IR Exam 1 Review PDF

Preview

Summary

International relations exam 1 review for Dr. Saladino...

Description

REVIEW SHEET, CHAPTER 1/First Exam POLI-105, INTRO TO IR This list of terms serves as a keyword guide to studying for the exam. It is comprehensive in that it covers all the ideas that may be included on the exam. You should be able to identify and note the significance of each term as it has been applied in the course so far. These terms are taken from lectures, the books, and the online readings. I will not denote the lecture terms, although be careful to note that many lecture and reading materials overlap. Ideas that are from readings are noted by the symbol * and those from the text are noted by +. Again, many of the concepts are universal to all three. If you can identify and provide the significance to these terms you should have NO problems with the exam. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS—IR As subfield of POLITICAL SCIENCE, a SOCIAL SCIENCE Issue areas of IR, or Subfields Security studies + IPE +

Theory Social science theory—seeks to explain social phenomena, NOT PROVE Goal of IR theory · Logic and debate · Solve or predict problems to improve the world · Generalizability, generalize explanations What should theory do? Provide a: · Causal explanation · Use empirical evidence · Work from a solid and coherent core logic: theories must make sense and have a strong core of case evidence to support it Independent variable (X) Dependent variable (Y) Causal chain (causal tale) Causal mechanisms X -> Y X is the first, best, cause Other variables are important, but the independent variable is the essence of cause…what truly produces the dependent outcomes.

PARSIMONY—KNOW THIS What is it? (explain with smallest number of variables; 1 if possible) ● ● ●

In which you have the least amount of variance in the explanation of the outcome. The least amount of independent variables for the one dependent variable. Parsimony- the simplest answer is often the correct answer. We want less variables and variance.

See powerpoint Falsifiability—to falsify a theory—all theories can be falsified, because they are SOCIAL in nature…no laws in social world. Theoretical degeneration—to add to the independent or add more independent variables—hurts the strength of the explanation, hurts parsimony. Trying to explain every case by adding to the independent variable is DEGENERATION.

International system The State – key unit of analysis (what is a state?) Sovereign states, countries, the PRIMARY ACTORS in world politics Anarchy and Sovereignty Anarchy · what is it? No higher authority over a state ● Not necessarily chaos, but the absence of any known authority over the concept of the sovereign state ● No possibility of world gov’t · Difference between international anarchy and domestic politics+

SOVEREIGNTY+ What is it? ● Political and territorial autonomy ● A state is defined by its sovereignty, self-rule

● Sovereignty generally defines statehood When does it appear? · Treaty of Westphalia—1648 official start of sovereign state system (end of 30 Years War) · Is sovereignty the absolute authority in 1648? · Is the concept of the state weak or strong from the beginning? · When does it appear…19th century? · Do all states have it? Is it equal among states?

Levels of analysis What explains or causes outcomes under each level of analysis? Could be seen as “levels of explanation” “Unit” level analyses: Individual Level · First image/level · Great man theory of international relations ● History can be explained by the actions and impact of notable people in history (e.g. Julius Caesar, FDR, Gandhi, etc.) Domestic Level of analysis · Second image/level · State centric—whatever goes on in the state or is attributed to the state is causal · What are the attributes of domestic/state level: domestic politics, regime change, crisis or change WITHIN THE STATE, nationalism—WITHIN THE STATE, ANYTHING THAT IS CENTRAL TO THE STATE—not an individual or something beyond the state Domestic and Individual levels are considered UNIT LEVEL, not STRUCTURE, but UNITS WITHIN THE STRUCTURE Structural or systemic level of analysis · Third image/level · Structures or system wide causes—power, interdependence, etc. more general · “Systems theory” means SYSTEMIC OR STRUCTURAL variables are CAUSALLY/ANALYTICALLY PRIOR to unit level variables. · Structure of any given system is what matters as an independent variable NAU has a different view of levels of analysis. He sees the third image or structural/systemic level as divided into the interstate and global levels. Most scholars do not agree with a 4th or 5th level, instead seeing the international system as a system of all states.

