Pevehouse Ch.1: The Globalization of International Relations PDF

**Pevehouse Ch.1: The Globalization of International Relations** **International relations (IR)** is a complex field that examines the interactions among the world\'s governments. However, these interactions cannot be fully understood without considering the influence of other actors, such as inter...

**Pevehouse Ch.1: The Globalization of International Relations** **International relations (IR)** is a complex field that examines the interactions among the world\'s governments. However, these interactions cannot be fully understood without considering the influence of other actors, such as international organizations, multinational corporations, and individuals. Additionally, social structures and processes like economics, culture, domestic politics, as well as geographical and historical factors, play crucial roles. All these elements contribute to the central trend in IR today, which is globalization. The complexity and evolving nature of these interactions make IR a challenging but intriguing subject. These connections are also influenced by social factors such as economics, culture, and domestic politics, as well as geographic and historical contexts. Recent events, such as the conflicts in Libya and Syria, Russia\'s invasion of Ukraine, and the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, illustrate the increasing interconnectedness of the world, with effects on global politics, economies, and human development. The global economic recession of 2008-2009, triggered by the collapse of the U.S. home mortgage market, quickly spread worldwide due to highly integrated global financial markets. This led to widespread economic downturns, with many countries, including the U.S. and Europe, taking nearly a decade to recover. This event, along with others, highlights the power of globalization---the spread of products, technology, information, and jobs across national borders. Globalization is transforming the world into a more interconnected global society, bringing numerous benefits such as fast global trade, instant communication, and increased accessibility to people, products, and ideas across the globe. As technology advances, these global connections are becoming faster and more pervasive, effectively internationalizing our daily lives. Many people around the world feel uneasy about how globalization influences their daily lives. The 2016 Brexit vote in the UK reflected concerns over losing control of policies related to trade and immigration due to EU membership. Similarly, Donald Trump\'s election as U.S. President in 2016 highlighted American worries about job losses from trade, immigration issues, and a desire to prioritize national interests over global ones. Global events can directly impact our lives, influencing job prospects, the nature of work, and the prices of everyday goods. While international relations often seem distant and dominated by leaders like presidents and diplomats, ordinary citizens also play a role. Through activities like voting, purchasing globally traded products, and staying informed, individuals contribute to and are affected by the world of international relations. The choices we make in our daily lives have a unique impact on the global stage. **Core Principles** The field of international relations (IR) is complex, with scholars using various theories and concepts to describe and explain it. Despite this complexity, a few core principles shape the field. At the heart of IR is a key problem: how can a group, such as two or more countries, pursue collective interests when doing so requires members to forgo their individual interests? For instance, while all countries benefit from stopping climate change, each nation also has an individual interest in burning fossil fuels for economic growth. Similarly, in military alliances, each member benefits from the alliance\'s strength but may prefer to minimize its own contributions. However, if nations prioritize short-term individual gains---like seizing territory or cheating on agreements---they risk creating a chaotic environment where mutual benefits from cooperation on security, trade, and other issues would disappear. The problem of balancing shared and conflicting interests within a group is known by several terms, such as \"collective action,\" \"free riding,\" \"burden sharing,\" or the \"tragedy of the commons.\" In general, this issue is referred to as the \"**collective goods problem**.\" Collective goods are generally easier to provide in small groups because cheating or free riding is more noticeable, has a greater impact, and is easier to punish. This dynamic explains the significance of small groups like the great powers in international security and the Group of Seven (G-7) in economic matters. According to sociologist Max Weber, a state\'s legitimacy is rooted in its monopoly on the use of force. While each state seeks this monopoly within its borders, no international body holds such a monopoly globally. Therefore, states must individually address collective goods problems since no external authority can compel them. Three core principles---dominance, reciprocity, and identity---offer solutions to encourage cooperation for the common good without a central authority. These principles are fundamental across social sciences and apply to various fields, including international relations. **Dominance** The principle of dominance addresses the collective goods problem by creating a power hierarchy where those at the top control those below. Instead of constant conflict over resources, members of a group may occasionally compete for higher status within this hierarchy. Once established, the hierarchy automatically resolves disputes in favor of higher-ranking members. Conflicts over dominance follow rules that limit harm to the group, with symbolic acts reinforcing the status hierarchy. Staying at the top requires more than just strength; it often involves skill in forming and maintaining alliances. Dominance, therefore, is a complex method for solving collective goods problems by imposing hierarchical solutions. In international relations, the principle of dominance is evident in the great power system, where a few powerful countries set the rules for others. Sometimes, a hegemon or superpower emerges as the dominant nation, such as in the UN Security Council, where the five strongest military powers hold veto power. The advantage of dominance is that it compels group members to contribute to the common good and reduces open conflict. However, the