Kim Exam PDF

WEEK2:“The Cult of the Irrelevant”- critiques the increasing methodological sophistication in political science, which he argues detracts from policy relevance. Political science has become less relevant to policy due to scholars prioritizing academic recognition over practical contributions and the...

WEEK2:“The Cult of the Irrelevant”- critiques the increasing methodological sophistication in political science, which he argues detracts from policy relevance. Political science has become less relevant to policy due to scholars prioritizing academic recognition over practical contributions and the diminishing external pressures (like wartime) that once encouraged relevance. Critics suggest that the evolving needs of policymakers—shifting from broad theoretical frameworks to detailed, operational knowledge—naturally reduce academia’s direct policy relevance. “A Third-Image Explanation for Why Trump Now”- Trump’s election to the broader geopolitical shift from a unipolar to a multipolar system. In this context, Americans demand policies that prioritize national interests, reflecting a structural realist desire for retrenchment and pragmatism. Rejection of Liberal Internationalism: argues that Americans are disillusioned with this approach, viewing it as overly costly and out of touch with their concerns. Trump’s foreign policy as aligning with the realist strategy of offshore balancing, which advocates for limiting U.S. intervention abroad and encouraging regional actors to address local conflicts. This approach seeks to recalibrate American commitments without abandoning global influence entirely. “One World, Rival Theories”- Examines the enduring relevance of three major international relations theories: realism, liberalism, and constructivism. while imperfect, remain indispensable tools for understanding global politics and guiding foreign policy, even in a rapidly changing world. Snyder argues that international relations theories serve as lenses through which complex global events can be understood. Snyder highlights realism’s ability to explain military dominance and responses, such as the U.S. actions post-9/11. However, realism faces challenges in explaining phenomena like the enduring U.S. dominance without balancing coalitions and the rise of influential nonstate actors like al Qaeda. Snyder acknowledges its widespread acceptance but critiques its blind spots, such as the instability of new democracies and the oversimplified belief in democracy promotion as a panacea. Snyder points to its relevance in understanding post-9/11 ideological conflicts and transnational activism. However, he notes its weakness in addressing the material and institutional conditions necessary for sustained change. Snyder advocates using the insights of all three theories as counterbalances to avoid the pitfalls of ideological overreach. Realism tempers idealistic crusades with pragmatic caution, liberalism emphasizes cooperative potential, and constructivism highlights the normative and ideological underpinnings of global politics. WEEK3: “The Peril of Peaking Powers”-explores the phenomenon of “peaking powers”—nations that experience rapid economic growth followed by a significant slowdown—and their tendency to engage in aggressive foreign policy. Such nations face acute pressures to maintain geopolitical standing and economic stability, prompting aggressive external policies to compensate for internal stagnation. Autocratic peaking powers are more prone to aggressive expansion than democratic ones. Authoritarian regimes rely heavily on state control of resources and industries to sustain patronage networks, making them more likely to pursue forceful external strategies when under economic strain |China|. “Realism Is an Attitude” He argues that realism is better understood as an attitude—a pragmatic approach to foreign policy—rather than a strict set of doctrines or prescriptions. Realism emphasizes the pursuit of national interest, the balance of power, and a consequentialist morality that seeks the least harmful outcomes, even at the cost of supporting morally questionable actors or actions. Argues flexible mindset focused on assessing power dynamics and outcomes rather than a rigid ideology. flexible mindset focused on assessing power dynamics and outcomes rather than a rigid ideology. Liberal and neoconservative approaches often fail to account for the diversity of global values and interests. Realists’ judgments often diverge due to differences in threat perception and assessments of adversaries’ capabilities and intentions. “Beijing’s Bismarckian Ghosts”- draws historical parallels to the Anglo-German rivalry of the 19th and early 20th centuries, emphasizing how such contests often transcend military confrontations and manifest in economic systems, technological standard-setting, and infrastructure investments. striking similarities to Germany's efforts to challenge British hegemony. Both countries faced entrenched maritime powers and relied on economic strategies to establish themselves as global players. China and the United States today mirrors the Anglo-German rivalry in keyways: both involve rising state- directed economies challenging dominant market-driven democracies. Argue counter China's rise reinvestment in American innovation, basic science, and public infrastructure, for smarter technological openness, strict policing of intellectual property theft, and renewed commitment to multilateral trade agreements as tools for maintaining economic and technological leadership. “The Gathering Storm”- The article predicts intense security competition, akin to a new Cold War, with significant potential for conflict. Author