tolerance *Created the System of Borders We also discuss several other topics like finals week ttu

● Created a System of Sovereignty

Definitions:

State - the entity which has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a given territory. Sovereignity - freedom from foreign control and control of one’s own borders

*ISIS does not follow this definition

Organized principles have not been followed as evidenced by colonialism

1800s - the Rise of Germany

Chancellor Otto von Bismarck — Chancellor of Prussia — unity of Germanic City States

Prussia was already an existing city-state.

France & Austria were threatened - they tried to move for the balance of power

Wars of Iron & Blood — fight Austria & France

*Creation of Germany

From Revitionist State to a Status Quo State

Revisitionist - trying to gain more power // unify states

Defender of Status Quo - maintain the powers

*Bismark — the astute politician — got fired — German politicians wanted to seek We also discuss several other topics like wubia

Thinking of China as Revisitionist or a defender of Status Quo

==>Unification of Germany was very threatening to Europe’s balance of power

World War 1 (1900s)

Treaty of Versailles — The Treaty of Versailles was the most important of the peace treaties that brought World War I to an end. The Treaty ended the state of war between Germany and the Allied Powers.

Realism in a Nutshell:

Russia being a strong state being able to do what they want

And the weak suffer with what they must

Thucidides was considered a realist because he wrote purely on the balance of power: ● The growth of Athens risked changing the balance of power Don't forget about the age old question of microbiology fiu

● Portrayed the Athenians by being driven by self-interest and no other morals ● ex: The Melians were pleading for justice & fair dealing

● “The standards of justice” are only present when power is equal

○ Russia’s Poisoning is an example of this

○ We can “black-box” the state

● Gilpin developed Thucydides’ theory of hegemonic war

○ When the balance of power is shifting, one can expect war

Hegemonic war:

● War between a hegemon and a rising state

● A war that threatens the hegemon

● Must result in a new distribution of power (a new hegemon) to be considered a hegemonic war

○ Note: the US were on the side of Europe vs. the rise of Germany

○ If hegemon successfully defeats challenger, it’s not a hegemonic war ● Is an example of the realist argument that the uneven growth of power among states (differential growth rates) is the driving force of international relations

● Shows how conflict is built into the system

○ Because the growth rates of other countries cannot necessarily be

● Examples?

○ China - rising state; threat to the hegemon

■ India is far from over-taking states. Has the potential to do so in the future ○ World War 1 & 2 - Great example of a hegemonic War

■ The United Kingdom was the previous hegemon

■ Germany was the rising power, challenging the current hegemon

Human Nature and War:

● Thucydides/classical realists: people lust for power/are

selfish/aggressive/scared/distrustful

○ thus… human nature causes war

● Gilpin/neorealists: not HUMAN nature, but nature of the international system causes war ○ Anarchy -- key part of the international system We also discuss several other topics like iupui physics courses

○ Problematic to look at people’s intentions, bc intentions can be different from outcome (sum of parts can be diff from whole)

○ Status Quo States still go to was against Status Quo States

○ Good people don’t necessarily cause peace nor bad people don’t necessarily lead

○ So many things intervene in War & Peace; complex system with multiple factors ● example: Security Dilemma

● The defining feature of the int’l system that causes recurring war is anarchy Anarchy vs. Hierarchy

○ Anarchy = the absence of a sovereign authority

○ Hierarchy = the presence of a sovereign authority

■ Note: There is a key difference of Power & Authority

■ The US has Power of Hegemony but does not have global authority

Implications of Anarchy:

● Self-help world

○ There is no global Police Force

○ “You better be able to protect yourself”

■ Examples:

■ Russia annexing parts of Ukraine (annexation of Crimea - war

between Ukraine & Russia) - no one stopped Russia

● Europe nor America did not intervene

● Russia got away with it

■ The war with the Athenians against the Melians ()

● Preference for relative gains over absolute gains

○ Relative gains = how much you gain relative to someone else ○ Absolute gains = how much you gain relative to how much you had before ■ Examples: We also discuss several other topics like daniel richter usc

● Free Trade Deals

● Realists Perspective: Who will gain more from this deal?

Hypothetical: Relative vs. Absolute

Imagine two possible trade deals between the US and China:

Deal 1: US GDP growth of 3%, China GDP growth of 2%

--maximizes relative gains

Deal 2: US GDP growth of 5%, China GDP growth of 6%

--maximizes absolute gains

Which deal would a realist advise the US to accept? (In other words, which gives the US the most relative gains?)

Although Deal 2 would make us better-off overall, realists would say we should go with Deal 1 to ensure advantage over China.

Realists would say that even with a a friendly democratic ally we sign Deal 1 -- friends could become enemies in the future

*Status Quo:

Security Dilemma

When a status quo state’s attempt to improve its own security creates an objective threat to its status quo neighbor

Improving military capacity:

Increasing defense forces

Purchasing weapons

Militarization is an objective threat -- regardless of ally or enemy Realists say you cannot believe that

Neighbor sees that as a threat so they have to “beef up” their weapons Leads to “Arms Races”

Example:

World War 1 - did not want to fight each other but a small event triggered an all-out way

Security dilemma

*Example: The Middle East

Iran pursuing to acquire nuclear weapons

States like Saudi Arabia & Israel has been buying arms from the US

*Another example: Arms Race during the Cold War

The US & the USSR stockpiling weapons

How two status quo states can go to war

Cooperation can be difficult

relative gains vs. absolute gains

int’l institutions are epiphenomenal to power

*Reflect what the balance

*Skeptical of international institutions

*Only useful when it aligns with the powerful states’ interests

States constantly engage in balancing behavior

Alliance politics: balancing vs. bandwagoning

Why has no one been able to dominate the world?

