Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
15 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
waltz, kenneth, The emerging structure of international politics, international security |
neo realism and neo classical realism Waltz talks about structural changes that begin in a system's unit, where the unit-level and structural causes interact. The structural theory view on states: states strive to maintain their positions in the system.· He furthermore stresses upon the notion that in the nearest future three political units may occur as great powers, Germany/West European state, Japan and China. · The great power’s rank highly depends on certain factors: size of population and territory, resource endowment, economic capability, military strength, political stability and competence. The economic aspect cannot be ignored in this case - the great power status is being maintained by economic capabilities. · The arisen Japanese power, economically speaking, may threat the United States. · Economic competition = Japan vs. America. The economic competition is keen to military competition - which will become more intense between the great powers, because nuclear weapons limit their use of force among great powers. · Basic structure of international politics continues to be anarchic à Each state holds an interest in providing things for themselves without the cooperation of others. Each leader is concerned with their own positions in relation to the others. · Japan and economic power = threatening the US on a higher scale than the USSR · The globalization of the economy have made states loosing their power to manage a stable economy within their countries · The political role of a country strengthens by its economy ability and technical skill. For example both Britain and United States managed to create an international system with themselves at the top when they were leading creditors (p.20, Waltz). · Japan = the new uprising power --> Their turn to influence the international system. · Germany = powerful as well. West Germany is the leading state in Europe economically and militarily. · Japan ruling in Asia, and Germany in the Eastern Europe = can this be an indication of arising hegemons? How should these tendencies be interpreted? · The economic capability is essentially important if a state wants to sustain a world role (referring to Soviet Union). Today states seek to secure their future positions, and not only tries to maximize value. · Japan and Germany and their increased international activity are reflecting the changing structure of the international politics à The increase of a country's economic capabilities to the great-power level, places it at the center of regional and global affairs. What happens in this restructure process is that the state’s interest is being widened, which increases the individual state's importance. Waltz furthermore stresses upon the mentality that countries have always competed for wealth and security - main goal, aim. |
|
|
Mearsheimer, john The gathering storm: chinas challenge to us power in asia· |
neo realism and neo classical realism State survival (p.387, 7) – Every state has to rely on them, and to ensure their survival. He therefore stresses on the importance of a leader to ask himself/herself: What is the best way to maximize my country’s security?The answer is: that the best way to ensure state survival is to be much powerful than all the other states in the system· An ideal situation for any great power is to be a hegemon in the system, because its survival would be guaranteed. Mearsheimer defines a hegemon as a country being the most powerful among other states that it dominated all other states “hegemon is the only great power in the system”· Regional hegemony not global hegemony: not possible geographical reasons· Great power’s best outcome: would be to achieve regional hegemony· The US à as a regional hegemon – Monroe Doctrine main reason of the US as an emergent hegemon. Regional hegemons further seeks to prevent great powers for duplicating their feat – wanting to minimize chances of competing with others competitorso The US made sure that no other great power dominated Asia/Europeo China imitates the US to become a regional hegemon [US likely to act towards China as they …] One of Mearsheimer’s main points in his article The Gathering Storm: China’s challenge to US Power in Asia is the notion that China imitates the US in becoming a regional hegemon, where the US tries to prevent the uprising power. |
|
|
Toje, asle & kunz, barbara Introduction - neoclassical realism in europe |
neo realism and neo classical realism Realism has recently become a source of inspiration for scholars and policy-makers followed by one reason: multipolarity.o Multipolarity --> related to realism.o Unipolar international system --> leads to a less hierarchical structure.o Realism --> has emerged in Europe (as a source of a comeback)o The study of realism = central point for students working on the international relations field.o EU not only responsible for peace and peace operations in Europe, but has broadened its responsibilities: to the world - as Europe gets more involved in foreign and security policy cooperation - external vs. internal affairs. - Kaplan argues that the point of theory is that we cannot reason without generalization. Understanding requires theory, theory requires abstraction, and abstraction requires the simplification and ordering of reality. Theory is hence a response to complexity.- A state is driven by material power. Realists are skeptical towards supranational governance, and recognizes that morality and ethics are products of power + material interests!- Neo-realist tends to assume that the international system is easy to ‘read’ – it is not!!- Snyder argues that states do not always behave in accordance with incentives of the system- Neoclassical realism – a new approachà foreign and security policies of states are seen as how they choose to respond – conditioned by domestic factors.