INTA Fall 2024 Final Notes PDF

INTA Fall 2024 Final Notes Foreign Policy - Some quick caveats 1. Individuals are important… but don’t be reductionist! a. (don’t think they’re the answer to international politics) 2. Action is always constrained… but by what? 1. international and domestic environments...

INTA Fall 2024 Final Notes Foreign Policy - Some quick caveats 1. Individuals are important… but don’t be reductionist! a. (don’t think they’re the answer to international politics) 2. Action is always constrained… but by what? 1. international and domestic environments 2. Gov and Bureaucratic constraints 3. Decision making process itself (different for everyone- can speed up or slow down processes) 3. Remember Foreign Policy is not International Relations 4. Don’t lose sight of the larger context 1. Levels of analysis, Time (permissive/efficient causes), theoretical lenses, etc. Let’s talk decision makers… Ideal decision makers - Who are we talking about? Policy makers, presidents, NSC, etc… All levels inside of the bureaucracy - What is rationality? A maximizing of the utility curve (cost vs. benefit) Absence in many ways of passion or subjectivity Mind over heart - So argument goes… perfect world policy makers act according to the Rational Actor Model (RAM) Exists but not really? Model: clarify your goals in the situation -> order them by importance -> list the alternatives for achieving your goals -> investigate the consequences of each alternative -> choose the alternative that best achieves your goals - Reduces it to one simple question: Which choice of action best maximizes (national) goals and minimizes costs? Model of Decision-Making: Rational Actor Model Why RAM doesn’t really exist: 1. Misperceptions / selective perceptions - Information screens 2. Affective bias  - Emotions of decision makers - strong feelings about person or state toward which a decision is directed 3. Cognitive bias - Increase cognitive balance or decrease cognitive dissonance - Justification of effort, wishful thinking, hardened image of the enemy, mirror image, protection of feelings, historical analogies Personality matters! -> Stephen Dyson… What is Leadership Trait Analysis? Realistic Rationality? Realistic RAM? 1. The model of bounded rationality - Optimizing: picking the very best option - But eliminates choices - Things that are closest to existing policy get chosen - Satisficing: finding a satisfactory or “good enough” solution to a problem 2. Prospect Theory: Decision makers go through two phases: - Editing phase - Evaluation phase - Incremental policies: making changes in increments (ex. Vietnam, Ukraine?) Edit out choices that are too difficult, then evaluate what’s left over The farther out from the middle, the harder it is to reverse the change What about Groups? - Groupthink: A deterioration of critical thinking, mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment that results “when the group members’ striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.” - Groupthink: Common Characteristics 1. Loyalty most important objective 2. Seek to foster harmony (People don’t want conflict) 3. Loyalty dictates a lack of questioning 4. Dissent is seen as disloyal -> Particularly true when 1 strong person in the group 5. Pressure nonconformists 6. Decisions are believed to be moral  -> Leaders of South in Civil War believed having slaves was a moral imperative 7. “Hard-Headed” attitude -> Can’t listen to opposition, thinking only you’re right 8. Over-optimistic and invincible -> Thinking the decision is the best one to make Importance of social interaction deviates from rational problem solving -> Risky shift phenomenon: skipping over a rational approach & getting to one of the extremes Larger Groups Decision-Making Models Organizational-process model - Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) -> creates efficiency in everyday procedures - “Management by muddling through” -> operating on own frequencies - (Looser control at the top) -> Organizations have strict procedures for the way they do things However, foreign policy is not the same everyday - In foreign policy, is it not better to do something than nothing Bureaucratic Politic Model (BPM) or Government Bargaining Model - Foreign policy decisions result from the bargaining process among various government agencies with somewhat divergent interests in the outcome - “Where you stand depends on where you sit” - (Tighter control at the top) -> Best example of bargained result: Cuban Missile Crisis (blockade ran by the military- President Kennedy insisted on a unanimous decision) ->>> ORTSAC (Castro spelled backwards) Other Influences on Foreign Policy? Interest groups ○ Coalitions with common interest who attempt to shape decision outcomes ○ Liberal vs. Realist vs. Constructivists? Constructivists see interest groups as potentially playing a role but not all of them play a role Public Opinion ○ More impact in democracies than in authoritarian govts. ○ But less effect on foreign policy than on domestic policy (What often happens in foreign policy is at the extremes) Legislatures ○ Less independent actors more a conduit for the other two  -> Can often act as a veto (halts for slow downs) Conclusions on Foreign Policy? 