Class Notes (837,550)
Canada (510,314)
POL208Y5 (129)
Todd Hall (25)
Lecture

Nov. 5 - Domestic Relations.docx

6 Pages
57 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Political Science
Course
POL208Y5
Professor
Todd Hall
Semester
Fall

Description
Nov. 5 – Domestic Relations 1) State as Rational, Unitary Actor - Standard approach has been to look at states as unitary actors - Look at the state with something with preferences (what it wants), and beliefs (what it thinks about environment) - Foreign policy by a state is simply a matter of state actors trying to maximize their utility by what their preferences are based on their beliefs - Consistency in what state seek regardless of leadership changes – focus of today’s lecture - Unitary actor approaches misses all those internal factors (A) Unitary Actor Assumption o (B) “State as person” assumption o (C) Realism and the rational, unitary state o (D) Rational, unitary states with other goals? o Wealth, trade and even human rights as goal for actor that is unitary Critique that structure this assumption - Institutions - Internal politics - Domestic interest groups - Society 2) Importance of Domestic Political and Economic Structures (A) Democratic peace theory o Argues that states are unlikely to fight wars against each other if both are democratic Democracies are... - As likely as states authoritarian states to get in wars - More likely to initiate wards than authoritarian states - Relations between democratic and authoritarian states are more war prone than relations between pure authoritarian states - Something about democracy that lead them to be less likely to engage in war – institutions? Democratic Peace - There are minor wars - But when following criteria, do not see major wars taking place (1) Origins in Kant’s Perpetual Peace  1795 essay  Idea of how to eliminate war or reduce war in the international system  Some included: not creating treaties that did not create option of war; not creating large-standing army (need to pay for this and paying for army is expensive, therefore, creating incentive to use army and expand – accumulate land and riches – to pay for army)  Most famous argument: notion that republics do not fight each other • Republics – a polity not governed by king or individual (monarch)l but rather by an executive  If citizens are forced to pay the price, they would not likely choose war = as a result, republics would least likely enter war • Executive held accountable by citizens for consequences of war (2) Possible causes for democratic peace (a) Values and shared identity • Share similar values and identify as democracy – war becomes unthinkable in resolving a conflict • E.g. chances of Canada and US at war is hard to imagine – war as a resort is hardly an option o Compare this to the way US perceives China (nondemocratic sate)  Territory disputes – much more madness (b) Ability to understand intentions • Idea is that because of either domestic opposition parties, media, free press = much easier to read intentions of other actors • I know what you are thinking, what your intentions are • Argument has been that much easier for democracies, than autocracies, to signal will since citizens will hold executives accountable – intentions are transparent • E.g. North Korea o Authoritarian states are not very transparent o We are unsure of why North Korea wants nuclear weapons o We do not know what internal debates are, reasons are • If do not know, much easier to have misunderstandings that can lead to war (c) Democratic leaders more picky about wars, but once entered, committed to go all the way • Proposed democracies are very picky about choosing their wars but once engaged, willing to invest a lof resources to seeing the end of war • More likely then, for two democracies when they come together, will know the costs of warfare and avoid it • I am leader of democracy and I do not want to be voted out of office therefore, I do not want to choose a war where I will lose. o Democratic leaders will therefore, choose their wards more carefully • Authoritarians can engage in as many wars as they like since they are not held accountable for actions – can do whatever they please - This is all based on notion that (B) Economic Systems - Norman Angell, The Great Illusion o Makes the argument that trade causes leaders to worry about relations and loss of resources, thus, making war obsolete o 4 years later though, WW1 took place o Nevertheless, economic relations still places a part in IR (1) Commercial Liberalism o Capitalism causes leaders to worry about disrupting trade relations o Capitalism creates domestic interest groups that want peace – interest groups who have too much to lose if engaged in war o Capitalism increase prosperity and leads to more satisfied publics  People just do not want to fight => have a good life and relatively well off, would not want to sacrifice that (2) Capitalist Imperialism o Vladmir Lenin – wrote in 1916  Had a little more insight o Made the argument that capitalist states  (1) they produce more than they can sell in domestic markets  (2) leads to excess production which needs to be sold somewhere – expansion to create markets – markets for selling and to make investments with profits which will lead imperialist powers with one another (3) Capitalism as a source of conflict? o Capitalism and war: military interests o Notion that military interests that sell and make profit off of production of military
More Less

Related notes for POL208Y5

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

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

Sign up

Join to view


OR

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.


Submit