Readings sem 1 .docx

15 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto St. George
Political Science
Lilach Gilady

Readings Menu of Choice – Russett  Levels of Analysis are most evident in the Atomic Bomb evenet  Characteristics of Truman as an individual decision maker effected the result as he was inexperienced and unfamiliar with the atomic bomb project and even foreign affairs  Bureaucracies also influenced the decision since they were quick to jump on the band wagon, it is questionable whether even a resistant president could of slowed their interest down  There were also few moral and legal constraints at the time (the primary goal was war needed to be stopped)  International relations also played a role because one of the reasons for the decision was that the US wanted to show off to the USSR Opportunity  constraints + possibilities Willingness  choices despite constraints + possibilities Macro IR = external factors Micro IR = internal factors counterpunch Zombies – Drezner  Zombie is a metaphoric term representing the unknown unknowns such as pandemics, disasters, unconfined threat, time bomb, reoccurring event that can cause catastrophic damage  It is a good metaphor because it acts as a thought experiment to show how events in IR are usually unpredictable and actors must be prepared to deal with extreme situations, even ones where it is either zombies take over, or we extinct them  Since there is no prior history there could be no reference for analysis on how to act therefore it is a threat to the entire world system Realism  To ensure existence only interested in self-help — national interest  Main concern is deterring external influences  Would build up military to maximize national security, causes smaller more susceptible nations to stir up fear  If invasion occurred – not all states would suffer equally because of the unequal distribution of power  States would use the epidemic to expand and gain power  More likely to cooperate with zombies than humans because zombies don’t have conflicting interests. H= power, Z= flesh (no same interests) Neo Cons  Quick response with aggressive military action to ensure hegemony  Defensive, encouraging revolutions against threat Liberals  Optimistic about a solution  Unilateral defection is the best scenario  But because they advocate for open economies, the issue becomes borderless  But at the same time info also spreads more quickly in this perspective Constructivists  might be reluctant to violate any norms that could ostracize them in international community  all unite to fight zombies  only promote narratives that suggest organization not panic in the situation  socialize zombies = comformity Constraints  public opinion  exec vs. leg  hostility towards country of origin = outcasted  because the instance is constantly increasing in severity, need to act as quickly as possible if not other interest groups with get involved only complicated the decision making process further Conclusion Standard operating procedures = useless in this situation Need flatter hierarchies in organizational structures so info can travel faster Realism = coexistence Liberals = Imperfect but useful anti- zombie regime Constructivists = global unity forms to fight foreign identity = 1 world state Jervis – Understanding The Bush Doctrine 4 elements 1. states domestic regime effects how they will act – he wanted to implement democracy in Iraq which he used to justify invasion/war 2. Threats can be defected by preventative war 3. Act unilaterally when necessary- okay to not consult smaller powers in certain situations 4. American Hegemony – US empire = Us able to act in ways that may be unacceptable to other powers because it is a super power Drezner- Does Obama have a Grand Strategy What is a grand strategy>  clear articulation of national interests married to a set of operational plans for advancing them. Sometimes actions follow in sequence, other times GS are offered to connect past policies with future ones.  Drezner argues that GS don’t matter until times of uncertainty when they can guide actors and signal to the international community courses of action  For a policy to matter it has to indicate a change in policy, but they are often more talk than action because policies are slow to change  Looking at the pas (lack of involvement post WW1, overextension in Vietnam war , Iraq war) has not really changed the trajectory for the US  Reasons for change in policy = domestic rejuvenation, US reputation revamping, under Bush the country had overextended itself in global affairs 1. multilateral retrenchment to limit US oversea commitments as to shift burden onto other global partners 2. counterpunching to strengthen allies  Was not completely upfront about these intended strategies because he didn’t want to say that Bush was wrong Ba & Hoffman – Constructivism  Here is the take-home message. Constructivism is an approach to world politics that facilitates explaining change in a dynamic international system. It can do this because it focuses on three things. _ The power of ideas in defining ranges of action in world politics. _ The importance of identity in defining what actors want. _ The importance of the cyclical relationship between actors’ interests, identities, and behavior and the social context in which they exist.  