- The systematic variable needs to be brought back- Scholars within realism argue that the world is undergoing a transition from unipolarity to multipolarity – which neoclassical realism aims to explain.- The principle of studying within the realm of realism: is to understand the past and to predict the future. The method in social science: social science takes place within two poles. 1) parsimonious abstraction, 2) sui generis, singular à danger of these poles: interrelations among them are being isolated from reality.Neoclassical realism attempt to reassert classical realism plus building on Waltz’ structural realism. Neoclassical realism strove to find a middle ground between the parsimony of neorealism and the practical wisdom. The core difference between neoclassical realism and realism = neoclassical realism has a different view on the units operating in the international system. Neoclassical realism = neorealism + domestic variables à structure determines behavior, at the systemic and domestic levels. |
|
|
keohane, r & nye J Power and independence |
Liberal school in international politics Argument: interdependence closer to reality than realism. Politics is a struggle for power, dominated by organized violence· Ideal type of world politics: 1) International politics: states are coherent units – thereby dominant actors in world politics. 2) Force: unstable + effective instrument of policy.3) Hierarchy in world politics – A hierarchy of conflicts – high politics: military affairs, low politics: economic and social affairs (i.e. welfare policies). · Characteristics of complex interdependence:1) Multiple channels connects society2) Absence of hierarchy among issues3) Military forceThe three main characteristics of the complex interdependence give rise to political powers that transform power resources into power as control of outcomes. · Kissinger – domestic policies and governance policies affects each other. Military force à assuming that it is being supported by economic and other resources, which will be the dominant source of power.· Goal of state: to survive – secure state survival. The force – especially the military one, is important to guarantee survival. The military power = can be used politically. But the use of force is costly, and effect non-security goals· Strong military force = strong and dominant force à dominating organizations by linking own policies with the state’s policies. Governments must organize themselves to cope with the flow of business generated by international organizations |
|
|
Ikenberry, G The rise of china and the future of the west: can the liberal system survive? |
Neoliberal approach random notes on ikenberry;• A response to Mearsheimer• US-Chinese power transition does not have to trigger a wrenching hegemonic transition• Rules regulate China’s rise• Uk ceded authority to the US after the WWII• Hegemonic decline - Joseph Nye• China benefits from international organisation and obey to WTO rules etc.• Trade more with China• A peaceful transition vs. disaster (Mearscheimer) |
|
|
Grant, R & Keohnae r Accountability and abuses of power in world politics |
Neoliberal approach This paper seeks to explain the problem of accountability in global politics. Accountability mechanisms - how likely they are to affect international organizations (World Bank, IMF) to be restricted / constrained. · According to Grant and Keohane there are two core questions that are interesting to ask when it comes to abuse of power and accountability:a. 1. What constitutes abuses of power and accountability?b. 2.Who is entitled to hold power-wielders accountable and why? · Globalization à challenge for accountability. Accountability – holding action /accountable responsible for their actions.· They argue that there is 7 types of accountability – mechanisms of accountability in world politics:a. Hierarchical accountability: applies to relationships within the organizations; including multilateral organizations: World Bank, United Nationsb. Public reputational accountability: ability to shape the preference of others (reputations)c. Supervisory accountability: refers to the relations between organizationsd. Fiscal accountability: Funding can demand reports from sanctionse. Legal accountability: justification of actionsf. Market accountability: support – whether a company wants to invest a companyg. Peer accountability: Evaluations of organizations · Their core argument is that by the emergence of globalization, abuse of power has increased remarkably à the interdependence, globalization of business, expansion of the scope and authority of multilateral organizations and the rapid increase of NGO’s have all contributed to the concern about how powers uses/abuses their power.· Question they ask: Is it possible to talk about global accountability when there is no global democracy? Important to note that accountability mechanisms in world politics = not limited to those who represents democracy. · How to ensure accountability? à Information needs to be provided. In politics to ensure accountability requires that institutions provide information to those people who are trying to holds power-wielders accountable. There are two types of accountability: 1) participation: High level of participation in politics provokes the mechanism of accountability, and 2) Delegation: Power is legitimate when it is authorized. This process presents a legitimating approval of those who delegate it à protection of rights, the pursuit of public good. o Legitimacy: they present a principle where people should be treated equallyà legitimacy depends on full participation. The public power is only legitimate in the moment when interests of the people are being served. The concept of political legitimacy requires that people with power have to be accountable to those who have assigned responsibility