1. Foreign policy is different than International Relations, but… 2. Foreign policy is often determined by position in hierarchy 3. To understand Foreign Policy you have to understand that state and its leaders 4. It’s foreign policy that complicates IR more than the other way around (Dr. Rich) Future of the Nation State - We have worked under the assumption of the state as the primary actor… but will that remain to be the case? - Arguments for change? -> We may progress to something other than states 1. The Extremes… World Gov. or No Gov. At best Regional Organizations? 2. We will evolve to have one type of gov. (Fukuyama’s argument) 3. We will find a new way to organize (Huntington) Fukuyama- The End of History Basic argument: 1. Liberalism has won out - Consent to be govern - Universal Freedom - Economic Organization 2. No new challenges (Ideology) 3. End of History = End of Conflict 4. Progressive View of History -> But we’re slipping back into a regression of history Obvious questions though… Likely not the path forward Huntington- Clash of Civilization Major Points Hypothesis: “The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural… the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations.” Civilization is the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species. It is defined both by common objective elements, such as language,  history, religion, customs, institutions and by the subjective self-identification of people. - “Fault Lines” - a divisive issue or difference that has serious implications or consequences Huntington’s Cultural Fault Lines: 1. Differences real and basis 2. World is becoming smaller - # of interactions increasing 3. Globalization 4. Dual role of the West 5. Cultural vs. political differences 6. Economic regionalism -> Are they all still relevant/still exist? 2 we believe are most likely to lead to conflict -> West vs. essentially everyone else Creates “us” vs “them” mentality Really West vs. Rest “The values that are most important in the West are least important worldwide” Choices for the East 1. Isolation 2. Bandwagoning (not very much of this) 3. Balancing- forming an alliance & counterbalancing Classifications of War -> Helps us understand potential causes and solutions, but may not be clean cut 1. Hegemonic War (biggest, worst type of conflict) War for control of entire world order WW1 and WW2 -> but not the Cold War Rare and debatable if these truly can occur moving forward (states that could cause war are now “friends”) If so, who? (Who would challenge the U.S.?) -> China 1) Not West 2) Not democracy 3) Already moving on West 4) Huge share global econ. 5) Balancing 6) Lots of people 7) Relative Military power 500 ->>>> 1000 2. Total War (more likely to occur)  Warfare waged by one state to conquer and occupy another Entire society of the enemy considered a legitimate target 3. Limited War Military actions seeking objectives short of surrender and occupation of the enemy Example: Raids - limited warlike activities that consist of a single action -> Can become a low-intensity conflict- sustained, localized military actions short of total or conventional war. Restrained, cheap, and normally to enforce compliance. Where do we fit our current wars? (Middle East & Ukraine?) Israel -> Total (Gaza Ukraine -> Total (Russia) -> Limited (1 2 3 Purpose for proliferation? 4. Civil War Factions within a state trying to create, or prevent, a new government for the entire state or a territorial part Spillover effects of refugees, impact on state institutions, refugee & human rights concerns 5. Guerrilla War (irregular wars) Warfare without front lines, with irregular forces operating in midst of civilian populations (conducted in very dense population centers, dangerous to the state itself - military personnel) - But why do these occur?... Theories of the Causes of War (Selected highlights/lowlights) 1. Scapegoat Theory Central argument Bad economic conditions, ethnic divisions, increasing political opposition, etc. Leaders will initiate conflict with an external foe Take care of foreign threat take care of problem… Typically “unjustified” 2. Diversionary Theory Similar to above, however it is distraction Manufactured conflict but no promise of solution to original problems Authoritarian governments are more likely to do this (structure of democracy has checks and balances built in) 3. Power, Size, and Development # 1 defining variable More international organizations and alliances Greater capacity to act Greater sense of responsibility to rectify balance of power Sizeable empirical support for this (you have it, you use it) 4. Power Transition Theory Inequality in the distribution of power between the hegemon and primary challenger Lack of support for the status quo by the hegemon’s allies ○ -> attractive to rest of the system Hegemon stays on top Challenger presents alternative status quo, takes allies from the hegemon 5. Arms Races- “Progressive, competitive peacetime increase in armaments by two states or coalitions of states resulting from conflicting purposes and mutual fears.” -> Psychological idea of a threat, fear is created But which lead to wars? 3 ways… 1. Dyadic balance