IP - Review Flashcards
(35 cards)
Three dynamics of regionalism:
- Management of Independence
- Management of Interdependence
- Management of Internationalisation
What is the management of independence?
The need for independent states to settle down (1) among themselves, (2) with their former colonial powers, and (3) with often, rival powers. Federal unions have been the result in some cases, regional organizations in other cases.
What is the management of interdependence?
Managing relations with other countries/members.
What is the management of internationalisation?
The relationship between regional organisations and the international community (perhaps other regional organisations, e.g. the EU with AU or ASEAN.)
Supranationalism and EU-integration:
Believers of supranationalism believe in the supranational institutions of the EU, namely the Commission and The Court of Justice. Furthermore, they believe that EU-integration is explained by (1) FUNCTIONAL SPILLOVER which means that integration in one policy area will lead to integration in another policy area (to fully capture the scope of the initial integrated policy area), and (2) POLITICAL SPILLOVER, which basically means the importance of supra-national and sub-national actors in the integration process. To conclude, supra nationalists see EU-integration as a self-sustaining process. Ex. The European Coal and Steel Community lead to integration in a common currency. r
Intergovernmentalism and EU-integration:
In contrast with supranationalists, intergovernmentalists emphasises the role of the nation state in EU-integration. They argue that the nation state is the main actor and rather by being weakened by pooling some of its sovereignty, it became strengthened. It was their choice to pool their sovereignty. Lastly, due to the fact that regional integration like the EU is voluntary, the nation state has the option to leave (Brexit).
What is the Myth of Protection?
The Myth of Protection says that wars are fought to protect the vulnerable in society, namely women and children. This myth is used in order to legitimise war and to legitimise and gender order - women being subordinate to men and women being in need of protection.
The gendered consequences of the Myth of Protection:
The Myth of Protection have plenty of gendered consequences. First of, it is a myth because the facts on the matter shows us that the majority of the casualties in modern war is actually women and children. In addition to being casualties, women are also extremely subject to rape in modern wars. Rape is not only an accident of war, but a systematic military strategy.
Discuss Tickner’s argument pertaining to masculinity and women’s participation in the armed forces. What kind of arguments do feminist scholars advance regarding women’s participation in the armed forces? How are masculinities constructed in relation to war?
- Women are in fact suitable for war. Conventional wisdom might say otherwise, but there are a lot of women fighting in ethnic and nationalist wars today. However, they are neglected as soldiers and are being relabelled as camp followers, sex slaves etc. This is because women’s participation in war is challenging the Myth of Protection, and challenges the picture of the ideal soldier as the just, masculine warrior.
- Feminist scholars have different arguments when it comes to the participation in the armed forces. A large part of feminist scholars believe in equality - women should be allowed and should fight in the armed forces - as well as that women’s participation challenges the Myth of Protection. Other feminist scholars argues that women should not participate in the armed forces, because women should ‘‘not fight in men’s wars’’.
What are the three factors explaining the peace between liberal democracies?
Democratic Peace Theory is based on the notion that liberal democracies don’t wage war against other liberal democracies and can be traced back to Immanuel Kant and have been further developed by liberal scholars since the 60’s. One of these liberal scholars is Michael Doyle and his three pillars are used in order to explain the separate peace that exists between liberal democracies. (1) Republican Representation, (2) Fundamental Commitment to Human Rights, and (3) The Cosmopolitan Law.
(1) Republican Representation is based on the notion that citizens will must personally bear the cost of going to war and since there’s an institutional constraint on the leader, frequency of conflict will be drastically reduced;
(2) Fundamental Commitment to Human Rights is based on that liberal democracies have a fundamental commitment to human rights. With that, liberal democracies can trust each other and have reciprocal respect and will work with each other.
(3) The Cosmopolitan Law leads to treat each other peacefully. Economic interdependence is a major factor in this. There’s mutual gains and mutual losses - and waging war with each other will create problems for both sides. Simply, there’s an international respect. A respect for property and rule of law.
What arguments do Sebastian Rosato put forward in contrast with Doyle’s DPT?
Rosato argues that liberal democracies don’t go to war less than other countries, but is has fewer reasons to do so.