downside is that it can lead to oppression and resentment among lower-ranking members. Additionally, conflicts over dominance can destabilize the group, as challenges to the top position can result in serious disputes. Therefore, a superpower\'s dominance can bring peace and stability but also carries the risk of major wars if challenged. **Reciprocity** The principle of reciprocity addresses the collective goods problem by rewarding contributions to the group and punishing self-interested behavior that harms the group. This approach is straightforward and can function without central authority, making it effective for encouraging cooperation. Reciprocity operates on both positive (e.g., mutual benefits) and negative (e.g., retaliation) levels. However, it can also lead to a downward spiral if each side responds to perceived negative actions with punitive measures. People often overestimate their own good intentions while undervaluing others\' actions, which can escalate conflicts. To prevent such escalations, one or both parties must sometimes act generously to foster cooperation. In international relations, reciprocity underpins many norms and institutions, such as World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements, where cooperation is based on mutual exchanges. For example, if one country opens its markets to another, reciprocity ensures the other country does the same in return. However, reciprocity can also lead to negative outcomes, such as arms races, where each side responds to the other\'s military buildup. Despite this, reciprocity facilitates arms control agreements and conflict resolution by encouraging reciprocal steps to de-escalate tensions and avoid war. **Identity** The identity principle offers a solution to the collective goods problem by leveraging members\' sense of belonging to a community. Unlike dominance and reciprocity, which are driven by self-interest, the identity principle relies on members\' willingness to sacrifice their own interests for the benefit of others within their community. This principle can be seen in various groups, from families and ethnic groups to nations. For instance, individuals may help others based on shared identities, such as a scientist aiding a colleague in a developing country or a person contributing to disaster relief out of a sense of global solidarity. For example, tensions flared in recent years between the governments of Turkey and China due to China\'s policy of detaining people of the Uighur ethnic group in reeducation camps. This illustrates how shared ethnic identity can influence international relations, with Turkey advocating for Uighur rights due to their common Turkic identity. In international relations, identity communities help resolve challenges like development assistance, world health, and UN peacekeeping. For example, the significant foreign aid from Scandinavian countries and Canada\'s high level of peacekeeping involvement are driven more by their identities as global citizens than by self-interest. Shared identities among military professionals and diplomats also help ease conflicts. Military alliances often combine both identity politics and self-interest to achieve goals. In the case of the U.S.-British alliance, its strength and durability are not solely due to the countries\' shared strategic interests. While strategic interests are important, the deep and longstanding shared identity between the U.S. and the UK---rooted in common language, historical ties, cultural similarities, and mutual values---also plays a crucial role in strengthening the alliance. This shared identity fosters a sense of camaraderie and mutual trust that goes beyond mere strategic calculations, making the alliance more resilient and robust. Nonstate actors, such as nongovernmental organizations or terrorist networks, also rely on identity politics to a great extent. The increasing roles of these actors-feminist organizations, churches, jihadists, and multinational corporations, for example-have brought the identity principle to greater prominence in IR theory in recent years. **Examples** The problem of nuclear proliferation illustrates how collective goods issues can be addressed through different principles. In the absence of a central authority to regulate nuclear weapons globally, the \"dominance\" approach is used by the most powerful countries to maintain their exclusive control over nuclear arsenals. For example, the \"big five\" nuclear powers on the UN Security Council use treaties like the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and initiatives to prevent other nations from acquiring nuclear weapons. Actions such as the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and Israel\'s 1981 raid on Iraq are examples of dominance-based solutions aimed at preventing nuclear proliferation. However, this approach often leads to resentment among smaller countries, which see a double standard in the enforcement of the NPT, where powerful states retain their nuclear capabilities while restricting others from developing their own. Reciprocity addresses nuclear proliferation through mechanisms such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which requires nuclear powers to disarm in exchange for smaller nations agreeing not to develop nuclear weapons. It also underpins arms control agreements and deterrence strategies, such as the U.S. threat against North Korea for potential nuclear sales and rewards offered to Libya for abandoning its nuclear program. The identity principle helps explain why some nations refrain from developing nuclear weapons based on their national identities and values. Countries like Sweden and Germany avoid nuclear arms due to their pacifist identities or reliance on alliances. South Africa dismantled its nuclear program due to changes in government and values, while Japan\'s historical experience with nuclear bombings shapes its ongoing identity as a non-nuclear state, despite its technical capabilities and plutonium resources. **IR as a Field of Study** Collective goods problems in international relations (IR) are compelling because they lack easy solutions. The field explores how core principles---dominance, reciprocity, and identity---affect responses to these issues. IR as a discipline has a practical focus, with strong connections between scholars and policymakers. Academics often influence government policy, while diplomats and politicians benefit from their insights. Theoretical debates in IR remain unresolved, and future scholars are tasked with advancing understanding of world