POL326Y1 Study Guide - Fall 2019, Comprehensive Final Exam Notes - Cold War, Federal Government Of The United States, International Law
82 views71 pages
POL326Y1
American Foreign Policy
Waltz
• Kenneth Waltz: what caused war; why was it an important aspect
o 3 images explaining war:
▪ War was the result of individuals held bent on making war; expanding territory; concluded
that this war was desirable
▪ The nature of states determined inevitability of war; boils to democratic peace theory—
authoritarian states are more likely to go to war unlike democracies where likelihood of war
is lower/impossible (rejected this thesis)
▪ International system: a system of anarchy (there’s no higher authority to which states could
appeal/protecting their interests; states are responsible for their own security); security
ensured only through amassing military power, not limited to economic resources; it’s
imbalances in the international system that make
o The anarchy in intl. system wasn’t permanent; realists don’t see permanent government
• International bipolarity: since WWII
o The international system in a multipolar system, which is more stable than a bipolar one for it
allows shifting alliances to maintain; bipolar systems would tempt one to defeat adversary and take
over them
o Unipolar system: states are rational actors not because they comprise rational people, but rather
they don’t have luxury to engage in irrational acts; a war of choice exhausts all
• States are rational for they are disciplined by international system
o In studying US foreign policy, the U.S. hasn’t been rational
o Vietnam War: an act of irrationality, dropped more weapons/bombs than all combatants
o The Vietnamese government US protected collapsed in ’95: was interested in going to Vietnam
because of rational domino theory
▪ It was a rational intervention for it did prevent the domino theory
▪ Rumsfeld: there are certain things we know/we don’t know
o Post-Cold War
▪ Faced no existential threat; no need to engage in war of necessity (ex. Iraq war)
▪ Waltz: in absence of threat, policy becomes capricious: it isn’t the nature of states that
makes states rational, it’s threat of international system; US faced no such threats
▪ Ikenberry: the current environment had to be revised; individuals aren’t important in states;
nature of state systems can likewise explain war; the US defined the nature of international
system, it’s stability, and likelihood of conflict
Politics
• Easton: politics is about allocation of desired things who gets benefits and undesired things and they may
do so through custom, market system—who’s rewarded/not rewarded; market functions, allocation by
command—who pays taxes, serves in military,
o Political commands have unique feature of being enforceable against will of those being
commanded through coerced violence
▪ Implies that politics occurs within societies; what happens within legislatures through
legislative system to determine policy outcomes
• In international relations, politics is understood differently (Schmidt: 1920)
o Politics is not about who gets what, but about basic dichotomy on friend v. foe
o The leadership of states must determine which states to work with/are a threat
o Keep at bay the order imposed by other societies in which they choose to pursue
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
o International politics trumps domestic politics; American foreign policy, like others, is concerned
with security/survival yet American political system is geared towards something different
▪ Makers of US constitution agreed that “government governs best governs least”—how do
you restrain a government from running everything? Make process of governing as
insufficient as it may possibly be
▪ American minorities are protected under US constitution
• Schmidt would’ve rejected this idea: state must address threats through efficiency in dictatorship
o The US emerged as a power in unusual circumstances for it was free from external threats
o While this protection allowed US to put national defense on backburner, this policy changed in the
20th century; the US could no longer say they’re free from external threats
• There’s substantial disagreement on what states are; it’s a crucial component of our analysis; allows us to
see how foreign policy is made
o Liberals/pluralists have one thing in common; they see states as a dependent variable: the state
isn’t actor, it’s the thing being acted on that try to serve their interests; depends on state origins to
serve their interests; based on social contract between governors/governed
▪ The state is a neutral arena where competition occurs; it is where policymaking occurs
▪ To understand policy, you must look at forces acting on the states
▪ Foreign policy is an outgrowth of domestic policy; it might be rejected by realists; trade
policy is influenced by congress
▪ Point to necessity of the rule of law; state itself is subject to those laws—state is a neutral
entity; the
o Marxist perspective: the state is dependent variable; ruling class rules even in a democracy;
▪ C Wright Mills: Power of the Elite; Miliband: the connections between elites running private
economy and elites running state
▪ Elites dominating states/corporations are identical; we have a similar outlook
▪ Revolving door relationships: they trade places (move from business to government); it isn’t
surprising that governments acts for the corporate elites
▪ Relative autonomy (instrumentalist view of state): derives from that the state has core
responsibility for keeping economy flowing/state functioning; instituting policies for
economic actors; in a democratic context, if the state were to decide for corporate
interests, this becomes difficult to sustain; state must maintain legitimacy; it has some
freedom to move; not all Marxists bought into this
o Structuralism: Fred Block/Nichols Polanses—fascism isn’t an outgrowth of an individual but rather
a crisis within it; had problem with dependent variable
▪ Idea of instrumentalism is a “class conscious ruling class” ruling class shared the same
interests; Block/Polanses rejected this
▪ Capitalists might have certain things in common yet they have opposing interests
▪ The state acts in the interests of capital has nothing to do with capitalists and state; there
are perversions things should function; the rule of the state isn’t to defend individual
capitalists but rather to maintain long-term stability of capital system as a whole; such is
impossible
▪ During the ‘30s: the capitalist system faced a deep crisis; it was overcome by FDR’s New
Deal to benefit the destitute
▪ Structuralists: can’t explain on intervention of capitalists; capitalists are focused on ability to
make profits; role of the state isn’t to look out of individual profits
▪ Block: Ralph Nader (if he won, stock market would crash); he’d find himself having state
take over the economy or he’ll backtrack
▪ Structuralists: state-economy relationship exists; this is a form of corruption;
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com