Chapter 5 outline.docx

12 Pages
Unlock Document

Political Science
Leslie Johns

World Politics Chapter 5 – International Institutions and War – Outline I. Introduction a. No police force or authoritative institutions above states with an independent force that can police relations among them b. Variation in international responses i. Explore the institutions hat govern and how outside actors respond c. Collective security organizations are the closest thing the world has to a world government i. Alliances between sates are more like neighborhood associations of small groups of actors who work together ii. Influence whether or not outsiders will intervene in the event of war iii. Play a role in the bargaining that precedes and tries to end conflict d. Key ideas i. Alliances form when states have common interests that lead them to cooperate militarily 1. They are institutions created between or among states to facilitate cooperation for the purpose of influencing the outcomes of disputes with outsiders ii. Alliances are successful when allies have a strong interest in coming to one another’s aid in the event of war, and when they are able to signal this interest to the opponent in a credible manner iii. Collective security organizations form around a common interest, which all states are presumed to share, in promoting peace 1. As broad-based institutions, their primary role is to facilitate collective action with the international community so that states can respond effectively to prevent or stop the outbreak of violence whenever and wherever it may occur iv. Collective security organizations are successful when leading states perceive a common and compelling interest in stopping an act of aggression; they fail when leading states have conflicting interests in the outcome of a particular dispute or when they have too little in the matter to justify the costs of intervention II. Alliances: Why Promise to Fight Someone Else’s War? a. Alliances and Alignments i. Alliances – institutions that help their members cooperative militarily in the event of war 1. Specify of behavior or expectations of states under certain conditions 2. Can include provisions for monitoring and verifying compliance 3. Provisions can vary due to needs of the allies 4. Offensive alliance – an agreement by which states pledge to join one another in attacking a third state a. Example: Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact 5. Defensive alliance – more common, in which allies pledge to defend each other against any and all attackers a. Typically require states to come to one another’s aid militarily b. Example: NATO (defense policy aiding US first implemented after 2001 attacks) 6. Alliances include bargaining over how much and what each state will provide a. Sometimes symmetric contributions ii. Alliances form due to common interests that motivate states to cooperate 1. Due to having a stake in other countries’ disputes 2. Example: US providing aid in fear of Soviet influence iii. Balance of power – a situation in which the military capabilities of two states or groups of states are roughly equal 1. Power imbalances are considered threatening to the interests of a weaker state 2. Common interests are thus the result of a common threat posed by the power of a stronger state 3. This idea does not fully account for alliance formation a. Not all form with the intent of balancing a stronger state iv. Bandwagoining – a strategy in which states join forces with the stronger side in a conflict 1. Example: Soviet Union allying itself with Germany during WWII 2. These types of alliances are often offensive fueled by a desire to cooperate for a common gain v. States can often choose many potential partners vi. Decisions are sometimes made due to ideological and religious compatibility 1. Example: Saudi Arabia not allying with Israel against Egypt vii. Not all strong powers provoke similar balancing responses 1. Today there is no marked tendency toward creating balancing alliances 2. People may see the US as a bully but do not see the country as a threat to their interests b. How Alliances Establish Credibility i. Success in furthering interests by willingness to fight on one another’s behalf depends on signaling this willingness in a credible manner ii. For successful alliances: 1. Make it more likely allies will fight for each other a. Done by decreasing costs of fighting b. Increasing benefits of fighting 2. Alliances must lead adversaries to believe that allies will attack together 3. End goal: heighten interests in aiding and influence rival state by shaping its expectations iii. Lower costs of fighting by joint planning of military operations 1. Publically revealed to signal potential adversaries iv. Alliances increase costs of abandonment 1. Public commitments to alliances and a lack of adherence to them can damage credibility 2. Considered a hand-tying strategy v. States are more likely to violate commitments due to changes in interstate power or domestic regimes c. Why Aren’t Alliance Commitments Ironclad? i. Ironclad alliances deter challenges to the weaker party 1. Enhance the risk that the weaker party will demand more of the target ii. Recall, alliances have two effects 1. Lower the chance an opposing state will win a war among allied states 2. Strengthens an allied state’s bargaining range against an adversary iii. In bargaining, allies may fear becoming entrapped by reckless allies 1. Limit this effect by limiting their commitments 2. Ironclad agreements are thus rarely made in favor of ambiguous agreements that give themselves some discretion 3. Example: US defending Taiwan enough to deter China from going to war while not giving Taiwan enough confidence that it can go to war with China and win with US support 4. US practices strategic ambiguity iv. There is a tradeoff between credibility of an alliance and efforts to control alliance partners d. The Success and Failure of Alliances in Europe: 1879-1990 1. Alliances for states’ interests are aligned to an extent where they may be willing to fight for each other ii. Success and failure depends on 1. Strength of common interests 2. Ability to alter members’ preferences so that fighting is preferred to abandonment 3. Effectiveness of alliance in convincing adversaries 4. Ability of partners to limit entrapment iii. Pre-World War I: Two Armed Camps 1. Alliance formation before the war was mainly due to Germany’s rapid growth complimented by growing international ambitions 2. Triple Alliance