is thrown out of wack (shift in diad) 2. One state/group - revisionist purpose (alter the way the status quo works) smaller advantage is concerning - Soviet Union vs. U.S.? 3. Unstable races- the longer an arms race goes, the less stable the race is 6. Cycle theories Wars linked to long economic waves (Kondratieff cycles) Largest wars linked to 100-year cycle of creation and decay of world (States can’t decay as far as they once did) (becomes popular during bad economic times, captured by moments) Nations and Self-Determination… our “Fit Problem” Def - cultural (ethnic) boundaries do not coincide with political boundaries (territorial) ○ 40% contains 5+ subnations (cultural, ethnic differences) Five types of “Fit”... some are a recipe for conflict 1. One nation, one state -> Only about 10% of the world, technically the U.S.  (only nation that is semi-separate is Native-Americans) 2. Multinational states -> About 30% of the world (countries), ex.) Canada (3 nationalities- Induit, English, French) -> Quebec has a “secretary of state” / “state department” 3. One nation, Multiple states -> Psychological/ethnic states “united” but there are barriers ex) Korea 4. One nation, No state -> ex) Kurds, 5. Multiple Nations, Multiple States -> 2 dynamics: so many nations in singular states that there should be 20 diff. states (ex. Afghanistan) OR ex. former Yugoslavia (disastrous, most likelihood of failed states, regions, struggling development) *** 3, 4, and 5 increases conflict (bulk of the world, less developed) 1 is ideal, 2 can work if designed correctly Questions to worry about with war and conflict 1. “Security Community” (Jervis)? …(Europe) 1. “War among the leading great powers- the most developed states- will not occur in the future, and indeed is no longer a source of concern for them.” -> Given in 2001, right before 9/11 2. “The community are not all the great powers, but all the most developed ones.” -> Russia and China were exceptions to the rule 2. Maybe non-traditional warfare? 1. Insurgencies? -> Great powers influence but no longer control/stop 2. Gray zone conflict (propaganda/economic/non state entities) -> disrupts democratic societies and they don’t do enough of it back 3. No one knows what the future holds? 1. Depleting Resources? (environmental policy) 2. Global Warming? -> global temperatures rise, waters rise 3. Humanitarian issues? (immigration, refugees, etc.) (Humanitarian) -> there are few places that can handle large shifts of people  4. If we transition to “Nominal Democracy” (democracy in name only)... what’s that look like? (Africa) 1. Is there such a thing as “reverse democratic peace”? -> As states go away from democracy, will they be more prone to conflict? (instability) 5. We may live in the most dangerous time in history (Dr. Rich) - Large economic gaps, shrinking middle class Military Force - How important is this? Military power is critical in International Politics States will devote vast resources to military compared to other means of influence Conventional Forces (Very brief overview) 1) Land Forces Most fundamental purpose of military is to take, hold, and defend territory- armies are adapted to this purpose -> You can win a war if you can occupy your enemy Industrialized states have a greater advantage over poor armies -> Why? Education and health correlate with wealth, better equipment Campaigns are costly and labor-intensive 2) Naval Forces: Navies control passage and attack coastlines Power Projection: e.g., aircraft carriers (mobile platforms for attack aircrafts) -> Extremely expensive, few states can afford even one -> **Important if a state wants to be a hegemon 3) Air Forces: Power projection but mainly punitive (shift came between WW1 and WWII) Strategic bombing “Close air support” / Air lifts of supplies Interception and Reconnaissance 4) Coordinating Forces: Logistics and Intelligence (strategic) So many moving parts U.S. likely to only nation fully capable worldwide logistics / intelligence -> Can have true real presence within hours An Introduction to Terrorism [Defining Terrorism] Moving Towards a Definition - Literally hundreds of definitions - Definitions developed my government are legal in nature - Those developed by individuals are more theoretical and broad - Definition matters! ** - This matters because of the practical implications… so it isn’t just academic that we need a definition - Recognizing the bias and subjectivity is important - Separating the tactics from the perpetrator - So what are some active definitions… - Our Definition of Terrorism… maybe - H.H.A Cooper’s definition = “the intentional generation of massive fear by human beings for the purpose of securing or maintaining control over human beings” - Is this an appropriate definition? Terrorist vs. Criminal… the debate… - Terrorist Political in motive Carried out by either an organization with a clear goal An individual/group often believing that he/she is serving the greater good - Criminal Personal satisfaction is main goal (Mostly? Maybe?) The criminal act does not usually intend to create psychological after-effect, unlike most terror attacks (maybe) Not trying to change the system (maybe) Maybe we need more help… Let’s