Ir231 1st Lec. 24/09/2019
But what if there's a complete strong one, although we're always talking about the
Download 0.86 Mb. View original pdf
|
Ayşe-Şevval-Raylaz Assignment 2, book assignment, ENG102 Final, adm1122, Adm1122 midterm
| But what if there's a complete strong one, although we're always talking about the duality we're talking about the rising powers too. • • there has always been hegemonies especially in these times • anew hegemon will emerge out of the system • it will start to implement its own regulations, rules laws . free trade during the British period. • the issue is whether the hegemony is trying to become an empire by complete erosion of all other states sovereignty • after the United States victory in a war and didn't fight after the Cold War, we were talking about unipolarity • also supporting increasing power instates as Japan ins when there is the risk of a transformation from a sovereign state system, complete destruction of anarchy -> move towards an empire <— balance of power tries to promote that 19 • it does not prevent the emergence of wars • because it's an international system as long as there is anarchy • although states are not supposed to be warring on you just because they like to because there are principles • but there is no mechanism to prevent this great power to attack the wee • especially if you're a democracy this is difficult • if you're Kingdom or authoritarian leader or having a totalitarian system this is much easier because you build on this holistic revisions policies of changing your borders • think about this period when there was no CNN and no international news local n • who will come to help you why should they help you • but anarchical international society tells us that states are sovereign and all states yare responsible to respect state sovereignty Will the international norms of the International Society prevent this big state from invading their only minimum standards of coexistence Ok • we still taught that the balance of power work because there was no world war • these days most states always have an option • we can talk about the Syrian civil war as anew venue for international competition. 08/10/2019-Tuesday-3rd Lec - anarchy made some states behave in diff. manners • imp. traits of anarchy creating security dilemma which we face on a daily basis mostly bc of anarchical intl. system • security dilemma in short idea of never being sure of exact motiv. of other states • in intl. society—> constant insecurity • makes you build new measurements to defend yourself—> as a result other states feel threatened—> then they built new measurements—> new states feel threatened and soon dilemma • overcome security dilemma according to realist not working • as long as there is a anarchy—> security dilemma 20 • from where can we trust • A—> (…) never you, I have defines system, don’t spend money on weapons • can Abe trusted - 2nd : Existence of anarchy locks us in mistrust • in intl.system cannot be trusted on • issue of trust in sth. that we have seen in intl. politics • what is sanctioning if states do not keep promises • how can my neighbour trust me, what if I am cheating • basic problem in IR cheating • belief of cheating—> just behaviour for states • there is no sanctioning state • in anarchical intl. system we can never be sure of the other—> constant security dilemma • sites built military power in order to boost strategies • we can never be sure of the military power merely for defensive or offensive power • mechanism—> wether state A—> i.e. building new weapon system • —> B sees—> A Thus B builds more weapons • —> A then again feeling threatened builds more • this insecurity —> locks states in certain security dilemmas—> negatively effecting cooperative efforts in intl. politics • in anarchical system states cannot (…) • realist approach cannot think of abs. games 21 • —> states in anarchy are told ro think in zero sum games • there is no idea of mutual benefit but constant risk of cheating • —> ongoing characteristic of intl. politics • when states locked insecurity dilemma > anarchy—> constant power struggle with lack of authority • desperation of states —> through balance of powers states try to cope w risky preponderance of power • in intl system—> military power to measure states power—>i.e. how many tanks, planes, missiles, nuclear weapons, soft power • —> rather coercive power • traditional measurement —> military power • dilemma of security, cheating etc. etc. all circulated around military power until 19th. cent. • balance of power system realist and anarchical intl. system makes states act in certain ways • —> compels them to act in certain way • makes states emb(…) in competitor • existence of anarchy creates states to act in similar ways • realism : leadership, dictatorship, population, independent—> anarchical system makes all these states act similarly • states functionally similar bc no authority to make states change, to make one state to attack one another • there is no mechanism - balance of power ( bop) brought us stability • —> was useful in a sense it created stability • fro realists war as last resort of diplomacy • hate) part of an anarchical intl system • bop was not useful bc of peace • —> aims were not peace but rather preserving an anarchical intl. system • keep states system intact • bop based on Westpahlia • —> nonintervention mad ensured state system survived through certain patterns • bop does not bring peace but helps preserve anarchical intl. system of states • states imp. be no other mechanism to make them survive - why bop 22 • states care more for own surviving, independence • —> building alliances—> meaning surviving • J. Nye; 1988: Iran-Iraq War • —> how (…..) states alliances in war Iraq attack Khomeini’s Iran, 1980 Iran was weal • S. Hussein thought all Arab states would go behind him • Syria went further along and supported Iran • what can explain Syria’s behaviour as a fellow Arab State but go overreach Iran • —> from 1982 most loyal alliance • shows that state actors think about over(…)of their counterpart preventing it by building new alliances • IR discipline possible to make explanations of events in 3 main levels • level of analysis fundamental to understand events 1. indv. level • individual analysis/expl. • i.e.: leader—> see Kaiser Wilhelm and his. role of the assassination of Archduke • we see states constantly allaying w each other • why alliances do notwork when bop, or too