Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

IR (international relations), war, & the democratic peace (IR theory:…

- - - - goals actors are pursuing: power, security, wealth, ideological etc.
    - - how actors interact, whether they cooperate to achieve shared standards/bargain by using coercion & threats
    - - important formal rules social norms, whether institutions matter & if they facilitate coorperation
- - - - repetitive
        
        can lead to compromise & trust b/w states & also foster reciprocity
      - more important than ideology
        
        behave primarily based on other states' actions, not on their level/power/ideology
      - coooperation
        
        actors' primary form of interaction; communication & interdependency can overcome anarchy in international relations
      - conflict is not inevitable
        
        occurs when common interests are not acted upon/when communication problems arise. less common in the world now because or more interaction
    - - involvement with institutions foster trust & reciprocity
      - multilateral agreements produced through formal procedures of institutions are seen as more legitimate, helping enforcement
      - :!!: very important because they help actors cooperate by sharing information, providing a venue & procedure for collective decision-making, & afterwards enforcement of agreements, reducing transaction costs
    - - shared :bread:
        
        can serve as basis for cooperation to curb stress actors have
      - absolute gains :muscle::skin-tone-3:
        
        actors not as concerned with relative gains; cooperate to achieve gains for all
      - multiple :heavy_multiplication_x:
        
        power, security, economic wealth
    - - changes
        
        in technology, modernization & material progress. increased trade, communication, interactions, & development of more institutions
      - leading to more cooperation & stability in international relations
      - optimistic
        
        about change & possibility of world peace through coopration
    - - besides states, others are important too
      - NGOs, international institutions, terrorists, multinational corporations, civil society etc.
  - - - affected by ideas
      - so if ideas change, so will interests
      - no fixed interests; actors construct their own over time through interactions with other actors
    - - persuasion & norm change
        
        for interests to change, there needs to be persuasion & internalization of new norms
      - examples
        
        slavery was acceptable, but not now
        
        landmines used to be an acceptable weapon of war but its use is now unethical
      - as socialization
        
        through interactions, actors become socialized to hold particular interests. various actors at different levels of politics are involved in creating & generating meaning
    - - many, including transnational activists & networks, NGOs, ideological leaders etc. less attention on the state
    - - international institutions define & shape norms
      - following norms reflects a logic of appropriateness, rather than a logic of consequences
      - as social norms
        
        broad view of institutions. behaviour can be mediated by social norms within society
    - - see more change in international relations because interests are constantly changing
      - constructivism is quite empty & specifying who the actors are, their interests & interactions
      - neither optimistic nor pessimistic
  - - - states are the main one; no other is as important
    - - power & security
        
        to survive. power = military & material capabilities :gun: :bomb:
      - relative gains
        
        more important than absolute gains
      - survival
        
        paramount. anarchic international system is one of self-help. has to be fulfilled before achieving anything else
      - prosperity, ideas & norms
        
        prosperity is only important only if it can enhance relative power. ideal, norms & morality don't matter much
    - - bargaining & war
        
        states interact with each other through bargaining. in doing so, they'll often resort to coercion, military threats, & war to increase their relative power
      - alliances: protect 'emselves
        
        bandwagon
        
        with the threat when states are weak & can be easily conquered
        
        balance
        
        with other states against the threat
      - Balance of Power Theory
        
        when one state gets inordinate power, most realists generally believe other states will ally together to balance against the big power i.e. staes will balance rather than bandwagon
    - - formal & normative exert no independent effect
      - merely reflect interests of the powerful states in the system (e.g. IMF gives more votes to states putting in more $)
    - - power is key
        
        acquiring it has, & will always drive states. war is always a possibility
      - stability through balancing
        
        only hope for some periods of stability is when mejor states effectively balance against each other
      - pessimistic
        
        about change & possibility of world peace
- - - - democratic institutions with checks & balances, transparency & debate, which constrains leaders. economic interdependence & international organizations
    - - shared norms of non-violence, socialized into attitudes & beliefs conducive to democracy; common identity as democracies
    - - common enemy in China & Russia. American hegemony - no one able to challenge US. nuclear weapons deter any conflict
    - - high costs
        
        modern armies, nukes, economic loss
      - low benefits
        
        territory & conquered people not valuable today, independence better
      - shared values
        
        democracy, rule of law, non-violence
  - - - might be well integrated into markets & democratic principles
    - - relations with China will be shaped by culture & identity
    - - alter balance of power in potentially dangerous ways
- - - - why form alliances :question:
        
        for protection, signals resolve, increases power by combining resources & formalizes spheres of influence
      - who to ally with :question:
        
        based on countries with similar identity, bandwagon with/balance against greatest threat
      - alliance: commitment to defend one another in the event o f an attack (defensive)/ pledge to join an attack (offensive)
      - do alliances work :question:
        
        need to look credible. so states join military exercises, station troops on each others' soil & have public signing ceremonies
      - collective security
        
        group of nations agree not to attack each other & defend each other against an attack = attack on one is an attack against all
        
        LON formed in 1920, replaced by UN in 1946. when one country attacks another, UN Security Council votes on whether UN will use force against an aggressor. has 5 permanent members & 10 rotating members
        
        peacekeeping: UN has expanded into helping resolve civil war & prevent acts of genocide through peacekeeping missions. send UN troops & staff to disarm rebels, keep peace, organise elections & build civil society
    - - whether countries are democratic or not
      - empirical evidence has shown that no democracy has ever fought another
      - wide appeal in public circles (e.g. George Bush used it as justification for going into Iraq)
      - why is there a democratic peace :question:
        
        more transparency & debate to prevent mistakes
        
        public pays ultimate cost & can pressure their democratic leaders to avoid war
        
        democracies have institutional checks & balances
        
        war is costly for those benefiting from international trade
        
        norms of non-violence, respect for the law, compromise & shared identities
        
        membership in organizations facilitates cooperation
      - critics :!?:
        
        peace b/w democratic states was primarily due to stability during CW
        
        need more time to gather data, democracy may not have been around for that long
        
        some exceptions (largely based on what qualifies as a democracy)
        
        democratizing countries are very prone to violence
      - closest thing to an iron-clad rule in political science
    - - 3 main types :arrow_right:
        
        bipolar (CW)
        
        unipolar (today)
        
        multipolar (before WW2)
        
        most IR scholars see a multipolar world as particularly dangerous
        
        more debate on bipolar vs. unipolar
      - no. of major powers in the international system
      - effects
        
        Power transition Theory
        
        unipolar world can be particularly dangerous when a large power is on the way down & another is on the way up; realist theory
        
        Hegemonic Stability Theory
        
        some liberals argue that a unipolar world makes it safer - hegemon acts as the policeman (e.g. our current era)
        
        Balance of Power Theory
        
        more stability when no one state is strong enough to dominate all others (e.g. CW); a realist theory