World Politics Exam Notes PDF

short answer description: what is it, what it was used for, when it was created final exam: 2 questions 5 pages each), 1st one will review entire sem, 2nd one will review conflict tribunals etc - use headings/subheadings while writing exam question ex. : compare pictures of war between 3 major...

short answer description: what is it, what it was used for, when it was created final exam: 2 questions 5 pages each), 1st one will review entire sem, 2nd one will review conflict tribunals etc - use headings/subheadings while writing exam question ex. : compare pictures of war between 3 major conflicts is the UN preventing conflict? how does it work as an institution? are post conflict negotiations helping development of rights, do they contribute in addressing the causes of wars and the atrocities committed? 3 main points for exams: causes of conflict nature of warfare conflict resolution World Politics: 1900-1991 major transition where war was used for diplomacy purposes, but now what was perceived to be short, will be dragged on and will change military strategies/the ways we fight war entering the total war period (all or nothing) moving to defensive, trench warfare, states go all in and home to survive everybody loses, nature of war has changed wars existed to gain more power and control territorial exchanges (wars were fought for territory) First World War (1914-1948) why did it make sense for these countries to send 15-20% of their people to war? (idea of nationalism, the honor of fighting war) identity based warfare is at its peak at the end of the 19th century 1871 was at a condition where every country was waiting for a moment to have war and compete ("perfect storm") **there was no concept of collective security** ○ there were secret alliances between empires and countries, kings and queens war could happen much faster because it was decided by very limited powerful people industrial revolution changed high level of firepower (machine guns, gas, etc.), states had ability to replenish battlefield ○ people entered the war ready to fight battles of the past, did not consider how long the new war would stretch out and the level of strategies/tech employed nature of warfare completely changed in first world war 1918: people know war is now dangerous, how can we make sure those levels of atrocities don't happen again, how to make new rules/institutions to regulate this? burden of war shifting from soilders to entire population, through massacres, genocide, targeting civilians, more and more it makes sense to kill civilians before wwI, geneva convention was designed to protect soldiers, between WWI and WWII, this was amended to protect civilians (18 million soldiers + civilians) Post WWI : how to prevent another world war? Woodrow Wilson (US president) ○ through "14 points" starts discussion on self determination (your nation should be able to decide what you want, now that you're out of colonial control and dominance) ○ reshape diplomacy and conflict resolution, can we design an institution where every country is free to participate and discuss about mediation and conflict, dealing with conflict in a diplomatic way ○ post war construction is to make sure winners get something from the war, less about human rights treaty of versailles imposed conditions against germany so it could not fight war ever again (shopping german territory, huge fines, preventing germany to have a certain number of aircrafts or soldiers) ○ central idea of league of nations: conflict resolution is at the center of diplomacy COLLECTIVELY ○ creating an institution of collective security ○ treaty of versailles ended up feeding and creating the conditions for the next war ○ germany seeked revenge in the future, wanted to challenge the treaty ○ soviet union and germany are NOT part of the league of nations at the time ○ EXAM QUESTIONS: explain and define the treaty of versailles ( define the concept) ? explain the evolution of the nature of warfare in the 20th century? what is the treaty of versailles, who is woodrow wilson?  conflict resolution is the best way for states to receive their national interests ○ exam: explain the exact terms of the treaty IN DETAIL ○ using the treaty of versailles and the league of nations, UN, the post cold era, explain how we can resolve and address, post conflict resolution between russia and ukraine 1. territorial terms evacuation of all russian territory, allowing russia to determine its own political future belgium must be evacuated and restored without limiting its sovereignty french territory, including alsace-lorraine, should be freed and restored a readjustment of italy’s frontiers based on nationality autonomous development for the peoples of austria-hungary evacuation and restoration of rumania, serbia, and montenegro, and securing serbia's access to the sea sovereignty for turkish parts of the ottoman empire; autonomy for non-turkish nationalities, and free passage through the dardanelles creation of an independent polish state with access to the sea 2. military terms national armaments should be reduced to the lowest level consistent with domestic safety colonial claims should be adjusted with equal consideration to both the interests of the populations concerned and the colonial powers a general association of nations must be formed to guarantee the political independence and territorial integrity of states 3. financial and economic absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas in peace and war, except by international agreement removal of economic barriers and establishment of equality of trade conditions international guarantees of the political and economic independence of the balkan states economic independence and territorial integrity of poland should be guaranteed by international covenant Interwar Period (1919-1939) there has to be a balance between moral high grounds combined with the responsibility to maintain peace and security (there