doubts China's ability to rise peacefully, positing that its ambitions for regional hegemony will lead it to confront its neighbors and the U.S. The author reviews optimistic arguments that China can rise peacefully, such as building trust through transparency or focusing on defensive rather than offensive military capabilities. However, he dismisses these claims, emphasizing the uncertainty of intentions, the indistinguishability of defensive and offensive military postures, and the potential for future aggressive behavior. highlights the security dilemma, where measures taken by one state to increase its security decrease the security of others, fostering mistrust and escalating tensions. warns that the rivalry between the U.S. and China could destabilize global politics, especially in regions where the two powers compete for influence, such as the Asia-Pacific and the Middle East. WEEK4: “Protecting Trade” The authors propose that strong trade ties create an incentive for countries to mitigate uncertainty caused by political disputes, as such disputes can disrupt trade. They argue that legal adjudication at the ICJ serves as a mechanism to protect these economic relationships by isolating political disputes from broader trade concerns. This theory of "commercial peace" suggests that countries with significant economic interdependence are more likely to use international courts like the ICJ to resolve disputes, rather than risking trade losses through prolonged conflict or escalation. economic interdependence influences countries' decisions to resolve disputes through legal venues, focusing on the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Economic interdependence increases the costs of unresolved political disputes, as conflicts may disrupt trade. legal avenues like the ICJ, countries signal their commitment to peaceful conflict resolution, ensuring trade flows remain stable. supports the broader concept of "commercial peace". legitimacy and predictability in resolving disputes. “Eagle and the Dragon”- focuses on how middle states, such as Japan, South Korea, and ASEAN nations, navigate this shifting landscape. The analysis underscores the challenges of maintaining a rules- based international order in the face of a power transition and suggests that middle states' strategies will be pivotal in shaping the future of East Asia. U.S. anchored East Asia's security and economic systems. However, China's rapid growth has challenged this order, creating a new dynamic of competition. U.S. maintains its military presence, China's integration into regional trade networks has diminished American influence. Middle powers like Japan, South Korea, and ASEAN nations are pivotal in navigating the U.S.-China rivalry. These states adopt hedging strategies to balance economic ties with China against security alliances with the U.S., emphasizing multilateral agreements and regional integration as tools for stability. discusses how China's challenge to the status quo threatens the principles of a rules-based international system. He argues that maintaining such an order requires cooperation among middle powers, which can collectively advocate for norms and multilateralism. The article suggests that the U.S. must recalibrate its strategy to account for China's rise while reinforcing alliances and partnerships with middle powers. Simultaneously, middle states must navigate the delicate balance of fostering economic growth with China while ensuring security and autonomy within the U.S.-led order. “Mutual Assured Production”- how deep economic interdependence between China and Japan reduces the likelihood of outright conflict, despite escalating tensions over territorial disputes, particularly the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. Mutual Assured Production," where intertwined economies act as a deterrent to conflict by making war economically devastating for both sides. argues that the extensive economic ties between China and Japan act as a form of deterrence against military conflict. While nationalist fervor periodically stirs tensions, as seen in anti-Japanese protests and boycotts in China, economic realities quickly constrain such actions. Businesses, governments, and individuals in both countries recognize that prolonged hostilities would harm their own economic well-being. He argues that both nations must work to strengthen diplomatic ties and mechanisms for resolving disputes to ensure that economic incentives continue to outweigh nationalist impulses or strategic miscalculations. WEEK5: “China’s Hegemonic Prospects”- argue that while existing theories of hegemony often focus on material power and economic strength, they fail to account for the distribution of identity—how states align themselves ideologically, culturally, and politically. China’s hegemonic prospects depend not only on its economic and military capabilities but also on its ability to reshape global norms and values. The article concludes that China's ability to transform the global order will hinge on whether it can align its identity with the aspirations of other states. The authors contend that the "distribution of “identity” shared norms, values, and ideologies—plays a critical role in determining the strength and longevity of a global order. cultural model create barriers to its hegemonic ambitions. While its economic initiatives, like the Belt and Road Initiative, have increased influence, they lack the normative appeal needed to reshape the global order. U.S. uses institutions to reinforce its values globally, China’s approach to multilateralism often focuses on economic pragmatism rather than shared norms, reducing its normative appeal. China’s