ALL POLB80 LECTURE NOTES
Prof. Hoffmann Fall 2012
(Note Lecture 1 was just introduction and lecture 6 was midterm)
LECTURE 2 – POLB80 – September 18 2012-09-22
- What’s happening in the world?
Iran – Israel- US dispute
Israel says Iran has a bomb in its way
US trying to stop nuclear weapons in Israel
Israel says they don’t have weapons
Iran’s nuclear weapon threatens Israel
US doesn’t want another military intervention
US worked with the United Nations and they put sanctions on Iran so they won’t
make more nuclear weapons
- Security Council – US, China, Britain, Russia, France
- NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) – 1968 – prevented the spread of nuclear
Not acquire nuclear weapons
Work to disarm and provide technical assistance for civilian uses of nuclear
- Israel never signed NPT
- International laws must be obeyed only when you have consented to it
- Sovereignty is not absolute
- Security Council has the right to enforce International law
- Pakistan and India withdraw in NPT
- Iran is still in NPT but Iran says they’re not making any nuclear weapons
- NPT is not really solving dilemmas
- US went into Iraq in 1990 but this time the United Nations supported them. If they did
not have backup, US have to pay for the mission itself.
- How did we get here?
- What is world politics? - Multiple History
- Western civilization – Why we got here
Roman empire --> to modern states
- State system came from Europe
- Multiple ways that world politics can be organized
- WWI and WWII effects of depression – failure of international relation, cold war
- Development if International Relation in Western domination
- There are multiple story lines
- Development of sovereignty
- Huge diversity in the ancient world but today we have sovereignty
- Evolution of Sovereignty
- Sovereignty - Having power over your own country (having authority to make the rules
over defined territory)
- In modern states – federal government is the highest authority (monopoly legitimate
force) It speaks for the country in International Relations forum
- States govern within its country
- No authority and territory always matched one to one
Ancient empires, overlapping authorities and multiple authorities in ancient
Feudal Europe (Catholic Church) – Pope was in charge within that. At this time,
they had kings.
‘Crazy quilt’ – overlapping authorities and multiple authorities, city-states
Overtime, we got into this one to one match
- 1648 – Birth of modern states. After Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War (This was a
religious conflict by Protestants and Catholics)
- Westphalia drew some borders and dozens of states in Germany.
- It clarified within his territory, the Prince gets to say what Religious its territory is.
- Sovereignty came from kings and queens
- Evolution of Sovereignty – What happens if successions are taken over? Or when king
- There might be an entity of states and not only absolute power
- 18th century - the emergence of nationalism Group of people that share interest, culture, etc.
Power embedded in the people
Did not change the authority
- Where is the source of authority?
- Popular sovereignty – democracy
- In many ways, battle between absolute and popular sovereignty (ex. French Revolution)
- 20 century was the development of international organizations. They do not interfere
- World Trade Organization (WTO), Security Council can impinge on sovereignty directly
- Emergence of supranational state
Nation states say there’s authority above them
- Sovereignty is a principle that evolved over time
- Anarchy – lack of central authority
- Sovereignty gives anarchy
- Roman Empire was a Hierarchy – It did not have a one on one authority
7 slide: What do these have in common?
Central Government having trouble
Disruption of Authority of states
De Jur – of the law
De Facto – having control of the country
All these countries have De Jur sovereignty - Cold War History and Post-Cold War World
- Cold war was not inevitable
- After WWII, there was 2 superpowers – the US and USSR
- US was supreme after WWII
- 2 powerful countries will lead to cold war because every win looks like a lost for the
- Cold war means they did not actually fight because they were balanced and they both
had nuclear weapons
- Soviet Union was an empire of communism. US is a democratic state and was for
- Soviet wanted resources. They wanted to control Eastern Europe (Germany,
- US did not see this as a buffer for protection or to have more security. They thought it
was an imperialism act. They had mistrusted the USSR which led to the Berlin Blockade.
- All countries had to line up between the US or the Soviet Union POLB80 – Lecture 3 – September 25 2012-09-25
Cold War History and Post-Cold War
- USSR and US did not fight because of deterrence (MAD)
- Deterrence – to threaten retaliation
- They deter each other. If you attack me, I will attack you.
