Pols 104 Definitions

Front 1

Security Dilemma

Back 1

A situation where a state acts militarily or diplomatically to make itself more secure and another state interprets these actions as threat to its own security. This state then in turn acts similarly, with a similar interpretation and response by the other state. An ironic cycle of unintended provocations emerges, resulting in an escalation of the conflict which may eventually lead to open warfare.

An example is the beginning of WWI. The major European powers felt insecure about the alliances of their neighbours, resulting in the mobilization of troops by both sides. These escalating feelings of insecurity led to the outbreak of war despite neither side really wanting it.

Realists see the Security Dilemma arising due to the inherent nature of states and their obsession with security, which as a result becomes a zero-sum game, with only relative gains possible. Others see the dilemma as a result of lack of effective communication between states, and stress the importance of this to avoid such situations.

Front 2

Nation-State

Back 2

A state is geopolitical entity and a nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity. A Nation-State has the characteristics of both, with the 'nation' existing within the state.

An example is Japan, a geopolitical entity almost entirely made up of ethnic 'Japanese'.

In Herz's Security Theory After the treaty of Westphalia (1648) , Nation-States became organizing principle for providing security. However after 1945 we have supposedly entered a a new system with a new organizing principle, although this is disputed. Realists believe the Nation-State is the most, if not only important actor in international relations.

Front 3

Herz's Security Theory

Back 3

John Herz's Security Theory centers around the existence of an organizing principle. The basic political unit that offered security and protection to human beings. Major conflict occurs when a new organizing principle seeks to take over. His theory divides history into three periods. 1. Pre-History-1618, where the organizing principle was defined in spiritual terms. In 1648 the Westphalian system arrived with Nation-States as the organizing principle which lasted until 1914. In 1945 The new organizing principle took over, defined in terms of international cooperation and organization.

The arrival of this 3rd Period is hotly contested however.Contesting theories with the latter part of Herz's theories are Fukuyama's 'The end of history' and Huntington's 'Clash of Civilizations'.

Front 4

End of History

Back 4

Francis Fukuyama proposed the idea of the End of History. He proposed that history, defined by Hegel's idea of history being the development or evolution of society. From feudalism to capitalism to communism, which has now been defeated by free market ideology. Fukuyama sees free market ideology and liberal democracy as the final form of society, and therefore 'history' as defined as such has ended.

Small conflicts will still occur, as liberal democracy and free markets have yet to fully take over the world however, but eventually they will.The fact that liberal democratic nation's have not gone to war with each other supports this theory, although has the evolution of society really finished with free market and liberal democracies?

Front 5

Clash of Civilizations

Back 5

Samuel Huntington's idea of the Clash of Civilizations refers to his hypothesis over the nature of future conflicts. He believes we are still in Herz's second period, the Westphalian system where Nation-States are the principle actor. However he hypothesizes that the source of conflict will be cultural, and that war will be between civilizations. Huntington identified eight civilizations across the world, Western, Latin American, Islamic, Sinic, Hindu, Orthodox, Japanese and African. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battleground of future conflict.

However can the world really be divided so easily into these civilizations? What about conflict in Rwanda?

Front 6

Détente

Back 6

Détene - noun, "Improvement in the relationship between two countries which in the past was not friendly / trusting."

Often used to describe the thawing of relations between the US and the Soviet Union during the 1970s during the Cold War.In interesting time of the Cold War, with debate existing over what exactly the détente meant to each side, how much it really existed, and what were the effects of it.

START and SALT treaties, Yom Kippur, Vietnam, Sino-Soviet-US, Domestic Issues, Cuban Crisis, Brezhnev-Nixon

Front 7

Imperialism

Back 7

A policy aimed at establishing a power relationship over another territory. This occurs when one political unit, usually stronger and richer, imposes its influence over another territory and displaces the political authority of that territory.

E.g: Expansions of British, Dutch, Spanish, Roman empires etc.

Effects of imperialism, both on the imperialists and those they take over, ---> Colonialism

Front 8

Colonialism

Back 8

A policy of maintaining a power relationship over time. It usually occurs when the imperial power takes over the administration of the new colony - either directly or indirectly -for a long period of time.

E.g British control over their empire, Commonwealth

Effects of colonialism on both sides, also what happens with a colonial power withdraws from a territory? E.g sovereignty given to India, suppressed differences between Muslims and Hindus allowed to come out. -> Partition

Front 9

Partition

Back 9

The act of dividing (a country or territory) into separate, usually differing political entities, most often along ethno-religious lines.

E.g Partition of India --> Pakistan (1947)
Partition of Ireland --> Northern Ireland (1937)

Long lasting effects / conflicts. Also flow on effect, if some places can have partition why can't others who want it? --> more conflict.

Front 10

Failed-State

Back 10

Characteristics of Failed States

Loss of physical control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein.
Erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions.An inability to provide reasonable public services and an inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community.

E.g Somalia, Afghanistan

After the Cold War and after Somalia, Clinton said failed-states were not of national interest to the US, did not consider them a threat. This changed after 9/11 and the rise of terrorism as failed-states can easily harbour terrorists. Challenging concept for realism due to a state that is not an actor and the significance of non-state actors within them (e.g terrorists, pirates) on the global scene.

Front 11

End of History

Back 11

A situation where a state acts militarily or diplomatically to make itself more secure and another state interprets these actions as threat to its own security. This state then in turn acts similarly, with a similar interpretation and response by the other state. An ironic cycle of unintended provocations emerges, resulting in an escalation of the conflict which may eventually lead to open warfare.

An example is the beginning of WWI. The major European powers felt insecure about the alliances of their neighbours, resulting in the mobilization of troops by both sides. These escalating feelings of insecurity led to the outbreak of war despite neither side really wanting it.

Realists see the Security Dilemma arising due to the inherent nature of states and their obsession with security, which as a result becomes a zero-sum game, with only relative gains possible. Others see the dilemma as a result of lack of effective communication between states, and stress the importance of this to avoid such situations.

Front 12

Multilateralism

Back 12

"Working collectively with members of the international community to advance shared goals or to solve common problems."

E.g League of Nations, United Nations, ECOSOC

Non-zero sum game.US's changing stances on multi/unilateralism, does it work? How multi lateral is he UN really? Issues with Security Council?Liberalists believe it is the framework for peace, Realists don't agree, self interest prevails.-> zero-sum game.