Reading...
Play button
Play button
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;
61 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
War (Websters)
|
A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations
|
|
|
Nature (of war)
|
Constant, universal and inherent qualities that define war through the ages
|
|
|
Character (of war)
|
Impermanent, circumstantial, and adaptive features that war develops
|
|
|
Objective nature
|
Elements common to all wars
|
|
|
Subjective nature
|
Features that make all wars unique
|
|
|
RMA
|
The manner in which technological advances change the character of warfare
|
|
|
Total war
|
The complete mobilization of the human, economic and military resources of the state in pursuit of victory
|
|
|
Hyperbolic war
|
Where the growing scale and intensity of war is driven by the pressure of industrial and technological advances
|
|
|
Post-Modern Warfare
|
The changing state of warfare characterized by a shift towards information, media coverage and privatized military firms
|
|
|
PMF
|
Privatized military firms
|
|
|
New Wars
|
Wars driven by globalization and usually has to do with inter-state conflict
|
|
|
International Institutions
|
complexes of norms, rules and practices that shape expectations and behaviour
|
|
|
International Organizations
|
Physical entities that have staff, offices etc.
|
|
|
Opinio Juris
|
The recognition by states that tey are observing a norm because it constitutes law
|
|
|
Tacit Consent
|
Informal consent eg. Opinio Juris
|
|
|
rhetorical
|
language of international law, convincing
|
|
|
Analogical
|
international law is bound by analogy
|
|
|
3 Ways to use Analogy
|
1) Interpretation
2) Draw Similarities 3) Establish the status of a rule |
|
|
global governance
|
the move beyond international order towards a more super-national law
|
|
|
Jus ad bellum
|
when states may go to war
|
|
|
Jus in bello
|
laws governing the conduct of war
|
|
|
Realism and International Law
|
skeptical that there is an 'international law'
Criticism- struggles to explain the growth of international order |
|
|
Neo-liberalism and International Law
|
Law is the intervening variable between states and outcomes
Criticism- cannot explain areas that stretch or contradict states self interests |
|
|
Constructivism and International Law
|
how actors shape their interests and strategies is essential to understanding the behaviour
Criticism-underspecified and underdeveloped |
|
|
New Liberalism and International Law
|
Disaggregates the state and stresses transnational linkages
Criticism- vague in its resources, no prescriptive ability |
|
|
Critical Legal studies
|
Argues that liberalism in international law is incoherent
criticism-focuses on the conservative side of mainstream views |
|
|
IMF
|
International Monetary Fund
|
|
|
IBRD
|
International Bank for Rebuilding and Development
|
|
|
GATT
|
General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs
|
|
|
Brandt report
|
findings of a group of high level policy makers to examine how to respond to interdependence
|
|
|
Structural Adjustment
|
the attempt to reduce inflation, expenditure and the role of government
|
|
|
Liberalism and IPE
|
free market is most efficient
|
|
|
Mercantilist
|
marketplace is an arena of competition and most powerful will define the rules
|
|
|
Marxist and IPE
|
Core nations will seek to increase their profits and exploit the periphery
|
|
|
Rational Choice IPE
|
Why countries make particular rational decisions
|
|
|
Institutionalism and IPE
|
Economy is an arena of cooperation
|
|
|
Social Constructivism and IPE
|
Policy is affected more by historical and sociological factors
|
|
|
The Globalization Debate in IPE
|
Internationalization
Technological Revolution Deterritorialization Liberalization |
|
|
Collaboration
|
presupposes a high level of integration
|
|
|
Coordination
|
less integration than collaboration
|
|
|
Tacit Regime
|
informal rules
high expectations |
|
|
Dead-letter regime
|
formal rules
low expectations |
|
|
Full-blown regime
|
high expectations
formal rules |
|
|
Liberal Institutional and Regimes
|
regimes help overcome anarchy
game: prisoner's dilemma regimes only way to produce public goods |
|
|
Realism and Regimes
|
States use their power to create regimes that serve their interests
game: battle of the sexes |
|
|
Integration and Fragmentation
|
Integration ex. EU
Fragmentation ex. Soviet Union Challenge national and international security |
|
|
Neorealism and ISS
|
states have a tendency for aggression
problems of cheating problems of relative gains |
|
|
Liberal Institutionalism and ISS
|
Institutions have a large role in enhancing security
|
|
|
Constructivism and ISS
|
Neorealism leads to self-fulfilling prophecy
|
|
|
Logic of reciprocity (ISS)
|
Constructivist term, states acquire a shared belief about the meaning of power and act accordingly
|
|
|
Critical Security Studies
|
State is not central to ISS
Feminist Post-modernist |
|
|
First Generation HR
|
political freedoms
|
|
|
Second Generation HR
|
economic/social and cultural rights
|
|
|
Third Generation HR
|
aspirational 'soft laws'
|
|
|
Natural Law
|
derived from reason and are universal
|
|
|
Charter Rights
|
result of a political bargain or contract
|
|
|
Liberalism and HR
|
well integrated, esp. with first generation rights
|
|
|
Legal Case for HI
|
UN charter commits states to protecting human rights
Right to intervene in Customary international law "opinio juris" |
|
|
Moral Case for HI
|
Sovereignty derived from responsibility to protect its citizens
|
|
|
Case Against HI
|
1)No legal basis
2)States do not primarily intervene for humanitarian reasons 3)States not allowed to risk soldiers for strangers 4)Problem of Abuse 5)Selectivity 6)Disagreement about morality 7) HI does NOT work |
|
|
Responsibility to Protect
|
2001 report of ICISS
recommended a set of criteria to determine what requires HI |
