POL208- Cheat Sheet.docx

10 Pages
152 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Political Science
Course
POL208Y1
Professor
Lilach Gilady
Semester
Fall

Description
POL208 Cheat Sheet *Important key concepts are in bold Lec1- Intro to IR  Levels of Analysis o J David Singer- 1960  Domestic/ International & Micro/ Macro o Russett, Starr& Kinsella  Individual, decision makers, gov’t structure, society, IR, world system  Theory Parts o Assumption o Logic- causal explanation o Predictions/ hypothesis Lec2+3- Realism & Liberalism:  The Need for Analytical tools: Sylvie and Bruno o Cannot use reality as a model- too complicated, must simplify and omit  30 Years War o Defenestration of Prague (1618)  Ferdinand the second sends ambassadors to take of Prague- they’re thrown out the window  Sends his forces- Czechs starts organizing protestant league o The price of the war- 50% of the population dies within 30 years o Ends in 1648- Treaty of Westphalia  He who rules, decides on the religion- right to decline outside intervention  Secular takes over religious authority  1 clear statement of sovereignty  Sovereignty definition- o A people, territory, bureaucracy, the king as a legal entity o Monopoly over the functions of the state in a defined territory, excluding all external intervention (monopoly over the legitimate use of force) o The right to conduct foreign relations and sign treaties o Sovereign equality o Internal sovereignty- excluding internal challenges through use of force o External sovereignty- exclude external intervention, other countries must give recognition as a sovereign power o UN- clarifies and institutionalizes sovereignty  Westphalian System o Independence- NO= interdependence o Non intervention- NO= UN; foreign policy interests o Equality- theory YES; practice NO; US is hegemon o Internal sovereignty- NO; civil wars, Arab spring, etc. o External sovereignty- NO; we cannot repel intervention o Territory, population, bureaucracy o Therefore, though in practice the system is violated, it is still in place as a benchmark  Realism o Bismark- Realpolitik  Minimalist, but expansionist when need be  ‘Unholy alliances’- if they serve your interests you’ll ally yourself to them, but can stab them in the back  Power politics; actors are completely self-interested o E.H.Carr- Realism as an alternative to idealism o Thomas Hobbes- Leviathan  The State of Nature POL208  Man is a selfish hedonist  All people are equal, rational and possessing a passionate love of survival (right of nature)  A person’s right of nature justifies violence against everyone else  In the interests of personal survival, people will come around to agreeing that they should renounce their right to use violence  This is an unstable equilibrium. The moment one party deviates- there is disorder. Need for an enforcer  The creation of the Leviathan enforces stability- citizens give up their independence to buy stability  The Leviathan gets ultimate authority and a monopoly over the use of violence o Hobbes & IR  The international system is in a Hobbesian state of nature; individual= state/unitary actor  Anarchy- ‘without a leader’; the absence of higher governing authority beyond the state; no world gov’t  Anarchy does NOT mean chaos; No leviathan o Niccolo Machiavelli- The Prince  Understanding human nature is key for understanding politics: humans are selfish and evil; determination/power prevails over reason  “It is better to be feared than loved.”  The end justifies the means  Modern Realism o Hans J. Morgenthau (Politics Among the Nations 1948)  Neorealism o Kenneth Waltz (Theory of International Politics, 1979)  The implications of anarchy- the need to maximize security  Anarchy is constant- it is what differentiates the international form the domestic  While anarchy is a constant- the distribution of power is not (only major powers really matter)  Summary o The state is the most important actor and it is a rational and unitary actor o The international system is anarchic NOT chaotic o States seek to maximize security/power; national interest o States sometimes rely on force or the threat of force in order to achieve their ends Lec4- Critical Approaches:  The liberal solution o State of Nature- not as bleak o Domestic analogy: institutions solve the problem of anarchy o The quality of institutions affect the stability of the solution o Domestic structures matter; institutions matter o Rights exist independent of power- Life, Liberty, Property o Progress is possible  Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) o ‘Perpetual Peace’- not a realist piece o Kant rejects the separation between the moral imperative and the political realm (Machiavelli) o Modern reading of the ‘Kantian Peace’: democracy, trade and international organizations= peace between nations  Adam Smith o ‘ The Wealth of Nations’ (1776) POL208 o Economics and Peace  Laissez-faire: minimal gov’t intervention in economic affairs  Humans are rational profit maximizers  Trade generates benefits  War will erode said benefits  More trade leads to less war (Liberal peace)  Neoliberalism (Institutional Liberalism) o Can we think of structural conditions that would induce cooperation- without relying on assumptions regarding human nature, morality or natural rights? YES= Institutions! o Absolute vs. Relative Gains  Liberalism Summary o Actors are rational and follow self interest o Private interest does not necessarily contradict collective interest o Actors would prefer to avoid conflict if it affects their prosperity and well being (absolute gains) o The collective will is rational and prudent; narrow interest on the other hand can distort these tendencies o Actors’ interests are shaped and constrained by institutions o The right kind of institutions (democracy; international organizations) can mitigate conflict by better reflecting the collective will  Marxism o Capitalists get rich (more capital) o Invest in more machinery/ labor saving devices (to increase productivity) o Results in increased profits and capital o Fewer workers needed (unemployment and falling wages) o Less demand for goods, hence need to make them cheaper o More investment etc.