Study Guides (248,223)
Canada (121,413)
POLI 244 (70)
Final

Poli244 Final Recap

11 Pages
100 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Political Science
Course
POLI 244
Professor
Jason Scott Ferrell
Semester
Fall

Description
REALISM
 • Conception
of
human
nature

desire
to
dominate,
thirst
for
power
 Morgenthau  o Insecurity
arises
from
competition
for
power
 
 o Power:
ability
to
influence
others’
behavior
 • Behaviour
is
defined
in
terms
of…
 o National
interest
  Classical
Realism
–
National
interest
is
the
articulation
of
concern
for
power
(insurance
of
survival)
 o Realpolitik
–
means
to
pursue
our
interests
  States
cannot
allow
themselves
to
be
influenced
or
guided
by
their
hopes
or
ideals…
misled
by
being
 overly
optimistic
  Need
to
realistically
appraise
strengths/weaknesses
of
others
 • Cooperation – for fear of consequences  
 • Idea
of
Balancing
 o Balance
=
peace
 Change reflects a  o Imbalance
=
war
 redistribution of power  o Classical
Realism
–
balancing
is
often
considered
to
imply
peace
 
 • Strategies
employed
 o Divide
&
Conquer
 o Compensate
 o Arming
one’s
self
 o Alliance
building
 NEOREALISM
 Waltz  • Structure
defined
in
terms
of
anarchy
 • Structures
provide
interests
and
constraints
for
actors
–
the
system
practices
a
form
of
selection
 o States
as
main
actors
–
“rational”
with
preferences
  #1
=
Survival
 • Self‐help
system
 o Must
be
socialized
into
the
system
to
remain
a
member
 o Anarchy
puts
us
in
a
situation
of
self‐help
 • No
functional
differences
between
states
 • Distribution
of
power
understood
in
terms
of
polarity
 • Concern
for
stability
 
 
Security
Dilemma!
 o The
more
you
do
to
provide
security
for
yourself,
the
more
you
make
others
insecure
  Anything
you
do
to
make
yourself
secure
renders
others
insecure
(re:
Self‐help)
 o Cycle
of
suspicion
and
hostility
=
ARMS
RACE!
  Can’t
do
anything
about
it
 
 • Prisoner’s
Dilemma
 1) I
spill,
he’s
silent
 
Uncertainty
 2) Both
silent
 
Imperfect
information
 3) Both
spill
 4) I’m
silent,
he
spills
 Always
end
up
spilling
because
assume
the
 other
will
too.
 
Self‐interested
action
leads
to
unintended
consequences
 • “You
want
1,
you
settle
for
2
and
end
up
with
3
by
fear
of
4”
 • Calculate
a
non‐cooperative
choice
 • State
is
a
rational
actor

 o Have
preferences
and
goals
–
know
how
to
achieve
them
 • If repeated dilemma, result changes  LIBERALISM
 • Accounts
for
all
actors,
not
just
state
 • FP
more
than
just
national
interest
&
survival
 • Anarchy
not
solely
understood
through
security
dilemma
 • Opportunities
for
cooperation!
 • Interests
defined
in
terms
of
material
things
–
things
we
can
measure
and
coun
 REPUBLICAN LIBERALISM
 • Regime
type
matters!
It
needs
to
be
representative

 o Less
representative
=
Higher
potential
for
conflict
 o Important
towards
determining
goals
of
the
state
and
interactions
at
international
level
 • If
a
few
individuals
run
the
government,
they
can
abuse
the
population.
 
 o They’ll
be
aggressive
in
their
behaviour
towards
others
because
they
themselves
don’t
bear
the
actual
costs
of
 war
 Machiavelli  Not a liberal; he’s a Republican. Ideal is the Roman Republic  • Republic
institutions
allow
for
an
aggressive
FP
 o These
institutions
Machiavelli
refers
to
however
represent
Roman
institutions
–
not
Liberal
 • Non
republic
regimes
do
not
rule
for
the
common
good
–
source
of
potential
conflict
 
 Kant  • Representative
institutions
allow
individuals
to
solve
problems
peacefully
 o In
representative
institutions,
individuals
are
responsible
so
won’t
be
very
aggressive
with
FP
 • Republics
won’t
seek
war…
but
will
fight
if
attacked.
 • Democratic
Peace:
Democracies
don’t
fight
one
another.
 Assumptions:
 ‐
Individual
interests
determine
nature
of
FP
 ‐
Individual
interests
expressed
through
institutions
 ‐
War
&
Peace
are
a
reflection
of
the
nature
of
the
regime
 
 tyrannies more risk acceptant
 
Individual
interests
determine
the
nature
of
FP
 
Individuals
want
to
achieve
their
ends,
and
the
government
reflects
this
 
Republic
Liberalism
understood
in
terms
of
the
good
life
and
expresses
itself
in
terms
of
trade
and
the
development
of
culture
 
