IAFF 1005, Week 3
IAFF 1005, Week 3 IAFF 1005
Popular in Introduction to International Affairs: A Washington Perspective
verified elite notetaker
Anthropology 21: Introduction to Cultural Anthropology
verified elite notetaker
Popular in International Affairs
verified elite notetaker
This 9 page Class Notes was uploaded by Samantha Notetaker on Saturday September 17, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to IAFF 1005 at George Washington University taught by Brown, M in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 4 views. For similar materials see Introduction to International Affairs: A Washington Perspective in International Affairs at George Washington University.
Reviews for IAFF 1005, Week 3
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: 09/17/16
9.13.2016 Power Transitions Great-Power Danger Zone “Balance in power” isn’t always the best because equal power of rising and established power creates tension In 12/16 cases the outcome is war Polarity in the international system o Unipolar: 1 hegemon United Stated in the early Post-Cold War era o Bipolar: 2 superpowers Cold War (1945-1991) o Multipolar: 3 or more great powers Concert of Europe (1815-1914) o Nonpolar: A fragmented, flat system Medieval Europe Stability and Polarity o Unipolar: stable fi hegemon is seen a benign, legitimate; stable if no rising challenger o Bipolar: a zero-sum competition can be dangerous; stable if war is clearly seen as catastrophic o Multipolar: Stable if great powers are about equal and static; stable of alliances are fluid, to allow balancing 21 Century o Form unipolar to multipolar? To bipolar? To nonpolar? To another unipolar world? Led by China or the EU? o Polarity varies across military, economic, political arenas; power may be changing at different rates in different arenas o Mostly unipolar 1990s- multipolar in economics Military- unipolar NGOs are becoming increasingly powerful in the international political system. The system is going to change. Morality and War “Just War” formulations o War can be justified if the reasons for going to war are legitimate and if military force is used with restraint Jus ad bellum – Justice of War Jus in bello – Justice in War o Pacifists disagree with all of this Today, very few national leaders are pacifists Jus ad Bellum o Under just war doctrine, when the reasons for using force are justifies Just Cause UN Charter: self-defense (territory, political independence) Responsibility to Protect: Humanitarian intervention Right Intention To re-establish a just peace, not expand Legitimate Authority Sovereign states, UNSC resolutions Reasonable Hope Expected probability of success Last Resort Jus in Bello o Under just war doctrine, how force must be used once a war has begun Proportionality in the use of force Response proportional to initial attack Actions/means proportional to the ends Noncombatant immunity Respect for the laws of war The rights of soldiers (wounded, POWs) Moral Complexities and Dilemmas Anticipation o Preemptive strikes: When the attack is imminent o Preventive War: when the threat is farther away Identifying aggressors and defenders Noncombatant immunity and military necessity o “Double effect” and “Collateral Damage” Intra-state conflict is complex Nuclear deterrence o The problem of immoral threats and plans o Military necessity and ‘supreme emergency’ Why This Matters Power still matters The nature and distribution of power is changing System-level changes are a big deal o Great power transitions o Changes in the polarity of the system o The growing influence of non-state actors Morality still matters o Wars and armed conflicts are still taking place o Nuclear weapons are still with us o Moral complexities and dilemmas abound Theory: well developed, inter-connected set of ideas. Empirically grounded, may be improved or rejected. NOT hypothesis or speculation Paradigm: broader framework accepted by scientific communities, core assumptions/concepts, methodologies. May contain several sets of theories. Realism: Propositions International System is anarchic o No security guarantee o Uncertainty about the intents/capabilities of others compounds mistrust and security concerns States are the dominant act in the international system o International institutions cannot provide security, states must look out for themselves o States must look out for their own security (self-help) o States therefore worry about power o States are rational actors: They have a clear goal (security) that they pursue in a calculated manner Competition is possible/likely/inevitable o Security competitions ca lead to arms races o Security competitions can lead to confrontations/crises o Security dilemmas can be intense o Security competitions can spiral/escalate; conflict and war Cooperation is difficult/next to impossible o Uncertainty cannot be eliminated; mistrust is endemic o Security agreements are therefore hard to reach o Even when agreements are reached, states worry about cheating and being vulnerable Variations of Realism Structural Realism- structure predetermines results Neorealism- the international system generates a general tendency towards competition Offensive Realism- everyone wants to maximize power and pursue hegemony. Conflict is inevitable. Defensive Realism- states seek security. They can cooperate, it depends on the intensity of the security dilemmas Motivational Realism- motives/goals or states vary. Greedy vs. Needy states Realism: Assessments Realists focus on classic, central issues in International Affairs o Great power relations; occurrence of security competitions, arms races, escalating crises, armed conflicts and wars Don’t have much to say on international institutions o Institutions don’t matter when security is at stake Realistic formulations have been developed for intra-state conflicts o When a state weakens, the situation becomes anarchic o Ethnic groups start to look out for their own security Liberalism: Propositions Liberalism in domestic vs. international affairs o Domestic- focuses on the role of the state o International- focuses on promotion of cooperation/order Liberalism in international affairs o Anarchy in the international system can be dampened o Competition/conflict/war are not inevitable o Cooperation can be effectively promoted o Some kinds of states are more likely to promote cooperation o States are not the only important actors in the system Liberalism: Variations Political o International Institutions can promote cooperation and dampen conflict: by promotion of information-sharing/transparency, stable expectations, mechanisms for reciprocity, mechanisms for the peaceful resolution of disputes o Democracies are less likely to go to war; democracies are less likely to go to war with each other (democratic