Ir Final

Front 1

Nathaniel Hawthorne

Back 1

“The May-Pole of Merry Mount” (1837)

This short story is an allegory for American culture. In Hawthorne’s words, America is a “land of many desires” and he reduces into two polarities: Jollity (Merrymounters) vs. Gloom (Puritans). The Merrymounters are like hippies; they are nature and peace-loving, but are naive to the reality of the word and unproductive. On the other hand, the Puritans are cruel and joyless but are productive and have a strong sense of reality (kills wolves- symbol of security dilemma).

The birth of the young American nation is not based on the freedom that everyone seems to over-emphasize. Hawthorne gives a stern reminder that the strength of the New England colony lay in the militant discipline of the first pilgrims and not in their love of personal freedom.

IR Significance: 2 clashing cultures of the United States, the former culture is inhibiting it from being no.1
Also, it shows how the United States has demonstrated both liberal ideology and imperialist tendency simult

Front 2

Alexander Hamilton

Back 2

Federalist Papers (1788)

Hamilton- federalism- protectionism/mercantilism (Friedrich List) - relate with James Fallows “How the World Works” - standing military
Why would Hamilton be writing this? 2nd Image: justify centralized government; 3rd Image: at that time, US is a rising challenge to the European hegemony (goes against the safe trend), security dilemma (standing military), parallel to the Athenian thesis- power projection over water necessary to achieve global water status

Front 3

Alexis de Tocqueville

Back 3

Democracy in America (1835)

Tocqueville- pursuit of greatness has dissolved to pursuit of wealth/individual happiness- pettiness- conformity
Evaluation: main counterargument- the US is now the global hegemony and is still striving to maintain its status.
IR significance: can be related to Khaldun, Hamilton, Brooks, Fukuyama
State-building

Front 4

James Fallows

Back 4

“How the World Works” (1993)

Adam Smith (Anglo-American)
vs.
Friedrich List

Rather than acting as if these are the best principles, or the ones their societies prefer, Britons and Americans often act as if these were the only possible principles and no one, except in error, could choose any others.

IR significance: relate with Scott and Rodrik, economic power --> political power?, liberalism has yet to win completely, contrast with Fukuyama, oppose with globalization/integration ideas

Front 5

Robert Jervis

Back 5

“The Era of Leading Power Peace” (2001)

Jervis argues that war among the rich democracies of North America, Western Europe, and Japan is not only a thing of the past but is no longer even contemplated. War among the leading powers has been the motor of traditional international politics, and so the coming era will be radically different. The rest of the world is not likely to remain at peace, however, and the United States may continue to intervene abroad. In much of the Third World, conflicts between, but especially within, states rage and disputes over borders and natural resources provide proximate reasons for conflict.

Front 6

Francis Fukuyama

Back 6

“The End of History?” (1989)

Front 7

John Mearsheimer

Back 7

“Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War” (1990)

Front 8

Robert Kaplan

Back 8

“The Coming Anarchy” (1994)

Front 9

Max Boot

Back 9

“Project for a New Chinese Century: Beijing Plans for National Greatness” (2005)

Front 10

Samuel P. Huntington

Back 10

“The Clash of Civilizations?” (1993)

Front 11

Robert J. Art

Back 11

“The U.S. and the Rise of China” (2008)

Art argues that the future of US-China relations is not as bleak as many would have us believe. Compared to other conflicts between a dominant great power and a rapidly rising challenger, the Sino-American relationship has several factors that should make us more optimistic that a great power war will not result between the two. Uses levels of economic interdependence and ideological competition as determining factors for outcomes in history (UK v. Germany pre 1914, and pre 1939 and US vs. Soviet Union)

Evaluation: contrast with Boot
IR siginifciance:Art asserts in a realist fashion that only the distribution of capabilities between the two nations matters, therefore, only a question of power and security between these nations is relevant.
Relate with Robert Jervis "Offense, Defense, and Security Dilemma"

Front 12

Stanley Hoffman

Back 12

“The Uses and Limits of International Law” (1968)

International law reflects international politics and therefore cannot provide universal answers because of the anarchical structure of the international system with no overarching institution that can violate state sovereignty.
However it can:
1) framework for states to work within
2) tool of policy in state competition

Limits:
1) often not used when resort to it would hamper state’s interests as defined by the policy maker

2)Resort to legal arguments by policy makers may be detrimental to world order and thereby counterproductive for the state

IR significance: Keohane and Nye- institutionalism

Front 13

Robert A. Pape

Back 13

“The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” (2003)

Pape examines the political logic of suicide terrorism, and argues that "it pays" because it has forced liberal democracies to compromise. The best way to combat this strategy, says Pape, is to reduce those terrorists' confidence in their ability to carry out the attacks and achieve their goals.

