International Relations Test #2

Front 1

arms race

Back 1

• Action-reaction pattern (Richardson, 1960)
o A (secure or insecure) builds up weapons)
• B feels threatened and follows suit
• A feels threatened and issues a threat
• Self-fueling international dynamic
• Classic example pre-1914 naval race
o UK “had to have” a fleet 2x as large as enxt biggest fleet
• Cold War is supreme example

Front 2

security dilemma

Back 2

• Each state responsible for its own security
• Problem with security:
o How do you know when you have it? (HK)?
• Quest for security leads to insecurity (vicious circle)
• Realism: systemic structure fuels arms races & security dilemma
• We must distinguish between:
o Defense (divisible/zero sum)
o Security (indivisible/positive sum)

Front 3

MAD

Back 3

• Mutually assured destruction, dominance of offensive over defensive weapons, neither side would risk starting

Front 4

democide

Back 4

• murder of someone by a government that is not genocide

Front 5

Kant’s three characteristics of a peaceful nation

Back 5

• Representative Democracy with separation of powers
• Commerce
• International Organizations and Law

Front 6

Diplomacy

Back 6

• discussions and negotiations among states as emphasized by the liberal perspective

Front 7

summitry

Back 7

• the use of a summit conference for international negotiation

Front 8

deterrence

Back 8

• preventing an attack by threatening retaliation against the potential attacker

Front 9

international law

Back 9

• the customary rules and codified treaties under which international organizations operate; t covers political, economic and social rights

Front 10

seven principles of just war

Back 10

• Just cause
• Competent authority
• Comparative justice
• Right intention
• Last resort
• Probability of success
• proportionality

Front 11

Realsim

Back 11

• “Might makes right”
o Say there is no such thing as HI, they are very skeptical
• Condi Rice article, basically says Bush Doctrine, says it isn’t in our interest to deal with these problems
• States pursue strategic interests and goals, not altruism
• HI serves to mask underlying strategic interests
• Intervention undermines order which is a precondition for …justice. Note the dichotomy here- realists want order for there to be peace and justice.

Front 12

Liberalism/Communitarian

Back 12

• “Majority makes right”
o Respect for state sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity
• Set the bar high for intervention- violation of state sovereignty justified to counter the treat to an entire political community within its borters
• Must be exceptional, but it must be an option
• States adopt certain obligations and resp.s as members of intnat. soc.
• They must pursue interests only a/c rules accepted by society of states
• Justice is a precondition for order
• Liberals want justice overall, saying there can be no order without justice.

Front 13

Liberalism/Cosmopolitan

Back 13

Morality makes right”
o States: moral standing, right to autonomy & non interference derive from their willingness and capacity to respect and defend the security and welfare of their citizens.
• Belief in moral, political, & legal compulsion to respond to humanity. crises
• Elevates some human rights above post-Westphalian right of sovereignty
• The individual now considered as fundamentally important subject of IR; members of the community of the human kind; have inherent moral standing
• Less inclined to respect “state sovereignty” as a bar to interefere in affairs of other states
• Moral, political and legal compulsion to intervene
 Note distinction between civil rights and human rights- guaranteed by the state versus guaranteed by international community

Front 14

legality of H.I.

Back 14

• Legality determined by norms of international law
o Treaties suggest HI usually “illegal”
• Custom emerging that says “legal?”
• International law need for UN authorization
 UNSC threat to peace only
 Unilateral intervention or groups of states (even NATO) illegal under international law
• International human rights/humanitarian law growing in volume

Front 15

Legitimacy of H.I.

Back 15

o Legitimacy may be based on political or moral grounds
• “legitimacy” of countries involved?
• Degree of popular/ political support?
• Action necessary and proportionate?
• Legitimacy relativizes legality issues
 Ratification after the fact (ECOMOG in Liberia)- AU allows HI, only international organization to do so
 Numerous example of states intervening and not being sanctioned but the UN
• Increasingly, considerations of legitimacy are affecting definition of legality- think about the number of states propped up by the Cold War powers that are now failed states.

Front 16

Sources of International Law

Back 16

• Treaties and agreements between states
• Precedent
• Judicial writings and rulings, peer custom.
• Differences from domestic
o Practical way it is/isn’t enforced. International law is a lot more optional, a product of agreements, whereas domestic law is imposed from a higher authority

Front 17

Mary Kaldor: Beyond Militarism

Back 17

o “system of system”, puts all of the technology of the military under one network
o zero casualty, as little human sacrifice as possible
o domestic support
• is Iraq an exception to the rule?
o Neomodern militarism- war between states, regular armament, better faster stronger; conventional mode of warfare

Front 18

• 1991: UNSC Resolution 688-

Back 18

for the first time in history of the UN, the international community is authorized to send in armed forces to prevent an internal massacre- written to protect the Kurds from Saddam Hussein. Sets an important precedent, somewhat chips away at sovereignty.