INS3003 week of 10/4
INS3003 week of 10/4 INS3003
Popular in Introduction to International Affairs
verified elite notetaker
Popular in International Studies
This 3 page Class Notes was uploaded by Jessica Ralph on Monday October 10, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to INS3003 at Florida State University taught by Whitney Bendeck in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 47 views. For similar materials see Introduction to International Affairs in International Studies at Florida State University.
Reviews for INS3003 week of 10/4
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: 10/10/16
October 6, 2016 Overview of lecture Key Points Democracy & Democratic Peace 1. Post-Cold war predictions a. Mearsheimer, Huntington, Fukuyama 2. Waves of democracy 3. Fukuyama’s “end of history” a. Hegel b. Preeminence of ideas c. Teleological history d. Liberal-democracy 4. Democratic peace a. 3 main points 5. Democratic peace according to our IR perspectives 6. How does democracy help prevent war? a. Public constraints and democratic culture b. =Audience costs 7. Are democracies more peaceful? Post Cold War predictions Mearshimer and realists predict we would have conflict when leaving the bi-polarity Liberals saw that we had chance to communicate more and work together internationally more Huntington o Moving towards class of civilizations o Fighting wars much bigger because they would be along civilization lines Hegel o 3 main components of who we are as people 1. Desire for survival We need basic food water shelter to achieve this 2. Ability to reason With this, we can obtain what we need for survival 3. Natural spiritedness that desires recognition We want to be valued drives us to competition with each other Democracy ends this because it recognizes all states and people as equal o Fukuyama took this and built on in it Fukuyama Led a group that believed that democracy was becoming the prevalent form of govt. o Inspired by Hegel Non-materialistic approach End of cold war- democracy had won and defeated ideological competitors and would continue to do so o “We have reached the end of history” – Fukuyama Wrote “the end of history” “End point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of western liberal democracy as the final form of human govt” Because we have defeated communism and democracy is spreading, we have no more to do and have reached the end o Constructivism or identity perspective Spread of democracy should decrease competition Man seeking best form of government After cold war, only 1 political ideology left o Democracy had proved itself because it was meeting the needs of everyone Teleological perspective: linear, non-random history o Not a series of random events that just happened o Democracy did not just come from no where o Evolutionary idea that each things leads to the next and culminated in liberal democracy Waves and history of Democracy First wave Second wave o Many countries adopt democracy after WWII Third wave o East Europe, Latin America, Africa o According to Fukuyma, communism was the only competitor to democracy and after cold war there was no communism democracy had won and there was no more to be done Liberal Democracy What does it consist of? o Govt. work for people No justification for govt. that oppresses o Recognize and protect individuals basic rights o Right to own private property WWII destroys fascism o Discredits it Modernization theory o Relation between GDP and democracy Challengers to democracy o Radical islam New alternate form of govt. that would break the end of history o Capitalism hasn’t reaped all benefits that we predicted Democratic peace o Immanuel Kant’s “perpetual peace” o Democracy cant really declare ware because people have to support war and liberal democratic govt. don’t have people that support war War o Democratic nations wont wage war with other democratic nations o So if democracy is spreading, we would have no one to fight with o Public constraints People in govt. don’t want war govt. cannot go against them o Audience cost Our leaders and politicians have to pay attention to their “audience” If leaders put us in something we don’t want impeached, rebel, not vote again Statisistcal date supports claim that democracies don’t fight each other
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'