rise will continue to shape global dynamics, the distribution of identity significantly constrains its ability to replace the Western-led order. For a successful transition, China must address its normative deficits and align its identity with broader global aspirations. “Constructivist Research Program”- Constructivism emphasizes the importance of ideational factors—such as beliefs, norms, and identities—over material considerations in shaping state behavior and international outcomes. The authors argue that human interaction is driven by shared beliefs (intersubjective ideas) that shape interests and actions, contrasting with rationalist and materialist approaches. These methods allow researchers to uncover how norms and beliefs evolve and influence state behavior over time. argue that constructivism provides valuable insights for understanding global challenges, from environmental governance to humanitarian interventions. By examining how shared beliefs and norms drive cooperation or conflict, constructivism offers tools for addressing real-world problems. acknowledge critiques regarding its lack of predictive power and difficulties in operationalizing ideational variables. + constructivist research to include more empirical studies, broader engagement with comparative politics, and deeper exploration of the relationship between ideas and material power. “Chinese Exceptionalism Just Won’t Die”- China operates on a hybrid system “beyond socialism and capitalism,” drawing on Confucian values, state control, and strategic governance. Huang argues that this narrative oversimplifies China’s achievements and ignores glaring inefficiencies, structural issues, and growing risks under Xi Jinping’s leadership. Huang highlights how China's reported economic growth figures are often exaggerated, citing inconsistencies in official data and research that shows inflated GDP numbers. Huang questions the sustainability of China’s authoritarian governance under Xi Jinping. He highlights increasing capital flight, regulatory uncertainty, and erosion of private sector dynamism as signs of systemic fragility. Finally, Huang challenges the notion that Confucianism inherently aligns with autocracy, pointing to successful democracies in Confucian cultures like Japan and Taiwan as counterexamples. China’s political and economic system is a unique success model. He argues that its achievements are not exceptional but comparable to those of other East Asian economies, which also grew rapidly due to market reforms, foreign trade, and technological adoption. criticizes the state-led "mayor economy" model, which prioritizes investments in inefficient state-owned enterprises while neglecting vital public services like healthcare and education, particularly in rural areas. Long-Term Stability He emphasizes that a truly sustainable model would require greater political and economic inclusivity, not increased authoritarianism. “How New and Assertive is China’s New Assertiveness?”- He contends that much of China’s foreign policy behavior that year fell within established patterns from previous decades, rather than representing a significant deviation. The idea of a "new assertiveness" often stems from selective interpretation, neglect of historical context, and poor causal analysis. Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute with Japan. Johnston shows that in many instances, Chinese behavior was either consistent with past practices, more moderate than assumed, or mischaracterized by observers. For instance, China's rhetoric regarding the South China Sea or its responses to the Dalai Lama’s visit showed less aggressive posturing compared to prior instances. argue China's assertive actions in 2010 are not unprecedented but rather consistent with its established behavior. The "new assertiveness" narrative cherry-picks aggressive Chinese actions while ignoring cooperative behavior, such as China's adherence to global multilateral institutions, its role in UN peacekeeping, and continued participation in international frameworks. critiques specific instances labeled as "newly assertive," such as the South China Sea claims or the alleged embargo on rare earth exports to Japan, showing they were often exaggerated or misreported. Mischaracterizing China's diplomatic stance as aggressively assertive could exacerbate U.S.-China tensions, reducing opportunities for cooperation and fostering mutual distrust. as China’s actions remained rooted in longstanding concerns over sovereignty and security. WEEK7 “Powerplay Origins”- concept of "powerplay," whereby the United States formed asymmetric alliances to exert maximum control over its allies. This approach was necessary to curb the unilateral actions of unpredictable leaders in Skorea and Taiwan and to ensure Japan's transformation into a status-quo power. the bilateral framework served an additional purpose: to constrain allies who might provoke conflicts with adversaries. Leaders like South Korea and Chiang Kai-shek of Taiwan were particularly prone to aggressive rhetoric and actions that risked escalating tensions. U.S. alliances like NATO involved shared responsibilities and multilateral cooperation, but in East Asia, the U.S. perceived a greater need for direct control over its allies due to the region's unique political and security dynamics. U.S.'s alliances with South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan to demonstrate how the powerplay model shaped decisions. For example, the U.S. retained operational command over South Korean forces and imposed conditions on Taiwan's use of military force. article argues that bilateral arrangements allowed the U.S. to maintain tighter control over