Week 4 Handout

PS 140 Handout for Week 3 & 4 Week of September 23rd, 2024 Lectures 4, 5, 6, & 7 Chapters 1.4.3, 2.1-2.5 & Poast, Morgenthau, Walt Chapters 3.1-3.6, 4.1-4.2 & Podcast, Walt, Beauchamp Key terms and concepts Realism • Definition: A broad intellectual tradition that explains internation relations in terms of power. • Example & other details: Morgenthau: Believes that human’s innate interest to maximize their own power is the cornerstone of IR. Power • Definition: The ability or potential to influence others’ behavior, as measured by the possession of certain tangible and intangible characteristics. • Example & other details: Relative Power • Definition: The power a state possesses in comparison to other states, rather than in absolute terms. • Example & other details: Anarchy • Definition: A term that implies not complete chaos but the lack of a central government that can enforce rules. • Example & other details: Security Dilemma • Definition: A situation in which actions that states take to ensure their own security (such as deploying more military forces) are perceived as threats to the security of other states. • Example & other details: Balance of Power • Definition: The general concept of power of one or more states being used to balance that of another state or group of states. The term can refer to (1) any ratio of power capabilities between states or alliances, (2) a relatively equal ratio, or (3) the process by which counterbalancing coalitions have repeatedly formed to prevent one state from conquering an entire region. • Example & other details: Neorealism • Definition: A version of realist theory that emphasizes the influence on state’s behavior of the system’s structure, especially the international distribution of power. • Example & other details: Polarity (unipolar vs. bipolar vs. multipolar) • Definition: The distribution of power within the international system, characterized by how many major power centers dominate global politics o Unipolarity: A system where one state holds the most power and dominates others economically and politically (Hegemon). o Bipolarity: A system where two major powers dominate the global stage. o Multipolarity: A system where multiple states hold significant power, leading to a balance among several great powers. • Example & other details: Hegemony • Definition: The holding by one state of a preponderance of power in the international system so that it can single-handedly dominate the rules and arrangements by which international political and economic relations are conducted. • Example & other details: Alliance • Definition: A formal agreement between two or more states to cooperate for specific purposes, typically for defense, security, or mutual benefit in times of conflict. • Example & other details: Defensive alliances, offensive alliances, non-aggression pacts, neutrality agreements. Deterrence • Definition: The threat to punish another actor if it takes a certain negative actions (especially attacking one’s own state or one’s allies) • Example & other details: Mutually assured destruction (MAD) Rationality (rational actor) • Definition: Actors conceived of as single entities that can “think” about their actions coherently, make choices, identify their interests, and rank the interests in terms of priority. • Example & other details: Unitary actor • Definition: This model assumes that a state acts as a single, cohesive entity with a unified national interest. • Example & other details: Liberal Institutionalism • Definition: • Example & other details: Liberal Internationalism • • Definition: A theory that emphasizes the role of international institutions in promoting cooperation among states. Example & other details: Democratic Peace • Definition: The proposition, strongly supported by empirical evidence, that democracies almost never fight wars against each other (although they do fight against authoritarian states). • Example & other details: International Organizations • Definition: Entities created by multiple countries to work on common issues that cross national boundaries. • Example & other details: UN, WHO, EU Relative Gains Critique • Definition: Criticizes liberal institutionalism’s focus on absolute gains in international cooperation. • Example & other details: States, from a realist perspective, may reject cooperation if it results in unequal benefits, even if they would gain, due to fears of increasing the power of a potential rival. Logic of Consequences • Definition: The concept that decisions are made by weighing costs and benefits. • Example & other details: Logic of Appropriateness • Definition: The concept where actors make decisions based on norms, rules, or what is socially considered appropriate, rather than purely outcome-driven rationality. • Example & other details: Norms • Definition: The shared expectations about what behavior is considered proper. • Example & other details: Constructivism • Definition: A theory that emphasizes the role of ideas, norms, identities, and social interactions