Taken together, these insights help us to understand how the world and world  politics is constructed for both good and ill. Permissiveness of anarchy –Constructivists answer this question by arguing that the logic of anarchy at the heart of realist treatments is not set in stone. In a seminal article Alexander Wendt makes the claim that anarchy, rather than being characterized by an unchanging logic, is what states make of it (Wendt, 1992). In essence, this means that anarchy is merely a permissive condition. Fit lacks an inherent logic. Whether anarchy forces states to be insecure and suspicious, or whether it allows states to be cooperative  And friendly depends on the social interactions that states have.  Interplay between actors and social context  World shapes who actors are and the interests of actors Example EU  Realists and liberals (see the EU as a system to deal with anarchy) have trouble explaining the success of the EU  Realists = it should come to a downfall because ultimately the rivals from the th early 20 century divided empires still exits  Liberals = the EU is an institution to benefit the economy  But these don’t explain why the EU has been so successful and why they entered the 20 century as rival empires and ended it as a borderless, single currency region.  Yet an increase in security was not the only result of the activities that began at the close of World War II. The Western European powers began to change their behavior toward more cooperative relations.  Sustained cooperative interaction over time led to habits of cooperation, consultation, and community. States in Western Europe began to treat each other as friends. This altered the nature of anarchy. States in Western Europe made anarchy into a cooperative structure to the point of eliminating borders between them. Carter – Rape as a Weapon of War  1998 ICC deemed rape and forced prostitution as war crimes  but its not enough to say these are just war crimes because they are done deliberately and follow many of the criteria that IR scholars use to judge war weapons o effects large population o security threat/ statescraft o zero sums game o measurable o real/ physical o follows patterns and regulations o a threat, use, and control tactic strategically implemented by a military  It abides to positivism (rationalist) theories like neoliberals and neoconservative  Consider the myth of protection, men going to war to protect women  But these heroic men are now the perpetrators and it creates a double powerlessness for women because they need men to protect them from other men  But its not strictly a women’s issue it effects women and children as well Russett, Starr, Kinsella – The Menue for Choice The security dilemma  because of anarchy states are forced into a situation of self help. They are driven to awuire more nad more power in order t escape the power of others. This creates a cycle of security and power accumulation. But how much is enough? Never fully safe The prisoner’s dilemma works like this: 2 prisoners are arrested for an armed robbery and ar questioned separately. In the case where both cooperate and don’t tell on each other thye will do 1 year in jail. If both confess= 7 years in jail. If one confesses and testifies against the other they will go free while the other will serve 10 years in jail. However the same options are open to the other prisoner. Hence the socially optimal outcome for the prisoners is if they both don’t tell. And the best individual outcome is if they cnfess ad testify against the other. Point of equilibrum is if both prisoners defect. The dilemma is that the equilibrum outcome is not the same as the social optimal.  the game is based on precieved preferences since you can never know forsure what the other side wants to do = perceptual dilemma Example: the US and USSR during cold war, it would have been best for both sides to not build a hydrogen bomb but both could not risk having the other build one, so both built a hydrogen bomb. – proves you can lose if fail to trust other side but you can lose even more if you misplace your trust  the ending of the cold war meant that the game changed because eventually the US changed their preference because they got sick of the arms race  changed to mutual cooperation, but to achieve this one side had to sacrifice so that the other power could see the incentive to cooperate. This allowed for a stable equilibrium so that there was no longer an incentive to defect = assurance game  players are more likely to cooperate if they know the game will be played again so that reputations can develop to make the players behavior more predictable Zero Sum game  one side’s gain equal the other side’s loss.Fundamental mitake in international relations to think of most conflicts this way. When rational pursuit of individual gain results in an outcome neither side wants, it may still be possible to resolve these conflicts of interest by appealing to prospect of mutual benefit, o to fear mutual demise Deterrence  each side only ahs second strike capability  also the reason why the cold war didn’t escalade is because both sides did not have first strike capability  first strike – one can attack and destroy other’s retaliatory capability while suffering acceptable damages. Thus it is more tempting to make the attack  second strike – is to absorb a first strike and still retaliate causing unacceptable damage Chicken (Brinkmanship)  two youth
More Less

Related notes for POL208Y1

Log In


Don't have an account?

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.