Fall Midterm Review.docx

14 Pages
Unlock Document

Political Science
Nathalie Fournier

POL 208: Fall Midterm Part 1: Definitions 1. Theory: 3 parts: description, explanation and prediction -empirical data -Can be useful if you can falsified- modify (change 1 or more variables) it or it is just a belief -a theory should include casual mechanisms to avoid dangers of false correlation -Induction- one piece of data leads to the next – problem: what is the relevant data to collect -Deduction- the transition from data to theory requires creative imagination -Reading: Week 1: The theory of IR- illustrates how certain known knowledge justified using reasoning 2. Role of Models: every model by definition omits certain dimensions of reality, every model choses what to pick and what to omit -Judges what matters most, through experiment in which each level of analysis and its impact is tested - Ex. Week 1: World Politics: the Menu of life - Dropping the atomic bomb- American officials finally agreed to use the bomb as an atomic diplomacy to impress the Soviet Union and encourages joining American post war world. 3. Level of Analysis: a way of organizing and simplifying variables to gain explanatory power -depends on the question we ask and theoretical assumptions 1. Individual Level- personality, education, past experience, ideology, beliefs – if we take this person out of history, would we get the same outcome? 2. Decision Makers- Roles instead of people- interest of actors, info flows, decision making and procedures 3. Governmental Structure- focus on regime type- what incentives and constraints does a decision maker have in democracy or autocratic 4. Society- State, size of country, poverty, economic, structure, culture, history 5. IR- interaction between actors- dyadic analysis- relationship between 2 actors is the one that has led to outcome- past experience between countries influence the outcome 6. World System- set of interacting elements, theoretical assumptions – there are systematic variables that will affect countries – for ex. Distribution of power, technology -for example: Week 1: World politics- Asian Financial Crisis- caused questionable relationship because of domestic affairs – internal factors and external (rate of which investors removed capital)—to determine cause we need to use level of analysis 4. The Westphalian System- 1648-Birth date of IR system -treaty of Westaphilla put 30 years of war to end -emergence of Sovereignty - is it a myth? -Complete independence – ex. Canadian is do dependent on US -Non-intervention- ex. Iraq -Equality- ex. African vs. America 5. Sovereignty- the right to control a given territory and people in it -people, territory, bureaucracy, the king has a legal entity (4 characteristics of state) - Right to conduct foreign affairs and treaties- right to make enforce rules and laws -legitimate use of organized force -International Law makes a distinction between internal and external sovereignty -Internal- relationships between a sovereign power and its own subjects -External- concerns with relationships between sovereign power and states -sovereign states are basic unit centered on IR -Reading Russet Bruce: principal that helps to explain arms races (anarchic environment) - Ex. US and Soviet Union mutual resistant while believing other side sought superiority and this led to an arms race during cold war- each power decided that military superiority could not bring politically useful results and level of arms of both sides became too threatening- outcome: Assurance game- equilibrium - arms race will end 6. Contested Sovereignty: where sovereignty either internal or external, it is contested -From the inside- civil wars and failed states -ex. Congo, former Yugoslavia, Samaria -From the outside-no recognition between members and international states - ex. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia -Over borders- ex. Plainstan and Israeli conflict 7. Realpolitan: politics of reality based on practical rather than moral/ideology considerations -conservative -every state acts on their own interest 8. Security Dilemma: how can we increase our security without threating others? -each state must take measure to provide its own defense (self-help) 1) Constant fear and insecurity- because any state at any time may use fear, all states must constantly be ready either to counter force or pay the cost of weaknesses- Waltz 2) Actor A seems to increase security by buying weapons, building a defense wall and gaining allies. Actor B fears Actor A, improved position and enhanced sense of insecurity 3) Actor B is now forced invest in weapons, defensive means and allies rd st 4) Outcome: A and B are both insecure in 3 phase as they were in 1 phase but only poorer Ex. Reading: Isareli activity looked offensive to Arab countries during 1948 9. Rational Choice- whatever your goal is good or bad, the process through which you’re reasoning