… (Go to step 2) o Capitalism is not sustainable o Results in revolution o Marx was wrong- historically more revolutions should have happened o Lenin and Hobson: Imperialism explains the lack of revolutions (Marx implicitly assumed a closed market- not exports/imports)  Neo-marxism o Immanuel Wallerstein o Holistic view: analysis based on systematic production processes and class relations o Long term processes- historical perspective o Core vs. Periphery: a powerful and wealthy core dominates and exploits a weak and poor periphery; this hierarchy is quite stable o Semi-periphery: intermediate layer of countries that combine features of both core and periphery- instrumental for preserving the system  Constructivism o Can lead to ‘realist’ or ‘liberal’ predictions- it is a different way of understanding the world o Not necessarily a political theory- does not come with assumptions of what is good/bad o Revolves around actors and social interactions o The social world is constantly changing and is constantly being reproduced o However- identities and norms are relatively stable; slow change o It is better in analyzing patterns of behavior rather than specific events o Provides a theory for the origin of preferences and interests o We cannot understand the world by observing it from the outside; intersubjectivity o identity and social institutions define our interests; interests are socially constructed POL208  Feminism o Debates within the Feminist Camp  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Liberal Approaches Radical Approaches (Votes for women) (Affirmative action) (Still a patriarchal system) o Ann Tickner o Empiricism: the gender gap; women in war, etc. o Critique: these studies still use male dominated system of knowledge Lec5- Rational Choice:  Rationality= Based on all available actions, the actor has a clear ordering of preferences over all possible outcomes  Game Theory o Models social interaction as a game o Each game has a certain structure based in actors’ preferences  Coordination Games o Different yet non conflicting preferences o Solutions tend to be stable (no incentive to defect)  Non-Cooperative Games o Conflicting and competing preferences (sometimes- zero sum games) o Prisoner’s dilemma o Chicken  Nash Equilibrium (prisoner’s Dilemma) o State equilibrium; actors will not change their policy unless they can agree o Defect= a dominant strategy  The Evolution of Cooperation o Tit for tat (nice, retaliatory, forgiving)  develops cooperation o The problem of finite games (Backward induction) o What institutional design can facilitate ‘tit for tat’? (neoliberalism) Lec6- War I:  ???????? o   Lec7- War II:  Causes of War— 3 “Images” (waltz) o 1st Image (individual) (bio/socio/psych)  Human Naturebio/socio/psych reasons that lead to war—focus on questions of human nature—why do we have wars—wars because human nature is not good o 2nd Image (state) (Domestic Pol./Eco.)  what factors in domestic politics drive war  regime type/economic interests/interest groups  National Interest  Diversionary Wars  Democratic Peace  Interest group- MIC; capital; oil  Ideology POL208 o 3rd Image (world image) (World System)  Balance of Power  Assumption: a balanced system is more stable; states will therefore join together to maintain a balanced system in face of an emerging power  Dangers of not balancing= short-term good—long-term uncertainity; Balancing is expensive  Bipolarity= stability (Waltz); Naturally balanced; clear, predictable, not leaving room for error or miscalculations BUT no flexibility, volatile, zero sum  Multipolarity= stability (Morgenthau); Flexible, more than one workable balancing coalition BUT too flexible, lots of room for error and miscalculation, bandwagon  Power transition  power parity between the great powers is the most volatile and dangerous time  More likely to go to war if we think we can win OR are more likely to win—most dangerous time is when we think we can win  Hegemon- life’s good until threatened  Transitions when: B too weak to challenge A’s rule/ Mutual deterrence or War/ B exerts Order  offense/defense balance Lec8- International Crisis:  Just War Theory (Walzer) o Jus Ad Bellum  Just Cause- self defense (UN charter)  Last resort  Declared publicly by a legitimate authority  Proportionality- benefits outweigh harm  The war is winnable  Preemption; prevention?  preemption is recognized in international law— if you are going to be attacked and attack is imminent—imminence is key component of preemption o Jus in Bello- Justice in war  Hague (1899, 1907); Geneva (1949)- conventions that tried to regulate the acts that would be deemed just during war  Discrimination- protecting civilians (Geneva; nuclear weapons? [Deterrence] aerial bombing [smart bombs]? Terrorism)  Proportionality- double effect; not about balance of casualties  Recognizes 2 consequences- one that we intended and the unintended
More Less

Related notes for POL208Y1

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