in shaping international politics. • Example & other details: Sovereignty: • Definition: A state’s right, at least in principal, to do whatever it wants within its own territory; traditionally, sovereignty is the most important international norm. • Example & other details: Discussion 1. What is power? What different types of power do we talk about in IR? Give examples of each. • Military Power: The capability to use armed forces – The US military presence around the worlds acts as a deterrent against potential aggressors. • Economic Power: The ability to leverage economic resources for influence – Sanctions imposed on Russia by Western countries post-2014 for its actions in Ukraine. • Soft Power: The ability to shape preferences through attraction rather than coercion – The cultural influence of Hollywood and US technology companies around the globe. • Hard Power: Direct coercive means such as military intervention or economic sanctions – The US invasion of Iraq in 2003. • Structural Power: The ability to shape the frameworks within which states operate – The influence of the US and EU in setting global trade standards. 2. What are some important critiques of realist theory? Can you think of real-world examples that contradict or challenge realist predictions about IR? • Overemphasis on State-Centricity: Realism often neglects non-state actors and transnational issues – The rise of terrorist organizations like ISIS challenges the idea that state sovereignty guarantees security. • Neglect of Ideational Factors: Realism downplays the role of ideology and domestic politics – The Arab Spring uprisings highlighted the influence of popular movements and public sentiment. • Deterministic Views on Power: Realism suggests power dynamics are unchanging, which overlooks shift due to globalizations or technological advancements – Cybersecurity threats from non-state actors challenge traditional power structures. 3. Inasmuch as democracies almost never fight wars against each other, do existing democracies have a national security interest in seeing democratization spread to China and other authoritarian states? If so, how can that interest be reconciled with the longstanding norm of noninterference in the internal affairs of other sovereign states? • Yes, democracies may have a national security interest in promoting democratization as stable democracies are less likely to engage in conflict with one another. To reconcile this with noninterference norms, democracies would: o Promote Democratic Values Diplomatically: Engage in conversation and support civil society initiatives without direct interference. o Utilize International Organizations: Work through organizations like the UN to support democratic governance, framing it as a global security concern rathr than unilateral interference. 4. What variables supposedly “cause” the “peace” in democratic peace theory? • Shared norms: Democracies have common values and norms that promote peaceful conflict resolution. • • Institutional Constraints: Democratic institutions limit leaders’ ability to go to war easily due to the need for public support and legislative approval. Economic Interdependence: Democracies often engage in trade with one another, creating mutual benefits that disincentivizes conflict. 5. Uncertainty about costs and benefits of an action can complicate foreign policy decision making. What are the sources of uncertainty in IR? Can decision makers take steps to reduce that uncertainty? • Incomplete Information: Lack of reliable data on other states’ intentions or capabilities. • Complex Interdependence: Multiple actors and issues complicate the potential consequences of decisions. • Dynamic Environments: Rapid changes in global politics can alter the landscape suddenly. • To reduce uncertainty, decision-makers can: • Enhance Intelligence Gathering: Invest in intelligence capabilities to obtain more accurate information. • Engage in Diplomacy: Build relationships and open lines of communication to clarify intentions. • Scenario Planning: Develop multiple strategic scenarios to prepare for various outcomes. 6. Traditionally, foreign policy elites have faced only sporadic pressure from mass public opinion. Is the role of television and the Internet changing this relationship? If you were a top foreign policymaker, what steps could you take to keep TV news and online blogs from shaping the foreign policy agenda before you could define your own goals and directions? • Yes, television and the Internet have amplified public opinion’s influence on foreign policy, making it more immediate and pervasive. As a policymaker, you could: • • • Develop a Strategic Communication Plan: Preemptively communicate policy goals and rationales through official channels. Engage with Influencers: Work with social media influencers and respected figures to promote accurate narratives and counter misinformation. Leverage Traditional Media: Hold press briefings and provide regular updates to shape the narrative proactively rather than reactively.