PSC 231 Week 2 Tuman Lecture Notes
PSC 231 Week 2 Tuman Lecture Notes PSC 231
Popular in Intro to Int'l Relations
Popular in Political Science
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
This 9 page Class Notes was uploaded by Stephanie Smith on Tuesday August 16, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PSC 231 at University of Nevada - Las Vegas taught by John Tuman in Summer 2016. Since its upload, it has received 5 views. For similar materials see Intro to Int'l Relations in Political Science at University of Nevada - Las Vegas.
Reviews for PSC 231 Week 2 Tuman Lecture Notes
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: 08/16/16
Wk 2 Monday I. Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy A. Background B. Role of Bureaucracy 1. Degree of internal conhesiveness, centralization within agencies 2. Degree of overall competition or cohesion among agencies / departments 3. Conﬂict with other brings eg. legislatures (where posers are separated) 4. Do legislative committees exercise oversight or bureaucracy? 5. Example: In the US, the following departments, agencies have potential inﬂuence in foreign policy formulation, implementation a) US Department of State b) US Department of Commerce c) US Department of Agriculture d) US Department of Defense e) US Department of Energy f) US Trade Representative g) National Security Council h) CIA i) Defense Intelligence Agency j) NSA C. Role of Interest Groups 1. Effects of group systems that vary with the type of political regime (pluralism; corporatism; state-autonomy) 2. Group cohesion and organization D. Effects of public opinion 1. Inﬂuences on public opinion - media, partisanship, group identity, and government itself 2. Public opinion generally matters less for FP compared to domestic policy - but there are exceptions 3. Rally around the ﬂag effect E. Some models of leadership decision-making Wk 2 Tuesday Domestic Politics / Foreign Policy Making Public opinion -media - frame issue - interest groups can have inﬂuence -public opinion is more salient on domestic issue than on foreign issues Rally around the ﬂag effect Prospect Theory - Tuman is really really into this, know it well -Tursky and Konnoman -Consumer behavior in insurance markets -Make decisions in reference to the status quo -Domain of loss - hypothesize that they will adopt risky policies (if you’re successful, the public will support you) -Domain of gain - “Satisﬁcing” model - know this -may not generate maximum utility, but will provide a satisfactory outcome (rather than an optimal one) -may be constraints on information (no perfect information), may be opportunity cost I. International Organizations II. Case Study: The UN, 1945. Basic Principles: security, HR, development. A. Structure and Composition 1. UN Secretariat a) Secretary General (SG) of the UN: ban-ki Moon (Republic of Korea, 2007-11; reelected unanimously in June 2011) (1) SG serves 5-year term which is renewable; however, none has ever served more than two terms (one, Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt), served only one term due to US resistance); another, Dag Hammarskjold, died in 1961 in a plane crash while visiting peace keep operation in Rhodesia (Zambia)). (2) SG is nominated by Security Council (note signiﬁcance of veto power of permanent members). (3) Elected by majority in vote of the general assembly; election this year, with candidates (for ﬁrst time) answering questions from GA. (4) By tradition, SG does not come from a Great Power; expectation is that he should be ﬂuent in English and French (because French historically, was the language of diplomacy). (5) SG serves as spokesperson of UN; helps promote consensus among members of Security Council; is manager of UN staff, which serves no one state. b) Departments and Ofﬁces: The Secretariat is organized into 13 major departments and ofﬁces (and each is further sub-divided into speciﬁc ofﬁces and sections). (1) These ofﬁces include, for example: Executive Ofﬁce of The Secretary- General (EOSG), Ofﬁce of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), Ofﬁce of Legal Affairs (OLA) ect. (2) In addition there are 6 other divisions that are formally unter the Secretariat but more autonomous (eg. Internal Justice Bodies, International Criminal Tribunals, Special Envoys and Representatives, etc.). c) UN Staff: Civil servants (approximately 44,000, globally, in 2014) that assist the SG, Security Council, and member states in a number of areas. Note: size of “bureaucracy” has been a course of tension between UN and some in US Congress (and, during the Bush administration). 