Study Guides (248,252)
Canada (121,434)
Todd Alway (41)
Final

PoliticalScience1G06ExamEssays.docx

22 Pages
470 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Political Science
Course
POLSCI 1G06
Professor
Todd Alway
Semester
Winter

Description
Political Science 1G06 Final Exam Notes: 1. Discuss the system of checks and balances in the Canadian political system. Are these checks an appropriate way of managing political power in modern democratic Canada? Or are they anachronistic relics of a bygone age? Additional Notes talk about the; senate, prime minister, monarchy TA‘s suggestions: - discuss different forms of checks and balances - come up with 2-3 strongest forms of checks and balances (intro) then say if they do a good enough job in managing political power (its subjective but what does that mean) - do these 3-4 points work or not? hard to find info on it, here‘s some links: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27547710?seq=2 http://people.uleth.ca/~john.vonheyking/Group3.htm http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/ccs/issues/heard.php http://canadiandimension.com/articles/2385/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute Talk about Prime Minister, Governor General, The Monarchy, The Senate, the Cabinet, Supreme Court and their relations. The 2008 proroguement. Talk about the american check and balances system. 3.Thanks to a well-run campaign, the Parti Québécois has emerged from the 2013 Quebec provincial election with a landslide victory. As a long time PQ supporter, you have been asked by the Party to write a referendum question that will satisfactorily address the Party‟s vision for Quebec‟s future. How will you word that question and why? What objections do you anticipate from Federalist forces? Additional Notes politics in Québec and the sovereignty issue* · politics prior to Quebec separatism · supreme court cases talk about the Meech Lake accord ·politics associated with the question why is this an issue TA‘s suggestions: - mention what PQ is and what their vision of the future is – separation - look at past referendum questions – how was the question worded the other 2 times (when quebec came close to being separated) - take the question and update it a bit and modernize it - federalist forces don‘t want them to separate so what would they say? (quebec gets a lot of money, stuff like losing money, have an equal standard of living across Canada, look at aboriginal people (a lot of people aren‘t French, we‘re multicultural and with quebec separating and if they join the US it would become part of the melting pot) - in the question, give evidence of what you‘re arguing -mention that its bias in the beginning and that it‘s problematic but this is what we could do kinda thing 1995 referendum? We will not recognize the referendum unless a, b, c. Clarity act, is a province allowed to succeed? -1980 referendum failed -meech lake accord: it failed and why 1995 referendum: 49.5yes/50.5no, but why -clarity act -criticisms of previous questions -new question 4.Does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms successfully balance between the rights of the individual and the rule of the majority? In what ways has it affected the distribution of political power in Canada? Thesis: No, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not successfully balance the rights of the individual and the rule of the majority, as more power is held for the individual. This has affected the distribution of political power in Canada by shifting more public policy powers to the unelected elite, the notwithstanding clause and lastly, the constitutionalization of Canadian courts. Point 1: Power shift to unelected elite ● The charter involves an extensive transfer of decision-making power from legislation to courts ● Rights that are enunciated in the charter are necessarily described in such broad language that they become meaningful only through judicial interpretation ● Example: section 10 of charter reads: Everyone has the right on arrest or detention... (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right ○ Therens case decided in 1985 by Supreme court hinged on precise meaning of the word detention ○ After car accident, Therens was requested by police to take breathalyzer at police station (if refused would be violation of criminal code) ○ At trial, Theren‘s counsel moved for dismissal of breathalyzer results because police failed to inform Therens of his right to retain counsel ○ Was being asked to go to police station to take breathalyzer amount to detention? ○ Courts were required to interpret the abstract words ○ Point is not whether decision is right or wrong, but where decision power is located Point 2: Notwithstanding clause ● this is another form of political balance in canada ● Section 33 of charter is the notwithstanding clause ● Clause allows parliament and provincial legislatures to enact legislation even when courts hold in to be in conflict of other sections of the charter ● Is a way of elevating democratic government decisions over the decisions of unelected judges ● However, this tool has not been used very frequently ○ Override can only be used for 5 years at a time, after which will expire unless it is passed again by the legislature ○ Creates difficulty for governments seeking to get around a court decision ○ May buy time to bring in other legislation, but not a long term solution ● example of clause in use: 1989 Quebec national assembly invoked the clause to protect its language legislation from judicial review Point 3: Constitutionalization of courts 1. since adoption of charter, courts have become more constitutionalized 