turn to Pape to understand this [Terrorism Basics] Important points to remember - (Pape) 1) Terrorism is strategic “the rationality of irrationality” (Schelling, 1966) Utility function is involved (cost vs. benefit) 2) Coerce democracies into concessions (public influence) 3) Terrorism on the rise because it pays (it is effective) 4) Moderation is important (problem is overkill and be killed)  -> 9/11 was overkill for Al Qaeda because entire U.S. military and NATO was after them 5) Confidence the key to containment Containment is the important word here!! (There are certain activities that are not worth a government dealing with) [Forms of Terrorism] Pape’s Forms- 1) Demonstrative Terrorism To gain publicity in order to recruit, gain attention of softliners on the other side or 3rd parties to exert pressure (very particular type of targeting but not meant to go beyond the target) 2) Destructive Terrorism Inflict real harm on members of target audience Risks losing sympathy for cause (sometimes even on own side) Looks to mobilize supporters of their cause -> Mostly done with remote, detonated devices (target audience is larger as a whole ->>>> escalating the cause and how much impact it will have) 3) Suicide Terrorism ** Most severe form (you can inflict so much greater harm) Risks loosing supporters on both sides Maximizing coercion is primary goal (9/11) (Increased threshold of impact) Targets are often the most “innocent” of noncombatants -> but supporters could also feel the pain “Attempts to inflict enough pain on the opposing society to overwhelm their interest in resisting terrorist’s demands” Reverses the causal chain of coercion ○ Schelling / State = strong coerces the weak only ○ Suicide Terrorism = weak coerces the strong strong ←—-- weak But like Schelling, based on the power to hurt ○ Not actual damage but future damage But we can’t forget that International different than Domestic ○ Domestic gets us back to the concerns of individual states ○ Ex. British Government (very different from U.S. definition, takes out religious): “the use of threat, for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, or ideological cause, of action which involves serious violence against any person or property.” How do we Reduce the Threat of Terrorism? (An Oversimplification of Counterterrorism Strategies) 1) Military? presents a number of problems - Problems with identification and mobile targets (terrorists are meant to blend in with societies) - Involves innocent people - Increases anger within Islam (looks like you’re targeting population as a whole rather than individuals) - Death not a deterrent to suicide terrorists - Does not deal with Pyramid of Terrorism very well 2) Traditional Unilateral Counterterrorism 1. Focuses on core 2. Improved intelligence 3) Antiterrorist Measures 1. Reduces vulnerability 2. Increased security 4) International Cooperation 1. Sharing intel, combine and focus efforts 2. Deny the publicity they seek 5) Alleviate the Societal and Political Situations that cause it (Likely the most successful strategy) -> target foundations of problem 1. Increased financial support 2. Genuine support for societal and political change 3. Recognize and Respect Cultural differences Which strategy is right? - Depends on your point of view, position, bias, and subjective orientation - Multifaceted approach (combination of 5 strategies) International Law [The Basics of International Law] - International Law: A set of rules, customs, principles that states recognize as obligatory in relations with other states ○ (obligation doesn’t come only from own sense, but others are expecting you to do things) 1. Routine Reduces Conflict 2. Provides Predictability & Stability ->States want stable action (to know how they should behave/what to do for policy)  3. Easier for states to pursue national interests - Most states comply with most rules of International Law most of the time -> But when exceptions occur they are traumatic (ex. War, terrorist attacks, nuclear) - Building Regimes -> topic area where institutions are built around it to provide expectations around issue area Soft Law accepted norms and principles Hard Law written rules (conventions, treaties) (ex. nuclear warfare: soft law- nuclear states don’t threaten non-nuclear states (however, Russia has broke this), violation of the regime) [Sources of International Law] 1) Customs- A practice of states (or other international legal entities) engaged in by them out of a sense of legal obligation (fear or retribution) rather than out of a sense of kindness, courtesy or convenience The Paquete Habana- first case in U.S. that recognized International Law Domestic vs. International? -> Scenarios where there is no domestic equivalent to international law -> so they prefer international over domestic Regional customary Law -> Can sometimes trump other types of international law (however you cannot have a customary regional law that goes against international customs) Special or local custom -> May only apply to them (those actors) 2) Jus Cogens “A norm that enjoys a higher rank in the international hierarchy than treaty law and even ‘ordinary’ customary rules.” Torture, genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, slavery, and