allies, which would have been diluted in a broader multilateral framework. “A Better Path for Ukraine”- ff argues that NATO membership is the most effective means to secure Ukraine’s future, transcending the temporary nature of bilateral agreements. History, which involved unilateral self-limitations to avoid provoking Russia, and West Germany’s approach during the Cold War, which accepted provisional division while joining NATO. Both models offer strategies Ukraine can adapt. Ukraine could define a militarily defensible, provisional border without recognizing the permanent loss of occupied territories. This would allow NATO to clearly define its Article 5 obligations while enabling Ukraine to assert its intention to reclaim sovereignty. Ukraine would need to renounce the use of force beyond the defined border, except for self-defense. This assurance would mitigate NATO allies’ fears of being drawn into an immediate war with Russia after Ukraine’s accession. Ukraine could begin building democratic and economic stability, much like West Germany did after 1955. Membership would provide a secure foundation for eventual territorial reunification and broader integration into Western institutions. “Institutional Assets and Adaptability”- Author attributes NATO's resilience to its institutional strengths, including established norms of cooperation, robust decision-making mechanisms, and flexible operational structures. These assets enabled NATO to adapt to changing security dynamics and expand its roles beyond traditional defense. NATO successfully redefined its mission post-Cold War, shifting its focus to managing crises, supporting peace operations, and addressing emerging threats like terrorism. NATO multilateral framework facilitated trust and cooperation among member states, enabling it to respond collectively to challenges (highlights NATO’s interventions in the Balkans as an example of how the alliance navigated political and operational complexities.). Discusses NATO’s enlargement to include former Eastern Bloc countries, underscoring its success in promoting stability and democracy in a post-Communist. argues that the alliance’s institutional structures ensured that other members had a voice in decision-making. This balance helped maintain cohesion and credibility. NATO’s post-Cold War role, including accusations of mission creep and overreach. However, she contends that its adaptability has outweighed these challenges, enabling it to address a broader spectrum of security concerns effectively. WEEK 8 “Asymmetric Strategic Problems”- Examines the challenges in achieving cooperation between powerful democratic states and weaker non-democratic states in the context of nuclear nonproliferation. The article focuses on how power asymmetry and information asymmetry foster mistrust and impede diplomatic solutions. Core argument is that the inherent disparities in power and transparency between these states exacerbate two primary strategic problems: the time inconsistency of policies by stronger states and incomplete information about the intentions and capabilities of weaker states. Stronger states like the U.S. often lack credible commitments, leading weaker states to distrust their promises of security or aid in exchange for disarmament. Non-democratic states frequently operate under opaque governance, increasing uncertainty about their true nuclear ambitions and creating obstacles to negotiation. Policies from powerful democracies often shift with changes in leadership, creating uncertainty for weaker states about the reliability of long-term agreements. This dynamic undermines weaker states’ willingness to commit to disarmament, as they fear being left vulnerable in the future. Power asymmetry exacerbates mistrust, as weaker states perceive negotiations as coercive rather than cooperative. The sensitive nature of nuclear programs heightens these challenges, as concessions on either side are seen as existential risks. WEEK9 “The Postcolonial Moment in Security Studies”- Critique the Eurocentric foundations of traditional security studies, arguing that the field systematically marginalizes the role of the Global South in shaping global security dynamics. Security studies predominantly reflect Western experiences and concerns, neglecting the influence of colonialism and imperialism on global security dynamics. Eurocentric narratives often portray the Global South as a passive recipient of security threats or interventions, rather than as an active participant in shaping security relations. Emphasize that European and non-European histories are intertwined. Events like colonial wars and imperial expansions were not peripheral but central to the development of modern security practices and institutions. Many security challenges today, such as ethnic conflicts and border disputes, are rooted in colonial practices like arbitrary boundary-drawing and exploitation. Postcolonial states face unique security dilemmas due to these legacies, which traditional security studies fail to address adequately. A postcolonial approach reframes global security as a shared and interconnected phenomenon, rather than one dominated by Western priorities. It encourages exploring alternative security practices and epistemologies rooted in the experiences of the Global South. WEEK11: “Separate but Unequal” – challenge the conventional understanding of the “democratic peace” theory (says that democracies are less likely to go to war with each other due to shared norms, institutions, and values). But Argue that racialized assumptions underpin public opinion on this phenomenon, particularly in the American context. public’s reluctance to support force against other