BONUS LINK: My entire (so far) grad school notes collection can be found here.
Notes on Nye's "Understanding International Conflicts"
Below are my grad school notes on the first four chapters of Nye's
Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History (7th Edition)
.
Another
IR Essay I wrote.
Chapter 1: Is there an enduring logic of
conflict in world politics?
INTRO: The world is
shrinking and making conditions we once knew nothing about in remotie countries
relevant. The new century will yield more states (vs. the idea of
globalization/homogenization)—since 1989 intrastate war has been on the rise.
*What is international politics?
3 forms of
world politics: world imperial, feudal
and anarachic system of states (aka territorial states)
Order and
justice: national concerns outweigh concerns for international justice
What does the 21st century hold?
*Differing views of anarachic politics:
Realist and
liberal approach to international politics view the state of nature differently.
Realist:
Hobbes/Thucydides, continuity, state actors only, military force only
Vs.
Liberal: Locke, state
of trade prevents war, change, globalization due to disease, climate change,
nations want to just survive
“Theories are roadmaps to unfamiliar territory”
*Building blocks: actors, goals and instruments
There are
no longer just state actors—there’s now IBM, Shell etc
There is no
longer just military security—there’s human security etc
There’s no
longer just military force alone—there’s economic etc
*Peloponnesian War (in which Athens was eventually defeated
by Sparta)
-
Thucydides says it was because Sparta feared Athen’s rise.
- But
perhaps it was actually a prisoner’s dilemma (security dilemma) where the best outcome collectively isn’t the best one
individually.
- But this requires communication, trust
(difficult in anarchy), and credibility
Is War with China inevitable?
*Ethical Questions in International Politics
- There
exist moral arguments for and against war.
A good argument considers motives,
means and consequences.
- Ethic’s
role in international politics is smaller because of the varied scale of morals and causation
*3 Moral categories: Skeptics, State Moralists and
Cosmopolitans
Skeptics: Might makes right, Morals have no place, no
choices exists
State Moralists: good fences make good neighbors, state
sovereignty trumps all, society of states
Cosmopolitans: no borders only humanity, redistribution,
society of individuals
*Just war doctrine prohibit killings of civilians
Chapter 2:
Origins of Great 20th Century Conflicts (10 JAN 2012)
International Systems
and Levels of Causation
*The international political system is the pattern of
relationships among the states
The system
produces the consequences, which can ones unintended by the actors (Ex. From
Bolshevik revolution to Stalin entering a pact with Hitler)
*Geopolitics has a role with half of all conflicts between
1816 and 1992 occurring between neighbors.
- There’s
also a propensity to checkerboard alliance to counterbalance neighbor.
Levels of Analysis
*Waltz’s 3 levels of causation: the individual, the state
and the international system
*Idea that if all countries were democratic there’d be less
war
- System level analysis is explanation from outside-in
(how the system constrains the state)
- second level is inside-out (outcomes explained by
happenings inside state)
*The rule of parsimony (occam’s razor) = say a lot
with a little
Range of a
theory is also important and how many possibilities/anomalies it addresses
Systems and Process
*Structure of a system refers to its distribution of
power and process refers to patterns and types of interactions among its
units
- Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar:
Unipolar
system tend to degrade as states rise to challenge sole leader
Bipolar
system breeds rigid alliances and increase risk of global war
Multipolar
tend to have flexible alliances and if war, it’s a limited one
***Author touts that during bipolar cold war no central war
occurred for more than 40 years…but a lot of SMALL conflicts did (ex. Proxy
wars in Africa)
- International system process is determined by: it’s
structure, the surrounding cultural and institutional context and whether
states are revolutionary or moderate
Revolutionary and
Moderate Goals and Instruments
*A realist structural theory can be added to by
constructivist work as was the case with the French Revolution
- States can change their goals and their means
Sometimes
these means are technical like the advent of the machine gun and
Sometimes
social like Napoleon conscription
The Structure and
Process of 19th Century System
- For structural realists the big change came with Germany’s
unification in 1870. This disrupted the
balance of power. They were either
strong enough to take on both France and Russia or if not, they might be weak
enough to be invade.
However, an
individual prevented mayhem: Bismarck was a gifted and focused
interlocutor who formed and maintained a complex systems or treaty’s and
alliance that prevented full scale war from 1870 to 1890.
*WWI was not inevitable…human choice played a role, as did
the post-Napoleonic changes in Europe (process)
- Shock
from Napoleonic war setup the 1815 Congress of Vienna.
*Constructivist attention to process reminds us not be blind
to social change
A Modern Sequel
*There were similar worries in Europe when East and West
Germany united but there were several reasons the past wasn’t repeated:
- American
stayed involved
- The EU
played a uniting role
-
Domestically, Germany had the benefits of 50 years of democratic process in
West
Germany
Domestic Politics and
Foreign Policy
- Neorealism:
state act similiarly because of international system…HOWEVER, domestic politics
DO matter
EX:
Peloponnesian War started with domestic conflict between the oligarchs and democrats in Epidamnus
- Classic Liberalism: War is bad for business, thus
capitalist states are peaceful….HOWEVER WWI quashed this notion.
***I would
add that war itself is a business stimulant from an economic perspective though
Liberalism Revived
*Resurgence of liberalism in 1960s and 70s along the lines
of economic, social and political
- Trade
gives states a way to transform their standing through economic growth vice military conquest. The Japan example is often used, HOWEVER the
US was providing their security
for them!
