anarchy- absence of a sovereign authority willing and able to enforce order.
mutual recognition of internal authority, pledge of non interference in others' domestic affairs. its a self help system in which you provide domestically and maintain security externally.
how states get what they want. can be in the form of brute force, or relational power- ability to get someone else to do something they would not otherwise do through bargaining and negotiation (mutual adjustments), or something other than what you'd do independently, or structural power- ability to effect change due to your place in a system and the structure of the system.
how to measure power
cinc score, which measures brute and relational factors. including military expenditures, military personelle, energy expenditures, total population, urban population, and iron and steel production. the top 3 are us, china, india. not the best way to measure bc over accounts for population and bigness, nuclear weapons not inc or membership on security council.
trade and technology cause the diminution of the state
clash of civilizations
struggles along civilizational lines will characterize most conflicts
new world order
the rise of un and international organizations as the colf war rivalry subsides
struggles between democracies and autocracies or 2 autocracies will characterize conflict.
europe, north america, east asia, will come to dominate international politics.
states will remain dominant
power increased pre war bc dedicating more resources to military, allies- gb, france, us; central- germany. germany got destroyed and us did alright bc war not fought on us soil and us on winning side.
ww2, who, who wins, how long is peace
allies- france, uk, us, sovier union; axis- germany, italy, japan. us does best bc the war wasnt on us soil. 2 yrs after ww1 ends the cold war began
us v soviet union; biggest period of decolonization within great britain and france and japan causing them to have worstened economies, ends w the implosion of the soviet union into 15 countries
post cold war china power
rise in power bc tech, weapons, currency control (econ based), industry and development.
post cold war us power
america's power recently declined bc low population, low steel production due to outsourcing,
when people copy you bc they want to be like you, attractive power.
levels of analysis
show where evidence lies. (parimonious) first image- how leaders will act according to their own interest, second image- gov and structure of the state (domestic politics), third image- system, international politics. (complex)
first level of analysis
the individual. includes discission of human nature, personality, psychology, and bureaucracy- small group that declares war and peace. individuals matter most in instances of concentrated power, dynamic environments, and institutional conflict. critiques- assumes human nature constant, people are necessarily complex, structure overwhelms other factors.
second level of analysis
the state. discusses democracy or autocracy, assumes that internal circumstances within country cause external conflict or external dictates internal, also deals w national culture- theory of auth personality, organizational structure (balance of power in usa)
third level of analysis
all individuals will behave the same way in the same situation, so situation drives war.
walt believes what system is most stable
bipolar, multipolar is risky bc dont know enemy.
anarchy on the supranational level, statism- a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs., and security dilemma- each country increases military, making others feel less safe so they do the same, etc etc upward spiral.
doesn't believe people can be moral --> realistic is safer than idealistic. core concepts- states, goal driven, anarchy, self help , discuss security and war,
politics governed by laws based on human nature, interest in terms of power
individual- hussein evil, hussein irrational, bush vendetta. state- caused by us national security omnipresence, iraq state sponsor terror, oil dependence, weapons proliferation, and progressive democracy in the middle east. system- un enforcement, us unipolarity, humanitarian norms
core concepts- states are goal driven, anarchic, use self help, and are security focused
moregenthau's political realism
objective, identifiable political law; interest defined in terms of power; interest and power not fixed in meaning; inherent tension between moral and political action; no gov/ideology embodies moral law; realism's difference is profound
big action by countries taken to
keep power, acquire power, or demonstrate power
mix all 3 lenses
neo liberalist/ modified structural realist
focus on econ
neo realist (defensive and offensive)
offensive neo lib- international system encourages offensive strategy because anarchism leads to insecurity, and only by being the strongest can a state be secure. defensive neo lib- condition of anarchy is underdetermining. It creates situations in which measures meant to create security, including aggression, increase the insecurity of others, thereby creating a more dangerous situation that encourages others to balance against one and to contemplate first strikes. To gain security in many instances, states are best served by signaling restraint rather than aggression, though aggression may be necessary in some instances.
balanced system according to waltz
unbalanced system according to waltz
unipolarity and multipolarity
what impacts balance of power
structure dictates self help, threat always exsits within power, states seek power as a means to security, balanced systems are stable, unbalanced systems are war prone
coordination game (best if everyone coordinates/defects, worst if no one does or if there's a mix) options- all cooperate and capture stag (best for all), chase rabbit while others cooperate (less food for u) , all chase rabbit (not that many rabbits so not that much food), cooperate while others chase rabbit (cant get stag so hungry)
mixed motive sitation (if u tell and they squeel, they get punished. if neither tells, neither punished. if both tell, medium) security dilemma is an example
security dilemma severe when
offensive and defensive are indistinguishable and in instances of offensive dominance.
mutual aversion (two cars coming at eachother and both counting on other to swerve away)
cooperation more likely in security dilemma when
increase cost of defection and decrease reward for swindling, increase reward for cooperation and decrease cost of swindle, increase expectation both sides will cooperate.
info about defection, ability to focus retaliation on defectors, sufficient will to sanction. comes up a lot in privatization and regimes.
opposition. nothing to cooperate on, to win you both have to loose.
think in terms of power, pessimistic about cooperation among states, esp concerning security. no permanent allies, just permanent interests.
character of states dictates international relations. human nature inherently good, war not inevitable, war caused by inadequate or corrupt social institutions or misunderstandings among leaders, believe war can be gotten rid of through insitutional change and collective action. 3 core assumptions- primacy of societal actors, representation and state preferences, create foreign policy, interdependence and international system.
3 variants of liberalism
liberal pacifism- schumfter says liberal states (democratic and capitalist) are inherently un warlike while imperialists are; liberal imperialism- espoused by macchiavelli, says liberal countries and imperialist and expansionist bc they try expanding their ideas. liberal internationalism says peace will come w democracy. 3 articles for peace- republican constitution, law of nations founded on federation of states, law of world citizenship limited to universal hospitality.
issues w democratic peace hypothesis
how we define democracy not compelling, could be alliances not democratic status, is peace really peace or still conflict but not war? democracies fight covert wars against each other.
what makes people think democracies are peaceful
1. inherently more pacific- widely rejected theory bc democracies go to war w other autocracies. but popular opinion does increase the chances of war prone leaders not being elected. 2. democratic institutions are less warlike with one another bc when power spreads among organization such organizations pull leaders back from conflict. this only works when looking at democracies, checks make it harder for democracies to go to war. this suggests that democracies should be less prone to war w autocracies when democracies are the ones who intitiate war w autocracies. 3. democratic norms- democracies have expectations of other democracies based on domestic policy. 4. foundation for perpetual peace- kant. free trade, democratic government, and international institutions cause perpetial peace bc free trade causes mutual dependence, institutions generate trust, transparency, sanction; and democratic government.
state which allows a significant portion of its population to vote in contested elections with institutions that have been in power for 3 yrs.
non accidental public conflict between 2 recognized states which causes at least 1000 fatalities.
criticisms of democratic peace
spurious relationship, no causal mechanism, definitional problems.