2. Many more court cases involve constitutional disputes over the right of women, immigrants, gays, lesbians, language, education, etc 3. shifting more public policy powers to the unelected elite 4. Canadian courts are heavily involved in political decision making, gives urgency to debates over how judges should be appointed since they now hold so much power Conclusion: (restate thesis)[No, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not successfully balance the rights of the individual and the rule of the majority, as more power is held for the individual. This has affected the distribution of political power in Canada by shifting more public policy powers to the unelected elite, the notwithstanding clause and lastly, the constitutionalization of Canadian courts.] Another essay outline for question 4: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does successfully balance between the rights of the individual and the rule of the majority. Although it can be argued that it does not, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has affected the distribution of political power in Canada. · A Constitution outlines the fundamental rules and principles according to which a state is governed. o Strengthened the role of the courts o Applies both Federally and Provincially o Is difficult to amend · Offers very little explicit protections of individual rights. o Section 33 of the Charter (Notwithstanding Clause) allows democratically elected governments to override some of the rights contained in the Charter o However, attempts to balance out court power and democratic power · Constitutions are subject to constant political pressure due to the basic nature of the state and the distributions of political power o By making an attempt to manage the tension between democracy and rights, the rights provided for in the Charter can be overridden by the elected legislature o Consequently, the influence of wealth plays a role in being able to access justice 7. Making reference to the theory of nuclear deterrence, does the possession of nuclear weapons increase security? What does your answer to this question suggest about the desirability of nuclear proliferation? Although it can be argued against, the possession of nuclear weapons increases security for many reasons. Not only does nuclear deterrence increase security, but it also makes nuclear proliferation more desirable. · Nuclear Deterrence: A security strategy based upon a single premise – any invasion directed at the nuclear state or its allies will, automatically be responded to with a devastating nuclear retaliation o Makes the cost of military conflict too high for it be rational o The possession of nuclear weapons means that the costs of aggression will always outweigh any benefits that aggression could bring · Although some might suggest that the possession of nuclear weapons will not increase security because the state has to be capable of responding to an attack with nuclear response, this actually increases security due to the following reasons: o Eliminates the incentive for either state to launch a first strike o Lowers the possibility that there will be a hasty and ill-conceived launch by either state · By increasing security using the possession of nuclear weapons, this will also make nuclear proliferation more desirable o The third world war did not happen and therefore is proof that nuclear deterrence is effective 5. Discuss the political science of terrorism: as a political category, as a historical phenomenon, and as a contemporary security concern. In light of your discussion, what strategy would most effectively deal with the problem of “terrorist” violence? Thesis: Terrorism, is a broad term and can be interpreted in several ways. In terms of Political Science Terrorism is more complex and can be analyzed through its historical phenomenon, and the acts of terrorism being a security threat. The most effective strategy to deal with the problems of ―terrorist‖ violence would be: Main Points: 1) Definition of Terrorism 2) Historical phenomenon; security concern 3)What strategy would be most effective when dealing with the problem of ‗terrorist‘ violence Body Paragraph 1: Defining Terrorism a. Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and fear through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). The term is notoriously loaded - For example, what is the difference between terrorism and state violence? - There are clear parallels between state violence and ―terrorist‖ violence - 1. Both kill civilians - 2. Both are directed at obtaining political ends - 3. Both cause terror in their wake - Or what to make of the overused cliché: ―One person‘s terrorist is another person‘s freedom fighter‖ In other words defining a group or an action as terrorist is an unavoidably political act - There is no obvious definition that would be accepted without vocal opposition from one quarter or another - The academic response to the definitional problem has been to either reject the term as an objective label, or to divide terrorism into a number of forms: A) State terrorism B) State-sponsored terrorism C) Non-state terrorism Body Paragraph 2: Historical Phenomenon/Context: - ―Terrorism‖ in the form defined above has existed as long as there has been a government to oppose‖ - However, it is probably more useful to focus on terrorism in the era of the modern state - With this in mind there have been 4 major waves of non-state terrorism in modern history (David Rapoport) - 1. Anarchist Wave (1880s-1920s): - 2. Anti-colonial Wave (1920s-1960s): - 3. Leftist Wave (1960s-90s): - 4. Religious Wave (1979 - ?): (The 4th wave