has to be a tradeoff somewhere) germany uses treaty of versailles as ideological material to mobilize action lesson of versailles: ○ the idea to establish foundation of human rights creation of the creation of the UN creation of the declaration of human rights creation of the UN charter what works and fails to work in building peace? approaching WWII: ○ stronger grievances ○ lack of collective security ○ human rights apply in a non universal way what is different from WWI and WWII ○ first war was a static conflict, long line on the western front that didn't move for 3 years ○ biggest challenge in 2nd war was how to implement mobility, because defensive positions were so strongly established, the only thing that could be hoped for was overwhelming the enemy with firepower ○ WWII, industrial production is advances, planes/tanks/cars are much faster, increased mobility, suddenly the war is not only fought on the frontlines (air warfare, strategic bombings, more firepower, more speed, ability to strike enemy on battlefield and the cities, war goes to civilians and cities) started to fight with airpower ability to destroy is exponentially increasing in WWII new era of east-west split: COLD WAR ○ two states that are so ideologically different that they always cannot trust the intentions of the other ○ a period where war has to be reinvented in new ways, no more total wars, no nuclear wars, wars are now fought by citizens/civilians used weapons given by foreign countries ○ starting 1945, conflict in the world will exponentially increase ○ cold war: two profound enemies will not fight against each other, but at the same time, war increases throughout the world ○ wars are fought with less technological means than the first and second world war ○ exam questions: why is there a sudden change of warfare? over 100 years, what is common and what is different in the causes of war? why have total wars disappeared? ○ total war reached max intensity in wwII yalta and the potsdam conference is equivalent to the paris conference how do we insure collective/national security and the idea of self determination?? Post WWII Consequences: 1945 is a period of hope, where old habits of colonialism die hard and there's international law, after wwII, states realize war is pointless, no benefits from it, total wars that involve all resources of the state can never deliver any results ○ war should be used in limited manners ○ quiet, sneaky, limited way, because of potential to destroy the world cold war marked a complete change in strategic warfare end of 3 major empires ○ portugal, france, UK lets go of more territories unwillingly How to study war and armed conflicts? how can we predict and explain wars? Cold War: before 1945, totally about controlling land and alliances, past it, you find regimes willing to fight for you no total wars after 1945, there's a long peace between superpowers till today understand how nuclear weapons have changed how we understand war exam question: explain the change in the nature of warfare after 1945 ○ moving from multi polar world where states engage in total war to destruct, to a bi polar world that will split it in half and compete in a very different way ○ i.e. world is split in alliances vs alliances by 1955, the world is split in 2 groups of states that hate each other that spend their GDP in military advanced technology US and Soviet Union doesn't fight, but people who want to fight their side will be funded by the US and Soviet Union world is not less violent, it's just that they do it differently proxy wars are fought because we enter into an era of mutual destruction end of 1950, we have more powerful bombs, more of them, nuclear submarines ○ wars between high tech countries has become suicidal and irrational ○ wars enter a period of irrationality ○ new idea is that you always try to outsmart the enemy buy advancing more tech or you find new ways to fire missiles Realism rationalism claiming that human beings/states/actors take rational decisions that will look at cost benefit analysis and seek to maximize the result of their decision (every decision made is strategic) when an actor balances cost and benefits of every decisions states live in a world where they want to survive realism: focusing on your own interest and not looking out for others ○ based on Thomas Hobbes philosophy ○ pessimistic, human nature is terrible by existence ○ based on the thought that human beings are terrible, egotistic, not governed by morality, but they are governed by self serving interests ○ never doing what is morally good, you do what's good for yourself according to realists, politics and international relations are all about POWER human decisions are driven by self driven needs of dominating, greed, power you cannot trust anyone, everyone looks for what you have because you live in a constant state of fear, humans cannot regulate their behavior and they are further driven by determination to survive international relations are a result of high anxiety REALIST explanation for wars struggle for power (basic patterns) human nature to keep power ○ desire for scarce resources to increase power (imperialism) (survival) ○ challenge status quo ○ drive to dominate power demonstrate power (prestige) international context ensure your own security (survival) ○ international anarchy ○ lack of international government or enforcement forces Anarchy in the International System outside its own borders, the state operates in a state of anarchy international system vs. central authority in a state (domestic politics) survival of the state is no guaranteed in the international system ○ there is no higher authority in world politics Thomas Hobbes we are rational actors, we want things for ourselves humans are driven by 2 things: survival and power/resources because even if you are very strong and have money, you can never sleep at night because someone will take what you have (even if you're rich, survival is never insured) state