Individual
interests
are
expressed
in
institutions
 
War
&
Peace
reflect
regime
type
 COMMERCIAL LIBERALISM  Doyle  • Ties
of
trade!
Economic
development
fosters
incentives
for
peace
 • Reward
=
Benefits
of
being
productive
 • Links
forge
between
states,
based
on
economic
exchange
and
free
trade
(economic
liberalism)
 • Democratic
institutions
are
procedures
to
settle
disputes
 • Economic
interests
transcend
borders

interdependence
 o Profitable
for
both
individuals
and
states
 • Unprofitability
of
war!
It’s
irrational.
 o If
everybody
benefits
from
trade,
why
ruin
it?
 
 NEO‐LIBERALISM  • Importance
of
international
institutions
in
reducing
conflict
(structural)
 • Anarchy
&
the
Security
Dilemma
 o Security
dilemma
important
but
not
as
much
as
Realists
say
 o Mutually
beneficial
goals!
 o LT
thinking
 o Accept
anarchy,
but
it
doesn’t
preclude
cooperation
 o Less
importance
on
survival
 o Continuity
of
Prisoner’s
Dilemma
  Reciprocity!
As
long
as
the
response
is
good
=
Cooperation
 • Cooperation
is
contingent
 • Collective
Goods
 o Cooperation!
 
Provision
 
Enjoyment
 free riding?
 o How
do
you
achieve
collective
goods?
  Easier
with
smaller
groups
–
Accountability
increases
  International
institutions
matter
here.
 • International
Regimes
 o “Rules,
norms,
and
procedures”
around
which
actors
converge
on
issues
  Treaties
  Institutions
  Laws
 • Porous
and
non‐precise
 o Meant
to
provide
frameworks
that
allow
nations
to
cooperate
 
Certainty
  Of
intentions
  Of
expectations
 
Transparency
of
actions
 o Steering
issue…
 o Can
lead
to
interdependence.
 
 Cooperation – for what I will gain from it CONSTRUCTIVISM  • Society
is
a
set
of
social
norms
about
what
is
appropriate
behavior
 • States
define
interests
on
the
basis
of
what
is
socially
appropriate
(right
and
wrong)
 • Norms
are
not
means
to
an
end

they
define
the
end
 • Norms
constitute
interests
 o Some
are
shared;
Also
“intersubjective”
 o “What
is
the
appropriate
thing
for
me
to
want
given
who
I
am?”
 o Idea
of
imitation
–
Actors
in
society
imitate
one
another
and
in
that
process
they
define
their
norms
and
 provide
their
identities
 • Concept
of
ideational
interests
 
 • Acquire
identities
through
interactions

Socialization
 • We
make
the
societies
we
live
in
 • Norms
=
ideas.
Ideas
exist
in
our
minds
 • It exists because we believe it exists
 
Explains
change
–
huge
opportunity
for
it
 
 • Optimistic
about
compliance
 • Concept
of
legitimacy
 • Enforcement
is
voluntary
 • Defection
is
unintentional

 o Non
compliance
can
be
blamed
on
misperception
or
misunderstanding
 • Utopian!
 • Cooperation – because it’s the right thing to do  
 
 • Anarchy
doesn’t
have
to
be
competitive

Realism
 • Normative
interests
can
shape
material
preferences

Liberalism
 WAR .  • War:
common
violence
between
state
actors
 • Dimensions
of
war
 o Normative
–
moral
questions
and
assumptions
 o Factual
–
attempts
to
describe
the
elements
of
war
(empirical)
  Correlates
of
War
Project:
War
as
a
function
of
state
behavior
 • Sustained
combat
+
Armed
forces
+
1000
fatalities
within
a
year
 • Victors
have
less
fatalities
than
losers
 
 Clausewitz  
 • War
as
a
form
of
politics
 o It’s
a
continuation
of
policy
  Policy
has
declared
the
war
–
War
is
the
instrument
 o To
be
understood
in
a
normative
fashion
 o War
is
a
purposive
activity
 o War
will
take
characteristics
of
the
FP
 • Means
to
influence
behavior
 • Not
an
isolated
act
when
we
simply
try
to
defeat
the
others
–
some
sort
of
shared
history
 o Composed
of
preliminary
activities
 o No
boundaries
to
violence
if
you
approach
war
as
simply
defeating
the
opposing
party
 • Defeat
is
never
permanent
 • Context!
 o Militaristic
point
of
view
always
subordinate
to
the
political
 Blainey  
 
