BONUS LINK: My entire (so far) grad school notes collection can be found here.
*We are better off with a diverse array of competing ideas
than a single theoretical orthodoxy.
Where are we coming
from?
- study of IR is protracted competition
between realist, liberal and radical
*Realism: struggle for power among self-interested states,
pessimistic about prospects for peace
Classical: states (like humans) have innate desire
to dominate others
Neorealist:
effects of international system, a
number of great powers trying to survive
Defensive:states merely seek to survive and
guarantee security through alliances
and defensive military postures
*Liberalism:
- economic
interdependence would discourage states from using force against each other
- Spread of
the democracy the key to world peace (democratic states more peaceful than autocratic ones)
- encourage
states to forgo immediate gains for greater benefits of long term
cooperation
*Radicalism:
- orthodox
Marxism say capitalism central cause of conflict
-
neomarxist dependency theory says large capitalists states ally with elites of developing world to exploit the masses
-
deconstructionist emphasize importance of language and discourse but haven’t
offered a
lot on alternatives to mainstream theories
New Wrinkles in Old
Paradigms
*In Realism redux, the problem of relative and absolute
gains arises.
*New Liberalism:
-
Democratic peace theory says democracies rarely fight each other, however in new democracies, the states are more prone
to war, so promoting democracy can actually
promote instability
-
Institutionalist point to NATOs ability to adapt
*Constructivism
- the
impact of ideas, such as Gorbachev embracing ‘common security’
- Wendt: Anarchy is what states make of it
Domestic politics
Reconsidered:
- emergence of
interest in the concept of culture which intersects and overlaps with
constructivists
*Walt points to realism as the most compelling framework for
the future
No comments:
Post a Comment