to them. Legitimacy = protective function. This is when legitimacy becomes legitimate. A source for legitimacy = law. International organisations - do have authoritative power, which is formally delegated. Here legitimacy depends on conformity: standards, rules and law to shared norms and to the established law. o Reason why politicians should be held accountable: The political actors à the ones that unfold the actions, have to be aware that certain people will be affected by the decisions - and must therefore are accountable for the actions.o Representation: important to accountability, since it allows it to exist because people have the power to delegate their power to those who are qualified to govern = only by being represented people comes into play and can thereby hold actor accountable for their actions. · International organizations: IMF, WB, EU, UN = are, according to Grant and Keohane, the most accountable organizations Conclusive remarks: · Accountability = the way to limit power· Power is subject to abuse· Power wielders can be called account for failing not to fulfill their official duties – or not to serve interests of those affected by their actions.· The delegation model + participation model = important à an effective accountability system should combine elements from both |
|
|
Wight, m Why is there no international theory?· |
English School Political theory: speculation about the stateInternational theory: a speculation about the society of the states.International Law gained academic acknowledgement before political theory. · Expectation à live up the principle that every individual requires the protection of a State, which represents the individual in an international community à which is a so-called juristic expression of the belief in the Sovereign State = marked the Western political experience and activity since the Reformation. Masterpiece of international politics = is the system of balance of power.· INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS à foreign affairs problems of foreign policy · Morgenthau-Kennan School: Argues that a theory of international politics à the focal point should be national interest. International relations = becoming a "World Government"(?) · World Empire = lacking efficiency. Gibbon and Kant: argues that the division of mankind into States = freedom à possibility for foreign asylum. · Reformation meant: Concerned à with Communism, Fascism, Church and State, the French Revolution. · POLITICS: International politics = Political Theory: Historical Interpretation.Clear distinction between political theory and international theory:Political theory = is the theory of good life, International theory = Theory of survival. |
|
|
Clark, I democracry in international society: promotion or exclusion |
English School argues that the balance of power allowed Western societies to socialize int. society into their own value system. The right of democracy in the free world, 20th Century, was in the background in theLeague of Nations/UNDemocracy gained unparalleled acceptance e.g. The Charter of Paris of 1990 (part ofCSCE process). Democracy is the only system of government of our nations.Clark is hesitant about making a normative argument, two points:1. The principle of democracy might undermine pluralism in international society2. Some sections of international society is resisting the principle of democracyBehaviour: how you as a state behaveOntological: you may be an ontological outlaw state |
|
|
Bull, H The anarchical society: a Study of order in world politics |
English School 1. All societies strive to minimize violence. 2. All societies seek to ensure that agreements are kept. 3. All societies try to make sure that possession of things remains stable.The three elements are embedded in the institutions: the balance of power; international law; diplomacy; war and the great powers. |
|
|
Wendt, Alexander Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics |
Constructivism · Empirical questions asked: Interaction among states is important since it constitutes their identities and interests à Domestic and genetic factors important determents of state’s interests and identities.· Research: should not be method-driven, but rather question-driven.· Dependent and independent variable = constitutes the relationship between what actors do and what actors are· Positivism, scientific realism, post-structuralism à do not tell us about the structure and dynamics of international life. Review. We should not necessarily treat interests and identity as given. Although Wendt agrees with a statist view, he argues that an important field of research should treat state interests and identity as the dependent variable. Wendt concedes that there are those who study how first- and second-image factors affect state identity and interests; he wants us to study how anarchy affects state identities and interests.Realism's shortcoming is its failure to do this (although Wendt agrees that realist game theory is entirely appropriate in situations where we can assume that identities are constant, at least in the short term). Neoliberalism's failure is that it has sought to explain cooperation by focusing on process, but it has not sufficiently accounted for systemic variables. Constructivism's failure is that it gets too bogged down in epistemological debates without looking enough at how identities are formed in practice.In short, we need a combination of neoliberalism and constructivism that will study how the system affects state identities and interests[1]. |
|
|
Daniel philpott Westphalia, authority and interanational society |
