pols4500 finals Flashcards
(42 cards)
what is democratic peace hypthotesis
democracy do not fight each other.
liberalism and world politics Doyle
liberal states are peaceful, but are also prone to war. they have created a separate zone for peace in their relationship with non liberal states, they are insecure under anarchy.
liberal internationalism kant- liberal pacism- scumpeter. liberal imperialism Machiavelli
liberal pacifism- most people don’t benefit from war. war only benefits military aristocrats and war profiteer.
imperialism- best form of state for imperial expansion. liberal state protect private property.
liberal internationalism- legal equality for all citizens and separation of power. federation, provides guarantee of respect and cosmopotalism for trade and tourism. liberal states respect other states as moral equals and fight with non liberal motives far beyond economic.
moaz- normative and structural for democratic peace
normative model- shared democratic and liberal values. they regulate competition peacefully. favors compromise to disagreement. non democratic resolves conflict through violence and coercion.
structural model; democratic institutions make war unattractive for democartics government. because through elections citizens control government decisions.
more public opinions makes it more difficult for democracies to go to war. moaz find the normative more attractive
rosato- both normative and structural model illogical:
is flawed because American power and its influence in Europe is the reason for this explanation. democracies do not externalize norms of conflicts resolution. and do not treat each other with trust and respect if they have conflict of interest. accountability with the structural model logic. Democratic leaders are removed more often, than autocratic leaders. most citizens do not go to war. leaders can be more influential over public opinion. effect of nationalism and rally around the flag. democracies keep secrets.
rosato better explanation for democratic peace
democracies will only go trust each other if they consider each other democratic. the strong commitment of the us and Europe remain at peace does not means all democracies will be at peace with one another.
bueno de Mesquita normative explanation for democratic peace flawed.
history shows democracies follow policies that do not fit with democratic norms examples. imperialism, colonialism, and fighting weaker states. democracies are very prone to war, rally around the flag effect can mobilize support for war quickly.
peace based on domestic institutions. institutions differ the effect on democrtas vs autocrats
all democratic leaders try harder to win wars. and all political leaders want to remain in office. autocrats need to spend more resources for political survival, they dont fear losing in war as much because tehy can still stay in power. democrats dont fight wars they dont think they will win. they have more people to please.
copeland- economic interdependence realist vs liberal
realist argue that interdependence increase the probability of war because it gives states incentives to initiate war, if only to ensure continues access to resources.
liberals argue that it decreases the likelihood of war because it increases the value of trade over aggressive actions.
copeland theory to recocile the trade expectations between realist and liberals
how economically self-sufficient is the state and their expectation for future trade. liberals say trade provides valuable benefits dependent states should avoid war. absolute gain trade is more profitable than invasion. realist says economic interdependency higher the likelihood of war, states worry about them looking vulnerable, relative gain logic.
effects on preferential trade arrangement PTA. violent conflict between the two.
state gain economic benefits by joining PTA. barriers to trade are reduced. better access to foreign markets. attractive to foreign investors. more leverage with 3rd party in Ir economic negotiations.
conflicts by: problems with relative gain. parties to the same PTA are less prone to conflict. less likely for trade flows to rise between them, strong negative relationships with commerce and conflict.
how ptas commercials institutions produce peace
increase the cost of the military, give a greater incentive to consider a peaceful bargain. provide info over others states’ military capabilities. bring higher level of state leaders on regular basis.
Gatzke explanation for liberal peace, and how capitalism explain the absence of war.
capitalism keeps the peace better than democracy. democracy reflects the popular will and popular will may be unhappiness. free markets and development bring greater prosperity and bring states closer together.
contructivism explanation for war. contructivism and international relations
states acts differently between friends and enemy. people act towards things based on the meaning the things have for them. identity argument. how they identify with one another.
contructivism on anarchy
anarchy does not tell us which states are friends which are enemies. us military power has significant new meaning to Canada than it does to cuba although they are similar in structural position in terms of global powers.
wendt- cooperative, individualist, and competitive security system.
cooperative states identify positively with one another and they are responsible for each other’s security- an idealistic world.
individualist- states are responsible for their own security but collective and cooperation are possible. neoliberal world.
competitive security, states identify negatively with each other’s security. realist world.
constructivist approach on the us invaded iraq not North Korea
although similar axis of evil. the us has a different identity with North Korea than iraq. identity-based on Iraq- 1991 gulf war. identity based on 1994 agreed framework. aggreement and war
contructivst explanation for the us invaded iraq and not north korea vs a realist explanation
realist would predict a us invasion towards north korea and not iraq. because North Korea poses a gretaer military threat to the us than iraq. howard argue taht misperception of the north korea threat as weak and that yes it will be to costly but would benefit the us security more by elimnating the North Korea military threat
huth- strenght of the effect of extended deterrence
the defender has better capabilities than attacker- at least to deny a cheap victory.
reciprocity of the defender willingness to use force
firm but flexible diplomatic strategy.
weakness of extended deference
past bullying, reduce the defender’s credibility for bargained solution.
why did the us go on nuclear alert in 1969
sent a message to the soviets and north vietnam about laughing a major attack on north vietnam if they did not negatione settleemnt. try to deter soviet attack against china. evidence says it was more about Vietnam. Nixon wanted alert to be risk-free but lost control caused military complexity. alert was ineffective. soviet did not get the signal and launched an attack in a unsafe manner, mistake could have causes ww3
assumptions on nuclear weapons diplomacy and why dod not fit nuclear alert of 1969
cheap signaling, secret from the public, the signal was a bluff. nixon did another nuclear alert against Arab Israeli. nuclear signaling choice rather tah the internal domestic politics going on in the us
sangan and suri- madman theory of nuclear weapons.
it can be beneficial in coercive bargaining to appear to the other party as mad or insane.
sagan and suri- application of madman theory to rogue states
it can be rational for a leader with nuclear weapons to act by being a madman, but the problem can escalate out of control and a misunderstanding can result in a failure of deterrence and cause nuclear war no one wants.