Kenneth Waltz—know this guy! · Waltz notes the levels of causation or analysis · Man, the State, and War · Three “Images” of causation, he favors the 3rd image or systemic level

Actors in international relations States! NON-STATE ACTORS: Multinational corporations Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) International organizations (IOs) Blurred line of state vs. non-state +

HISTORICAL PROGRESSION OF IR (CHAPTER 2 in NAU, only what we discussed in class) Pelopennesian Wars + Thucydides + Treaty of Westphalia 1648 · state system · move from religious to secular “political” units · 30 Years War States not really solid actors until · end of Napoleonic Wars · New organization of Europe First World War + Interwar Period—League of Nations, Depression + Second World War + Cold War + Post Cold War + Post September 11th +* Proxy wars + Geography and Chapter 1 Where are the major states? Where do the wars take place? In other words, look at the maps…get a feel for the world.

Joseph Lepgold * Theory-policy debate * 4 key arguments: 1) IR is composed of many groups beyond this rift 2) institutions support integration 3) Shared goals of these groups and institutions—make better policies based on good assumptions about actors, motivations, etc. HELP THE STATESMEN to HELP THE STATE, which informs theory… 4) Some theories are more helpful Where does Lepgold position scholars and decision-makers (I, II, III, IV) * Are theorists informed by policy? Important question--Bush, Nixon, Kissinger, Rice, Powell, all explicitly informed by, students and professors of IR theory

REVIEW SHEET POLI-105, INTRO TO IR: REALISM This is IR Theory, again: · Logic and empirical evidence · Predictive—good theories should be Theory of Realism generally says: Changes and shifts or “balances” of material power amongst actors in any given system will cause international politics to “happen” (i.e. shifts in relative power cause international relations like war, trade, negotiation, conflict, cooperation, etc.)

Paradigm—general definition: set of practices that define a scientific discipline at any particular period… Realism is a paradigm in 2 ways:

· 1) as a collection of strong theories that share basic assumptions and a independent variable · 2) as the most accepted and critiqued theoretical tradition in IR—the top dog of IR Power – for all realists, for classical realists—matters a lot Relative Power—know what this means!! Measures of Power for realists · material · military, economic · these are the primary measures for realism

Realism – where does it come from? Idealism – not a theory, but an approach or worldview Realists believe biggest problem in IR is—UNCERTAINTY Historical roots of realism · Thucydides, Peloponnesian War (Goldstein) · Sun Tzu · Machiavelli · Hobbes · Bismarck · E H Carr—20 Years Crisis · Hans Morgenthau—Politics Among Nations—First IR theory textbook, still use today Core assumptions of early realists CLASSICAL REALISM 1) states, rational actors 2) states seek to have more power 3) balance of power is key determinant of international politics For classical realists, POWER is an end. It is rooted in the balance of power (systemic) but also in a human/philosophical idea that men lust for power (individuals and states might matter) and this aggregates up to the state; there is something very prudent about classical realism

Classical Realism Power as an end and as a means in classical realism · Morgenthau, “Politics Among Nations” · E H Carr, “The Twenty Years Crisis” States seek power—it is the Preference · lust for power · accept anarchy and the competitive nature of international system · unit level causation is possible—diplomacy, individuals, etc. (but usually systemic) · philosophy and science NEOREALISM Kenneth Waltz “Theory of International Politics” 1979 (neorealism) · This is Waltz’s second contribution to our study! · Introduction of neorealism is a HUGE tweak in the paradigm · More scientific, less about interpreting individuals, intentions, etc. Differences between neorealism vs. classical realism Core assumptions of neorealism (or structural realism): 1) states are still rational unitary actors, under condition of anarchy

2) states don’t seek POWER, they seek SECURITY power is not the preference or the deep interest, it is the MEANS to the end (not an end in itself) 3) the system is ordered by the distribution of material capabilities (balance of power) Balance of Power – distribution of material capabilities Relative Power and zero-sum

Core Assumptions of classical realism SEEK POWER vs Neorealism, seek security Rationality Interest—state interest-- PREFERENCES "Self-help" – realists rely on it Distribution of power—or distribution of material capabilities (IS the independent variable) Neorealism · structural realism—systems theory · rationality and anarchy · unit level is reductionist, all explanation is at the structural or systemic level of analysis · state preferences are fixed—states seek security, not power for neorealist · structure is the key variable Polarity – poles of power determine the configuration of any international system Multipolar system Bipolarity—Cold War Unipolarity today? Kenneth Waltz—Theory of International Politics Waltz and his gang of Neorealists want the least amount of poles of power—bipolar is most stable, or maybe even unipolar (hegemonic)