IR significance: Waltz- anarchic structure, self-help theory

Counter with Huntington- war is fundamentally based on faith in religion not logic.

Front 14

Bruce R. Scott

Back 14

“The Great Divide in the Global Village” (2001)

Scott looks at the political-economic rleations between rich and poor states, and asks why the gap between these two has increased during the globalization era of the last 20 years, when, in fact, neoclassical economic theory predicts that the gap should have decreased. According to this theory in a free glboal market poor states lessen teh gap because they are supposed to grow faster than rich states. That this has not happened is due, according to Scott, to the barriers imposed by the rich states on immigration and agriculture from the poor states, and to the inadequate government structures in the poor states that make them less than ideal outlets for capital investments from the rich states. Thus, the reasons are political-economic in nature, and the fault lies with both the rich and the poor states.

IR significance: relate with Waltz (in agreement that richer states take advantage of poorer states), and Rodrik (that domestic stability and strong gove

Front 15

Jeffrey Frankel

Back 15

“Globalization of the Economy” (2000)

Frankel provides several benchmarks by which to measure the globalization and integration of the current world economy and then presents the economic and social effects of globalization. From his measurements, we are still far from completing the globalization process. More trade within regions but not inter-regions.

IR significance: Smith vs. List (?), Fallows, Ghemawat

Front 16

Pankaj Ghemawat

Back 16

“Why the World Isn’t Flat” (2007)

Home-biased trade
10% presumption

Front 17

Dani Rodrik

Back 17

“Trading in Illusions” (2001)

Rodrik asserts that globalization can be a false promise to developing states. He challenges free-trade orthodoxy by showing that high tariff and non tariff barriers do not necessarily bring with them low growth, and argues that the preparations that poorer states must take to open themselves up to int'l trade and investment divert precious and scarce resources from the task of development.

IR significance: Fallows, Waltz, Scott

Front 18

John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge

Back 18

“Why the Globalization Backlash is Stupid” (2001)

Front 19

Kenneth N. Waltz

Back 19

"Globalization and Governance” (1999)

International organizations, globalization, and transnational forces have not removed states from their central role: if there is to be world governance, it will come through the decisions and actions of states. Under certain circumstances, the array of international organizations has been strongly influenced by the leading role of the United States.

IR significance: supports Waltz's neorealistic theory that states are functionally-similar units that share the goals of power and security maximization.

Does not believe in the validity of integration and globalization.

Front 20

Alan J. Kuperman

Back 20

“Humanitarian Intervention” (2009)

Kuperman examines the evolution of humanitarian intervention since WWII and argues that international intervention into societies experiencing violent conflict, however well intentioned, can sometimes exacerbate and prolong the conflict, arguing therefore that all the consequences of such interventions have to be carefully considered before being undertaken.

IR significance: relate with Kaufmann

Front 21

Chaim Kaufmann

Back 21

“Possible and Impossible Solutions to Ethnic Civil Wars” (1996)

Kaufmann analyzes the nature of ethnic civil wars, shows why they are so intractable, and surveys the various methods of intervening in them. He concludes that when the conflict has reached a point of no return the physical separation of the warring ethnic groups, either by creating safe areas within a state or by partitioning the state, offers the best long-term hope to stop the killing.

Relate with Huntington and Kaplan

Front 22

Rhoda E. Howard and Jack Donnelly

Back 22

“Human Rights in World Politics” (1987)

Howard and Donnelly argue that although cultures and systems differ, each individual has a set of rights by virtue of being human. In the absence of effective international government, there is no choice but to rely on states for the enforcement of human rights.

IR significance:
Relate with second wave post-war liberalism: int'l institutions acquire a life of their own (Keohane and Nye)

relate with Hoffman's enforcement paradox, in which actors may have humanitarian reasons for intervention, but first need to have real material or political incentives to take action.

Front 23

Barry R. Posen

Back 23

"Emerging Multipolarity: Why Should we Care?” (2009)

Contradicts with US NIC article.
Posen argues that diffusion of power will NOT necessarily produce instability.

IR significance: relate with US NIC, Kaplan, Waltz

Realist approach in the way that he suggests that competition between states will be inevitable.
Discusses anarchic structure and security dilemma- "defense dominance"- pattern of competition: and endless series of games played for small stakes (Oye- reiteration)

Front 24

The US National Intelligence Council

Back 24

“Global Trends 2025” (2008)

Predicts a world in 2025 that will see a decline in America's relative strength and so be more multipolar than it is today, that will see increasing competition among states for strategic natural resources, and that will see the adverse effects of climate change looming ever larger.

IR significance: unipolarity-->multipolarity
relate with Posen, Saddam Hussein, the rising challenges of China, India, Mearsheimer (?), Kaplan

Front 25

David Brooks

Back 25

“The Organization Kid” (2001)