- If one of them attacks, that one that attacks will get destroyed
- Both side needs self-preservation and are rational
This made Missile defence
- Both side has to be neutral vulnerable
- 1948 – Berlin Blockade
- 1962 – scariest part of cold war
Missile Crisis, Cuban crisis
US made a naval blockade in response
- Proxy vs. Proxy – alley of US and Alley of USSR fighting
- Proxy vs. Superpower
- 1989 – Wall of Berlin is irrelevant
East Germany communist
East Germany went through Western Germany side
East Germany was having an election
End of the cold War
- End of Cold War
- Soviet Union ended its existence 2 years after the cold war started
- End of cold war has multiple events
Opening of the Berlin wall
Soviet agreed to the destruction of the Berlin Wall
- Soviet Union was an empire
- Earlier USSR crushed Western democracy in Eastern Europe and they crushed them by
telling Eastern Europe to stay in the Soviet Block
- Opening of the Berlin Wall makes Germany one step away from the Soviet Block
Why did the Soviet agree to destroy the Wall?
1986 – Molotov became leader of the Soviet Union. He started to change the
relationship between the US and the Soviet Union. It change the dynamic of the
rivalry - The cold war was built on mistrust and enemies
- US aggression and military spending also contributed to the tension on the USSR but
they were spending too much
- USSR was having an economic crisis at this time and so they could not keep up with the
- There was some human rights movements changes in the USSR and made them a little
bit nearer to democracy
- US did not take their advantage of USSR economic crisis to make any violent actions.
Instead, they help encourage the USSR to make the changes
- US won the cold war
- Impact of Cold War Today
Canada involved in Afghanistan
Rebuilding Afghanistan from 2001
- 1979 – USSR invades Afghanistan
- There was a change in the type of conflict after the cold war
There was a shut down in interchange, inter-state conflict (fighting over land)
New conflict – terrorism, economic sanctions, civil war, ethnic conflict
This trace back into the cold war
Right now, the world is heavily armed
- After WWII, people decided that WWI should not happen again. What they did is they
made a Security Council that allowed it to enforce laws and bind resolutions
This produce nothing about conflict for about 40 years
US was largely finding the Security Council
Each Security Council had veto
Each side had to protect its own interest. Therefore, countries in the Council
kept on using their veto power.
At one time did the Security Council worked – The war in Korea, when North
Korea attacked South Korea. At the time of the decisions, USSR did not attend
the Security Council’s meeting. Also, at this time, Taiwan was in the Council
instead of China. China wasn’t recognized yet.
This increased prominence in the United Nations
- After cold war, US was more troubled by getting what it wants
- After cold war, there was huge expansions in International relations (globalization,
human rights, the environment) Realism
- Realism doesn’t mean realistic theory. It is a set of ideas of how world politics works
- Every International theory has a particular answer in the questions on the side
Who are the actors?
What are they like? What their interests?
What to expect from them?
- Realism came back to the early ages of the Greeks. Realism is still popular and more
prominent in international relations.
- Who are the important actors in the realism world? The state
- States – They are the sovereign actors. They are a monopoly.
- Is our state the most important in our country?
- States are self-interest, power seeking and scared. They pursue their interest defined by
Security conscious – This leads them to seek power
- Why? – It is because of external reasons (They are competing with each other)
- Anarchy makes them scared. They are worried about survival
- It’s human nature to be aggressive
- Neo-realism – talks more about external reasons
- Anarchy is the key in realism
- Anarchy = security Dilemma. This is what realist thought
- Security dilemma – Example. State A protects itself just to be safe. What if State B
attacks them? So, state A builds up a military. State B sees state A’s actions and state B
gets worried and wonder why state A created a military. State B is going to increase its
- State B can take over state A if state A does do anything (State A does not have security
- Relative Gains – the gains of the states around you. This is what matters for every state
- Theories are models
- There’s a potential for conflict, competition and the Balance of Power (BOP) – this
happened between alliances and states
- States stable when all states are equal – This is a self-help system (trust does not
- Realism’s Big Points
- No Morality in International Relations
- Do not care how politics should be - Realist removes morality in global politics. There’s no central government in the global
world. It’s all about self-interest and it could leave a state vulnerable.
- State is vulnerable if it only thinks about morality
- Morality can be talked about in domestic politics because there’s a central government
that keeps the morality together
- Realist all about distribution of power, anarchy matters, governments matter, are we in
a bipolar, uni-polar world... etc.
- Realist have refined their theories in different ways
- Power – Economic power, reputation power, soft power.
