Intl 3200 Midterm

Front 1

Inference

Back 1

Attempts to find a cause to explain the outcome.

Front 2

Variable

Back 2

A factor that varies or that's value can be changed.

Front 3

Independent Variable

Back 3

Explanatory, causal, control, treatment variables

Front 4

Dependent Variable

Back 4

Outcome Variable

Front 5

Correlation

Back 5

When variables change/vary together

Front 6

Causality

Back 6

When variables vary together and one causes the other.

Front 7

Hypothesis

Back 7

A proposed explanation on causality of independent and dependent variables.

Front 8

Theory

Back 8

Set of hypotheses. A proposed explanation of empirical phenomena.

Front 9

Anarchy

Back 9

The absence of a central state or government (globally we have anarychy, but individually states states consider themselves hierchical).

Front 10

Thomas Hobbes

Back 10

"Leviathan," state of nature is anarchical: all against all; Powerful pick on weak; "Monopoly on violence"

Front 11

Security Dilemma

Back 11

1) Origin-- Anarchy, Intl. security basically zero-sum game. 2) Technical difficulties in distinguishing what is offense or defense, Ex.- mutually assured distruction 3) Weapons can be offensive OR defensive 4) Security Dilemma- Build military for defense but it can be percieved as a threat, you're doomed if you do doomed if you don't.

Front 12

Preemption

Back 12

Believe that attack is imminent

Front 13

Prevention

Back 13

Suspicion that opponent could someday attack you.

Front 14

Deterrence

Back 14

Prevent adversary from doing something by threat; Ex- Nuclear deterrence

Front 15

Purpose of Force

Back 15

1) Defense 2) Deterrence 3) Compellence 4) Swaggering

Front 16

Compellence

Back 16

To change the behavior of others to change the course of action; Ex- Withdrawal of army

Front 17

Swaggering

Back 17

To enhance the national pride and image. To feel more powerful and important: respect and prestige; Ex- Nuclear club- power and symbolic meaning

Front 18

Classical Realism

Back 18

Morganthau- Source of conflict: states human nature; Solution: Multi-polar balance of power

Front 19

Neo-Realism

Back 19

Waltz-- Source of conflict: Anarchical structure decides state behavior; Solution: Balance of Power, esp. bi-polar; Defensive (Waltz) Offensive (Mearsheimer)

Front 20

Waltz

Back 20

"Man, the state, and war," Parsimonious, without too many variables; categorized war according to levels. 1st Image- individual, 2nd Image- State, 3rd Image- International Structure

Front 21

Waltz's parsimonious theory

Back 21

1) Ordering Principle (constant)- The way system affects individual states (anarchy) 2) The Character of Units (constant)- for survival 3) Distribution of capabilities(variable)- power (military, economic, etc)

Front 22

Statism

Back 22

Under anarychy, the state is most important compared to other institutionsor organizations (NGO's, IO's, etc.)

Front 23

Self Help

Back 23

No central government or global police

Front 24

Survival

Back 24

States/national interest first

Front 25

Balancing

Back 25

Aligning with other weak against strong

Front 26

Bandwagoning

Back 26

join powerful for victory

Front 27

Offensive Realism

Back 27

(John Mearsheimer) States want to maximize relative power, Seek hegemony to gaurantee security

Front 28

Five Assumptions of Offensive Realism

Back 28

1. Anarchy 2. Great powers inherently possess offensive military capabilities 3. states can't be certain about others' intentions 4. Survival 5. Great Powers have "revisionist intentions"

Front 29

What prevents any one country from global hegemony?

Back 29

Geography

Front 30

What did Waltz miss in his theory?

Back 30

Democracies, Institutions, Domestic Politics, Values/norms/culture/ideologies/etc.

Front 31

Balance of Threat Theory

Back 31

(Stephen Walt) More Balancing: Aggressors face more opposition; Bandwagoning: Dependence on powerful country *Waltz found threat affects balance of power decisions between countries. Some countries are more threatening than others, level of threat influenced by "aggreagate," balancing/bandwagoning viewed as responses to threat

Front 32

Criticism of Balance of Threat Theory

Back 32

More explanatory, Less parsimonious, More difficult measurement, Prediction more difficult

Front 33

Constructivism

Back 33

(Alexander Wendt) Structure and Agent: Anarchical structure not "exogenous" to the states' interaction but result of it, Identities and Interest- construed by young; change is possible

Front 34

Democratic Peace Theory

Back 34

(Immanuel Kant) "Perpetual Peace" Democracies don't war with democracies, Dyads: democracy v. democracy, democracy v. autocracy, autocracy v. autocracy

Front 35

Explanations of Democratic Peace Theory

Back 35

1. Normative Model- State's behavior domestically constrain decisions abroad, 2. Structural Model- Domestic institutional constraints (checks and balances, public debate, etc.) autocracies don't face the same constraints, 3. Alternative Explanations- Hegemonic Peace, not democracy but threat, Commercial Peace (trade and capitalism)

Front 36

Criticisms of Democratic Peace Theory

Back 36

Differing definitions of "Democracy," Challenge to Realists because not based solely on power

Front 37

Domestic Political Audience

Back 37

(James Fearon) Core Concept: Escalation of Intl. disputes, Regime Type, Audience Cost; Evolution of Cooperation- The "Chicken Game" (like the Cuban Missile Crisis)

Front 38

Audience Cost

Back 38

Common Informal Claims- 1) Realists-- Domination of power in major decisions 2) War between unequal powers is possible; NeoLiberal-- Lack of info can be key source of conflict; Democratic Peace Theorists-- Seperate peace exixts among democratic states

Front 39

Two Level Game

Back 39

(Robert Putnam) Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: Core Concept- Domestic and intl politics fundamentally intertwined, both relaist and 2nd image ideals are inadequate for fully rep. intl. or domestic politics, Intl. negotiations should be modeled on both levels.

Front 40

A win Set

Back 40

A possible level 1 agreements (Negotiations must consider domestic factors like ratification); Smaller win-set = more negotiating power (bargaining advantage)

Front 41

Possible Strategies for Diplomacy and Domestic Politics

Back 41

1) Tying Hands 2)Cutting Slack 3) Reverberation 4) Synergistic Linkage

Front 42

Decision Making: Groups

Back 42

(Graham Allison) Model 1: Basic model- rational actor model; Model 2: Organizational model- Means driven; Model 3: Bureaucratic Model- Leader must gain some consensus among staff.

Front 43

Organizational Process Model

Back 43

Factoring- working in isolation, Limited time and resources, Anchoring- anchor to existing policy

Front 44

Psychological Model

Back 44

(Jervis) Agents tend to see what they want to. Effects of key governmental assumptions, historical analogies, and psychological forces on how government officials perceived and responded to threat.

Front 45

Operational Code

Back 45

Who is the decider?-- State action: is the action taken by those decision makers for the state?; A set of premises and beliefs about politics which may act as a filter.