2. UN General Assembly (GA) (kinda like the legislative branch) a) Membership (1) 193 mimers (South Sudan, the newest sovereign state, saws admitted on July 14, 2011 as the newest member; prior to that, Montenegro was the last one, in 2006). (2) Permanent Observer status for other delegations (Holy See-Vatican; “State of Palestine, Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the UN”), including IGOs (Aftrican Union, Caribbean Community, European Union, ICC, ect.) (3) Admission: Section 14, rules 134-138. Security Council must recommend (9 of 15 members must approve; any permanent member may veto); GA approves with 2/3 vote of those present and voting. GA may ask SC to reconsider but can’t override a veto. b) Functions of the GA (1) Accreditation: Whose “credentials” are recognized to represent a member state? (2) Budget: GAApproves budges for UN, including peacekeeping. (3) Coordination: Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), which has 54 member states selected for 3-year terms by GA, coordinates a number of programs, e.g., UNICEF. (4) Voting: Pass non-binding resolutions; elect SG; select 10 non-permanent members of the Security Council. (5) Forum: While GA is in session, members have many opportunities to voices a vision that challenges the major powers in the system. c) Politics (1) Regional groupings; North-South division; etc. 3. UN Security Council (SC) a) Membership (1) Permanent members: France, UK, China, Russia (former Soviet Union), US. Any one permanent member may veto resolution (2) Non-permanent members: Total of 10, selected in staggered terms (5 elected to 2-year staggered terms). Selected by GA, nominated through “regional” groups in GA (led by a regional middle-power, eg., Canada). (3) Note: decision rule = one member, one vote. Requires afﬁrmative vote of 9 members to pass a resolution; but any permanent member may veto. (Article 27, UN Charter). Members may abstain. b) Functions of the SC (1) Pass resolutions that seed to identify threats and resolve conﬂicts; these are binding (although the language often does not involve any sanction). (2) Sanction states that are a threat to international security (3) Authorize limited multilateral military operations to punish an aggressor state (4) Authorize peacekeeping operations of an UN military force (usually for 6 months, with possibility for renewal; note: GA must appropriate and authorize funds for these missions). 4. Autonomous Agencies a) 20 agencies are afﬁliated with the UN and coordinate their activities - including reporting and research, but their management is under control of member states. b) Examples: (1) International Civil Aviation Authority (air trafﬁc) (2) International Atomic Energy Agency (nuclear power safety, and proliferation) (3) World Health Organization (global health governance) (4) International Labor Organization (labor standards & rights) (5) International Monetary Fund (global ﬁnance & monetary relations) (6) World Bank (ﬁnance for developing world) B. Issues & Controversies with UN 1. Budgeting a) Issues: Who should bear burden? If US is major contributor, shoals UN serve US interests? b) Budget - do they waste money? (1) biennial budget (2 years) c) Components: (1) Regular Budget: Assessments on member states, based upon principle of ability to pay (“Scale of Assessment,” taking into account GDP; a ceiling; currently at 22%; level of indebtedness); 2014-2015 biennium: $5.53 billion 1% nominal reduction (2) Note: Annual budget of NYI police department in 2014: $4.67 billion. (3) % Total (2014 budget, which is $2.83 billion) - Ten states contributed more close to 60% of the annual budget; US the most. (a) US: 22% (b) Japan: 10.83% (c) China: 5.15% (d) France: 5.59% (e) Germany: 7.14% (f) Italy: 4.49% (g) Mexico: 1.84% (h) R of Korea: 1.99% (i) Russian Fed. 2.44% (j) Spain: 2.97% (k) UK: 5.18% (l) Saudi Arabia: 0.86% (m)Yemen: 0.01% (n) Zambia: 0.006% (4) Peacekeeping budget. Assessed (as a % of Regular Budget Assessment, with discounts to poor countries and additional levies on Permanent Members of Security council) in addition to Regular Budget. 2013-2014 FY $7.83 billion (less than 1% of global military expenditures) (a) Top Contributors by % for 2013-14 i) US 28.38% ii) Japan 10.83% iii) France 7.22% iv) Germany 7.14% v) UK 6.68% vi) China 6.64% vii) Italy 4.45% viii)Russian Federation 3.15% ix) Canada 2.98% x) Spain 2.97% (5) Voluntary Contributions (Supplementary Programs) (a) Some states make additional voluntary contributions to support the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World Food Programme (WFP), and the UN Development Programme (UNDP). (b) 2010-2014: Difﬁcult to obtain aggregate, but >$10 billion (WFP —> $18 billion cumulative between 2010-2014). (c) 2010-2014: US contributed 36% of WFP; European Commission, Canada & Japan aout 6-8% each (d) Supperters of US contributions say these programs are vital to US security interests 2. Governance in the Security Council a) Should other large world economies have a permanent seat in SC? Germany, Japan? b) What about emerging world powers, or countries with large population? India, Brazil? Nigeria? Indonesia? 3. North-South divisions a) Although each member state has one vote, many in the Global South feel that the structure of the SC, and the budgeting system, given the US and other staes in the Global North excessive inﬂuence. 