 • Bargaining
Theory
of
War
 • War
is
costly
–
it’s
an
inefficient
way
of
solving
disputes
 o Destroys
resources
that
could
be
distribute
elsewhere,
more
efficiently
 • Need
a
negotiating
point
acceptable
to
both
parties
 o Negotiated
settlement

Mutually
preferable
to
war
 • “War
stems
from
disagreements
about
relative
power
of
states”
 o War
settles
this
issue.
 
 Fearon  • So
why
do
wars
still
occur?
 • What
prevents
nations
from
a
negotiated
settlement
–
Why
defect
 • Private
information
&
Incentive
to
misrepresent
 • Commitment
issues
 • Indivisible
issues
 
Presence
of
any
of
these
three
shrinks
the
bargaining
space
 • Increases
likelihood
of
war
 • Causes
 • Anarchy
 • Expected
benefits
greater
than
expected
costs
 • Rational
preventive
war
 • Rational
miscalculation
due
to
lack
of
information
 • Rational
miscalculation
about
relative
power
 Schelling  
 
COERCIVE
DIPLOMACY
 • Brute
force
is
less
preferable
to
coercion
–
based
on
common
interest
to
avoid
mutual
damage
–
which
is
an
extension
of
 bargaining
 • Deterrence:
threaten
to
hurt
if
they
do
something

Prevention
 • Compellence:
threaten
to
hurt
if
they
don’t
change
their
behavior

Reaction
 • Recourse
to
war
=
Failure
^
 • Game
of
Chicken
 
 • Importance
of
credible
threats
 • Clarity
of
commitment
 • Stake
reputation
 • Incrementalism
 • Limitations
of
the
threat
 • Declining
utility
of
force
 • Interdependence
of
commitments
 Threat
of
war
is
the
issue…Power
to
hurt
is
more
successful
means
of
extortion
than
brute
force.
 Threat
to
hurt
=
Power
to
harm

Affect
another’s
preferences
 Becomes
a
test
of
endurance.
 CONSTRUCTIVISM
 • There
are
norms
about
war
 o Some
actions
are
acceptable/unacceptable
 o These
have
changed
  Chemical
warfare
 • Requirements
to
meet
before
resorting
to
violence
 • Can’t
abuse
people
 o States
that
do
are
wrong
 o Allows
other
states
to
intervene

Joint
action

Multilateralism
  Going
alone
is
illegitimate
 
 Finnemore  • Purposes
of
force
have
changed
 • Motives
for
military
intervention
 o Collection
of
debts
 o Provision of humanitarian relief  o Safeguarding
of
national
security
or
international
order
 • Force
is
now
justified
as
“humanitarian
intervention”
 • Realism
does
not
track
changes
in
the
polarity
of
the
system
or
the
distribution
of
power
among
major
actors
 • Liberalism
–
doesn’t
account
for
how
non‐democratic
states
conform
to
many
of
the
same
norms
governing
intervention.
 Interests
are
indeterminate
 LIBERALISM
 • War
reflects
domestic
level
pressures/interests
 • War
may
be
an
intentional
option
OR
an
unintentional
outcome
 • Domestic
level
considerations
(which
affect
FP)
 o Economic
interests
 o Bureaucratic
actors
 o Social/Cultural
ideas
–
shape
perceptions
and
beliefs
 o Regime
type
  People
are
pacific
and
they
bear
costs
of
war.
In
democracies,
they
are
the
ones
making
the
decisions

 Less
likely
to
go
to
war
 • Hegemonic
Stability
Theory
 o The
international
system
is
more
likely
to
remain
stable
when
a
single
nation
is
the
dominant
world
power
  Fall
of
a
hegemon
diminishes
the
stability
of
the
system
 o Realists
–
States
fight
for
supremacy
in
the
system
 o Liberalists
–
Fight
for
a
particular
type
of
hegemony
 TRADE .  • Usually
mutually
beneficial
 • Beyond
security
dilemma
 • Diversification
of
development
 o Absolute
advantage
 o Comparative
advantage
 
Determined
by
factor
endowments
–
Heckscher‐Ohlin

More Less

Related notes for POLI 244

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