Important distinction between classical realism and neorealism: prudence vs. automatic scientific nature of neorealism Waltz poses neorealism as a microeconomic theory-theory of firms MUCH MORE SCIENTIFIC, Law-like

Theory is about the system: Units, preferences of the units, and ordering principles: Units of the system--states Preferences of the Units--security Ordering principle of the system · distribution of material capabilities—balance of power · power · HOW states are ranked in the system is a relative measure of power vs. other states in the system. THUS, in a given system, the most powerful states matter the most Walt—on Alliances Two options… Balancing behavior (important) Bandwagoning (important)

FAUX REALISM! · when are they writing—right BEFORE 9/11, Axis of Evil speech · what is the argument · problems with “new realism” logic? “Axis of Evil” logic? · what is the independent variable in this article, according to L & M (what is the US balancing against?) · for realists, the X variable must be POWER based—relative power!

REALPOLITIK * (classical realism) Kenneth Waltz as neorealist Waltz’s primary contributions: · Man, the State, and War (levels of analysis) · Theory of International Politics (Neorealism) Three main Problems of realism 1) tend to be snapshots, or static theory…not trend or over time 2) long term is not well considered, doesn’t explain change well (end of Cold War?) 3) Realism explains conflict, but not cooperation All realists speak to the SECURITY DILEMMA · based on idea of uncertainty · any increase in the security/power of state (A) may create fear in state (B) · that state (B) will then increase its relative power, making (A) less secure

·

this continues and creates a worst situation—arms races, spirals (see also Goldstein text)

Thucydides, "Melian Dialogue" How does this represent realism? Power matters Hans Morgenthau, "A Realist Theory" Major problem in IR is uncertainty, especially reinforcing ANARCHY (know this definition) and the need for self-help among sovereign states POWER TRANSITION THEORY See NAU, Chapter 1 on “Power Transition Theory”

Prisoner’s Dilemma and Realism 1) why is realism a “defection strategy” (what is the defection box all about?) 2) what is the motivation for realists in Prisoner’s Dilemma (relative gain) 3) why can’t they cooperate—UNCERTAINTY, ANARCHY 4) what is the Nash equilibrium (DD box, no player can get a better outcome with a single, unilateral move) Only can achieve gain through cooperation Realism argues against Idealism, but Liberalism argues against logic of relative gains and failure to explain cooperation. Realism is great at explaining conflict (security), but LIBERALISM is the theory that explains cooperation (International Political Economy, Human Rights, International Organizations, International Law, etc.) Readings: Keohane and Nye on Complex Interdependence Walt: Alliances Legro-Moravcsik: Faux Realism

REVIEW SHEET TERMS—Exam #1, Liberalism and Constructivism

This list of terms serves as a keyword guide to studying for the exam. It is comprehensive in that it covers all the ideas that may be included on the exam. It is incomplete in that I am not going to answer the questions for you. You should be able to identify and note the significance of each term as it has been applied in the course so far. Again, if you can identify and provide the significance to these terms you should have NO problems with the exam Liberalism and alternatives to Realism Realist theory is posed against idealism Idealism is not a theory but more of a philosophical approach Realists say idealists are “utopian” or NOT REALISTIC Thus, a theory of realism is grounded in science and logic, not in what “ought to be” So, the response is a theory that says idealist underpinnings are okay, but theory must be scientific, and grounded in core assumptions, logic, and empirical evidence

New way to explain international outcomes, bunch of theories that are LIBERAL—NOT TO BE CONFLATED WITH liberal, as in perception of left-wing. These are different theories/world-views Major flaws in realism: 1) Static, not over time 2) Does not explain cooperation—and the international system is mostly about cooperation 3) Does not explain change very well (end of the cold war) 4) Only explains short-term gains, relative gains LIBERALISM will explain where realism doesn’t Philosophically, LIBERALISM follows the ideas of: Kant Adam Smith J. S. Mill: Woodrow Wilson—New Idealism, the League of Nations, post WWI Liberalism is generally based on 5 principles: · Law · Morality · Economic · Institutions · Collective Security In a single word, liberals are about—COOPERATION Liberals see the role of power as less absolute, grounded only in military/security area Power is not sufficient to explain cooperation States cooperate, especially in economics—trade—but in spite of relative power considerations: WHY? LIBERALS say power is not enough They point to a fundamental problem:

THE GAINS debate Relative vs. Absolute gains Know the logic of each For liberals, absolute gains are what states seek…PROFIT GENERALLY--Liberalism explains IPE and non-security issues better Realism does better with security stuff BUT, each is a paradigm and each claims causal precedence over the other in all of IR

Some Key differences between international and domestic politics ++ Enforcement and institutions—sovereignty and anarchy But for Liberals, it is about cooperation vs. conflict Collective Action Problem · know the logic of collective action problem—free riding, incentives, etc. · liberals say relative gains make states DEFECT—this is bad · all states who seek relative gains will defect, thus, NO COLLECTIVE ACTION—again, bad · liberals note that 1) this is bad, and 2) states DO commit to absolute gains in collective action—realists cant explain this But LIBERAL theory is relatively weak, not very scientific UNTIL 1984

Neoliberalism The most powerful and competing strand of liberalism—THEORETICALLY SOUND COMPETITION TO NEOREALISM Robert Keohane, 1984 “After Hegemony” Neoliberalism, structural liberalism, neoliberal institutionalism—all the same Share basic core assumptions of neorealism: ACTORS: anarchy, rationality, states as unitary actors PRERENCES: as fixed and even security seeking states Does not accept distribution of power as the source of cause in IR For neoliberals INSTITUTIONS MATTER! They see the nature and durability of institutions as the explanatory variable, especially in explaining cooperation that results in absolute gains Neorealism: Actors—States Preferences—fixed, security seeking Ordering principles are different: Distribution of material capabilities

Neoliberalism Actors—States Preferences—fixed, security seeking Ordering principles are different: Powerful, well ordered Institutions

Primary difference is motivated by logic of absolute vs. relative gains Game theory is helpful in spelling out the dilemmas and noting the choice sets Part of RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Need good and standardized conceptual tools to make good theories

Prisoner’s Dilemma--Draw it, logic of Realist vs. liberal Generally accept anarchy, rationality, state actors, LONG TERM vs. SHORT-TERM gains Liberals want to Move away from the DD box DEFECT or COOPERATE? The prisoner’s dilemma box is always going to have the same payoff. Different payoffs are different games, and thus, different logic. See the handout on the web for more details.

Player 2 C

D

3, 3 1, 4

4, 1 2, 2

C

333333

3333

PLAYER 1

D

CC—3,3

DC—4,1 CD—1,4 DD—2,2 Why is this a defection strategy for realists? Equilibrium—Nash equilibrium (what is that?) Which equilibrium is “better?” (which box?) For liberals vs. for realists How is this different?

ITERATED, iteration Reiterated

Learning/cooperation:

2,2 2,2 2,2 1,4 4,1 2,2 2,2

3,3 3,3 3,3 1,4 4,1 3,3 3,3

----------------- x 1000 or Iterations 2000,2000 3000,3000

Logic of PD is to defect (for realists or maximizers) But there is cooperation (CC or 3, 3 box) WHY? How to overcome uncertainty? · realists say it is Tit for tat—but because of power issues · liberals say it is reciprocity—to cooperate · similar logic, different reasoning For realists, it is still about power So, how do liberals explain this CC/3,3 cooperation? (or, what facilitates or what is the mechanism of cooperation for neoliberals?)

INSTITUTIONS!! They Matter, but HOW? Neoliberals RELY ON THEM AS THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLE What is Keohane’s argument?? **(duh, read it…) They matter, but how do they effect outcomes? 1) expand time horizons—slow down the flashpoint to overcome uncertainty 2) facilitate learning—provide information to mitigate uncertainty, provide data 3) transparency/interdependence/reciprocity 4) do the work—monitoring, make rules, create standards, norms etc. from an unbiased, reciprocal point of view-sometimes just get in the way 5) mediation/negotiation space 6) LINKAGE: Issue linkage, State linkage Linkage is important because it: · forces states to think about how actions effect other issues and states · makes states look more at long-term rather than short term · balances power and gains through other interaction (i.e. we might lose now, but the power we gain from a linked interaction will add up to status quo or better) LINKAGE matters—a lot

Theory of Collective Security All states contribute to the extent of their relative capabilities * Iraq as a case both ways: 91 is Collective Security, Persian Gulf War (why?) This is a liberal explanation * Iraq in 2003 (American War in Iraq) is Collective Defense (an alliance, or REALIST explanation)

Democratic Peace Theory General idea: democracies have values and structures (of cooperation, liberal stuff) that makes them more peacefu...