is not made up solely of Islamist movements (even though they get most of the press)) history demonstrates; - At the very least it demonstrates that 9/11 was not a unique category of event - Other eras have encountered the types of violence that fall under our definition of terrorism - Moreover, the types of policy responses that have been pursued in response to terrorism have often been quite different than the modern American War on Terror Body Paragraph 3: Conclusion: Essay 2 for question 5: To define terrorism, we must understand that there‘s a difference between terrorism, and state violence. The two parallel each other in three different ways. Firstly, they both kill civilians, secondly, they are both directed at obtaining political ends, and finally because both cause terror in their wake. As a political category, and a historical phenomenon, terrorism looks at patterns of armed conflict. As discussed in chapter 7 by Kegley and Raymond, there must be causes of armed conflict. Human nature, internal characteristics of states, and system structure all play a crucial role in understanding the patterns of terrorism. Firstly, human nature is a main pattern of terrorism. Sigmund Freud concluded that aggression is an instinctive part of human nature. There is a territorial imperative that accounts for must intraspecific violence amongst humans because the drive for power is innate and cannot be eliminated. Many even apply the ideas of Darwin to terrorism where natural selection is a part of successful competition. International characteristics of states are another way to understand the political science of terrorism. This is because different types of states exhibit different amounts of war involvement. Geographic location is often a factor because of things such as natural resources. Demographic stress can also contribute to armed conflict. Cultural values, economic conditions and political institutions also contribute to the necessity for armed conflict. System structure is another characteristic of why terrorism occurs. Power distributions, trajectories, and transitions affect armed conflict because of the alliances that are seen and the power cycle theory. As a contemporary security concern, state-sponsored terrorism is still a concern. Political terrorism is often used to intimidate a wider audience, and ultimately achieve the goals of the terrorist. The strategy that would most effectively deal with terrorist violence would be to continue with minor safety precautions, but not treat it as a global threat. Additional Notes on question 5: define terrorism in terms of political science: Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and fear through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Definition: - A necessary first step before analyzing terrorism is to define it - In the case of terrorism the definitional problem is particularly notable - What is terrorism? - The term is notoriously loaded - For example, what is the difference between terrorism and state violence? - There are clear parallels between state violence and ―terrorist‖ violence - 1. Both kill civilians - 2. Both are directed at obtaining political ends - 3. Both cause terror in their wake - Or what to make of the overused cliché: ―One person‘s terrorist is another person‘s freedom fighter‖ - What makes a terrorist a terrorist rather than a freedom fighter? - Why is it that if they are successful in obtaining their goals, ―terrorists‖ frequently are retroactively labeled as revolutionary freedom fighters - Where the same act is considered illegitimate terrorism at one moment but a legitimate struggle for freedom at another, any objective categorization becomes questionable - In other words defining a group or an action as terrorist is an unavoidably political act - There is no obvious definition that would be accepted without vocal opposition from one quarter or another - The academic response to the definitional problem has been to either reject the term as an objective label, or to divide terrorism into a number of forms: - A) State terrorism - This term is used to capture cases where a government will deliberately inflict violence on its own citizens in an attempt to ―suppress dissent and silence opposition‖ - B) State-sponsored terrorism - In this case the term refers to cases where a state government will offer material ―support to international terrorist groups‖ - C) Non-state terrorism - To offer one (contestable definition): - ―Terrorism is the intentional murder of defenseless non-combatants, with the intent of instilling fear of mortal danger amidst a civilian population as a strategy designed to advance political ends (Meisels)‖ - Why fear as a tactic? - If fear can be produced, one of two things is likely to happen: - I) The offending policy might change - II) The target may be provoked into responding with oppressive measures o Which can be strategically advantageous to the terrorist group Historical Context: - ―Terrorism‖ in the form defined above has existed as long as there has been a government to oppose‖ - However, it is probably more useful to focus on terrorism in the era of the modern state - With this in mind there have been 4 major waves of non-state terrorism in modern history (David Rapoport) - 1. Anarchist Wave (1880s-1920s): - 2. Anti-colonial Wave (1920s-1960s): - 3. Leftist Wave (1960s-90s): - 4. Religious Wave (1979 - ?): - The 4th wave is not made up solely of Islamist movements (even though they get most of the press) - Sikh (Babbar Khalsa) - Buddhist/Hindu/Christian (?) o Aum Shinrikyo - So what does the history demonstrate? - At the very least it demonstrates that 9/11 was not a unique category of event - Other eras have encountered the types of violence that fall under our definition of terrorism - Moreover, the types of policy responses that have been pursued in response to terrorism have often been quite different than the modern American War on Terror 7. Making reference to the theory of nuclear deterrence, does the possession of nuclear weapons increase security? What does your answer to this question suggest about the desirability of nuclear proliferation? Thesis: Main Points/Question to answer: 1)Explain the theory of nuclear deterrence, nuclear proliferation 2)does the possession of nuclear weapons increase security? 