- US has reputation Power. US not a threat to any states.
- The most important actors – States, International Government Organizations (IGO’s),
Domestic actors (ex. corporations, NGO’s)
- What is their nature? It’s the states nature to depend on the government. States are
self-interested but security and power is not the only thing. States have economic
interest and ideological interest.
- It is not just relative gains, it is also about absolute gains. There are multiple interest in
- Context – still anarchy but not just anarchy. Anarchy is not bad at all.
- Realist think of zero-sum game (A gain from another state is a lost to another)
- Liberals think that there can be neutral solutions and gains betweens states
- It is more about cheating in the game and not about worrying about survival
- Liberals see interdependence. States are not completely alone
There are strong economic ties between states (The rise of China. China got
economic power through manufacturing trade. They traded with the US)
- There are webs of interactions
- There are interactions, competition and cooperation
- Interdependence. Common interest can lessen security dilemma (Conflict lessens).
- Collective security can remove security dilemma.
TUTORIAL September 26 2012.
Office hours: Wed – 11:30-12:30 MW37?
- Theory – is a set of assumption, a framework in how things work. It’s a model (lense)
There’s a set of competing framework theories in IR. (ex. liberals, realist) Normative realism – classical realism
Actors State State (not the only relevant
Interests/ Goals Survival, power and security Survival, cooperation
(offensive and defensive) (interdependence) – we’re all
Structure Anarchy (conflictual) – no Anarchy (can be overcome)
- Pg. 120 – Gulf War article – How to interpret the Gulf War
Realist – one state has infringed another state or annex another state. Iraq
invaded oil reserves to get more power
Liberals – UN led a coalition of states. They were under the Charter. It was an
invasion to peace and security. When you have a coalition, you bring
cooperation Lecture 4 – October 2 2012-10-02
- The type of state matters
Democratic Peace Theory – democracies do not fight each other but fight non-
This is strange for realism because they say it does not matter what state you
are. The world is still living in an anarchy system.
Realist say that democratic nations have not fought each other yet
Different domestic system means different state system
- Collective System
- 1935 – Started talking about collective system in the League of Nations
- Collective System failed for League of Nations and Nazi’s arise
- Anarchy = security dilemma
You cannot get out of this equation
Liberals say you can get out of it through international organizations (collective
security – any active aggression will cause the whole entire international society
States worry about security because they feel uncertain and the feel scared
Ex. If everyone aids state A, state A won’t be afraid of state B.
The aggressor must be stopped always and should be easy to identify the
Aggressor must be wrong
Aggressor must know the international society will go against them
- Obstacles of collective system:
If the powerful states are the aggressors
Identifying the aggressor. Who is right?
Political commitment. You cannot have everyone on board this collective system
- Collective system is a theoretical way to get out of security dilemma
- Is NATO a collective Security Organization?
NATO is a Collective Defense (Alliance). It is a group of state that protect each
other from harm This does not take away security dilemma but instead live
within the dilemma NATO has about 15 countries – If anyone of them gets attack, NATO countries
will help the one that got attacked. If a country is not in NATO, NATO will not
Alliance protect yourself in a security dilemma
- Realism – cooperation is a common and it’s rare. Competition is more and cooperation
- International Organizations help cooperation (liberal). Multiple interactions will help
- Realism – absolute gains can help cooperations
- Constructivism – This approach didn’t exist 25 years ago in IR.
- There are expectation on how we interact with each other
- Individual ideas who think about what is appropriate
These rules are constructed over time (1 core)
Notion of a social fact – Things exist because they exist through a collection of
collective idea. (We all believe it exist)
Ex. Canada exists because we act as if it does exist. We follow it, elections, etc.
Other states act as if it exists too.
- Full of social facts of identity culture, that shape what world politics look like
- Constructivism is a social theory. We apply it to IR theories.
- World is socially constructed
- Important actors – states, IO’s, NGOs, Movements, corporations, anybody
All these actors instructing in what is appropriate in making the state real
- Nature- Malleable – not set in stone. Interest can change
- Context-dependent- ex. If states are scared, they are scared because their context
they’re in is frightening
States can want more or change power/interest
- The context is still anarchy (realist) This is what shape the world in realist side
- In constructivism, they believe in Anarchy but Anarchy does not have to equal security
dilemma. Anarchy is just a lack of authority. You do not have to be scared of it.
