Class Notes (859,523)
US (334,162)
Tufts (938)
PS (46)
PS-0061 (45)
Lecture

IR 3.10.docx

3 Pages
55 Views

Department
Political Science
Course Code
PS-0061
Professor
Kelly Greenhill

This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full 3 pages of the document.
Description
IR 3.10 Security Issues I Clash of Civilizations—Samuel Huntington • civilization: the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species; it is defined both by common objective elements, such as language, history, religion, customs, institutions, and by the subjective self-identification of people • why will civilizations clash? o irreconcilable differences o familiarity breeds contempt o ascendance of religion o fear of western cultural hegemony o culture less transmutable o growth of economic regionalization/intra-civilizational trading blocs • Huntington’s civilizations: o Western o Confucian o Japanese o Islamic o Hindu o Slavic-Orthodox o Latin American o African • racist bastard • borders of civilizations? • intra-civilizational conflicts and tensions Conventional Deterrence • deterrence: the use of threats and other measures to dissuade a party from using force or other instruments of persuasion to pursue its foreign policy decisions (focus on future behavior) o viewed to be less difficult  maintenance of status quo o effective deterrence  weigh level of self-interest  create and convey a commitment to defend important interests, through threats of punishment (retaliation) • threats must be credible and potent • must also be backed up by capabilities and resolve  weigh also level of adversary’s interest, capabilities, and resolve o types of deterrence  general deterrence: seeks to prevent potential challenger from making threats  immediate deterrence: seeks to prevent a state from carrying out its threats (crisis deterrence)  either type can be direct (to protect you) or extended (to protect others) o immediate deterrence sequence:  challenger decides whether to attack  defender decides whether to fight  slides* slides* slides*  solve game through backward induction • defender would choose option with the higher expected payoff • LOOK AT SLIDES PLEASE • consider a model that includes general deterrence; immediate deterrence becomes an issue only if general deterrence fails • when defenders are highly resolved, most likely lead to failure of immediate deterrence war • general deterrence should succeed most often when the defender
More Less
Unlock Document
Subscribers Only

Only page 1 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
Subscribers Only
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document
Subscribers Only

Log In


OR

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


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