democracies is not solely about regime type but also tied to racial and ethnocentric perceptions. Specifically, they find that the label “democracy” primes assumptions about the racial and cultural makeup of target states, often implying whiteness or Western identity. This association influences public perceptions and attitudes, making them more favorable toward white, Western democracies compared to non-Western democracies. These biases impact how the American public interprets international relations and regime types. Recognizing the role of racial and ethnocentric biases could help refine theoretical models and improve understanding of how public opinion shapes foreign policy decisions. “The Heart of the Matter”- authors challenge traditional notions that national security primarily concerns military strength, wealth, or regime type. Instead, they argue that gender inequality, particularly violence and discrimination against women, is a significant and often overlooked determinant of state conflict and insecurity. emphasize the role of cultural and structural violence against women as foundational to societal norms that justify broader forms of violence and coercion. Studies are presented to support the link between women's treatment and state-level variables such as conflict propensity, corruption, and economic development. Conclude that improving gender equality and reducing violence against women can enhance state security, peacefulness, and stability. authors posit that the treatment of women within a society reflects and reinforces patterns of domination and control that extend to state-level behaviors, including militarism and conflict. Patriarchy, rooted in evolutionary and sociocultural systems, perpetuates male dominance and violence against women, which cascades into broader societal aggression. Societies that tolerate domestic violence and gender inequality are more likely to experience higher levels of internal and external conflict. The normalization of violence within the home sets a precedent for resolving conflicts through aggression at higher social and political levels. Statistical studies show that gender inequality is linked to higher levels of conflict, both within and between states. States with greater gender equality exhibit stronger governance, transparency, and resilience to conflict. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games"- Putnam introduces the metaphor of a "two-level game" to illustrate how national leaders must simultaneously navigate domestic political pressures (Level II) and international negotiations (Level I). The article highlights the complexity of these intertwined processes, as negotiators must secure agreements that are both internationally viable and domestically ratifiable. The central concept is the "win-set," which represents all the agreements that could be ratified domestically. The size and shape of a win-set are influenced by factors such as domestic political preferences, institutional constraints, and negotiators’ strategies. discusses how "synergistic linkages" between domestic and international levels can expand the range of feasible agreements, enabling negotiators to align conflicting interests. For instance, international agreements can provide incentives or pressures that help overcome domestic opposition to specific policies. Arg. International negotiations are deeply intertwined with domestic politics. Leaders must satisfy domestic constituencies while negotiating internationally, creating a dual-layered decision-making process. feasibility of international agreements depends on the overlap of win-sets among participating countries. A larger win-set increases the probability of agreement but may reduce bargaining power. Domestic preferences, coalitions, and institutional structures significantly shape the negotiation process. For instance, the political costs of "no-agreement" scenarios influence how negotiators prioritize concessions and outcomes. Leaders can leverage their domestic constraints as bargaining tools, claiming limited flexibility to extract concessions from international counterparts. Conversely, negotiators must also ensure they have sufficient domestic support to ratify agreements. The structure of domestic institutions, such as legislative processes or public opinion dynamics, affects the size of win-sets and the likelihood of ratification. PPW Realism: Realism posits that the anarchic international system, where no central authority exists, compels states to prioritize survival and power. Classic realism, exemplified by thinkers like Morgenthau, views human nature as aggressive and power-hungry, while neorealism, or structural realism, as argued by Waltz, attributes state behavior to the structure of the international system, emphasizing the distribution of power over human nature. Key aspects include the "security dilemma," where defensive actions by one state provoke others, escalating tensions, and the concept of "relative gains," highlighting that states are more concerned with comparative advantage than absolute benefits. The "balance of power" theory explains how states counteract potential hegemons, either through alliances or internal strengthening, while "hegemonic stability theory" suggests global peace is maintained by a dominant power. Defensive and offensive realists debate whether states aim merely for security or seek to maximize power. Schweller’s "Balance of Interest Theory" adds that both capability and political goals shape state behavior. Contemporary issues like China's rise and potential US-China conflict are examined through realist lenses, questioning whether power transitions inevitably lead to war. The