- Meanings, ideas, norms, and rules shape context
- It is ideas not materials that matter. This is what shapes context
- Context is also malleable. Context can change
- Why don’t states use chemical Weapons?
It’s so much worse than gums It’s inhumane
Bad historical tie with the holocaust
It can’t be localized
- Myths on why states don’t use chemical Weapons:
Ineffective (This is not true)
Worse – In WWI, chemical weapons used extensively. Historical expectation and
powerful nations combined.
- Powerful nations started the idea that chemical weapons are worse. Powerful nations
want no use of chemical weapons because it is easy to make, it’s cheap, and foreign
countries can make it.
- Chemical Weapons can potentially change the Balance of Power
- Chemical weapons are taboo
- Context – Civilized countries don’t use chemical weapons is an idea
Geneva Convention – This out law Chemical Weapons in International relations
This idea has to be acted upon
This must shape the actors
In WWII, states did not use chemical weapons in the battlefield (Chemical
weapon taboo idea strengthened and made this idea real)
- Interaction depends on the context
Constructivism Big Points
- Power Idea – distribution of ideas
- They do not ignore power
- Powerful actors can change the cycle of context-actors
- World Politics filled with rules and what is appropriate
- Normative structure can change
- Constructs both good and bad structures
- Liberalism and realism cannot really conceive constructivism.
TUTORIAL : OCT 3 2012.
Actors States and non-state actors Economic classes- working
(pluralist) class and capital owning
Interests/Goals Malleable (dependent on Emanapation – in-totality both identity and context) (Both Class) Both oppressed
Structures Anarchy (is what states make System of international
of it) – meaning of anarchy hierarchy or world capitalist
can change system th
POLB80- Lecture 5- October 9 2012.
Midterm only on this lecture and before that and reading from last week and before
It’s a big umbrella concept : Marxism
Did Marxism die after Soviet Union died? Why are we still talking about this? Marxism is
still around in every country because there is in some way still Marxism. The ideology is
still there. Socialism is a response to Marxism. We still have Marxism parties and still
existing from historical times.
It’s very different. It exists in multiple assets through Marxism as a government
philosophy – of Cuba, China, and North Korea. It’s a way to govern a country. There are
still Marxism parties around.
Second, Marxism exists as a philosophy of history – As history unfolds, (Teleological
meaning an inevitable end) it’s all about economic systems to a socialist utopian.
Third, is Model of politics of IR. Even though it’s on the wane as a philosophy, it’s still
relevant today. It gives us a number of aspects on IR that is different from realist,
liberalism and other IR theories.
Marxism begins with the writings of Marx.
Classical Marxism (old school Marxism) is historical theory. Marxism takes time and
history to account. Liberalism and realism is older but Marxism is a historical theory.
History plays a fundamental role in Marxism. History unfolds patterns for Marxism.
In realism and liberalism their stories happen over and over again, and the history is a
series of events. It’s entirely a historical.
The answer for constructivism is always independence. How the process between
context and actors depends on its historical aspect. It’s in between a historical and
Evolution of the means of production as a means of unfolding history for Marxism. (ex.
Industrial revolution, capitalism) The core of it is how we make things and create
wealth. They see the means of production unfold over time and who owns the evolution
of production that shapes world politics.
Old school Marxism – is the march of history through an evolution of productions events
over time. Capitalism triumphed over socialism. It’s an inevitable march of history. The
second part really fallen out.
Contrast to Marxism - Agrarian countries forgot one step of industrialism to
communism. Marxism says countries go through industrialism to be communism.
China’s economic system is capitalism and not communism. Do we really have an actual
communist country? Scandinavia is a Social democratic country- not a pure Marxism. There’s social
4 big questions on Marxism:
Important actors are economic classes or classes, MNCs, capitalist elites. States are not
the most important key in Marxism. The elite classes in countries have more in common
with the same economic class in any other countries. States are not autonomous actors.
They’re really a tool to transnational classes. States do whatever the higher
transnational classes want them too. MNCs use the states too.
Economic interest and the state – When does the state lose autonomy? When is the
state not an independent actor? Marxism states that states are not an independent
actor. States are not an autonomous actor but in liberalism states are autonomous
actors. Economic interest drives the states to act to make laws etc.
What came first the state behaviour or the economic interest? Are states really
Marxism tells the story of the conflict between economic classes.
Second question: What’s the nature of this actor? Economic interest is their nature.
