Study Guides (248,527)
Canada (121,610)
POLI 381 (8)
All (1)
Final

POLI 381 COMPLETE Notes for the course (Got 95% in the course)

9 Pages
385 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Political Science
Course
POLI 381
Professor
All Professors
Semester
Fall

Description
War: Has existed for centuries, after the cold war has been less prominent but certain regions remain more prone than others and interstate war has become intra-state. Traditionally a form of politics, today terrorism, insurgency, etc. Hart: If you want peace, you have to understand war. Clausewitz: continuation of politics by other means. Bull: War is organized violence carried out by political units against each other. – more prominent today, as not strictly state-to-state combat. Evolution of warfare: Napoleonic Wars and French Revolution, industrial revolution. In terms of weapons and idea of nationalism. Ultimate war change came with introduction of nuclear weapons. Should be done properly Jus Ad Bellum: Right to go to war (just cause, comparative justice, legitimate authority, right intention, probably of success, and as a last resort. Jus In Bello: Right conduct within war (Distinction, proportionality, military necessity) Problem: only benefits powerful states, not everyone is going to play by the rules. Revolution in Military affairs: character of warfare changes with the evolution of weapons. The origins of this are the 1991 Gulf War – US victory suggests that future war can be won on technology and advanced weapons alone. Post-Modern War: changing the meaning of the state, re-emergence of “nation”. No longer “total war,” increase in privatization in military forces, failed and weak states challenged by non-state actors, increased role of the media, increased brutalness. New wars driven by globalization and opposing factors of disintegration and integration. The spread of westernization, and states failing and the struggle for control over them. Security: Traditionally a reflection of a threat from another state, changing ideal today. Basic definition: “freedom from a threat of core values”. For a state: “condition in which the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a state is guaranteed.” Emergence of narrowers and wideners. Military power also traditionally a measure of security. Dichotomy between offensive and defensive weaponry. Deterrence: is nuclear weaponry the equalizer? Security Dilemma: trying to make yourself more secure actually makes you less secure. More uncertainty and inability to take chances. Leads to downward spiral towards conflict. There are more accidents, costs of investing into them leads to “we have them, why not use them?” mentality and there is increased pressure on “first strike” opportunities. Traditional approaches to national security are mostly based on realism, assume the worst in other actors, look out for your own survival. A liberal ideal is collective security, which is dependent on other states living up to their commitments, and was disproved in interwar period before WWII. Institutionalists still argue the effectiveness of this however. Constructivists “widening” security on a social level. Anti-realist constructivists believe war subconsciously happens when one expects the worst. Increased issues of global and human security are becoming big problems for realists. Two components to foreign policy (strategies used by states to guide their actions in the IS): Objectives and Means (carrot and the stick). End goal is to maintain interests. Have to know how to use both hard and soft power. Rational take is to take the cost-benefit analysis approach. Prospect Theory: The more in trouble you are, the more willing you are to take risks. Irrational actors are at play with individuals and the systemic issues. Organizational Bureaucracies: seek out own benefits, and relies on self-perception. Compartmentalism. Groupthink and group dynamics also at play. The group dynamic: extreme polarization, creates a “closed-argument pool”, alphas begin to form in groups with most extreme ideals. Group identity takes over individual identities. Roles of Public Opinion and Media (rally around the flag) play big roles. IPE: Interplay of politics and economics in international affairs. Always existed, increased after WWII: Bretton Woods System (International Monetary Fund, International Bank of Reconstruction (later World Bank), and General Agreement on Trade & Tariffs (GATT, later becomes WTO)). And the Gold Standard, which collapsed in 1971. New system based on floating supply and demand, put less influential states into a bad spot. Creates North-South divide. OPEC raises oil prices to purposefully hurt weaker states. Leads to dependency theory: systemic, structuralist approach that highlights negativities of interdependence. Core and periphery relationship. Change from Keynesian to Neo-liberal economics in this time. Developing countries encouraged to sell statewide services out, but soon that money runs out and they are in trouble again. Depend on national resources. The WTO changes and with it comes a new mandate that helps to tackle this raising issue. Most states follow mercantilist approach of IPE (realist), with the idea of comparative advantage at play, sometimes you have to produce what you don’t specialize in. Tariffs and subsidies come into play here, and competition is viable in these cases. Liberalism: Interdependence. Free market. Capitalism, invisible hand, role of government is to ensure smooth play. Marxism view on IPE: IS is divided, capitalism is the driving fire behind the exploitation. Alternative views: Political Economy/Rational Choice: policies reflect interest groups within states. Institutionalists: world markets most efficiently utilized through institutions. Social Constructivists: what shapes the preferences, what is preferred at the current time. Globalization: The increase of globalism (the idea of the world being more interconnected and smaller). Thin vs Thick Globaliztion: smaller numbers, specific issues versus many issues, intensive and extensive. Friedman’s quote. Four processes in world economy: Internationalization (economic transaction across borders), Technological Revolution (describes the effect of new electronic communication which allows actors to operate globally), Deterritorialization (how territorial distances and borders change how people identify themselves.), Liberalization: politics in which global economy is made possible. MNCs rising power: more power than states, don’t answer to anyone. Good and bad. Provide jobs, open to the world economy, yet exploit states and influence governments, bad working conditions. Create the race to the bottom. Open economy, open technology, open society. Rise in copyright, illegal activities, knock-offs. Globalization has not been experienced everywhere, and to a different extent with everyone. Greater I Global North, In urban rather than rural, and among the wealthier. Reality is idea of territory is still important. - Nuclear Proliferation: 5 states acknowledged by the NPT as possessing nuclear weapons. 