peace theory) Economic o Trade, financial, and economic interdependence make cooperation more beneficial; they also make conflict more expensive and, therefore, less likely Social o Person-to-person, country-to-country contacts can promote understanding and reduce conflict 9.15.2016 Liberalism: Assessments Liberals are generally more optimistic than realists o States have common interests, not just security conflicts o Mechanisms exist to promote/reinforce cooperation and the peaceful resolution of disputes o International agreements and institutions can help to promote transparency, trust, patterns of cooperation Not a panacea o International organizations (League of Nations, UN) can’t provide absolute security guarantees o Economic interdependence was substantial in 1914 o Democracies can be belligerent o Close contacts aren’t necessarily peace-producing Marxism: Context Industrial Revolution in Europe in the 1800s o Transformation of economic production, society o Private ownership of industry o Emergence of a large, working class in industry o Growth in economic inequalities and inequities Owners/wealth vs. workers/hardship; exploitation Major Works o The Communist Manifesto (Marx, 1848) o Das Kapital (Marx, 1867) o Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (Lenin, 1917) Marxism: Propositions Actors and Interests o Economic classes are key, not states o Economic interests are more important than political/security interests’ politics is function of economics System-Level View o Capitalism depends on the exploitation of workers locally o Capitalism depends on expansion/imperialism globally Theory of Change o Expectation that exploitation of workers (the proletariat) would lead to social unrest/revolution/ and the establishment of egalitarian/socialist/communist systems o Expectation that world would more inexorably in this one direction (historicism) Marxism: 20 Century Revolution did not occur as predicted Communist states were not benign o Internally- the establishment of communist dictatorships and the horrors of collectivization o Externally- towards neighbors/others Capitalist/Democratic states were cooperators o Capitalist interdependence contributed to capitalist peace Communist states re-embraced capitalism o Capitalism has become the world’s dominant economic system o Many now say that Marxism is dead and completely irrelevant Marxism: Relevance of the Issues Economic factors/forces still matter o Production/movements of goods/services/capital still key o Economic power is still key to political power Dependency Theory o Helps to explain development problems/inequalities Capitalism is more global than ever o Capitalism still generates huge inequalities in wealth/power o Capitalism still is not good at self-regulation or providing common goods o Important to understand the driving forces behind this o Important to devise policy actions: global economic regulation/governance is a key issue in the 21 century Constructivism: Propositions Shift form material to ideational/social factors Keys: Ideas, values, norms, identifies, and cultures o Influential in shaping international behavior o “Anarchy Is what states make of it” (Welch) o Also influential in bringing about international change o “Intersubjective meanings” change due to social interactions Actors: Transnational activists and NGOs o They put new ideas on the international agenda o They promote new norms, identities, culture, and international belief systems (normative entrepreneurs) Constructivism: Assessments Examples of progress o International views towards slavery o Norm against using nuclear weapons; ban on land mines o Anti-militarism in Japan, pluralistic security community in EU o ‘Responsibility to Protect’ vs. state sovereignty o Human rights, feminism, environmentalism o Bad ideas/values/norms can spread as well Prospects for systemic change o Information revolution enhances the dissemination of ideas, values, norms, identities, cultures o Information revolution may enhance the importance of constructivism in the 21 century Feminism: Context Problems in existence since the dawn of time o 1900- Women could only vote in New Zealand o 1916- Women could only vote in 5 countries o 1920- Women could vote in the USA Problems on the policy agenda only recently o 1975- Start of UN International Women’s Decade o 1979- UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) o 1995- UN Conference on Status of Women (in Beijing) o 2000- UNSCR 1325 on Women, Peace and Security; UN Millennium Development Goals o 2010- UN Women (consolidates/elevates UN programs) Feminism: Propositions Gender has been (and is) a fundamentally important aspect of human relations Gender structures power at every level o Social, organizational, economic, political o Local, state, international Feminism is not limited to women o Growing focus on gender o Gender includes everyone, especially in terms of being part of the solution Gender is central to understanding the classic issues o Power, war and peace, conflict and cooperation Gender agenda is broader than great-power politics o Poverty and development, education, health, environment o Equality and inequality, human rights and justice o Human security Gender activists (NGOs, transnational networks) o Have been key in expanding the agenda o Sub-state actors and international organizations, not states Feminism: Priorities Gender equality o Equal rights, opportunities, protections, outcomes Gender empowerment o Power is fundamental o Power in all spheres: political, economic, social, military Gender balancing o Equal participation/power in all walks of life, at all levels Gender mainstreaming o Establishing gender as a central, constant, normal, legitimate, policy priority o A priority not just for NGO activists, but for governments o Global mainstreaming: Not just here and there, but globally- high- income, emerging, and low-income countries Feminism: Assessments Progress to date: the glass is not even half full Agenda-setting: necessary but not sufficient Gender mainstreaming: just getting started Resource allocation: essential- more money necessary Gender balancing: o Will be key to making/sustaining progress o Gender equality will entail a fundamental change in national/global balancing of power o Unlikely that “the establishment” will be champions for change in the status quo. Gender balances will be needed. Why all of this matters? Theories influence: o Agenda setting o Information processing o Option-selection Policymakers and citizens are guided by theories of how the world works- whether we know it or not o Better to be explicit, clear, precise about our theories o Important to be aware of how our belief systems shape our thinking/actions
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'