What class you’re in identifies your interests and behaviour. The dominant economic
interest determines your interests and behaviour.
What’s the context? No anarchy but a hierarchy. There are clear lines of authority and
oppression. There’s inequality within states. This results to uneven development. The
rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Its supports the dominants of particular states.
Key context in realism and liberalism is anarchy
Marxist look at power at a different way. The distribution of power is a stratified global
system – a system that is has core states, semi-periphery, and periphery. Capitalism
causes this stratified global system. They set up the global financial system. When
countries develop they don’t get to see the fruits of their development. They don’t
improve the people in their country instead they improve transnational corporations or
What interaction does Marxism expect? They see lots of conflict because of the
dynamics of capitalism. Conflicts between haves and have-nots, and within the haves.
Second conflict is imperialism. Corporations need to expand in order to keep generating
wealth or the whole thing falls apart. Developed countries need cheap labour to keep
wages low in their own country. This is what makes the 18thand 19th century to lead to
colonialism. Globalization is just a next phase to imperialism.
Marxism has trouble explaining the rise of some of the middle powers of South Korea,
Mexico... etc. These countries came out of stratification.
Marxism big points:
It’s the economy – economics drive politics. Dependency – a highlight of MNCs have fundamental control in developing
countries. Poor countries are dependent on MNCs in order to move their
economies and essentially their government. Poor countries never really get out
of being poor and continue to be dependent.
Third is normative theory - Marxism talks about how the world should be. The
goal of emancipation. Realism and liberalism are positive theories – it tries to
explain the world as it sees it. Normative means changes in the world. Capitalism
does bad things in Marxism. They say these bad things can be overcome.
IF the model is realism – what should I expect to see?
Basics of the theories – understand how the theories answer the four theories and the
big points and able to put them in conversation al little bit and begin to apply them.
Some mc, some very short answer, some short essay. MC – basics or pieces of the
basics. Compare and contrast theories in different ways.
Identifications in short answers – ex. Define stratification or put two theories in
conversations or which perspective is more compelling?
Essay: Realist and liberals different in security, different anarchy, find liberalism more
compelling, realist anarchy = security dilemma and you can’t get out of it. Etc. 3
paragraphs. How these things compare and then an argument.
Practice: ex. Essay question: Thinking critically: why are rules threatening in one place,
but not another?
Ex. Essay question: Realism vs. Liberalism: North Korea agreed to end its nuclear
program after pressure was put on it by major, cooperating powers. What are the realist
and liberal explanations? Which story is more compelling?
Liberalism vs. Marxism: Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and the international community,
led by the US, responded with a UN sanctioned military intervention to repulse the
invasion. What are the Marxist and liberal interpretations of the response to Iraq’s
invasion? Which story is more compelling? Liberals focus on US and UN acting to
cooperate with each other to address the peace of international system. Maybe they’re
both correct? – You can do this in the exam.
Constructivism vs. realism: the US sanctioned the South African government in the
1980s and this helped lead to the downfall of apartheid. How do realism and
constructivism account for this? Which story is more compelling? South Africa is an ally
of US. US did not really need South Africa to maintain its position in Africa. It is able to
act in its way interests. Constructivism – refer back to ideas of norms. US protect civil
rights and just projecting out and were defending what world politics is about. th
TUTORIAL October 10 2012-10-10
The goal of Marxism is Emancipation and economic goals. Its interest is economics.
Economics is the motor for world politics. Emancipation is a goal. There is an end to
capitalism and replaced by communism. Were not meant to live in capitalism because it
represents inequality and economics to a point where it explodes. We need to find a
way to change this. Under communism, we are equal to one another and not separated
into classes. There is no state. There’s no one really telling you what to do. Communism
is a worldwide thing not a communism state/country. It applies for the world as a
whole. There’s no such thing as a real communism country.