Constructivism · Explaining and developing the concept of constitution of international relations à thereafter characterizes the international theory as a constitutional change· Defining constitution: as an international society, which contains a set of norms – that are mutually agreed on. Defining authority etc.· The international constitution = defines the framework of individual polities.· He argues that sovereign state systems required state institutions within borders and a disappearance of authorities (external actors) à Definition of international constitution.· Clarification of the constitution: Realist tradition: Constitutions create the very anarchic states system that makes war, balancing and alliance possible. A constitution of the international society is geographically constructed – existing within a single civilization.· Constitutions of international society à defines à authorityo Three faces if Authority§ 1. Legitimacy à legitimate polity implies that members of society participates = state ensures the legitimacy. Sovereignty = important à Sovereign authority = is the supreme authority. No human being is above it.· Constitutional authority à a sovereign constitution is supreme, and therefore completely independent from all other constitutional authorities – within the borders of the specific country. In short: What kinds of authorities can hold meaningful powers, what kinds cannot, is what the first face determines.§ 2. The second face of authority: exclude and include: insiders and outsiders of the constitution (society) à determines who can attain the status of the legitimate polity (society members). – To compose the standards of membership. Important to note that outsiders do not hold a legitimate polity.§ 3. To define fundamental powers of states (EU for example) à in s society of states à the third face of authority underlines whether sovereignty is absolute or non-absolute.· What does the three faces of authority tells us?That the constitutions of international society define constitutional authority = international constitutions à are sets of norms (rules)· Natural law = a universal standard of morality à the questions remains: Can we speak of a constitution in an international society?· The third and first phase face of authority implied non-intervention. à Westphalia remains the most significant revolution in sovereignty (until now). The history of sovereignty is also a history of Westphalia’s geographic enlargement/extension. § The strength of Westphalia: presents an international society where the sovereign state is the key legitimate polity à EU· EU and the authoritative role in and of the EU: EU is an institution, consisting of 27 states that ‘pooled’ their sovereignty into a common ‘supranational’ institution. This means that the power exercised there is a constitutional form of power – not a state’s power. (Individual power). The European Commission proposes legislation and administers the daily affairs of the Union through bureaucracy = the union exercises executive powers.· The Council of Ministers - votes through Qualified Majority - as the European Parliament, where the Union exercises legislative powers. The European Court of Justice --> Union gives the Court a judicial authority. [FIRST FACE OF AUTHORITY]· Second face of authority: The EU constitution established certain criteria/requirements for membership.· Third face of authority: The constitutions sets up prerogatives over the decision-making process among member states.· The EU law = is sovereign – on specific areas not, since member states are no longer sovereign in all areas. Recent decisions on creating a common currency and monetary policy is crucial to the state’s sovereignty. |
|
|
Tannewald, Nina nuclear weapons and the vietnam war· |
Constructivism Question: Why did the US leaders not use nuclear weapons during the Vietnam War?· Argument: There is a taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, which played a critical role.· The US Ambassador to South Vietnam, Lodge, raised the question of whether nuclear weapons would be needed to defend the South of Vietnam (meeting held 1964, April) à fearing Soviet intervention.· Nuclear weapons = spurred a risk of going to war with China – winning a war with China would probably require use of nuclear weapons. Eisenhower, in fact, recommended to use nuclear weapons against China, introducing the idea of instant retaliation (military forces response) – the administration à was willing to run the risk of war with China· Rusk admitted that American policymakers established an agenda of using tactical weapons in Vietnam· Reason for using nuclear weapons in a war: because of escalation risks, but also because of political and normative considerations. When referring to the political as well as the normative concerns à this implies a certain importance in the decision-making process of whether nuclear weapons should be used or not. This of course also raised a moral question to the US allies. As noted by President Johnson: “ To use nuclear weapons against the Chinese would obviously raise the most profound political problems. … [to use nuclear weapons against non-whites only]” (p. 15, Tannenwald)· Several world leaders announced their opposing interests in nuclear weapons. Goldwater à “Make no mistake. There is no such thing as a conventional nuclear weapon” … “For 19 peril-filled years no nation has loosed the atom against another. To do so now is a political decision of the highest order.” (p.16, Tannenwald)· A taboo of the use of nuclear weapons. McNamara = for nuclear weapons· The nuclear discussion lead to discriminative concerns à The Asian seemed to pattern a racial discrimination in the use of nuclear arms targeted at Asians – would this mean that United State would use nuclear weapons against Asians and not Westerners? · Problem states: The legitimating nuclear weapons – US feeling threatened by the Soviet Union. Soviet Union would feel free to use NW against other nations (Ball) à who mainly sought to explain the political consequences of nuclear weapons· The taboo of nuclear weapons continues à Not only should nuclear weapons not be used, analysis (studies) on nuclear weapons should not be permitted – something that has not occurred, should not be examined (in forms of studies) further according to McNamara. Denial by the White House and Pentagon that nuclear weapons were under consideration· The British Prime minister says that America running nuclear weapons not only puts America in a ‘disastrous’ position, but also increase the risk of escalation for the world· Nixon = for nuclear weapons four time (p.34) à Kissinger, Nixon’s national security advisor stated that the government never came to the concrete conclusion to use nuclear weapon – again, an indication of denial “There was never any decision” (Kissinger states).