of nature ○ trading freedom for security (never existed, philosophical concept) ○ constant anarchy where individuals are entitled to use force to serve their interests ○ order is built through states and repression pessimistic view of human nature ○ human beings lived in a condition of war everyone against everyone main assumptions: ○ human beings are rational actors ○ human beings are egoistic and will always look for their own interests ○ human beings are naturally predisposed for survival and violence statism: state behaves like a human being, driven by hyper-anxiety Statism where the state is the principal actor in international politics ○ rational actor ○ the fundamental unit of analysis ○ focus on national interests rather ideology the state must and does pursue POWER power = higher chance of survival based on hyper anxiety ○ non state actors like the UN, MNCs, TNCs, are acknowledged by realists but they are of SECONDARY IMPORTANCE Rationality in Social Sciences  economic approach ○ "assumption of rationality" in order to predict political behavior states are goal oriented and their goals are consistent ○ homo economicus (rational utility maximizing) cost benefit analysis utility seeking behaviour asses positive and negative results based on info take a decision on self interest every resource you have is based on the interest of achieving that goal info is limited ○ bounded rationality ○ impact of uncertainty-incomplete info rationality is contextual and cultural ○ focus on rationality of the actor if all people were rational all the time, would we have violent conflicts? war will be waged if there is something to GAIN from it (rationality) exam question: using realism, statism, self help, survival, can you explain the first world war, the causes of the second world war, can you explain why the cold war and nature of wareware changed (can you understand rationality in social sciences, realism, explain conflicts discussed in class using realism and rationality) (realism is the best way to explain rationality, expected utility, cost benefit analysis) ○ use all of this to explain humand/state behaviours tues oct 1 disproportion in war: due to arms race, fall of soviet union etc new wars - pre modern war, where idea of professional armies have disappeared exam question: explain the major change in the graph (slide 70) end of cold war = more proxy wars golden era of human rights peacekeeping starts in 1991-2001 (ends on september 11th) conflicts start decreasing in the 90s still have extreme violence and genocide wars were funded from the bottom up approach, warlords wanted wars to continue idea that you are more rich and powerful as wars continue, viewed as a business ○ i.e. coal, diamonds, oil on markets put up by warlords what's different in "new wars"? ○ vast majority of conflict are mostly intrastate wars ○ no transfers of money, focus is more on resources ○ most wars seek to eradicate and target ethnicities ○ world is not less violent, issue is that major states are not focused of wars anymore in the context of the nature of warfare: what fed the circle of violence? (pg 70) 1991-2001, there was a moral legal turn; ICJ, ICC started regulations we cannot hide the predatory business side of wars (wars are business and transactional, where to buy the cheapest resources despite the consequences of the finding, greedy capitalist methods) warlords: military entrepreneurs that wage for for personal needs, not linked to a state or state structure but can put forward an ideology and recruitment propaganda what are the causes and how can we predict ordinary people will rebel against the government? civil and intrastate wars why do ordinary people rebel against the government and believe that war is the BEST choice? (choosing the worst case scenario) ○ where will be the next major war in the next 10 years? how to predict rise of certain forms of armed conflicts understand civil wars as insurgencies macro approach structural theory ○ top down analysis where we lose agency micro-level theory ○ bottom down analysis rationality at the individual level EXAM QUESTION: explain civil wars talk about the difference between top down and bottom down analysis difference between conditions that drive behaviors vs where we choose wars because it's the best decision humans will be driven by survival, not passion of destruction ○ lack of hope/opportunities bring violence Greed vs. Grievance greed ○ economic motivations and explanations to conflict control over resources; poverty grievance ○ socio-political motivations and explanations to conflicts ○ the absence of hope (fighting a war to change a system) resentment against inequality social mobility ○ grievances are about subjective nature relative deprivation war will happen where grievances are so acute that people cannot bear their misery ○ better risking life and changing the world than live in terrible conditions based on ethnicity [ex. hutus in rwanda], exclusions, poor governance, corruptions, repression, lack of democracy when enough is enough, you'll fight  rebellion is not happening is countries where inequality is the largest people put blame on same groups, individuals and governments group relative deprivation, grievances, and violent engagement the individual judges his or her condition to be undesirable interpretation of the expectation you have ○ the experience of deprivation comes from differences between expectations of achievement and actual achievement of goals explanation #2: economic argument (greed) we choose behaviors based on what we expect to gain every decision made is a cost benefit analysis based on something we aim to achieve every behaviour is based on rationalism ○ expected utility of rebellion is greater than the expected utility of keeping the current situation where the state is weak, have lots of resources, no hope les about confronting grievances, than thinking about yourself not only about wanting money or preference, it's about whether