--because states balance

2. Why view domestic politics differently than international politics? --hierarchy and anarchy are fundamentally

different domains

3. How can status quo states end up at war w/ each other? --security dilemma

4. Why is cooperation between states often so difficult?

--relative gains

SUMMARY

Key actors: states

Key interests: survival (thus, wealth and power)

Interactions: Governed by relative gains concerns; cooperation is difficult (unlikely without a hegemon)

Institutions (UN, NATO, WTO, etc): Don’t matter unless they serve the interests of powerful states.

From the Latin “liber”: free

Liberty: the quality or state of being free

In IR (and in this class), the word “liberalism” refers to…

Classic liberalism (Locke, Kant, Smith, etc)

Emphasis on human freedom, individual rights, free markets, free enterprise… aka democracy

“Liberal” parties everywhere other than the US are right of center Republican party is economically liberal

Democratic party is economically and socially liberal

Freedom of conscience: commitment to individual liberty. Freedom of speech, of the press, of religions, etc.

Freedom of opportunity: commitment to guaranteeing economic and social rights, right to own private property.

Freedom to elect one’s gov’t: commitment to democracy as only legitimate gov’t.

Liberal states are also committed to these ideas at the int’l level. freedom of conscience → support for int’l human rights

freedom of opportunity → support for capitalism

freedom to elect gov’t → support for democracy abroad and

in int’l institutions

what are these lofty ideals doing in our national security strategy? --because liberals believe domestic politics affect int’l politics

--the spread of rule of law/democracy will make us safer!

Nature of international politics

Realism = anarchy

Liberalism = society

Nature of states

R = all you need to know about a state is its size (economy and military) to predict its foreign policy

--states are rational and unitary actors

L = must look inside states to understand their foreign policy decisions --states are rational but not unitary

--domestic politics affects int’l politics

Realists:

Can’t overcome anarchy, so states must…

Effectively balance power

Liberals:

Can’t overcome anarchy, so states must…

Increase interdependence

Increase reciprocity

Interdependence

The mutual dependence of states and nonstate actors on each other through trade, investment, transportation, tourism, etc

Creates habits of cooperation

Reciprocity

The behavior of states toward one another based largely on exchanges that entail mutual benefits

When there is reciprocity in international interactions, states are more likely to cooperate

Create international institutions/organizations (IOs): UN, WTO, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, etc

1) Int’l institutions make cooperation much more likely by...

Reducing the uncertainty at the heart of the security dilemma Setting standards for behavior

monitoring compliance with treaties

providing venues for repeated interaction

providing info to states (reduce cost of decision-making)

resolving disputes

2) Maximize International Trade:

--The Commercial Peace:

Trade → Interdependence → Peace

Implication: states should worry about absolute gains, not relative gains, because…

Absolute gains maximize interdependence

Interdependence creates mutual benefits

If interrupted, potential costs (Iran nuclear deal)

Trade deal 1: US expected to grow 3%, China 2%

Trade deal 2: US expected to grow 5%, China 6%

--Deal 1 gives the US relative gains, but Deal 2 maximizes US absolute gains 3) Empower civil society:

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)

Enforce laws and norms to help maintain successful cooperation Multinational corporations (MNCs)

Create the economic interdependence that is key to peace

Hold enormous sway over national govt’s

As the number of nonstate actors increases, interdependence and reciprocity increases as well.

Investment in international institutions

Promotion of free trade and economic interdependence

Promotion of Democracy

Why? Democratic Peace: democracies

don’t fight other democracies

In the US, largely bipartisan consensus on this, up until Trump administration

Kant/Doyle argue that it is because of 3 factors that must all be present: Mutual caution

Mutual respect for other democracies and int’l law

Mutual interest

Why do democracies fight non-democracies?

How do realists respond to this argument?

The peace is explained by balance of power, shared interests, nuclear weapons, and some say “just give it time”

4. Alliance Policy:

States form alliances against what they find most threatening

This is different from allying against brute power (realist alliance policy) Democracies are likely to find nondemocracies the most threatening to their freedoms

Alliances do not simply seek to balance power, as in the realist conception: they are a practical way for states to cooperate on a variety of issues they serve national interest better than acting unilaterally

5. Promotion of Human Rights

”Responsibility to Protect”

Sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe

When they fail to do so, the int’l community bears the responsibility

Promotion of human rights is not only a moral responsibility but it advances international security

States that respect the rule of law and HR domestically are more likely to respect the rule of law and HR internationally

6. Respect for international law

the more treaties and int’l laws there are, the better, because states acquire the habit of following the rules

The more they follow the rules, the better they will get at writing enforceable int’l law

7. Use of force only as last resort

Emphasis on diplomacy

Force may be legitimately used to uphold int’l law, to respond to illegal use of force, or for humanitarian intervention

Key actors: States, but also int’l institutions, MNCs, NGOs, domestic interest groups, bureaucracies, etc.

Key interests: Security, wealth and material welfare

Interactions: Absolute gains more important than relative gains because conflict is not inevitable. Cooperation is possible, especially w/ help of institutions. Int’l structure is anarchy but also society.

Institutions: dramatically reshape international politics in a more peaceful, cooperative direction.

Why dems never (rarely?) fight each other?

--mutual caution, respect, interest

Why don’t Canadians worry abt US invasion?

--intentions matter, democratic peace

Why do similarly situated (states with similar power positions) states behave differently?

-- domestic politics

Why is cooperation so easy?

-- int’l institutions facilitate cooperation

Page Expired
5off
It looks like your free minutes have expired! Lucky for you we have all the content you need, just sign up here