Furthermore, he argues that the ‘institutional constraints on the leader’ does not really work when it comes to high politics and waging war - the leader’s of liberal democracies don’t always pay attention to the public opinion and are in fact fast at mobilising when there’s conflict.
In addition to that, Rosato argues that liberal democracies do clash with other liberal democracies when their interest’s clash. He provides empirical evidence to support his claim.
The most important is his second argument: Rosato argues that the peace between liberal democracies is there because there’s been a regional hegemon to supervise, namely the United States.
Lastly, and very important to note. In response to Rosato’s critic of Doyle, Doyle replied and argued that Rosato did not understand his three pillars. Doyle argues that the three pillars work together, and not separately. Doyle argues, much like the global economy, his three pillars are interconnected.
Explain what a transnational actor is (i.e. provide a definition), and give examples of such actors.
A transnational actor (TNA) is an actor in international politics that operates, in one way or another, across national borders. They include (but not limited to) transnational corporations (TNC’s e.g. Exxon Mobile and Microsoft); non-governmental organisations (NGO’s e.g. Amnesty International and Greenpeace) and non-legitimate groups/liberation movements (ANC used to be one of these groups during apartheid).
What opportunities do these transnational actors have to influence global politics:
Depending on the type of TNA, they have different powers, means and goals with their involvement in global politics.
If we talk about TNC’s, they get their power from their wealth. TNC’s can, and often use their power in order to enhance their position further and achieve relative gains. (1) they can threaten to move production from one country to another (making it hard to regulate and tax these companies), (2) they can use triangulation, and (3) they can change transfer price and evade taxation and government control (e.g. the Panama Papers).
If we talk about NGO’s, they get their power from their human and social capital. NGO’s are mainly concerned with getting involved in the policy-process. NGO’s form different kinds of networks in order to achieve their goals (advocacy networks, governance networks). As said, to get involved in the policy-process in their main concern and they use different kinds of networks in order to achieve their goals. In any event, (1) thing they do is lobbying – NGO’s are often consulted and have regular contacts with governments and international organisations (such as the EU or UN). In addition to that, (2) they can also participate indirectly by producing reports on human rights violation (e.g. engage in naming and shaming).
What do realist think of the importance of international institutions?
Realists are pessimistic in its account of global politics and international institutions. Realists are with that they believe that states are the main actors and they believe the international stage to be a Hobbesian anarchy, and states are forced into cooperation with other states in the pursuit of relative gains. Countries must ensure their own survival (not expect other people to help you) and thus leading to a maximising of power and security. Furthermore, international organisations can not stop a powerful country from doing what they want (ex. Copenhagen Conference, even though the absolute gains were obvious). States have no permanent friends or enemies, merely permanent interests.
What do liberal think of the importance of international institutions?
Liberals, contrary to realists, also believe that states are the main actors but they more pluralistic and believe that institutions are an important player in global politics. They do believe that international institutions can foster co-operation and this co-operation, contrary to realist, is motivated by absolute gains (the common good). Abolition of slavery or abolition of apartheid is an example often used by liberals when talking about international institutions influencing state behaviour.
What do constructivists think of the importance of international institutions?
Rather than focusing on the configuration of units (e.g. state and non-state actors), constructivist focus on the intersubjective meanings (e.g. ideas, norms, values and identities) that are present, shared and enable the units to interact in an intelligible way on the international stage. These intersubjective meanings are what provide a basis for cooperation: for example the Bretton Woods institutions to co-operate on trade, which is a reflection of the capitalist/liberal identities of the Western liberal democracies. Social contexts are also altered over time. With the evolution of ideas, values, norms and identities come an evolution of the relations between actors. Two states that are cooperating on one day, might not cooperate another and vice versa.
What are respective strengths and weaknesses of realism, liberalism and constructivism?
Realism’s strength lies in it’s simplicity, practicality and rationality. It’s weakness lies in its fixation of the state as the main actor at the expense of international organisations. Realism could sometimes be seen as inept of explaining contemporary IR.
Liberalism’s strength, on the contrary, lies in its openness to other actors than the state. However, liberalism might give way to an over-reliance on IO’s, since state’s sometimes do act irrationally (from a liberal point of view) against obvious absolute gains.