piracy 3) Treaties and Conventions** ->>>> Target entire international community Provisions could codify customary law Could potentially be binding on those on the outside Involve small #s of states (normally) - Both treaties and conventions can create binding obligations on those outside of both 4) Judicial Decisions and Writings No stare decisis, used to inform and not constrain  -> No previous decisions/cases are applied the same way to new decisions [International Criminal Law] These are recognized crimes regardless of the what, where, who so to speak (any court can try you for these)... they are: 1. Slavery 2. Piracy 3. Peacetime Hostage Taking 4. Crimes Against Humanity 5. Genocide 6. Torture 7. Terrorism 1) Slavery Multi-lateral conventions (1840) Convention to suppress the Slave Trade and slavery (1926) ○ No real enforcement mechanism Significant issue today -> An estimated 50 million people were living in modern slavery on any given day in 2021 2)Piracy One of the rare places IL proscribes for private individuals UNICLOS III (1982) Actually has a long definition and very clear guidelines ○ 4 possible acts: Any act of illegal act that not only involves the sea, but also air (private ship/aircraft) 1. On the high seas - Against another ship/aircraft - Against a person/property on a ship/aircraft 2. Any voluntary action to participate on a ship/aircraft to make it a pirate ship/aircraft 3. Any act of incitement or facilitation of (1) or (2) 4. If you try to seize the pirate (only governments can stop piracy) Definition accomplished 2 tasks: 1. For private gains (not protection) 2. Excludes private individuals (cannot take it upon themselves) 3) Peacetime Hostage Taking  1979 Convention against the Taking of Hostages Key times when it doesn’t apply (ex. during war) 4) Crimes Against Humanity Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations (target), before or during the war (timing doesn’t matter); or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds 5) Genocide An act committed with the intent (always interpreted unless written down) to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group - when something is defined as genocide, international community does something 5 identifiable acts: (any 1 is enough) 1. Killing members of the group 2. Causing bodily or mental harm to members of group 3. Creating conditions that are life dependent/calculated to bring about destruction of the group 4. Imposing conditions to prevent births in the group 5. Forcibly transferring children of the group Insert of Just War Actually lots of Int. Law on War Principles based in “Just War Theory” ○ jus ad bellum (Just Cause of War) ○ jus in bello (Just conduct) ->>> does not apply to non state actors Second (just conduct) is important here: Two principles: 1) Discrimination - noncombatants can't be targeted (immune from attack, civilians not engaged in war effort cannot be targeted) 2) Military Proportionality - combatants must cause no more harm or destruction than is necessary to accomplish a military objective [International Court System] What the UN Charter says: If you’re a member of the UN, you’re technically obligated to settle disputes peacefully Four Ways to Handle Disputes: 1. Good Offices - 3rd party negotiator negotiates a settlement (often how you get peace accords)  2. Mediation - 3rd party operates independently BETWEEN 2 parties to handle the issue (no mediation in Israel case) 3. Conciliation - 3rd party has the POWER to decide / propose a settlement solution -> Where arbitration comes in 4. Commission of Inquiry - to establish factual evidence of any situation (most likely outcome of criminal indictments) Most popular court has been Arbitration (form of conciliation) ○ Court of Arbitration (part of the International Chamber of Commerce) ○ Focus is on International Commerce and Trade disputes ->>> Back to [International Criminal Law] 6) Terrorism The International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (1997) - have to be actively engaged in terrorism The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (1999) - way to treat individuals CTC (2001) - delts with states, not terrorists themselves Reality is all of this is limited and 4 key points need to be addressed: 1. No asylum- nothing specifically prohibits asylum -> Persecuted for political religious beliefs 2. Mandatory Extradition - provisions that require all states to extradite 3. If no, then vigorous prosecution 4. A common Definition! ->> No common definition for all conventions & protocols 7) Torture (actually relating to state behavior) Amnesty International started this movement 1975 Declaration 1984 Convention - 1st convention on torture 2002 OPCAT - Additional optional protocol How does US Enhanced Interrogation fit in? ->>> Enhanced interrogation is a U.S. term, doesn’t exist anywhere else (Created this term to avoid that it was torture) 3 sets of techniques: 1. Conditioning techniques: “demonstrate to the detainee that he has no control over basic human needs”  ex) Public nudity, dietary restrictions, sleep deprivation -> Are these lawful sanctions? 