formed between Germany, Austria- Hungary, and Italy 3. As a response to worsening relations, Russia began its search for allies against Germany 4. Franco-Russian alliance in 1894 5. Due-Entente between Britain and France in 1907 6. Became the Triple Entente with Russia the same year 7. Instead of being a stable balance in power between two camps, the situation created the possibility of some small conflict starting a war 8. Why the system would probably lead to war a. Preventive and preemptive incentives b. Germany feared Russia’s growing power c. Schlieffen Plan of Germany, fighting a two front war d. High stake balance made each state dependent on its allies for security i. Explains Germany’s blank check to Austria- Hungry after the threat from Serbia e. Number of states involved magnified possibility of miscalculations f. Biggest uncertainty was Britain’s reaction if war were to occur i. Even if it was in the Triple Entente, many wondered if Britain would actually be willing to go to war (particularly, Germany) iv. The Interwar Period, 1919-1939 1. Europe states hoped other states would bear the cost of containing Germany after the war 2. No formal alliances were made until Germany’s growing power was imminent 3. Treaty of Locarno in 1925, Britain pledged aid to Belgium and France a. Tested when Hitler moved into Rhineland in 1936 with no resistance from Britain 4. France made alliances with Germany’s neighbors a. Most of the French forces were being defensive though, positioned along the state’s frontier 5. France and Britain conformed to Hitler in 1938 when he seized Sudetenland 6. Hitler exploited weak alliances that were not backed by sufficient resolve or capabilities v. The Cold War: The “Long Peace” in Europe, 1945-1990 1. No wars among major European nations 2. Two camps formed after WWII 3. North Atlantic Treaty Organization – alliance formed in 1949 among the US, Canada, and most states of Western Europe in response to the threat posed by the Soviet Union a. Alliance requires members to consider an attack on any one of them as an attack on all 4. Warsaw Pact – a military alliance formed in 1955 to bring together the Soviet Union and its Cold War allies in Eastern Europe and elsewhere a. Dissolved in March 1991 5. West Germany with NATO and East Germany with Warsaw Pact th 6. Two bloc system like that seen earlier in the 20 century differed from previous alliances that led to war a. System was dominated by two superpowers i. Thus, less scope for miscalculation ii. Neither superpower would be as threatened by the loss of an ally b. Highly institutionalized nature i. Each alliance included a dense set of relationships on a military, economic, and political level ii. Berlin Brigade of 7,000 troops in West Berlin iii. Military presence was a hand-tying strategy with an effort to ensure American commitment to NATO III. Collective Security: Why Can’t the United Nations Keep the Peace? a. Woodrow Wilson i. Believed in a prewar pattern of major powers jockeying for advantage against one another ii. Alliance did not prevent wars, they only caused them to spread into larger events iii. League of Nations – a collective security organization founded in 1919 after World War I. The League ended in 1946 and was replaced by the United Nations 1. UN formed in 1945 iv. Collective security organizations – broad-based institutions that promote peace and security among their members 1. Examples: League of Nations and United Nations 2. Different from alliances because they form due to a common interest in preventing war and aggression 3. Forbid the use of military force of one member against another 4. Intended to deter would-be aggressors in the first place v. CSOs have also sought to prevent violence within states 1. As time progress, pressure to expand its scope to deal with violations of human rights 2. Genocide – intentional and systematic killing aimed at eliminating an identifiable group of people, such as an ethnic or religious group vi. Membership of CSOs is very universal on the presumption of universal interests in peace and security b. How Does Collective Security Work? i. In theory 1. Mechanism is triggered when one state attacks or threatens to attack another 2. If seen as an act of aggression, all members of the organization are called on to act against the state that has committed the action 3. Such an action can range from economic sanctions to military intervention a. With such an expectation from the international community, states should be reluctant to continue such behavior 4. Also provide services to prevent violence a. Offer mediators for bargains and provide peacekeeping troops ii. Presence can influence bargaining interaction 1. Prospect of outside involvement makes war less appealing 2. Can help resolve commitment problems by ensuring enforcement a. Weaker state can feel less threatened when it can count on others to enforce commitments b. I.e. state made more powerful by the deal can more credibly commit to not exploiting its new power 3. Play a positive role in promoting peace by serving as neutral observers and peacekeepers a. Diminish first-strike advantages b. Relevant in cases where disarmament agreements have been violated in the past c. The Dilemmas of Collective Security i. Collective action problems face organization when discussing intervention 1. Due to organizations not having power to tax or raise and field military forces a. They are wholly dependent on their members to provide troops, funds, etc. 2. Members who contribute face costs and risks associated with sending troops a. Consider free-ride effect where non contributing members experience benefits 3. UN peacekeeping missions are often underfunded and undermanned relative to mandates due to temptation to free ride ii. Another challenge is joint-decision making 1. Members need to able to determine which acts constitute a threat and what actions to make as a response 2. Not always straightforward since use of force in self- defense is permitted a. Since most states justify military force as acts of self-defense, it becomes difficult in deciphering acts of aggression from those that are in self defense iii. Interpreting actions 1. Determining if an act merits international response is influenced by mixed interests of member states 2. Unity under peace only goes so far a. Universal membership may result in members of conflicting interests b. Resu
More Less

Related notes for POL SCI 20

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.