rigid, loose 2. state level • what has been happening in domestics • states are locked in system • i.e: German Nationalism—> 1871 imp. factor (what has been happening domestically, developments • acc. to realist : whatever happens on state level or domestic does not change their behav. in intl. affairs • acc. to liberals what happens dom. directly affects intl. affairs 3. systematic level • Nyle problematising bc there is a system of anarchy • law of world gov mech. of all states • —> WWI • —> WWI is a good example showing us how bop breaks and systemic power - cycles change in intl system not of the system • bop breaks the war and new order established 23 • in WWI—> Wilson estab. the League of Nations —> collective security • acc. to Wilson reason of War nationalism • ideas of Wilson • —> end of empires • —> upholds self determination of states • —> Wilsons 14th principle against secret wartime agreements against bilateral agreements for open agreements • —> everyone knows the rule of the game • 2. principle self determination • 3. what was interesting in 14th principle —> creation of intl. institutions argues : peace in world achieved • —> collective security at opposite end of bop • when states (…)—> one state stronger (..) by building alliances—> almost automatic mechanism • —> Wilson : bop the problem itself • change needed • Wilson wanted manmade machinery to overcome anarchy • manmade machinery was resulting in League of Nations which brought for the st time peace alone states • (…)2 • —> new concept of collective security • its failure underlined that anarchy too strong once again • important key of League of Nations (…) • —> anarchy was such a characteristic of our intl. system to overcome • it was enduring (…)3 bc inherent states seek power all states seek national interest - many arguing that Wilson was utopian and trying to built sth. impossible • Wilson already emphasised importance of getting away from anarchy • —> emphasised League of Nations • —> introduced what is bad, good,—> morality 24 • Monroe doctrine (look it up) • if US joined the L.o.N probably more engaged in intl. politics • —> US did not recognise Versaille • —> isolated itself • Wilson’s attempt first to getaway from bop , from constant automatic behaviour • —> collective security as key • Wilson’s speech basically morality speech • basic …4 of idealists of interwar years in intl. circles to prevent war - how to achieve peace ? • —> change intl. system • —> change from bop —> collective securers • moral question duality of morality ruled world • statesman should avoid duality • idealists believe in necessity of change in structure of intl. politics • change must come • anarchy must be avoided —> must be replaced by collective security • realists anarchy has been given—> guiding principle of nation state system • intl. law, int. institutions as guiding principle —> taming state power, non aggressive ways • bop concerned about aggression • ideal of group of peace along states stop aggression • once a state w aggressive thought will not dare bc it will be crushed • collective security based on deterrence • imagine no military spending ; spending only for domestic cases—> collective security • Wilson concept of L.o.N. is justice, morality of men thoughout the world for good security • difference btw: NATO vs. L.o.N. • NATO collective defence —> source of threat is determined —> i.e USSR 25 • L.o.N. —> collective security —> whenever, wherever it comes from—> not predetermined Manchuria, Ethopia • Italy sanctions base on economically —> no exports • —> Manchuria—> wether Japan was trying to protect Manchuria • —> it took over afterwards • decided upon Japan having done it out of aggression, however went away with any sanctions • League in its essence was created with a desire to stop wars • in UN accepted only rationally only as self defence • UN —> collective security org. aiming prohibiting use of force • US was not part of L.o.N. throughout its formation • L.o.N. peace was indivisible • —> a conflict anywhere meant a conflict everywhere • each of powers became a problem in collective issue • collapse of collective security desirability of peace—> Ethiopia we had active aggression—> WW2—> back again at bop • policy of appeasement prolonged WW • Cold War —> peculiar event in intl. pol. system • working on bipolarity—>2 major poles • and managed intl. politics through predicatble behaviour of 2 sides • —> back again at realist IR • 1919-1945—> morality • wars established—> no other principle than bop—> the only way to survive • morality no place in intl. politics • org. as Wilson depicted—> just talk shops where national interests played on diff. level • all mimicked and outcome (…) • results after 1945 came back to reality accepting wars ending through bipolar system—> bc more predictable • i.e.: Cuban Missile Crisis rational actors, we see rational scale of power 26 • —> issue pf rat. behave. by policymakers keeping cold war going on • Read Hallieday- did it 16/10/2019-4th Lec- Tuesday - basic concept of interwar years —> L.o.N. <— more ontological issue • how to prevent wars, achieve peace • dominance of bop—> a regular shift in world politics • after WWI (horrendous one )—> desirability of peace, idealism as theoretical framework • —> thus the system making everything bad <— anarchy • —> idealism mitigates negative effect of anarchy • new system built collective security • —> idealism is a more cooperative framework - what is collective security ? • incs idea of morality • aggression seen as sth. bad • —> idealism not interested in what is what intl. system is about • idealists who have built idea of cs. interested in how sth. should be—> normative • interwar years meaning estab. of L.o.N • major concept of period instit, must be built. compelling state how to act—> world oder • —> idealism is a norm. theory • —> idealist made analogy btw H.N. and states • —> idealist ind. is good—> but states makes them bad • key concept deterrence —> meaning : they know there is L.o.N, UN etc.—> so in theory thy will not dare to use aggression • i.e: in Manchuria, Ethiopia : L.o.N failed • bop mechanism after long periods of appeasement—> brought us to WW 27 - realism has dominated intl. polit. after WW • beginning of CW contestant period —> not really sure when it started • —> 45,63,63-77, 79, 89—> diff. periods • CWI was cold bc of nuclear bomb risks —> rations actors since mutual assured Download 0.86 Mb. Share with your friends:
|