debate extends to practical policies, such as defending Taiwan, where realist arguments weigh strategic interests against power dynamics. Liberalism: Following two 'asymmetric' decades where the great powers primarily used coercive diplomacy against lesser ones, the crisis triggered by Russia's annexation of the Crimea and China's growing assertiveness over sovereignty issues in the East and South China Seas herald the coming of a new strategic era defined by symmetric great power confrontations. More great power confrontations involving the use of coercive diplomacy are to be expected as the world moves towards a multipolar order. Rising great powers such as Brazil and India can also be expected to resort to coercive diplomacy when their demands for a greater say in the running of regional affairs are resisted by other (great) powers. The Prisoner’s Dilemma illustrates the challenge of cooperation under anarchy. Although defection seems rational for individuals, repeated interactions and strategies like reciprocal punishment can foster trust and collaboration over time. Information transparency and linkage between issues are crucial to overcoming uncertainty and facilitating cooperation. Classical liberal thinkers like Kant and Bentham emphasized peace through rationality, rule of law, and economic interdependence. This evolved into theories like the Democratic Peace Theory, suggesting democracies rarely fight each other due to shared norms, accountability, and economic ties. Institutions like the WTO reduce transaction costs, enhance compliance, and create frameworks for resolving disputes. The concept of hegemonic stability posits that a dominant power can maintain global order by providing public goods. Liberalism sees this hegemony as potentially benign, unlike realism's skepticism. Complex interdependence, with its multiple non-military channels of cooperation, further underscores the shift from high politics (military) to low politics (economic and social). While liberalism recognizes the challenges posed by anarchy, it suggests progress through modernization, democratic governance, and institutional design, which can mitigate conflict and enhance global cooperation. Constructivism asserts that the international system is socially constructed through shared beliefs and norms. It rejects the inevitability of anarchy leading to conflict (as neorealists argue) and instead views anarchy as shaped by state practices. For example, Alexander Wendt’s "Cultures of Anarchy" posits that states may see each other as enemies (Hobbesian), rivals (Lockean), or friends (Kantian), influencing their behavior and cooperation levels. Social construction: The world is defined by intersubjective meanings rather than purely material forces. As Wendt illustrates, British nuclear weapons feel less threatening than North Korean ones due to perceived relationships. Norms and identity: These are central to understanding behavior. Norms regulate state conduct, and identities evolve through interaction, shaping interests. Power of discourse: Language and shared beliefs, such as in migration securitization, define issues as threats, reinforcing political agendas. Constructivism focuses on "how" questions (interpretivism), examining meanings behind actions rather than just causality. It sees institutions as vehicles for shaping norms and behaviors, promoting transparency and cooperation. Despite its strengths in highlighting the non-material aspects of international politics, critics argue that constructivism’s lack of causality and methodological precision weakens its explanatory power. It relies heavily on interpretive frameworks, which can challenge empirical validation. Rationalism theories of war: emphasizing their application to understanding why wars occur despite their high costs. Central to this framework is the concept of war as a failure of bargaining. Wars arise from three main causes: Incomplete Information: States may misjudge each other's capabilities or resolve, leading to miscalculations about acceptable compromises or threats. For example, during the Gulf War (1990–1991), Iraq underestimated the resolve of the U.S.-led coalition. Commitment Problems: Agreements may fail if one party fears that the other will renege in the future, particularly if shifts in power or resources could enable exploitation. This dynamic is often linked to preventive wars, such as the 2003 Iraq War, where the U.S. acted on fears of Iraq's future capabilities. Indivisibility of Goods: Some issues, like control over Jerusalem, are perceived as non-negotiable, though states may strategically exaggerate claims of indivisibility. Key bargaining strategies include: Compellence: Using threats to alter the status quo. Deterrence: Threatening severe consequences to prevent an action. Brinkmanship: Approaching the brink of war to demonstrate resolve, exemplified by the Cuban Missile Crisis. To reduce the likelihood of war, mechanisms like raising its costs (e.g., nuclear deterrence), increasing transparency (to mitigate miscalculations), and external enforcement of commitments are suggested. Rationalist theories are particularly effective in explaining state-level conflicts but may struggle with non-state actors or ideologically driven disputes where rational calculations are less apparent. The Balance of Power (In anarchy) States strive to maximize security: - Concentration of power (hegemony); - States balance against threatened/real; Internal balancing – Building own capabilities; External balancing – Aggregating capabilities in alliances; Emulation – Adopting the practices of the hegemon; Bandwagoning- allignment with the stronger side(with a stronger, adversarial power)