that preference is possible info available for cost benefit analysis ○ current and expected income level ○ potential reward for insurgency ○ perceived probability of success ○ additional resources or opportunities can you explain state or human decisions linked to armed conflict (why would we risk to fight a war if we're inherently good? explain the nature of warfare (1914-45, 45-91) ○ nature of wars - the picture or image of wars and how did that change, targeting civilians to soldiers, high tech to smaller wars focused on looting) explain wars using a realist framework explain wars using greed and grievance frameworks explain why is there war, how wareware exists and changes throughout time 2001 ○ concept of anti-western ideology brings lots of different groups together  midterm questions ○ use the realist framework to explain the cold war, ww1, ww2 apply realism, why we had a war ○ explain how warfare evolved from 1914 to today (during cold war, 1914-2024, after the cold war) ○ can you explain new wars, talk about causes, nature of wareware (warlordism, greed and grievednces) ○ how do we explain civil war and insurgency? (based on rationalism, expected utility) whether its realism or greend and grievances rationalism is NOT realism ○ it can be either realism or g and g, but its all around rationalism ○ explaining rationalism helps when you explain g and g ○ introduction, tell ta exactly what you'll have in your answer, make it easy and underline the key words, use simple sentences explain rationalism in the big question no matter what define and explain 4 concepts out of the 13 concepts MIDTERM 1 PREP include historical examples if it relates to answering the question use subtitles write name and student number answer the question explain the cold war using realism survival - serving your own best interests ○ international platform is one of anarchy ○ every man for himself statism ○ states do rational things to pursue their interests, it's in the interest of the state to dominate - to be bigger and that allows them to win - winning is in survival self defense ○ international system is anarchic, nobody will look after you ○ big part of cold war was nato and warsaw pact helps states dominate to ensure survival, collective security cold war what is it? spreading ideology (ussr, us, have separate ideologies and they want to spread it, both think the other ideology will be the death of the other) total war ○ means the end of your state (because of nuclear weapons) ○ not worth it ○ people went to total wars before cause they they thought they would get something out of it, cost benefit analysis mutual assured destruction ○ how to strong that you're strong without taking it too far, they do it through proxy wars proxy wars ○ us and ussr support their own sides, and whatever side wins is like a win to either us or ussr nato and warsaw ○ west vs east block countries ○ helping yourself could lead to alliances security dilemma ○ self defense actions seen as preparation for an attack (ex. if us builds a bomb, ussr builds two in the idea of "self defense") ○ dominance is being threatened (statism) ○ feel that they might get destroyed (bring back to survival) bounded rationality ○ we have limited information, we have to act on what we ahve ○ link it with cost benefit analysis  cost benefit analysis ○ restated that is wasnt beenfical for us and ussr to go to war ○ benefits is that they might win the war, cost = they're both dead, it's not worth it ○ more beneficial for us to align with democratic and capitalist countries in proxy wars, and opposite for ussr united nations ○ inactive authority (us and ussr are on the security council, they would just veto everything) what is the treaty of versailles and why is it important (short answer) motivation that fueled germany's revenge put almost all the blame on germany ○ slapped them with insane sanctions ○ no military ○ caused the facism takeoff in germany mention 14 points potsdam conference: what is it, why's it important took place in 1945 shows statism approach, states looking to dominate, cut berlin in half nato how does nato relate to realism ○ statism ○ survival warsaw pact created as a response to nato truman doctrine aimed to contain soviet expansion truman said spread of communism will be the death of us and capitalist society ○ if one country becomes communist, it will start a domino affect, this puts the state and its survival in trouble ○ played a big fact in proxy wars marshall plan made europe self servient to the us, helped spread us dominance think of it like a bribe  ○ us says we have to destroy europe, communism is like a fungi, we rebuild europe and for us to give you the money, you have to have a capitalist society MAD main priority at all times for the state is SURVIVAL mutual destruction is bad, is not rational massive retaliation how did the concept of massive retaliation influence the cold war? new wars a rise in intrastate wars new way of fighting wars state is gone greed and grievance ○ grievance can be thought of like realism for the individual fighting back against a system push people to join army's ○ greed warlords want power and money keep war going as long as its profitable sell oil and diamonds what's the biggest difference between traditional and new wars? ○ know historical period of 1938-1945 triple alliance defensive alliances know what the alliances are strategic defense initiative (SDI) developed by ronald reagan project never took off league of nations first attempt to make an international authority compare "new wars" with traditional wars (expect a time period) g and g vs realism explain what realism means and what new wars are us and ussr is realism civil wars is g and g or proxy wars define concepts, relate them, compare and contrasts, how are they similar and difference (not states anymore, you have warlords) cost benefit analysis + greed ○ warlords think its beneficial to overthrow state and take its resources armed conflict