Class Notes (806,507)
Canada (492,261)
POLI 244 (343)

Weeks 8-9 Lecture notes.docx

12 Pages
Unlock Document

McGill University
Political Science
POLI 244
Jason Scott Ferrell

October 24, 2012 Liberal conception of war:  Can help explain war and provide an explanation of war  Collective security o Alliances  Do not deny the significance of war o unlike constructivists o but there’s a bridge  inspired by demoniac ideas  convergence on certain points  can be moderated (security dilemma)  domestic level of consideration  lots of different kind of liberals  looking at foreign policy, how its determined and how foreign policy can put us on the path towards war  more than a systemic or structural considerations o more than just bargaining states to determine relative power  War is an outcome that reflects domestic level preferences  War may be an intentional choice for some actors o Domestic level interest  Or unintentional outcome.  Liberalism, like realism hold the actors primarily pursue material-interests. o Often understood economically  Pursuit of trade, commercial activity  Liberals argue that commerce tends to lead to peace. o Blainey-bargaining theory of war.  War is disruptive of trade  For domestic level consideration: o Liberals try to highlight. o What shapes foreign policy?  How is it shaped, how does it lead to war? Economic interest:  Various economic actors can obvs influence how foreign policy is determined or shaped o To make war more likely  Not same claim that states fight for economic interests  Marx says the state reflects class interests.  In the determination of foreign policy, certain actors have the influence/contributon to the determination of foreign policy o War becomes more probable. o The give/take of politics in terms of economic interest, can contribute to a stiuatin where war becomes more likely.  Britain prior to WW1, split in Britain  Conservatives, they tend to reflect the financial interests of London (trading, banking)  Where their view is oriented: foreign investment was outside of the empire. o In terms of political interest, they’re concerned about empire.  This is not the case for the industrial interest. (Liberals and Labour)  The people who make things, manufacture things…  They look towards Europe, less concerned about empire. o Biggest trading partner is Germany  When Germany turns belligerent, they are nicer to Germany.  These two groups can’t agree so they equivocating in terms of what they should do. o Sends a weak signal to Germany  When Germany turns belligerent, everyone was more cooperative to cooperate. o Not direct link, economic interests o Affect/cause support the likelihood of war.  The play between the industrial interests creates a context that foreign policy led to war Relating back to bargaining,  The bargaining space shrinks.  Economic interest has an undue interest in foreign policy o result: ability of state to bargain and negotiate with others is destroyed  pandering economic interests impact the negotiation between states.  foreign policy is not aimed at external actors o aimed to satisfy domestic level interests o Germany doesn’t want to fight Britain but he doesn’t want to piss off the own classes in Germany.  Foreign policy here is aimed at domestic level actors interests   Secondly type of actor: Bureaucratic actors  not traditionally a liberal force o forces us to take this into account.  Idea is that there are diff institutional interests within the state that also affect the determination of foreign policy. o These other institutional interests can affect foreign policy leads to causes of war.  Military—distinct actors within the state.  Iraq war, Rumsfeld and Kolpaw o Rumsfeld won out… it was what he was doing as secretary of defense  Germany prior to WW1—The schliefffen plan: o Military fight and win war o open to invasion from two different sides (Russia and France) o Invade France first, win, then take troops and invade Russia o Keiser (in charge of diplomacy) engaging in negotiation with those countries,  Only play is to invade another country  Bureaucratic interests can shape the way foreign policy… and by doing this may or may not lead to war. o Specify what is the organizations purpose? o Think about how they try to come up with plans to achieve that purpose The social/cultural factors:  Ideas and beliefs that exist at the domestic level which can also impact foreign policy of war.  Psychological filters that affect how actors perceive things. o Reflect a given attitude towards a certain position  Influence how preferences are shaped  Explains how misperception takes place  Gets a hand on specific attitudes.  States will often have particular views about the relative vulnerabilities. o Reflect the stance that has an impact on foreign policy  US with isolationism o Material circumstances affecting cultural and social beliefs o manifest destiny for American continent o how they affect misconception?  Stereotype of particular people/cultural beliefes leads to misconception of what people would do (increase. Decrease probability of warO)  militarism/imperialism—atitudes you would find predominant in 19thcentury o they foister antagonistic attitude towards others o this leads to colonization  hostile attitude  certain set of beliefs can help shape/underline foreign policy initiatives.  Regime type:  determination of foreign policy and shape preferences  how liberals talk about regimes—equivocate constructivism and democracy o non-liberal democracy (demo is basically saying majority rules) o liberalism and democracy ado not automatically go together  but in the class, they are synonyms o Demo peace—liberal democracies do not fight one another  Will fight other nations  Assumptions that are embedded: idea that citizens are pacifists—no interest in fighting.  So when you set up institutions to elect leaders that are equally pacific.  Because individuals bear the cost of war, serve in the military, there is no incentive to fight.  The idea that the demo decision making is transparent. o Anarchy--How it reflects the condition of uncertainty. o North Korea-- do we know what's going on?  No, it’s a non-democracy.  Because they’re transparent, they decrease the conditions of uncertainty that can lead to war. o Demo institutions that reflect popular will—elective leaders pursue politicies that are cooperative.  War: focuses our attention on how non-demo regimes o How they might contribute to the increase eo likelihood of war. o anticipate them being more belligerent. o doing things that render more probable. o domestic level stability—non democratic regimes often are more unstable than democratic regimes.  Non-demo regimes, are held within the hands of a minority or an elite.  Under pressure from the rest of the population to shrare power.  There is a question of political instability. o They engage in politics of externalization.  Play up the idea of an external threat to them  Only way to get rid fo them is to have a small number of people who can act effectively.  This increases the probability of war. o What about the people up there?  Domestic instability and non demo regimes leads to  Hegemonic stability theory---  Mearsheimer, idea that nations pursue power BC they want to achieve hegemony.  Want to be preeminent state in the system (region)  Nations will fight war to achieve preeminence, they will achieve peace.  Athens vs. Sparta  France v. everyone else in 19 th century th  Germany v. EE in 20 century What liberalism adds to this is that its not just a war for preeminence, it’s a war for a particular character type.  rules reflect the regime  WW2--war for hegemony  Focusing on regime type tells us what’s at stake. o Theyr’re not going to challenge realism about how the war will be fought  They’ll clarify once the wars are over.  Idea of collective security: o arises in 20 thcentury trying to articulate how to manage peace once the war is over  and how do we fight wars in the future. o The idea of collective security is meant to be an alternative to alliance building. o CS-an alternative to alliance building  they have a specific purpose  NATO was created to confront USSR in Europe  Alliance against soviet union o Once USSR falls, do we keep it?  CS is not meant to be specific, it’s enduring pattern of cooperation between actors. instead of finding a certain # of allies to achieve your goal, _______________________________________________________ October 29 , 2012 Alliances Alliances
More Less

Related notes for POLI 244

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.