Politics

Front 1

Huntington

Back 1

Spoiled Fukuyama party and said it was too early to talk about the end of history. There will be more violence but for different reasons. Conflict will now center around cultural discrepancies and clash of civilizations.

Front 2

Fukuyama

Back 2

We had reached our ideological end with liberal democracy being the end result.

Front 3

Mearsheimer

Back 3

Uses much more materialistic approach and argues there will always be conflict as long as our characteristics remain the same.

Front 4

Thucyclides

Back 4

Realism; Gives choice to Melians either pay tribute or be destroyed. They wish to remain neutral, then get destroyed.

Front 5

Carr

Back 5

Realist critique

Front 6

Morgenthau

Back 6

1. Realism believes politics governed by objective laws that have roots in human nature.
2. interest is defined in terms of power.
3. number 2 is universally valid, but it can change
4. aware of moral significance of political action.
5. doesn’t identify moral aspirations of a particular nation with moral laws that govern the universe.

Front 7

Waltz

Back 7

Structural Realism: Anarachy in the world means no peace

Front 8

Waltz bipolar

Back 8

Strucural Realism: bipolar most stable

Front 9

Deucht and Singer

Back 9

Structural Realism: Multipolar most stable

Front 10

Morgenthau and power

Back 10

Structural Realism; balance of power

Front 11

organski

Back 11

critiques morgenthau

Front 12

Gilpin

Back 12

structural realism; Equilibrium leads to one great power on top and this country becomes too powerful to be challenged.

Front 13

Jervis

Back 13

Cooperation under security dillema; constant fear of each other and need to max power and security, offense/defense balance is needed

Front 14

Levy

Back 14

offense defense balance of WWI

Front 15

Doyle

Back 15

Liberal norm is repecting individuals autonomy and freedom to make choices that are distinct from choices of others. These differences that will arise should be controlled peacefully.

Front 16

Rosato

Back 16

Realist Critique;Democracies have peace, but the peace is not caused by their democracy

Front 17

Axelrod

Back 17

Realist critique; Looks at when actors who are selfish will spontaneously cooperate with each other

Front 18

Keohane

Back 18

Realist Critique; cooperation is possible without the existence of a dictating hegemon

Front 19

Claude

Back 19

Realist Critique; Compromise between world security and nation based balance of power system, where the latter isn’t good enough and the first is impossible right now.

Front 20

Keohanem, Nye Interdependence

Back 20

Interdependence not always characterized by mutual benefit

Front 21

Wendt

Back 21

Constructivist: Argues against Waltz and doesnt believe anarchy is bad

Front 22

Keck, Sikkink

Back 22

Constructivism; Transnational advocacy networks do play a role in the international arena. They challenge that states are the lone actors. Women’s suffrage is an example.

Front 23

Olson

Back 23

The book argues that individuals in any group attempting collective action will have incentives to "free ride" on the efforts of others if the group is working to provide public goods. Individuals will not “free ride” in groups which provide benefits only to active participants.

Front 24

Allsion

Back 24

Gives 3 different courses of action by a government to result in Cuban Missile Crisis

Front 25

Brodie

Back 25

Nuclear War; Duration is an instant, shelters aren’t sufficient, warning time less, radioactivity kills people and not infrastructure

Front 26

Wohlsetter

Back 26

6 things making nuclear deterence not automatic

Front 27

Eubank

Back 27

appeasement