2 states publically claim to have them that never signed the NPT (therefore not in violation). Several states rumored to possess them. Several regions have declared themselves to be “nuclear weapon free zones”: Latin America, Africa, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia. - A-bomb and H-bomb: atomic and hydrogen. Fusion is atomic, and fission is hydrogen bombs. Different levels of threat from nuclear weapons: the explosion, the heat, the radiation, and the EMP. Megaton power – millions of TNT force. - The reality that cooperation is necessary. We’ve long known that nukes are destructive. Concern over “loose nukes”: disintegration to the USSR. Unstable states (Pakistan). Even during Cold War there was foresight that cooperation was necessary. - First Nuclear Era: 1945-1990. Traditionally defined as states acquiring weapons. Ideas of MAD and deterrence. Suggestion this was the reason for stability behind the Cold War. Likelihood of war decreases as deterrence increases: responsibly used, nukes made wars hard to start. - Second Nuclear Era (1990 - ). Not only about states but other actors as well (terrorists); think about a deterrent value of the weapon. Reconciling nuclear power with nuclear weapons. Idea of limiting nukes vs. destroying them. - “Wargames” ending: even knowing what we knew, everyone knew a giant mistake could happen if even one actor set it off. Many sneaky strategies to dispose of nuclear weapons – dispersing them everywhere so they couldn’t be targeted. Soviets putting them on rail systems so it was always moving. - Other changes in the Second Nuclear Era is asking if deterrence works with sub-state actors, unlike putting a state under danger. There is no way to threaten non-state actors technically. We still have to worry about proliferation. Another link: between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. - Diffusion of Nuclear Technology: since 1945. Especially nuclear power & missile technology. Since the end of the Cold War, less inclination (political, economic) to continue arms control. Rules exist on NEW nukes; no movement to destroy the old. Fears: A) nuclear proliferation: spread of nuclear weapons (either vertical [within states] or horizontal [to other states]). B) The spread of information, technology, and know-how. Non-state groups acquiring weapons. Rules exist to limit, but no goal to destroy them. - Controlling Nukes. Signing of the NPT in 1968; renewed indefinitely in 1995. Existing nuclear states agreed to: A) Not to transfer weapons or technology. B) Shrink their stockpile. Non-Nuclear states signed to: A) Not pursue weapons. B) Agree to regular inspections by the UN IAEA. Problems with this: A) States can simply withdraw. B) States hiding for years behind civilian programs. C) Anger that nuclear powers have not moved to reduce. - Other arms agreements: SALT & ABM treaty of 1972. SALT II (was never actually ratified due to Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan, yet both nations held to the agreement anyways). INF (first treaty to call for reduced numbers, and not just limit). START. START II. SORT. - End of the Cold War has not diminished significance of having nukes. Some argue that it increases the incentives to acquire nukes; especially post-9/11 and Iraq War. Facts: A) nuclear states have kept theirs. B) Increase in incidence of states trying to acquire them quickly and in the open. - Motives for acquiring nukes vary. A) Unique destructive power. B) Perceived deterrence value. C) International prestige/domestic motivations. D) Advancing regional or geopolitical objectives. - Four increasing fears of horizontal proliferation: A) Post-Gulf War I: realization that Saddam was close. B) The breakup of the USSR. C) India-Pakistan arms race. D) AQ- Khan’s illicit network and knowledge in helping other countries build up their nuclear weapons. - Today there is easy know-how available for assembling nuclear weapons. Estimated 31,055 nuclear warheads in existence. There are 8 official nuclear powers, but many “latent” nuclear powers. Instability of test-ban treaty. - Other WMDs exist. Advantages of these is that they kill many people, but leave infrastructure intact. 1. Radiation & “dirty bombs”. 2. Biological weapons. 3. Chemical weapons. 4. Future generation WMDs (biotechnology and nanotechnology). - “Terrorism.” Many suggest terrorism is a weapon for the weak. One has to use what they have because they lack conventional assets. Toe-to-toe combat would for certain end in loss, so terrorism “must” be used. Maybe we consider it cowardly, but is it really illogical? Groups that use terrorism is usually not their first attempt at being heard. Terrorism is often a last resort for desperate people who long for their voices to be heard, often after many legitimate attempts not being addressed nor yielding results. - Definitions. Problems: there is no real definition for terrorism; it has changed over time to reflect what it was felt to represent. It’s a loaded term, politicized nature of it. The reverse engineering problem. Too narrow vs. too broad. Actor vs. action. State vs. Sub-state (Weber) vs. Individual. Purpose of statement. Many groups have different definitions for terrorism. - Schmidt and Jongman’s definition exercise: must be different than crime. All in all, there was general agreement on: A) Requires the use of threat or force. B) An impact beyond those immediately affected by the event. C) It is political (creates political change; not personal or financial gain). And lastly, some suggested that it had to be carried out by a group. Not a popular opinion any longer though. - - Origin of the word “terrorism” from the French “terreur.” Initially used to describe actions taken by a state against other actors. 1968 marked the beginnings of modern terrorism. st th th th - Historical terrorists: Zealots in 1 AD. Assthsins 11 Century. Thugees 12 -19 Century. Narodnaya Volya: “people’s will.” 19 Century idea. Idea of “propaganda by deed” – everything has linkages (conspiracist thinking), but actions speak for themselves. Anarchists in late 19 and early 20 Century – creation of manuals, “dynamite terrorism.” Anti-Colonial Terrorism (emergence of idea you don’t need to win – just avoid defeat). - 1968 is a key year for te
More Less

Related notes for POLI 381

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