3)what does all of this suggest about the ‗desirability‘ of nuclear proliferation? Notes: What does this imply about nuclear proliferation? a. Is it a security problem or a security solution? TA‘s suggestions: - define deterrence, nuclear proliferation - assumes rationality (the problem with deterrence) - all subjective because what a person might find rational another person might not - talk about whether or not it will work Nuclear Deterrence - Nuclear deterrence is a security strategy based upon a simple premise: - Any invasion directed at the nuclear state or its allies will automatically be responded to with a devastating nuclear retaliation - In essence it makes the cost of military conflict too high for it to be rational - If this logic is extended to a bi-polar system where both parties have access to nuclear weapons, the net result is that all-out war of any kind becomes less rather than more likely - Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is the only outcome that could result from either side using its weapons against its opponent - War itself becomes irrational - The fact that the Third World War did not happen is taken by some as sufficient proof that nuclear deterrence was effective - But there is additional support - 1969 Sino-Soviet clash - 1999 India-Pakistan clash - In many respects, this is a critical case for proponents of nuclear deterrence - This was a case where it was least likely for nuclear deterrence theory to hold: - New nuclear powers - Limited Second Strike Capability - Less than Mutually Assured Destruction - History of conflict - Despite all these factors weighing against deterrence, and the fact that the conflict went right to the brink, in the end a full scale war was avoided Proliferation Optimists: - If deterrence worked for the parties in the Cold War, then why would it not work everywhere? - The possession of nuclear weapons means that the costs of aggression will always outweigh any benefits that aggression could bring - In general, then, if more states are armed with nuclear power, all states would have to be more cautious in their foreign policy Proliferation Pessimists: - Even if we accept the logical persuasiveness of nuclear deterrence theory (and not everyone does), it does not necessarily follow that nuclear proliferation would result in increased security - Even if we accept the argument that nuclear deterrence will prevent nuclear war 99.9% of the time - The potential consequences associated with a 0.1% failure rate may more than overwhelm the potential benefits of years of stability - According to critics, given a sufficient span of time and given a sufficient number of nuclear weapons states, it becomes increasingly likely that ―nuclear weapons will be used‖ - Moreover, the present security environment presents several, perhaps insurmountable new challenges to the effectiveness of deterrence - Deterrence will only work if there is an identifiable target to be deterred and retaliated against - If it is unclear from where the bomb originated o And if the actor was a non-state actor (terrorist?) o Against whom could the aggrieved state retaliate? 7. Refer to the theory of nuclear deterrence, does the possession of nuclear weapons increase security? Desirability of nuclear proliferation? What‟s the real security threat of nuclear weapons? Question 7: Nuclear Deterrence Theory - Deterrence: was a strategy which dominated the best minds during the Cold War- why? - What is the basic argument here? Why was this war dominated by the notion that having weapons on both sides would make war less likely? - What are the assumptions and evidence behind the theory? - What does this suggest about proliferation today (i.e. Iran trying to make nuclear weapons today- claims made) - Seeing how things of the past connect to today - Interesting in light of right now: Korea, Iran—nuclear proliferation is still a big international issue: why and what do we do? - Explore the debate around deterrents, the evidence for and against, and then apply it to proliferation (which is the spread of weapons) - The Cold War- history here - Explore the theory of deterrence - Assumptions based in deterrence, i.e. rationality—are these good assumptions? Nuclear deterrence is a security strategy based upon a simple premise: any invasion directed at the nuclear state or its allies will automatically be responded to with a devastating nuclear retaliation. In essence, it makes the cost of military conflict too high for it to be rational. If both parties have access to nuclear weapons, an all-out war would be less likely. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is the only outcome that could result from either side using its weapons against its opponent. War itself becomes irrational. For MAD to work, you need: a) Rationality It needs to be assumed that an aggressive state will be deterred from aggression is the state itself makes decisions rationally. b) Capability A state needs to be capable of responding to an attack with nuclear weapons. This means that a state must have a second strike capability: if your opponent is able to destroy all of your nuclear weapons with its initial assault, then you will have nothing left to retaliate with. Because of this, states need to ensure that they have a sufficient number of nuclear weapons available. These nuclear weapons need to be relative to the number of weapons of their opponent, not the destructive potential of their own weapons. While this may lead to a nuclear arms race, as long as the arms race is proportional, it will promote stability by a) eliminating the incentive for either state to launch a first strike and b) it lowers the possibility that there will be a hasty and ill conceived launch by either state. Arms control could perform a useful function here by banning those types of weapons that would interfere with Mutually Assured Destruction. It is in this context that we can understand the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty between the Soviet Union and the U.S. in 1972. Nuclear parody enhanced stability: 1. It eliminates the incentive for either state to strike first 2. It lowers the possibility that there will be a hasty strike by either state c) Credibility - A state‟s threat to use nuclear weapons must be believable - If you assume that states are rational, how credible can the threat to use nuclear weapons actually be? - In a system of Mutually Assured Destruction, a state must be willing to launch its nuclear weapons even though it knows that in doing so its own destruction would be assured - Paradox of Nuclear Deterrence theory? - Your opponents will not be deterred from invading because they know that it is irrational for you to respond to anything less than an all out nuclear assault with nuclear force - The risks associated with conventional warfare thereby increase - D) Clear and careful communication - A state must be able to clearly indicate what actions would set off a nuclear response - Critics have identified a few limitations with this assumption - “Not all circumstances can be foreseen” - Nor is it always possible for states to clearly read the intentions of other states - E) Secure Command Control and Communications Facilities - There are two reasons for this - i) It will prevent an unauthorized or accidental launch, which would produce unintentional instability - ii) It will prevent the enemy from launching a decisive decapitation strike - However, this requirement also has a strategic limitation built into it - It presents another paradox in that efforts to reduce risk in one direction create new risks in another direction - Centralization increases the risk of decapitation - Decentralization increases the risk of unintentional launch In the theory of nuclear deterrence, the possession of nuclear weapons increases security and makes war less desirable. Deterrence was a strategy that dominated best minds during the Cold War, 1946-1991. The Cold War was dominated by the idea that having nuclear weapons on both sides made war less likely. The Cold War was a struggle for power and supremacy between the US and the Soviet Union. It wasn‟t just a military conflict but a confrontation between two different ways of life and culture. War became irrational because of nuclear deterrence: any invasion would be met by a devasting nuclear retaliation – MAD MAD is the best guarantee of international security Examples of nuclear deterrence: 1969 Sino-Soviet Clash 1999 India-Pakistan Clash A full scale war was avoided Is nuclear weapons proliferation a security problem or security solution? Security solution: If all states are armed with nuclear power, all states would have to be more cautious in their forgeign policy Security problem: The higher the number of nuclear weapons states, the more likely nuclear weapons will be used. Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty: to regulate nuclear proliferation But if nuclear weapons could deter conflict, then why did Argentina provoke the UK, a nuclear power, with the Falklands War in 1982. If the this theory is true, this shouldn‟t happen due to the catastrophic consequences Those for proliferation: Deterrence should work since it worked for the parties in the Cold War Having nuclear weapons decreases aggression Against proliferation: Rationality does not always exist in humans – they can loose control, be unstable Since proliferation is a problem, and deterrence can‟t ensure peace, the Non Proliferation Treaty is to get rid of the nuclear bomb -is signed by 195 states Restricts nuclear powers from spreading nuclear weapons Demands restraint To pursue complete nuclear disarmament Still working on it Several problems with relying on an international organization to eliminate nuclear weapons Arms control agreements replicate the prisoner‟s dilemma It‟s ineffective to monitor state compliance Agreements are voluntary – reason why India didn‟t sign Need to eliminate political tension to attain peace 9) Is the current international human rights regime effective? Should it be given a stronger and more forceful intervention mandate? Thesis: (determine whether international human rights regime effective and if it is Should it be given more power?) Main Points: 1)Nature of Current International Human Rights Regime 2)Types of UN Intervention: Peacekeeping Missions, Military Force, Economic Sanctions Peacekeeping Missions – Positives and Negatives 3)Should it be given a stronger and more forceful interventionist mandate? Body Paragraph 1 Nature of Current International Human Rights Regime
More Less

Related notes for POLSCI 1G06

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