· The normative belief and the belief of the necessity of the use of nuclear weapons was opposing beliefs à the normative belief unfolded and introduced a taboo· The taboo contributed to an understanding of what constituted ‘escalation’ à this affected the decision-making process – mainly the decision-makers perception of the risks of wars as these.· The non-use of nuclear weapons implied the important role of material power. |
|
|
Cox, R Social forces, states wand world order: beyond international relations theory |
crit. app. marxist approach Cox’ critique of realism:• Focus on conflict, but between classes rather than states• State is not innocent. Certain interests of the state are bigger than others.• State-centric view is ahistorical, state is not autonomous from social forces• Methodological critiqueIdentify the interest of states to analyse.m· The historical structure: made up by three core categories of forces, which interacts with each other: material capabilities, ideas and institutions à which is a dialectic relation between the three aspects: social forces, formal forces and world politics. o Labelled: ‘social forces’, ‘forms of state’, ‘world politics’ à from which he theorise the interplay between politics and economics; specified by the interaction between social forces, forms of state, world orders. Social forces of capitalism is involved in intense process of globalisation = internationalising of production as well as migration movements from South to North.o Globalisation will lead to a struggle between social forces concerning the control and regulation of economic globalisation.o States compete for advantage –but in order to gain, states must participate in the global economy (which is unavoidable)§ The role of the state is not the only relevant actor in determining the material reality of the world order. Socially constructed structures – is an important factor that contributes to an understanding of the existing order. |
|
|
Pedersen, Rasmus Danish foreign policy activism: differences in kind or degree? |
small state theory · The main driving forces of the Danish activism --> can be found in a number of domestic and ideological factors.· The liberal ideological thinking has dominated the formualtion of Danish foreign policy i the government - so that the role of the Social Democrats and Social Liberals became reduced.· The Danish Foreign Policy has been analysed by the application of Rosenau's theory: Adaption theory à which seeks to explain the interface between domestic and international environments. · The actual relationship between a state’s influence capacity and sensivity harshley is influenced on external factors: the external environment --Z this determines what strategy to follow. What does this mean? It means that a country, a state like Denmark can pursue different adaption modes depending on the external factors: what is sensitive. · After the Cold War = adapted its in accordance to how the outer world and greater powers adapted. Denmark moves from a reactive to an active adaption --> the changes in the international system after the Cold War allowed Denmark to follow adative strategies. This is deeply rooted in the notion that Denmark did not feel any external pressure. · Denmark went from passive to active foreign policy, after the Cold War · Foreign policy activism = aim, goal à to create, preserve or change an international order to the interests and values of the policy-maker. 1989: Danish Foreign Minister = Uffe Elleman Jensen. Ambitions = security policy and liberal order policy. · Activism related to the concept 'order policy' = which outline the strategies for long-term goal and ambitions to conduct a state's foreign policy. · What do we mean by an ‘active foreign policy’? When is a state's foreign policy active?· The concept of activism can be defined by three specific dimensions:1. Degree of initiative2. Strategically based à to pursue goals.3. Resources are set aside à to use these resources in a mobilised way - priority. Holm defines activism as "being the degree of external opposition to the policy" · Denmark changed its role in the international sphere after the 11/9 attack· Internationalism = an attempt to unify the guiding principle for Danish foreign policy. |
|
|
Shouenborg, Laust The rise of the welfare state in international society |
small state theory The rise of welfare state principle of legitimacy in the Nordic countries· Social Democratic parties change from ‘class parties’ to ‘the people’s parties’ – 1930· The evolution of the folkhem – peoples home idea· Social rights à turned into citizen’s rights (elevated to a national ideology of solidarity)o Support mechanisms turned in to becoming a citizen right Welfare= only for the needy. Idea of solidarity developed in the 1960s· Cemented by the red-green crisis agreements (first Kanslergadeforliget in 1933)· Post-WWII Norden take the lead in generosity and universalism of welfare programmes Impact on the regulation of conflict and war · Abandonment of violence as a policy option between Nordic states and in their relations with outside states. Before = tradition of neutrality à but this changed.· Support for peaceful conflict resolution in the UN à Idea of peacekeeping: Hammerskjold (Sweish)· Large contributions to UN peacekeeping resolutions |