- Neoliberalism emphasize the importance of institutions
because they stabilize (and thereby provide escape from security dilemma) in 4
ways:
1. provide
sense of continuity (EU)
2. provide
opportunity for reciprocity (time will balance out unevenness)
3. provide
flow of information and transparency
4. provide
method/means for conflict resolution (EU Commision and Court of Justice)
*Today’s liberals seek islands of peace or pluralistic security communities
Liberal Democracy and
War
- Liberalists and
constructivists both tout power of democratic values
They say
liberal democracies don’t fight each other, however they do still vote to go to war at times
*Furthermore,
states transitioning to democracy are MORE likely to engage in conflict
Defining National
Interests
- Realists = states have little choice in defining their
national interest due to the international system which dictate their national
interests and foreign policy
- However,
liberalists and constructivist say there’s much more to it domestically
Than that
Variations in Foreign
Policies
* Can be due to revolutions, changes in bureaucracy (***p.
51 Vietnam example is a bit simplistic
Counterfactuals
- These are contrary to fact conditionals, and they
illuminate the role of the accidental and give us a way to examine significance
of causal factors
*You can tell if a counterfactual is good using:
1.
Plausibilty (cotenability)- must be reasonable
2.
Proximity in time- closeness of two events in chain of causation
3. Relation
to Theory- this makes them useful by tieing into broader knowledge
Base
4. Fact-
need to be accurate (multiple CFs just confuse the issue)
CHAPTER 3 BALANCE OF
POWER AND WWI
BALANCE OF POWER
- WWI often blamed on balance of power. Some say that BoP causes stability BUT that
doesn’t mean peace (but does mean preserving independence).
*BoP has preserved the anarchic system
Power
- The ability to achieve one’s purpose/goals; to affect
others to get a desired outcomes. It can
also mean holding resources.
Power
conversion is the capacity to convert potential power to realized power
(measured by other’s changed behaviors).
However, power resources are context dependent.
EX: Bismark’s
use of railway technology
- Hard power: can depend on carrorts (inducements) or sticks
(threats)
- Soft (attractive) power: getting others to want what you want
It’s not
necessarily more effective or ethical than hard power (e.g. OBL)
EX: Hard power necessary
against hardened terrorists, but soft power needed to win hearts and minds of
mainstream populace
Balances as
distributions of power
*BoP can mean:
1. Distribution of power
Hegemonic
stability theory: imbalanced power = peace
2. Policy of balancing requires two assumptions to
predict behavior:
- Structure
of international politics is anarchic system of states
- States
value their independence above all else
*State will
join the side that seems weaker
*Efforts to
use ideology to predict state behavior are often wrong, whereas counterintuitive balancing of power
predictions are often correct.
China,
USSR, Vietnam and Cambodia were not in fact, all the same
*However
important to note that perceptions of threat are influenced by the proximity of that threat
3. Describe multipower historical cases: this depends
on structure and process to explain
Structure
is in alliances whereas the process is in nationalism and meetings etc.
ORIGINS OF WWI
Intro:
- As the alliance system became less flexible, the BoP
became less multipolar and the likelihood of war increased
Three Levels of
Analysis:
- system level
(structure and process), domestic societal level, Individuals
- system level: rise of German Power and increased
alliance system rigidity
Rise of
nationalism
Rise in
complacency about peace
German
policy vague and confusing
- domestic societal level:
Internal
crisis of declining Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires
Domestic
political situation in Germany: Rye and Iron Coalition
- individuals:
Mediocrity
of leadership: Franz Joseph, Count Berchtold, Czar Nicholas II and Kaiser
wilhem II.
Was War Inevitable?
- No.
- Deep
causes were changes in the structure of BoP and parts of domestic political
systems. Also big was rise of German strength, bipolar
alliance development, nationalism etc….
- Intermediate
causes were German policy, complacency and leadership idiosyncrasies.
- Precipitating
cause was Franz Ferdinand assassination
What Kind of War?
- Using
counterfactuals can help explore this issue, but ultimately human
choices matters
EX: In June
1914, Britain sent 4 battleships to Germany for a state visit—SO probable
doesn’t equal inevitable
Lessons of History
Again:
- Beware of:
*complacency
about peace
*next
crisis will fit same pattern as last crisis (Iraq)
*Today the ideology and acceptance of war is much weaker
than the prevailing fatalist Darwinist argument of the era
****Is this really true, where does NYE get this from?
CHAPTER 4: THE FAILURE OF COLLECTIVE SECURITY AND WWII
The Rise and Fall of Collective Security
- Wilson a
classic liberal/idealist who viewed BoP as immoral
- BoP seeks to preserve sovereign state system—NOT peace
- Wilson sought to change this international system from BoP
to collective security
The League of Nations
- Collective sec:
Make
aggression illegal and outlaw offensive war
Deter
aggression through coalition on non-aggressors
If deter
fails, ALL states punish
*International law supercedes domestic law
- 3 differences between CS and BoP
In CS,
focus is on aggressive policies NOT
capacity
In CS,
coalitions are NOT predetermined until aggressor acts, but then requires ALL
CS is global and universal, NO
neutrals
- Ambiguity of LoN undermined it from the start
US refusing
to join
Article 16
not specific—states can decide not join in sanctions or actions
LINKS:
http://fuuo.blogspot.com/2012/08/thoughts-on-us-response-to-alien-signal.html