Constructivism account of ideational rather than purely material factors as well as its wide applicability are strengths of constructivism. However, it’s weakness lies in how time-consuming and complicated the approach is. In some situations, rationality and simplicity is key.
Who and what caused the Cold War: A Traditionalist Perspective
The traditionalists believe that Soviet was the country who caused the Cold War. After WWII, U.S. troops were defensive while the Soviet was aggressive and expansive. Evidence used to support these claims are the following, but not limited to:
- U.S. demobilised their troops while Russia kept their troops.
- They did not the U.N. seriously since they wanted to keep their troops and expand their powers in Eastern Europe.
- Russia did not remove its troops from Northern Iran.
- In 1950, communist North Korea invaded South Korea. These events gradually awakened U.S to the threat of communist expansionism.
Who and what caused the Cold War: A Revisionist Perspective
On the contrary, revisionists believe that Cold War was caused by the Americans, not the Soviet Union. They are arguing that the world was not bi-polar, instead the U.S. was significantly stronger than the Soviets. U.S. had nuclear weapons, Soviet did not. Furthermore, Soviet lost about 30 million and their industrial production was only half the 1939-level.
In addition to those factors (that the world was not bi-polar), revisionists are divided upon two camps on the causes of the Cold War:
- One camp believes that it was Roosevelt’s death that caused the Cold War. After Roosevelt came Truman, and Truman was not Soviet friendly.
- Another camp believe that it was U.S capitalism that caused the Cold War. American economy required expansion, not for democracy, but for capitalism.
Who and what caused the Cold War: A Post-revisionist Perspective
The post-revisionists focused on the structural level. They argue that the Cold War was no side’s fault, rather it was the bi-polar structure of the post-War: only two powerful countries were left. European weakness + bi-polarity created a power vacuum.
In addition to that, the two sides had different goals:
- U.S wanted to establish a liberal world order and create institutions to foster that liberal world order (e.g the UN).
- Russia on the other hand, we’re more focused on securing control over their territory as well as expansion in Eastern Europe.
- > These goals were clashed with each other.
Cooperation between states/international co-operation: Realism
Realist are rather pessimistic when it comes to the co-operation between states and the importance of international institutions. Realist believe the world to be anarchic and due to the structure of the international system (security dilemma, balance of power), states are forced into cooperation with each other in the pursuit of relative gains. Realist believes the state to be the only important actor and that international institutions can not force states to do something that they do not want (Ex. Copenhagen Conference - where the absolute gains were obvious but states still chose to walk the other way in the pursuit of relative gains). Realist believe that co-operation can only happen when there’s an hegemony to supervise and only when there’s an alteration to the balance of power (i.e. the Rise of China and the threat to the current hegemony).
Cooperation between states/international co-operation: Liberalism
Liberalism, believes that state’s are the most important but don’t neglect the importance of non-state actors/international institutions. Liberals believe that non-state actors influence global politics and believe that international institutions can and should foster co-operation and that this co-operation, due to the structure of the system (economic interdependence) is mutually beneficial. Mutual wins, mutual losses. Contrary from realist belief, liberals believe that states are motivated by absolute gains (the common good). They use the abolition of slavery or the abolition of apartheid as examples when state co-operation work.
Cooperation betweens states/international co-operation: Constructivism
- Rather than focusing on the configuration of units (e.g. state and non-state actors), constructivist focus on the intersubjective meanings (e.g. ideas, norms, values and identities) that are present, shared and enable the units to interact in an intelligible way on the international stage.
- These intersubjective meanings are what provide a basis for cooperation: for example the Bretton Woods institutions to co-operate on trade, which is a reflection of the capitalist/liberal identities of the Western liberal democracies. States that are similar, with regards to identities and ideology, are more likely to co-opreate than states ideologically different.
- Social contexts are also altered over time. With the evolution of ideas, values, norms and identities come an evolution of the relations between actors. Two states that are cooperating on one day, might not cooperate another and vice versa.
Ex. Former Soviet Union countries that now are a part of the liberal world order.
How do proponents of the orthodox perspective define poverty?
Proponents of the orthodox perspective define poverty squarely in economic terms, as a failure, through a lack of income or resources, to satisfy basic material needs. The orthodox perspective is an perspective rooted in neo-liberalism focused which is expert-led (top-down approach) with large capital investments.