will translate into possible outcomes -Preferences: based on all available actions, the actor has a clear order of preferences over all possible outcomes- expected utility -outcome needs to be rational all across level of analysis -IR: going to war makes sense for the state; individuals going to mar might not be rational 10. Game Theory: used as an approach for analyzing the outbreak of a war -models social interaction as a game -each game as a certain structure based on actor’s preferences -each actor choses a move; order all possible outcomes and the payoffs of all outcomes – payoffs= ordinal, non-ordinal – higher payoffs are preferable -if we know the structure of the gave actor preferences, we can predict behaviour - reading Russet Bruce 11. Nash Equilibrium- John F. Nash -a pair of strategies for which neither players gain by changing his/her own strategy - requires mutual trust -Solve coordination games- communication, share ideas about solutions power, agenda - Rules- institutions—solutions= stable 12. Prisoner’s Dilemma: game in which mutual cooperation (CC) is not stable -dominate strategy for both players to defect (DD) -this leads to individually rational but collectively suboptimal outcome -In IR often used to resemble the features of anarchy or security dilemma - Ex. Reading Russet Bruce: US and Soviet Union during Cold war- each superpower has 2 options- - To arm (defect) or restrain (cooperate) - An arms race (detect-detect) – both could have been better off if they maintained military Balance (cooperate- cooperate) 13. Chicken Game: a game with 2 Nash equilibrium (swerve, straight) or (straight, swerve) - No dominate strategy- difficult to predict what opponent would do -Actors want to do opposite what the opponent does in order to avoid worst possible outcome (straight, straight) -a game of brinkmanship and high risk -brinkmanship: who will give in -rationality of irrationality -IR: nuclear deterrence standoff (Cold war) - Ex. Cuban Missile Crisis: nuclear war would be the worse result for both countries- no winner, both would be left worse off – Goal was to make opponent swerve . 14. Tit for Tat: players are most likely to cooperate if they expect to play more times -Players develop reputations- ex. If a player is known for defection others are also likely to defect -Cooperate after the opponent cooperates; defect after opponent defects- most successful - People can be taught joint rewards and care about others- unless you are a realist - Not ideal- can always lead to defection over again -critique: finite games- end of a game- someone’s defected -iteration game- actors can meet again 15. Cooperation Theory: 2 key requirements: cooperation based on reciprocity (mutually) and shadow of the future -mutually stable -cooperation can protect itself once established -people don’t have to be rational: evolutionary process allows the successful strategies to thrive, even if players don’t know how -no need to assume trust -To be stable, future has a large shadow- importance of the next encounter between the same 2 must be great to erase defection -Ex. Perl Harbour –occasionally a political leader gets the idea cooperation with a major power should not be required because it will derive them to bankruptcy -Japanese desperate gamble of Perl Harbor was a response to powerful American economic sanctions at steeping Japes intervention with China 16. Zero sum Game: One side gains- other side loses -fundamental mistake in IR to think most conflict in this way -when rational pursuit of individual gains results in outcome neither side wants, it may be still possible to resolve these conflicts of interest by appealing to mutual benefit 17.Just War Theory: middle approach: accepts war but distinguish in war more or less just or unjust Just AD Bellum: 5 reasons – (just cause (self defense ), last resort, proportionally- gaining and losing- rational , declaration by legal authority, is the war winnable? Just in Bello- conduct of war (discrimination between soldiers and citizens , proportionally- distinguish between initiative effects, campaign objectives, military) Just Post Bellum: justice after war 18. Counter value vs. counter force: counter force- strikes aimed at weapons -Counter value- strikes aimed at cities 19. MAD(Mutually Assured Destruction: each side is supposed to deter from a nuclear war -Movie:Dr. Strangelove – Cold war -Doomsday machine illustrates the concept of MAD -Second strike capabilities -nuclear trinity: Bombers, ICBMS and SLBMS 20. Monadic vs. Dyadic -Monadic: something unique about a democracy -Dyadic: only the interaction of 2 democracies generates the phenomenon Part 2: Short Essay: Readings Theories of International Politics and Zombies -relevant assumptions about zombie behaviour -zombies only desire human flesh, do not eat other zombies -cannot be killed unless their brain is destroyed -Any human bite by zombies will become one -“Government of any type are no more than a collection of human beings” -Central Question: “what would different theories of IR predict would happen if zombies started to roam earth? -different IR theories provide different possible outcomes Realism: predicts an eventual live and let live arrangement between undead and everyone else Liberalism: prediction of a useful anti-zombie regime Constructivist: first steps towards a world state -International organizations would eventually adapt and overcome The Realpoltik of the Living Dead -All realists have a common assumption that anarchy is predominant constraint of world politics- every actor must take “self-help” measures to ensure their existences -for realists, primary actors are those that guarantee their contrive states -Realists are very skeptical about the ability of international institutions -States consider the distribution of gains and strive for relative gains -Interested- maximizing security -Zombies- IR would largely be unaffected -Realist paradigm- human beings have an involve lust for power -Both zombies and realists would engage in strategic opportunism to advance in their interests of anarchy The Liberal Peace and the Regulation of the Living Dead -common belief that cooperation is possible in a world of anarchy-non-zero game -avoid the costs that come with mutual defection -Democracies more likely to cooperate with each other – similar preferences = making it easier -members of international agreements -Institution promotes growth and multilateral cooperation -Long-lasting abolition of zombies is unlikely -while humans will adopt to zombie norms simply to survive, over time these actions will being to form their identity Bureaucratic Politics -Politics, standard operating procedures and conventional modes of thinking would no doubt predominate until such strategies failed to prevent zombies from achieving their goal- feasting upon organs of the living Lecture Info: Realism and Liberalism Realist team: Carr and Bismorck: realism and Realpolitk, Hobbes and Machivallie Hobbes (Leviathan 1651) -the state of nature is a “war of every man against every man. Life is solitary, poor, nasty and brutish and short -Right of nature- the right to secure one’s survival -the solution for the Hobbesian state of nature is the Leviathan (state) Logic of Hobbes Argument: -Argument 1: man is selfish, hedonist- only goal is for himself (state of nature) - All people are equal, rational, possessing passionate level of survival (right of nature)- -Argument 2: creation of Leviathan enforces stability- gets ultimate authority and a monopoly over the use of violence -morality, justice and properly social constructs imposed by state and exist only so long as the state is strong enough to impose them – tools for maintain stability -Law is dependent on power – Legal Positivism: justice is whatever the law says it is Bull’s Domestic Analogy: -Anarchy does not mean chaos- it means the absence of the government -the international level lacks leviathan therefore resembles the Hobbesian state of nature -the domestic analogy is the idea that state are society of individuals- the analogy makes the presumption that relations between people and relation between states are the same -power and conflict threatens the structure of society Implications of Anarchy- “without a leader” -The absence of a higher governing authority beyond the state- - does not mean chaos and lack of order -Survival, self-help- moral under anarchy - contest potential for violence -life is solitary, poor, brutish and short- state of nature (Hobbes) -very limited potential for cooperation - No Leviathan= no room for moral considerations Melan Dialogue: Athens vs. people of Melos -the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel the fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept Machiavelli: -at this time religion was heavily influenced politics have its own laws -understanding human nature is key to understanding politics: humans are selfish and evil, power prevails over reason -the sole aim is to seek power regardless of religion or ethical consideration Modern Realism: Moregthan emphasis on Power politics -what is power-man’s control over the minds and actions of the other man -how can you measure power- Tanks, military, population, production -social inducting of power- education, rate of tax collection and corruption Neorealism: Waltz theory of International Politics -Anarchy is constant -distribution of power is not constant (only major power matters) -under anarchy different distributions of power lead to different patterns of behaviour -Different Distribution of Power- uni-polariry, biopolairty, multipolarity and quasibiporality Summary: -IR is an objective field where events are governed by universal laws -the state is most important actor and it is a rational unitary actor -international system is anarchic -states to seek maximize