POLI 150 Week 6 Notes: 9/27/16-9/29/16
POLI 150 Week 6 Notes: 9/27/16-9/29/16 POLI 150
Popular in International Relations
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Political Science
This 3 page Class Notes was uploaded by Hadley Ashford on Thursday September 29, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to POLI 150 at University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill taught by Menevis Cilizoglu in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 8 views. For similar materials see International Relations in Political Science at University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill.
Reviews for POLI 150 Week 6 Notes: 9/27/16-9/29/16
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
Date Created: 09/29/16
POLI 150 Week 6 Notes: 9/27/16-9/29/16 9/27/16 - Current event: Philippines president says he wants to have a trade deal with China o Going to have meeting about fishing in South China Sea o China wants to build military base there, but Philippines wants to use it to fish o Discussion question: what incentives does China have to make deal? China needs allies that support their claim to the South China Sea- may want to give up some fishing rights if Philippines will recognize their claim Not too many other incentives - Current event: Syrian government started bombing civilians in Aleppo this weekend, bombs very powerful o Trying to get civilians out of revel-help areas o Discussion question: what do these actions say about sovereignty in Syria? Human rights violations (by Krasner’s definition of sovereignty) negate state’s claims to sovereignty o Security Council had emergency meeting about Syria this weekend Talked about why ceasefire was broken and what to do Didn’t lead anywhere because Russia and US on opposite sides - Things states fight for: has to be something major to push countries to war o Territory o Policies o Regime change - Why do states fight in the first place? Bargaining framework o Due to failures in bargaining/negotiation process o Deals only prevent war as long as each state prefers deal to having a war o War is costly, so a settlement that both sides prefer exists Military, economic, negative externalities, destruction, human lives, etc. o Bargaining range: the set of outcomes that both sides would prefer to going to war Always a bargaining range in interactions - Reasons states fight: o Information problem: leaders have incomplete information Uncertainty about capabilities and resolve of other Each state has private information about own capabilities and resolve Incentive to misrepresent to get better deal Bluff to get other to surrender Issue of credibility Threats need to be costly to be credible Ways to make threats credible through showing costs Mobilization Tying hands: public, clear threats that make it difficult to back down because would harm public opinion Audience costs: possible consequences internationally or domestically if back down from threat or lose war Reputation: show that reputation would be harmed o Commitment problems: states cannot make credible promises to follow deal/agreement now or in the future Credibility problem Both sides will have temptation in future to use force to reconstruct terms Most problems when deal creates future weakness of one state 9/29/16 - Current event: diplomats proposed ban on nuclear weapons to UN (including US and Russian weapons) o Some think ban isn’t practical or feasible o Discussion questions: Will the ban be effective? No because difficult to force such powerful countries to disarm Will make North Korea more powerful relatively compared to weak, newly disarmed countries Prisoner’s dilemma- all have incentive to defect from agreement to keep power o Countries that currently have nuclear weapons are legally allowed to have them by Non Proliferation Treaty - Alliances: institutions that help members cooperate militarily if war happens o Doesn’t have to be in terms of fighting Share intelligence Provide resources o Offensive alliance: 2+ states collaborate to attack another state o Defensive alliance: states agree to help each other if one is attacked - NATO: created as defensive alliance against the Soviet Union o Mutual defense pact: attack on one is attack on all o After Cold War, acts as global peacekeeper o Has a lot of resources to its disposal Contains many prosperous nations o Not really focused on Soviet Union expansion anymore Question of what NATO should focus on now Different opinions about effectiveness and necessity of NATO o Article V: collective defense pact (mutual defense pact) Doesn’t have to mean actually fighting First/only used after 9/11 attack o Trump’s views on NATO: 1. Most countries don’t contribute enough- US pays 70-75% 2. Weren’t focused enough on terror- would be obsolete if don’t focus on current issues a. Are they prepared to change scope? o Clinton/Sanders’ views on NATO: Sanders also question if it is realistic/fair for US to be paying disproportionate share Clinton supports US involvement and thinks other countries should contribute NATO needs to be modernized to focus on terror Thinks that US should still stay in NATO even if others don’t contribute Other countries contributed troops during 9/11, so doesn’t necessarily have to be monetary contributions o All NATO countries pledged to contribute 2% of GDP- only a few countries actually followed through o Class discussion: should US continue funding NATO? Other countries should be paying, but no way to enforce it- NATO still serves US interests and as a hegemon sometimes has to bear burden American interests promoted through NATO wouldn’t be possible just through US political system Needs NATO to accomplish these things NATO mostly serves US interests, so makes sense that US pays most Others countries may not have as much funding capabilities, but can help in other ways - Challenges facing NATO: o ISIS/terrorism o Cyberattacks o North Korea o Nuclear proliferation o Acts of aggression by larger states (Russian and China) o Europe can’t mobilize troops over long distances- limited land military power o No capability to respond to nonmilitary attacks (ex. cyber) o Funding- US contributes most, so funding resources limited o No political capabilities- can’t negotiate or solve political disputes - Current event: opinion piece from CNN on relevance of NATO and EU today o Trump threatened to disband NATO if others don’t contribute Is this a credible threat? On its own, no because nothing to back it up If US decreased contributions and other members felt security threat, it might work Disbanding NATO would harm US interests and spread of ideologies and member countries know this, so won’t think US will actually do it o How should NATO adapt to challenges? Cooperation with EU: NATO has military power, but not as much for issues facing current world, also a lot of overlap between both organizations US cooperation with Russia: gridlock with Russia preventing work on these goals o Does Brexit influence other countries to leave as well? Some may consider it, but many gain too much from membership Depends on what happens to UK afterwards If they prosper, some may try If they struggle, current members have higher incentive to stay