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;
49 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Cerny |
States are central power, but are in decline Why? More porous borders; globalization (markets, flows of money, etc) NGOs transnational lobbying increased role of corporations |
|
|
fungibility |
translate capability to power |
|
|
Cerny and fungibility |
cobweb theory: more difficult to translate capability to power |
|
|
Globalization Paradox |
we cannot simultaneously pursue democracy, national self-determination, and economic globalization |
|
|
asymmetrical interdependence |
the less needy side has more power We’d expect the more needy side to comply with what the less needy side wants |
|
|
Bargaining Theory |
We can explain compliance by analyzing: how much the target values what is being asked of it to give up or to change |
|
|
Balance of threat |
Stephen Walt states balance against most threatening, not most powerful |
|
|
butterfly effect |
small causes can have large effects |
|
|
Buzan and Lawson |
Modern world shaped way more in 19th century than we understand Steam engine was more important than computer |
|
|
Realist view on relationship bet. interdependence and conflict |
-interdependence devolves into asymmetrical interdependence, leads to conflict |
|
|
Liberalist view on relationship bet. interdependence and conflict |
-interdependence reduces conflict -costs too high (economic interdependence) -trade brings cultural awareness |
|
|
sociological liberalism |
-with trade comes intercultural understanding -the more we know others, the less we see them as different, targets, the less conflict. |
|
|
relationship bet. interdependence and conflict |
LEEDP 1) Leadership matters 2) Expectations of Future Trade goes up, conflict goes down 3) Effective signaling 4) Democracies less likely to fight each other 5) Participation in international organizations reduces conflict |
|
|
Evolutionary learning |
Two views: 1) war has gone down, because we’ve evolved to be more moral 2) we've evolved to find war less practical From Pinker, Better Angels |
|
|
Pinker
|
Better Angels
-the worldbecame less violent over last 5000 years -interstate violence -domestic violence -murders |
|
|
Moral absolutism |
there is an objective morality |
|
|
Moral relativism |
no objective morality US constitution based on this concept |
|
|
Differences between states and MNCs |
1) states seek loyalty w/in borders; MNCs seek loyalty across borders 2) states have nat'l concerns; MNCs international 3) boundaries crucial to states; not to MNCs |
|
|
Attributes of states |
1) taxation 2) territory 3) guarantors of security (can raise armies) 4) population 5) international recognition |
|
|
Barber |
Jihad vs McWorld MNCs are competing with the state |
|
|
Obsolescing bargaining theory |
original bargain favors MNC, but as MNC increases its assets in host state, state gains the upper hand |
|
|
What can multinational corporations do? |
1) Control a lot of money 2) Affect employment and therefore GDP 3) Affect investments around the world 4) Their practices can precipitate global crises 5) Affect fate of lesser developed world 6) Impact cultures 7) Lobby governments |
|
|
under what conditions will transnational actors have influence on state leadership? |
Thomas Risse 1) strong societies 2) level of fragmentation matters 3) follows international norms |
|
|
Richard Haas |
A World in Disarray (2017) -CW was predictable (world 1.0) -In world 2.0 (multipolar) is less stable, and interestingly transnational problems are the main issues making the world less secure -FP focuses on CW instead of new problems |
|
|
Hegemonic stability theory |
the international system is more likely to remain stable when a single nation-state is the dominant world power Probably false: Bipolar system most stable according to realists |
|
|
challenges of addressing transnational problems |
1) Assumptions of realism 2) Prisoner’s dilemma 3) Sovereignty 4) Jurisdiction 5) Collective action – free riding. |
|
|
Soft power |
trying to obtain outcome you want through attraction |
|
|
Power |
the ability to get others to do what you want atacceptable cost |
|
|
challenges for soft power |
1) it takes time 2) no way to control it 3) we don't know it actually works 4) interpreted differently around the globe |
|
|
Under what conditions is Soft Power more likely to succeed? |
When: 1) Target audience is more receptive to message 2) Culture/Govt aligned w/world 3) Like-minded elites 4) Heterogeneity 5) More globalized |
|
|
traditional sources of power |
1) democracy 2) economic statecraft 3) military statecraft |
|
|
Barbara Haskell |
Access to Society: A Neglected Dimension of Power (1980) States that will benefit most from globalization will 1) attract others—businesses and people, and 2) control the penetration |
|
|
Francis Fukuyama |
End of History -Since history is driven by conflict of ideas, and since one side has won, this means history will no longer be driven by conflict of ideas -However, rise of illiberal democracies has challenged his idea |
|
|
Sam Huntington |
Clash of Civilizations -Future conflict will not be between nation states -Rather, between civilizations that were made up of ideas |
|
|
Amitav Acharya |
How Ideas Spread in a ModernWorld (2004) -If you want to shape outcomes, how is it that you try to win in the ideas game? -One way to get ideas to catch on is thru framing |
|
|
Sydney Tarrow |
the New Transnational Activism (2005, 2010) Framing is the use of language, symbols, archetypes, media to try to shape how people think about critical social issues |
|
|
Transnational Liberalism |
like-minded elites don’t balance against each other |
|
|
Constructivism |
-constructing reality for others to see is an underrated source of power -Alter what’s on the agenda |
|
|
oil price shock absorbers |
1) strategic petroleum reserves 2) rise of the US in the region 3) International Energy Agency 4) spare capacity |
|
|
types of energy power |
CEEPOS 1) power of Consumption 2) power of Energy resources 3) power of Efficiency (the more efficient, the more power) 4) power over Pipelines 5) power over Oil supply 6) power Statecraft; energy coercion |
|
|
Oil and transnational problems |
1) Oil is a contributor to climate change 2) Oil is linked to terrorism 3) Oil doesn't promote democratization |
|
|
constructivist explanation for terror |
-what's the software in their head? -it's about perception -terrorists see US as trying to undermine the muslim world -leaders are colluding with West -this is vulnerable to cognitive bias |
|
|
deep historical explanation for terror |
-bernard lewis-what went wrong? -muslim world went from apogee of global leadership there was a massive descent over several hundred years -muslim societies continue to suffer effects |
|
|
twin motivation explanation for terror |
-near and far enemies -shift from near to far attacks |
|
|
failed states explanation for terror |
-failed states are refuges for terrorists -they can set up shop and influence gov's |
|
|
strategic actor explanation for terror |
-terrorists are cross benefit calculators -terror serves their interests -they want their empire back -they want to aggrandize |
|
|
blame-the-west explanation for terror |
-US FP in the ME has not gone over well in muslim world -US relationships with ME monarchies and Israelis make US a target |
|
|
role of west and globalization explanation for terror |
-Western driven globalization runs up against conservatism |
|
|
Other basic explanations for terror |
-poverty -education level -oil -mental illness -humiliation |
