PSC 1003; Lecture 2
PSC 1003; Lecture 2 PSC 1003
Popular in Introduction to International Politics
Popular in Political Science
This 3 page Class Notes was uploaded by Eleanor Parry on Thursday February 11, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PSC 1003 at George Washington University taught by Farrell, H in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 28 views. For similar materials see Introduction to International Politics in Political Science at George Washington University.
Reviews for PSC 1003; Lecture 2
No all-nighter needed with these notes...Thank you!!!
-Treva Kohler II
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: 02/11/16
International Relations in the Absence of World Government 1. Realism A. Emphasizes problem of anarchy B. No rules or laws besides the ones states give themselves. 2. Liberalism A. Emphasizes how international institutions can sort of provide order. 3. Constructivism A. Emphasizes how ideas and norms shape order in unexpected ways. B. Shared sets of values and norms Realism • International politics as dominated by power. • States contend for dominance through arms and other tools. • Military power is key to which states win and which states lose. • World is fundamentally unchangeable ◦ China vs US relations • States fear for survival in a world where there is no global policeman. • Limits on trade and cooperation ◦ If states fear for survival, they will have difficulty agreeing with each other. ◦ Agreements may be broken - trust is a mistake that can be taken advantage of. ◦ Trade may not have mutual benefits - by trading with your potential enemy, you may be giving him or her asset that can later be used against you. ◦ Interdependence is not beneficial. • Limits on ideas and norms ◦ Broad norms like truth, justice, human rights disappear or take second place to survival. ◦ Realists pride themselves on seeing world as it is not as idealists want it to be. ◦ Are deeply skeptical that liberalism, democracy can be spread. ◦ Are doubtful that spreading democracy would help security even if it worked. ◦ Anti-Iraq war • Egocentric • States are rational actors • Henry Kissinger Liberalism • In the absence of a world government, states can construct a kind of limited order for themselves, based on common interests. • They can build institutions governing trade (where self interest and common interest coincide). ◦ WTO has no real authority/force. • They can also manage some aspects of security. • Democracies create a shared interest in peace. • Economically motivated. • Liberalism and Power ◦ Acknowledge the role of power in international relations, but tend to focus on other things. ◦ Assume that actors have common interests - which they can pursue if they figure out how. ◦ Assume that institutions help them to do this. ◦ Don't worry too much about how actors might abuse power • Liberalism, norms, and ideas ◦ Pay some attention to the norm of democracy. ◦ Spreading democracy is a good idea for American interests. ◦ Democracies are likely to behave better towards each other than non-democracies. ◦ Tend not to be very interested in other norms and ideas. • Trade, little borders, interdependence - trio Constructivism • Focuses on the roles of norms and ideas in shaping international politics. ◦ Norms - informal rules about what people ought to do. • Argues that we are all embedded in a web of meaning. • Suggest that much international politics is about the creation of meaning. • Tacit Consensus • By studying change and flow of ideas and norms, can see how international politics changes. • Constructivism and interests ◦ Constructivists tend to disagree with liberals about the role of interests in national politics ◦ Agree that interest exist - but don't believe that they are fixed or obvious ◦ Instead, like to look at underlying politics of where interests come from and how they change. • Constructivism and power ◦ Constructivists argue that power is only important within social contexts, which are not defined simply by power relations. ‣ US and UK vs US and Iran. ‣ Different relations based on fundamentally different morals and views. ◦ Look to how ideas and norms may shape the way in which power is used. ◦ And how some aspects of power actually depend upon ideas and views of the world. Bringing Approaches Together • Old "paradigm wars" have mostly given way to interest in how power, interests and ideas intersect. • Policymakers draw upon different approaches. • A lot of value of bringing these perspectives together. Realism and Liberalism • Can argue about the relative impact of power and interests in explaining world politics ◦ Realists are better at explaining int. security ◦ Liberals are better at explaining int. economics ◦ Global warming? • Can also blended by policy make to crate ideas about national politics ◦ Charles Krauthammer on America's moment. ◦ Iraq war based on liberalism to spread and promote democracy on surface ◦ Realists say US is so powerful it can do whatever it wants. Realism and Constructivism • Can disagree over whether and when ideas reshape power relations. ◦ Does military power lead to power to shape ideas or vice versa? ◦ Cold War about class of power or clash of concepts • Can come together to look at how hegemony (leadership) works within the world. Liberalism and Constructivism • Can disagree over whether interests are 'obvious' or not ◦ Global warming - is it clashes of interest over who pays, or disagreements over who should pay. • Can work together to understand international institutions ◦ Are int. institutions important for setting rules and morals. Security and Conflict Fundamental question of Int. security - What are the causes of war? Three Kinds of Explanations Kenneth Waltz - identified three kinds of explanation of war. 1954 1. Man 2. The State 3. War Three "levels of analysis" in IR 1. Individual 2. State 3. International System MAN • War causes by human nature. ◦ Triumph of 'passions' over reason. ◦ Individual greed. ◦ Desire for 'vainglory' (Hobbes). • All see war as magnification of individual human flaws. THE STATE • States may have their own rationale - 'raison d'etat' - entirely apart from individual motivations. ◦ Maker more likely through routinizing goals and behaviors ◦ Perhaps some states more war - prone than others ‣ Authoritarian regimes, weak new democracies. ◦ Perhaps some less ‣ Well established democracies. WAR • By "War" Waltz means tendencies toward insecurity in international politics itself. ◦ International system may push states to be fearful of others, leading to preemptive attacks. ◦ It may push states to be more aggressive and seek hegemony believing that if they don't other states will win dominate and endanger them ◦ May also have some self-balancing tendencies. • Security Dilemma
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'