4. Effectiveness of the UN a) Peacekeeping Empirical research suggest s Un peacekeeping operations have been successful, but this varies and is contingent upon a number of factors. In cases of civil war? (Review of literature and analysis by Lise Morje Howard, UN peacekeeping in civil wars Cambridge University Press, 2008) (1) Situational difﬁculty (the greater the situational difﬁculty, the lower the chance of success). Do warring parties consent to UN force? Have the warring parties reached stalemate? Duration and causality rate of the conﬂict (shorter conﬂicts with fewer casualties are easier to end). (2) Security Council: Consensus, and Intensity of Interest, among Permanent Members (reﬂect Structural Realist assumption that UN is simply avenue for Great Powers to achieve their security ends in the international system). Consensus measured by debate; interest by number of resolutions. (3) Peacekeeping rules - adherence or not? Are the rules clear? IS there a division between the ﬁeld command and others? (a) Cases: i) Namibia 1989-1990: Success ii) El Salvador 1991-95: Success iii) Cambodia 1992-93 Mixed (situational difﬁculty higher) iv) Mozambique 1992-1994 Success v) E. Slovania 1996-97 Success vi) East Timor 1999-2002 Success vii) Angola 1996-97 Failure (low interest by SC; situational difﬁculty) viii)Somalia 1993-1995 Failure (situational difﬁculty; lack of consensus in SC; rules inconsistent) ix) Bosnia 1992-95 Failure (situational difﬁculty; lack of consensus in SC; rues inconsistent) x) Rwanda 1993- 1996 Failure (division in SC, moderate interest; rues unclear) (b) Food, health I. International Law A. What is the Foundation of International Law? 1. Unlike national law, international law has different foundation due to fact that no IO is sovereign. 2. Decisions and legal briefs - those written & rendered in national courts, may be used by World Court or ICC 3. Treatises, conventions - create obligations for successor governments & generations (eg. Universal Declaration of Human Rights; ABM Treaty, etc.) 4. Norms, customs - for example, reciprocity is considered a cornerstone of international law 5. Principles - sometimes, national legal principles becomes a foundations for international law. Examples: Use of force without justiﬁcation; habeas corpus rights, etc. B. Issues Areas in International Legal Disputes & Cases 1. Human Rights 2. War and Conﬂict (Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes, Aggression, etc.). 3. Territorial Disputes 4. National Legal Decisions that affect other states C. International Legal Decisions that Affect Other Staes 1. International Criminal Court (ICC) a) Created in 1998 by treaty (Rome, Statute); the ICC is not part of the UN. Located in The Hague (Netherlands). b) Membership: 122 countries (May 2013). China, US, Russian Federation are not members; France & UK are members (US withdrew in 2002). c) Three divisions (Pre-Trial, Trial Division and Appellate). 18 judges, who are elected to 9 year terms by member states of the ICC. There is also an Ofﬁce of the Prosecutor, and a President (led by 3 judges, who are administrators). d) Recent Cases: (1) Democratic Republic of Congo (War Crimes indictments; ﬁve separate cases involving rebels & gov ofﬁcials). (2) Central Africa Republic (War Crimes & Crimes Against Humanity; 1 case rebel). (3) Uganda (War Crimes & Crimes Against Humanity; 4 cases, Lord’s Resistance Army - 3 at large, 1 deceased). (4) Sudan (Darfur) (War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity; 6 cases, head of state, government, militias). (5) Kenya (Crimes against humanity, 2 cases, ofﬁcials with different government factions). (6) Libya (indictments in June 2011) 2. Ad Hoc International Tribunals - International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) a) Created by UN Council - part of UN system; have jurisdiction in cases involving crimes against humanity & war crimes, but only in those countries. ICC, by contrast, is created by a multilateral treaty. b) ICTY: >160 cases to date; many from former high ranking Serbian military ofﬁcials and heads of state, although some from Bosnia and Herzegovina also have been indicted. (1) Similar ad hoc international tribunal for Rwanda. 3. The World Court (International Court of Justice) - more permanent and more jurisdiction than AD Hoc International Tribunals a) The World Court is part of the UN system b) Jurisdiction: Only states may be a party to cases in the World Court (not individuals); the Security Council (SC) may also ask for an “advisory” opinion on matters of international law from the WC. c) Composition: 15 justices, each serving 9 year terms; staggered elections (5 elected at a time). Elected by majority of SC and GA (the Permanent Court of Arbitration nominates candidates). Permanent members of SC usually have at least one judge on WC. Additional “ad hoc” justices may be added if state involved in case does not have a justice from its country on the case. d) Many states that are signatories to the convention creating the WC have placed stipulations Wk 2 Thursday South Chin Sea Dispute - may be oil in the sea - building islands in the sea in an attempt to claim the territory - claims are mostly about wanting to gain control and dominance in the region, want to be a regional hegemonic power Wk 3 Tuesday I. Conﬂict and Arms control in the International System A. Weapons of Mass Destruction 1. Nuclear Weapons (1) Declared and “Known” Nuclear States (a) World