security/power- national interest -the distribution of power is important for understanding IR - States sometimes uses force to achieve their objectives -Traditional realist- human nature Structural realist- anarchy is constant Liberalism: Team: Locke, Smith, Kant and Wilson -for liberals, institutions solve the problem of anarchy -right exist independent of power -questions morality and ethics -Progress is possible -qualities of the institutions affect the stability of the solution John Locke- Social Contract -2 treaties of government -State of nature- anarchy but not Hobbes – war of every man against every man – unstable -The state as a solution- protecting natural right (life, liberty and poverty) -promote general well being -the state loses its legitimacy if it fails to do so -The people still matters- the state is just a mirror of the desires and will of the civil society Immanuel Kant -Rejects realism- the separation between the moral imperative and political realm – Machavelli - Pertpual Peace- following self-interest leads to pertpual peace -There is an unavoidable progress towards world federation- we have the obligations as rational human beings to speed up process -Peace comes with democracy, economic and social interaction -conditions to solve anarchy, to reach peace: -the civil constitution of every state should be republican -world federation should be established -Economic and social interaction across borders should be encouraged Adam Smith: -trade will increase the cost of war and thus create incentive for minimizing violence -people are rational profit maximizers : an increase trade will let them not go to war Wilson-14 points -absolute freedom of navigation and removal of economic barriers -establish of equal trade -self-determination and collective security Neoliberalism: what structure conditions favour cooperation Kehane – scientific liberalism -Absolute vs. Relative gains – neoliberalism vs neorealism -Self-interest- try to look for moral structure conditions that would induce cooperation without relying on assumptions regarding human nature, morality of natural rights -Institutions- we can deduct behaviour based on the structure of institutions -Ex. Distributions Summary: -Actors are rational and follow self interest -private interest does not contradict collective interest- self-interest is in harmony with collective goal -actors would prefer to avoid conflict if it affects their prosperity and well-being (absolute gains) -right kind of institutions (international organizations, democracy) can avoid conflict by better reflecting the collective will- the absence of institutions can allow conflict to continue Reading: Making and Remaking the World of IR Application to Real World Cases -Emergence and Strengthen the European Union -Constant rivalry and war in history of Euro until 1945- 2 world wars -Growing Union of Western Europe States from presence of threat-Soviet Empire- Union grew Strong as threat subsided -Realism: national rivalries that led to destruction in early 20 C Have not disappeared -Liberalism: Real issue is economic benefits EU provided members- EU will persist because of its Facilitates economic cooperation by supplying avenues of communication But not influence fundamental nature of European states/interactions -US policy towards South African Apartheid -Permissive US stance toward apartheid driven by perceived communist threat- economic Benefits of supporting regime -oppressed people who suffered under apartheid suddenly became more powerful and led to change the US policy in mid 1980s Chemical Weapon Ban -Argument 1: Chemical weapons are taboo because they are not useful weapons of war -Counter Argument: they have great utility and would have been very useful in many situations since WW1 -Argument 2: states do not use chemical weapons because it is inhumane -Counter: is dying by an acid worse than blowing up Kenneth Waltz- Images of War -framework of why we get to war -similar to level of analysis First Image- Human Nature- psychological needs and deficiencies we all possess by virtue of our genetic make up -Corresponds with first level of analysis -Locus of the causes of war in nature and behaviour of man - War was a result of misdirected aggressive impulses from stupidity -Extreme Belief- biological influences on behaviour very powerful -Moderate Belief-for humans’ environmental stimuli players’ greater role - Ethology cannot provide explanations of human nature explaining forging policy behaviour -we share same human nature but some societies are more peaceful than others. Eg. Scandinavia- Sweden no war since conflict with Russia -Relative Depracvaion- Eg. Pre WW Germany desire to gain great power -feelings can arise because of one’s past, present or future conditions
More Less

Related notes for POL208Y1

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


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.