Class Notes (807,216)
Canada (492,664)
POLB80H3 (152)
Lecture 7

POLB80 Lecture 7.docx

4 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto Scarborough
Political Science
Sheldon Ungar

POLB80: Lecture 6  IR Forum: US Presidential debate: Is the United States electing the president of the world? Why do we care about the election?  Liberal perspective – looks like the debate is promoting democratic peace ideas. Promoting the right kind of leader.  Constructivist – They are actively promote ideas and discourses, they have a greater voice on creating the context.  There are no realists, constructivist, or Liberal states.  Foreign policy are always are malleable, they focus on particular details and tells us IR models to explain things.  Comparative advantage – why should it matter what countries own?  Autalky – produce everything in your own domestic country  There is a global economy but we also have an international system and these things don’t always fit nicely together.  A lot of the concerns would say MNCs are actually routed in the international system but really these actors have loyalty to their home country. They’re not really global actors and really national actors. Therefore, in realist perspective – how do you protect your interest and increase your security?  Another theory is that MNCs are actually global actors. They would go to where money is- the movement of goods and capital. These two theories can change.  Policy Brief assignment: three parts of the assignment: executive summary (introductory)- 1 paragraph, summarize the advice that you will give the next president. Start off with a punch line. “Mr. President I think you should do this...” Your support for that contention. Part 2: general summary in what’s happening this fall and general background, not only with the campaigns, but climate change, what’s been happening in global negotiation, where we at etc. Part 2: summarize the two campaigns. If they don’t have a standing point, summarize that. Finally, the “advice”. Restate the executive summary and say why. The advice must be justified on your theoretical understanding of world politics. They should tell you why it’s a good goal. “US-China relations”, your textbook should help, the reference should help. You are not required to do external research. In general, you don’t have to quote common knowledge.  Continuation of the growth of international relations and practice using them. The range of subtopics of international relations will help you for IR courses.  International security – What do you think of?  Dominance of Peace (Goal),  War Preparation,  Democracy (Democratic Peace),  Balance of Power.  The agenda of international security is big but before it was small and was about national security. It was about states fighting and how to prevent states from fighting. Ex. “US vs. USSR”. International security evolved.  Questions on international security: What needs protecting? From what threats? Protected by whom?  Traditional international security equated with national security. Traditional International security: Protecting the states from other states. States are responsible in protecting themselves.  State is not the only thing that needs protecting. We can expand. Threats can expand, terrorism, environmental threats, human security etc. It should be people that need to be protected. It changes the threats, states can be the threats.  Protected by whom: states, but we have non-state actors that protect us too. None of these things are mutually exclusive.  Who are the objects of security? Move to traditional to modern.  Traditionally in international security, most IR theory is because of war. IR tries to solve the problem of war and peace. The first IR came in 1919. They try to figure what causes war to at least ending war or preventing wars.  Inter-state war has not gone away.  What is war? – Organized political violence between representatives of states: Internally and external-rule-based. War is not chaos. There are rules to war. There are rules in going to war, and when it’s appropriate to fight. There are rules on how to conduct yourselves in war. Do these rules matter? Rules have been changed as time goes by. It used to be legitimate to go to war for power, money, wealth, and conquest. This is not expected anymore. People don’t go to wa
More Less

Related notes for POLB80H3

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.