Class Notes (835,309)
Canada (509,088)
POL208Y1 (499)
Lecture

Sept 24 Lecture Notes.docx

4 Pages
93 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Political Science
Course
POL208Y1
Professor
Lilach Gilady
Semester
Fall

Description
Sept 24 Tutorials start next Monday The Different –isms - Liberalism, etc. are paradigms; big theories about the way international relations works; group of theories combined together is usually considered a paradigm - How do we deal with threat? Is cooperation possible? What do actors want? What is most important for understanding international politics? Is there possibility for change? E.H. Carr; Twenty Years’ Crisis,, 1919-1939 - Realism: ‘places its emphasis on the acceptance of facts and on the analysis of their causes and consequences’ o Opposite to idealism; Carr coined the term realism - Realists (Carr) believes Idealism is disconnected from facts and naïve Thomas Hobbes, 1588-1679 - English philosopher; born and lived in the time of war - Wanted to organize social science the way Galileo understood geology; wanted to sum human relations with scientific facts - Leviathan (1651); book on groups of people o Starts from a thought experiment; how did society look like before society existed? (Nature and men) o The State of Nature:  “A war of every man against every man”; hardly able to sleep for fear of attack  “Life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” o The solution -> The State - **The Logic of Hobbes’ Argument o Man is selfish hedonist: “of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself;  He thinks that man is selfish, self-motivated only interested in our own well-being o All people are equal, rational, and possessing a passionate love of survival (right of nature).  Right of nature = right to survive; only right we have  The protection of our own survival justifies violence against anyone o In the interests of personal survival, people will come around to agreeing that they should renounce their right to use violence  Agree collectively to stop violence; however, there is no one to enforce this rule  The fear of one person violating the rule is enough to prevent us from making this agreement o This is an unstable equilibrium. The moment one party deviates from their promise, all will deviate and war restarts. o The creation for the Leviathan (state) enforces stability-citizens give up their independence to buy stability  If you deviate from the agreement, you get punished  There is a contrast between us as individuals and the leviathan (state); in this agreement, we give up our right of nature and the leviathan enforces it o The Leviathan gets ultimate authority and a monopoly over the use of violence o Morality, justice, property-are social constructs imposed by the state and exist only so long as the state is strong enough to impose them-they are tools for maintaining stability rather than inherent rights  Once the Leviathan is gone, all these socially constructed rights disappear as well o Law is dependent on power. “Legal positivism”: justice is whatever the law says it is. An ‘unjust law’ is an oxymoron.  There is nothing inherent, nothing natural, about law. The law is imposed by the state and the law can be taken back from the state.  Justice is whatever the law says it is. There is no ‘unjust law’; it is an oxymoron o *Bull: the Domestic Analogy  Domestic analogy: to take Hobbes’ story and take it one level up; instead of talking about individuals, you talk about states in the state of nature.  From domestic level to international level  We should expect a war of everyone against everyone; the states are in a state of nature; war should not surprise us. In absence of Leviathan, there should be war; nothing to stop individuals from using violence against any other individuals  The only right: the right of nature (right of survival); using violence is natural; only thing that motivates the state o Realists see states as operating in this state of nature o Democracy is not important for realists; they don’t care what happens inside the state; what happens inside the state is not important for what’s happening outside the state. Hobbes and International Relations - The international system in a Hobbesian state of nature; individual-state/unitary actor o Treat state as an unitary actor - Anarchy: ‘Without leader’; the absence of higher governing authority beyond the state; no world government o A system that lacks a leader; this is why the international system can be imagined in a state of nature; no Leviathan o Anarchy does NOT mean chaos and lack of order. If you write chaos you lose points on a test - Survival; self-help; self interest; constant potential for violence; life is ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’ o Does not mean that violence happens all the time, but the potential for violence is there. At any time, war could happen. There is nothing to stop war if state decides to start a war. o Limited ability for cooperation, culture, prosperity, etc. with international relations o We can never truly trust anyone else but ourselves - Very limited potential for cooperation-unstable equilibrium-fear of defection - No Leviathan=no room for moral considerations. Survival and self-interest are moral under anarchy. o Human rights can distract us from the important thing (survival). The Security Dilemma - Time 1: Constant fear and insecurity; ‘Because any state may at anytime use force, all states must constantly be ready either to counter force with force or to pay the cost of weakness’ (Waltz). - Time 2: Actor A: seeks to increase her security by buying weapons/building a defensive wall/gaining allies o By Actor A making herself more secure, it makes Actor B more insecure - Time 3: Actor B: fears A’s improved position-enhanced sense of insecurity; forced to invest in weapons/defensive means/allies - Outcome: A and B are as insecure in Time 3 as they were in Time 1-only poorer; Arms race. - The Security dilemma: how can we increase our security without threatening others? Thucydides (5 century B.C.); The Peloponnesian War - Lived in a time when there was a war between Athens and Sparta - Realists generally believe the rules of international politics are relatively constant due to: o Human nature is the same o Structure of anarchy is constant. As long as we don’t have a world government, we have the implications of anarchy. - He believed the spark that started the war was when Athens decided to build a wall around its city. - The Melian Dialogue o Athens Vs. The people of Melos o “The standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept w
More Less

Related notes for POL208Y1

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