Emancipation is a goal. Marx focus on is a structural theory. Structure is a defining factor
because it dictates all relations. You need to change the structure itself if you want to
change something about the system itself. In our drive to capitalism, there are two
classes’ working class and capital class. Working class knows they are oppressed. Capital
owning class is also oppressed but they don’t know it. It is the system that oppresses
both of them because they do not live the life they should live. They have material
things but life is not about material things. Capital owning class needs freedom to
decide for them and capitalism restrains freedom. Capital class inherently are
Emancipation is no longer a goal if the whole world is a communist system. You can’t
explain why working and capital class are exploited without reference to the structure
In order to get marks, the term is defined and you tie it to a theory and how it is used an
Crazy Quilt – a concept or a term that refers to a system where by one geographic area
is governed by multiple and overlapping authority. (ex. European or Morocco) Use the
concept of liberalisms collective security or constructivism of identities of states allowed
this kind of system. In constructivism, the changing ideas of identities made the crazy
quilt idea but identities changed after Westphalia. In collective security (liberalism), you
have multiple authorities but together they work together to make the system work. POLB80: Lecture 6
IR Forum: US Presidential debate: Is the United States electing the president of the
world? Why do we care about the election?
Liberal perspective – looks like the debate is promoting democratic peace ideas.
Promoting the right kind of leader.
Constructivist – They are actively promote ideas and discourses, they have a
greater voice on creating the context.
There are no realists, constructivist, or Liberal states.
Foreign policy are always are malleable, they focus on particular details and tells us IR
models to explain things.
Comparative advantage – why should it matter what countries own?
Autalky – produce everything in your own domestic country
There is a global economy but we also have an international system and these things
don’t always fit nicely together.
A lot of the concerns would say MNCs are actually routed in the international system
but really these actors have loyalty to their home country. They’re not really global
actors and really national actors. Therefore, in realist perspective – how do you protect
your interest and increase your security?
Another theory is that MNCs are actually global actors. They would go to where money
is- the movement of goods and capital. These two theories can change.
Policy Brief assignment: three parts of the assignment: executive summary
(introductory)- 1 paragraph, summarize the advice that you will give the next president.
Start off with a punch line. “Mr. President I think you should do this...” Your support for
that contention. Part 2: general summary in what’s happening this fall and general
background, not only with the campaigns, but climate change, what’s been happening in
global negotiation, where we at etc. Part 2: summarize the two campaigns. If they don’t
have a standing point, summarize that. Finally, the “advice”. Restate the executive
summary and say why. The advice must be justified on your theoretical understanding
of world politics. They should tell you why it’s a good goal. “US-China relations”, your
textbook should help, the reference should help. You are not required to do external
research. In general, you don’t have to quote common knowledge.
Continuation of the growth of international relations and practice using them. The range
of subtopics of international relations will help you for IR courses.
International security – What do you think of?
Dominance of Peace (Goal),
Democracy (Democratic Peace), Balance of Power.
The agenda of international security is big but before it was small and was about
national security. It was about states fighting and how to prevent states from fighting.
Ex. “US vs. USSR”. International security evolved.
Questions on international security: What needs protecting? From what threats?
Protected by whom?
Traditional international security equated with national security. Traditional
International security: Protecting the states from other states. States are responsible in
State is not the only thing that needs protecting. We can expand. Threats can expand,
terrorism, environmental threats, human security etc. It should be people that need to
be protected. It changes the threats, states can be the threats.
Protected by whom: states, but we have non-state actors that protect us too. None of
these things are mutually exclusive.
Who are the objects of security? Move to traditional to modern.
Traditionally in international security, most IR theory is because of war. IR tries to solve
the problem of war and peace. The first IR came in 1919. They try to figure what causes
war to at least ending war or preventing wars.
Inter-state war has not gone away.
What is war? – Organized political violence between representatives of states:
Internally and external-rule-based. War is not chaos. There are rules to war. There are
rules in going to war, and when it’s appropriate to fight. There are rules on how to
conduct yourselves in war. Do these rules matter? Rules have been changed as time
goes by. It used to be legitimate to go to war for power, money, wealth, and conquest.
This is not expected anymore. People don’t go to war for territorial conquest but
resource conquest. By not declaring war, it actually shows the strength of the rules of
The two gulf wars: (1990- 1991)- Iraq invaded Kuwait for reclaiming the territory with
economic interest involved. The rest of the international community stepped in to stop
this cause this is not legitimate reason on why to go to war. In 2002-2003, US came in
because Iraq was a threat. Iraq was making nuclear weapons. The international
community rejected to help the US. The US didn’t stop from going to war.
War is organized because you need a military, have an unbelievable organization in the
society, and an amount of cooperation to wage war. It created the need of more
organizations. You can talk about nationalism, the democratic states as a response of
fighting modern wars. It’s highly organized activity.