2. Corrective Techniques: Degree of physical interaction designed to “correct, startle, or to achieve another enabling objective” -> to obtain information ex) face/abdominal slaps, attention grabs, facial holds 3. Coercive Techniques: “Place the detainee in more physical and psychological stress” “ “ - definitions by the government (in handout) ex) Walling, water dousing, stress positions, wall standings, cramped confinement (8 hr, 2 hr), waterboarding (simulates drowning) So, is this torture? All of it or none of it? What about prosecution? -> Not going to happen! Human Rights [Intro to Human Rights] Definition- The political and social entitlements recognized as inalienable and valid for individuals in all countries by virtue of their humanity ○ No agreement on what… Just agreement they exist (If we can’t define it, do we really have them?) Two forms: 1. Positive Rights- Personal entitlements that are specified in domestic statues or international treaties 2. Normative Rights- Human rights are a fundamental moral claim that come from the inherent dignity of persons - Regardless… all human rights are a quest for human dignity and global justice [The Idea of Human Rights] Idea that has evolved over time ○ Obligation towards a community ○ Basic construction of a society ○ Government restrictions and obligations ○ All inside the context of political liberalism (democratic institutions) Protection - more of a modern idea Religion was a large advancement believe it or not… ○ Christianity’s emphasis on worth and dignity ○ Something beyond the state ○ God’s moral order before man’s order [International Law-Structure of Human Rights] 1. UN Charter- Preamble- “faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women” and pledge “to promote social progress and better standards of life” 2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) 1948 becomes so much of what we think of today 3. The International Covenant on CIvil and Political Rights “First Generation” - states must “take the necessary steps… to adopt such legislative or other measures… to give effect to the rights recognized in the present covenant.” -> Sets a floor, states are obligated to make legislation to do so 4. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) “Second Generation” -> Depend upon a high level of development, aspirational Progressive nature to promote advancement towards them ** There are no international human rights (the way it gets exercised is regional) [Regional Systems of Human Rights] Reality is: Universality of Human rights does not exist… much more regional regimes European Human Rights System ○ Most advanced of regional system, legalistic in nature ○ European convention - allows individual*, group, corporate or individual complains ○ European Court of HUman Rights ○ Annual reports of implementation to the European Committee of Social Rights ○ European convention for the prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment -> Internal but extends outwards to other states/regions What makes European system 1. Universality - you cannot be part of system if you don’t commit fully 2. Transparency -> cannot get to these without giving up sovereignty International Politics and Pop Culture It tells us… More so it tells us that pop culture is dynamic We have to consider time and place it was created, how it evolved and what is means today. [Past, Evolution, and Present (P.E.P)] ○ Doing so will inform us as to what its true impact is The best examples speak to all of society regardless of P.E.P if you are lucky you might get to witness this… Saving Private Ryan (1998) Idea: war is death, not just glory Theme: Is war really worth it? Saving Private Ryan was a lot of things ○ But just as much it was more about what it wasn’t Clearly it has breadth and depth and continued meaning until this day. Other movies such as 1917 have attempted to build off of it.. But What is Pop Culture? Not a “thing” It is a “doing” A thing is not living, doing is living… And pop culture is very much alive 1. What we do in common with others 2. It is a cluster of ideas and actions, assemblage of how a culture or group behaves, what is aspires to be, thinks, or its ideals 3. It is not singular but a representation of a collective identity that may either be true or false. Captain America as Pop Culture Think about the values he represents… ○ Good vs. Evil ->>> U.S. good, others as evil ○ Western ideals (political) ○ Sense of self-sacrifice/work ethic Think about where the movies begin and end (spoiler alert) ○ Ultimately seeks to return to those values Can anyone see a connection with today? ○ “Make America Great Again” -> trying to get back to a time & place But how well does it represent Pop Culture? Uniquely American? Everyone ○ Domestically 3rd from last ○ International last  ○ It is American Pop Culture and really just a small subsection How does Pop Culture Relate to IR? Two basic assumptions first: 1. Cannot have a narrow view of what International Relations is -> constructivism? not realist - Widen your understanding beyond just state influence 2. Cannot have the typical “positivist” view - Not direct cause and effect all the time - More symbiotic and circular in nature So then what is Pop Culture’s Role in IR? ○ Sports, movies/films, music