Nuclear forces 2010-14 i) USA ii) Russia iii) UK - stable number of weapons over this time period iv) France - stable number of weapons over this time period v) China - Stable vi) India - similar stockpile to Pakistan vii) Pakistan - seen as a deterrent to India (they have had conﬂict over territory in the past) - they try to balance each other viii)Israel - only country in this group which is not an ofﬁcially declared Nuclear State because they neither conﬁrm nor deny that they have a nuclear weapon - scientists from Israel “spilled the beans” (2) If deployed (placed on missiles, or on basis with operational nuclear forces) ‘Deployed’ means warheads placed on missiles or located on bases with operational forces. Measured this way, there are close to 4,000 nuclear weapons which are operational (but note that if all warheads are counted, there are more than 16,000). (3) North Korea: Has conducted successful test (plutonium bomb). Thought to have enough ﬁssionable material (uranium 235, plutonium) for 1-2 more bombs. (4) Iran has a stockpile of around 200kg of uranium enriched to 20 percent (possibly enough for a weapon); however, the IAEA conﬁrmed in 2014 that this had been converted. (5) India and Pakistan are presently increasing their capability to produce weapons grade, ﬁssionable material. (6) The US and Russia account for 93% of all nuclear warheads and weapons. Most of the reduction between 2010and 2014 was due to the new START agreement (Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, 2010). (7) Variation in Delivery Capabilities (a) In principle, a variety of delivery systems may e used for nuclear weapons. However, many systems (bombs, shells, torpedoes, short range missiles) were phased out by Russia and the US in the 1990’s (b) Only the US, Russia, China, UK and France have capability that would allow them to deliver nuclear weapons to any point in the world. US, Russia, and China have ICBMs (range in excess of 5,000 miles). (c) US,Russia, China, UK and France are all modernizing the delivery systems (as of 2014), or have announced intentions to do so. b) Chemical and Biological Weapons (1) Conventions (1992 Chemical Weapons Conventions) have greatly reduced and eliminated chemical weapons. (2) Organization fro th Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW): Responsibility for monitoring inspection, compliance, and destruction. Recent Examples: Syria. (accession 2012; 2016, last 75 cylinders of hydrogen chloride removed and destroyed in Texas). (3) Biological weapons - conventions (Biological Weapons Convention, 1972) (a) Recent examples: Successful removal of chemical weapons from Syria; destruction at sea. c) International Cooperation in the Area of Weapons of Mass Destructions (1) Nuclear Weapons (a) Non-proliferation Treaty (1968) i) 190 states have ratiﬁed, including 5 non-nuclear powers. India and Israel have not ratiﬁed; North Korea withdrw. Iran is a member. ii) NPT promotes exchange of technology for development of nuclear power for peaceful, civilian purposes. It regulates trade of nuclear materials. The treaty is intended to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. States found not to be in compliance may face sanction (as may other non-member that develop nuclear weapons). iii) International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) carries out inspections to ensure that ﬁssionable material is not being diverted for development of nuclear weapons. IAEA is responsible for inspections in Iran under the terms of the Iran nuclear accord. iv) Examples from Iran: (1) Removed - under IAEA monitoring - 2/3 of the 19,000 centrifuges it used for uranium enrichment (from Natanz). The IAEA has surveillance on centrifuges in storage. (2) Uranium enrichment ended; its stockpiles of enriched uranium from 12,000 kilograms (5 percent purity) to 300 kilograms; all enriched material is no more than 3.67 percent (not weapons grade). (3) The core of a heavy-water reactor at Arak has been rendered unusable (ﬁlled with concrete). (b) Comprehensive Nuclear-test-ban Treaty (CTBT) 1996. Parties agree not to test any nuclear weapons, including exploding them (above or undergound). International monitoring system is in place. 44 countries have signed or ratiﬁed (all major nuclear powers have signed, but not all have ratiﬁed, eg. US which failed to ratify in 1999; agreement won’t take effect without all parities ratifying). (c) North Korea conducted tests in 2006 & 2009. US and Russia have not tested since 1992 and 1989, respectively (d) US & Russia: most recent START agreement, 2010 (Treaty on Measures for Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, 2010) (e) By 2017, neither state may deploy more than 1,550 strategic warheads or 700 launchers. A previous inspections regime, which had lapsed, was renewed. (2) Chemical and Biological (a) Chemical Weapons 1992 have greatly reduced and eliminated chemical weapons. Biological Weapons Convention (1972) resulted in destruction of stockpiles, although 12-15 states have active research programs, which are permitted. Dual use programs are a challenge.
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'