Theory- War actually created states
What is War? It’s politics by other means to achieve political goals. What causes war? There are still numerous inter-state conflicts and we can trace these
conflicts in proximate (meaning nearby) causes. There’s a lot of proximate causes of
Proximate causes- Multiple level:
Individual level – aggressive leaders with bad decisions, blame human nature,
State level – use war as a tool. Democratic countries are not more peaceful but
we could see a different pattern depending on the type of government.
International or identity politics can begin war. Anarchy makes war – expansion.
We can talk about power transition, strand of realist – war is likely when
powerful state goes away and another powerful state goes up.
How do we stop this madness? Nobody wants to fight a war. In security, some states
threats other states implicitly and explicitly to protect their interest. This could be a
protective war or an expansionary war.
Protective (WWI) and expansionary (WWII).
Managing security is a way to have peace –
Realist – balance of power to managing security. BOP in international relations
or BOP foreign policy goals, global scale – polarity... regional scale – Pakistan and
south Asia. BOP requires a will to for dominance. Balancing an actor, negotiating,
finding allies are better than going to war. BOP can break down though. When a
state goes powerful, the other states have to balance themselves too. This
equilibrium is never achieved. BOP is an obstacle because they can potentially
get into another cold war. War isn’t the worst option in realist perspective.
Deterrence – This is not a way to get out of the security dilemma. The threat of
retribution must be large and must be alternatives to war available. Deterrence
worked in the cold war. It requires this mutual threat to work.
Can Iran be deterred?
Theory: If everyone had nuclear weapons, there would be peace to stabilize the
conflict. Deterrence relies on retribution to create stability. If the other side is
irrational and doesn’t care, deterrence doesn’t work and it’s a gamble. Conflict
In Liberals perspective, collective security can remove security dilemma, arms control
and remove the raw materials for conflict (both side has to remove weapons equally
and create trust to potential rivals). International Organization builds trust and cheating
will go away.
Marxist – economic is the cause of war. War is not the problem and it’s a symptom. A
change between the relationships of classes. Revolution is the prescription in some
cases Constructivist – would agree with both realist and liberalist. The strategy to manage
security depends on the context you are in. They go beyond this and that the tools that
you use to manage insecurity help determines what the context is. It is possible to alter
behaviour and change the use of BOP. It’s possible to change this context. EU was a
classic BOP example. After WWII, it was possible to have a change in EU. US said
Germany, France starts relationship between EU. There’s no reason to build military in
Germany and France. “Fighting is unthinkable” is an idea. This doesn’t happen all the
POLB80 Lecture 8: October 30 2012
What’s going on the world? China and Japan are in a dispute over a tiny island. Why? It’s
about the natural resources. This tiny island has oil and will increase their relative
History: There’s a historical legacy of conflict between Japan China. China is still
is not gotten over the Japanese invasion of WWII. We have arguments of
national identity or pride on both sides.
We can also talk about in terms of domestic politics. The economy is not very
great. This conflict is potentially used being used in China with the problems in
economic problems they are having. This is a classic realist problem.
It’s not just wars that are different today. The whole idea of IR is changing. What are the
Nuclear Proliferation: We’re going to stay in the realm of national security.
The trouble with Proliferation:
More will be better for peace and stability because there’s a balance of power-
everyone will be equal. This will lead to peace and stability.
MAD on a global scale. The destructiveness is so great; no one would go to war.
No one really wins if everyone has nuclear weapons in war.
Nuke: Fusion, fission, and neutron – All this is all about atomic energy. We’re
using radioactive material to create the explosion force.
Nuke: Theatre, Strategic
Chemical weapons are not just gases. Nothing comes close to strategic nukes
which can kill a whole city. A large threat is a dirty bomb. This is used to spread
radioactive material. You don’t see an explosion, a suite case of nuclear
More will be worse for peace and stability: BOP not really achieved. If we all
lose the nukes, the world will be a stable place to live in. Is this really true if we
have a huge proliferation in the world. We cannot see or protect states that
make nuclear weapons. Is BOP (everyone equally having nuclear weapons) really
peace? This can cause an edge of war and less cooperation. This is side of the
debate that all of the major states side on. But why?
Why do big powers side with no nuclear weapons: Secure arsenals: So we don’t have
accidents, Partial Proliferation: Is the BOP achieved? There would be arms race,
accidents, and proliferation to non-state actors. The biggest worry is the actors that
don’t have a location cannot be readily deterred. More is worst because we cannot
insure that state and non-state act