politics. This book aims to present the current state of knowledge without overstating the discipline\'s achievements. International Relations (IR) is a subfield of political science focused on the interactions between governments, including diplomacy, war, trade, alliances, and cultural exchanges. It often intersects with other disciplines like economics, history, and sociology. While some universities offer separate IR degrees, it is commonly taught within political science, particularly in relation to economic and environmental politics. IR studies specific issue areas such as global trade and conflicts, analyzing how countries behave in either cooperative or conflictual ways. The field examines the balance between conflict and cooperation in international relationships. International Relations (IR) can be defined by its subfields, with a traditional focus on international security, which includes the study of war, peace, military movements, treaties, and alliances. This area was dominant in the 1950s and 1960s. Recently, the field has expanded to include regional conflicts, ethnic violence, peace studies, and feminist scholarship, broadening the concept of \"security\" beyond traditional military concerns. International Political Economy (IPE) is a key subfield of International Relations (IR) that examines trade and financial relations among nations and the political cooperation required to regulate international economic transactions. Historically focused on interactions among wealthy nations, IPE has evolved to include developing states due to globalization and institutions like the World Trade Organization. Scholars now explore North-South relations, economic dependency, debt, foreign aid, technology transfer, as well as international environmental management and global telecommunications. The principles and theories used to understand international security are also applicable to International Political Economy (IPE), highlighting the interplay between economics and security. Theoretical knowledge in IR evolves through a cycle of generalization and empirical testing, but unlike laboratory sciences, IR cannot isolate variables easily due to the complexity and simultaneous operation of multiple factors. Therefore, critical thinking and consideration of various theoretical explanations, not one, are crucial in analyzing IR events. **Actors and Influences** In international relations (IR), while many actors influence global affairs, states remain the most crucial. Traditional IR scholarship focuses on governments\' decisions and actions in relation to other governments. However, the international landscape also includes individual leaders, citizens, bureaucratic agencies, multinational corporations, and terrorist groups. Despite this complexity, **states** are still the primary actors in IR, defined as inhabited territorial entities governed with sovereignty over their territory. In international relations (IR), a state is a sovereign entity that governs its territory independently, with its sovereignty recognized by other states and often through UN membership. States have capitals where government activities are administered and usually have a key individual, known as the state leader (e.g., president, prime minister, or monarch), who represents the state. In any case, the most powerful political figures are the \"state leaders,\" and these figures are the key individual actors in IR, whether these leaders are democratically elected or dictators and works alongside bureaucratic organizations, such as foreign ministries, which handle the state\'s international affairs (what the United States calls departments are usually called ministries elsewhere. U.S. secretaries are ministers and the State Department corresponds with a foreign ministry.). The terms state, nation, and country are often used interchangeably in political contexts, though they have specific meanings in IR. In political contexts: - **Head of State**: This is the individual who represents the state in ceremonial and symbolic roles. The head of state may or may not have significant political power. Examples include monarchs, presidents in some parliamentary systems, or ceremonial roles in various countries. - **Head of Government**: This person is responsible for running the government and making policy decisions. They typically hold executive power and oversee the administration of the government. Examples include prime ministers, presidents in presidential systems, or chancellors. In some countries, such as the United States, the same person is head of state and government. In other countries, the positions of the president or royalty, or even the prime minister, are symbolic. The **international system** refers to the network of relationships between the world\'s states, organized by both explicit and implicit rules. These rules define membership, rights, responsibilities, and typical actions and responses between states. The modern international system has existed for only 500 years. Before then, people were organized into more mixed and overlapping political units such as city-states, empires, and feudal fiefs. In the past 200 years, the idea has spread those nations--- groups of people who share a sense of national identity, usually including a language and culture---should have their own states. However, the post-World War II decolonization led to many new states that are not true nation-states, causing conflicts due to mismatches between national identities and state borders. This discord can lead to substate nationalism, where groups seek to form their own states. As was the case when groups from the Dinka and Nuer nation fought for power and resources in the South Sudanese Civil War from 2013 to 2020. Additionally, trends such as economic globalization, advancements in telecommunications, and ballistic missile proliferation challenge the current state-based system. **Nation-states** are countries where the population shares a common national identity, including language and culture. Recent historical changes, such as the independence of former colonies and the breakup of large multinational states like the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia, have increased the number of states globally. As of 2023, the UN has 193 member states. The population of these states varies widely, from over 1 billion in China and India to around 32,000 in microstates like San Marino. Most states have fewer than 10 million people, while those with populations over 80 million, totaling 16 countries, account for about two-thirds of the world\'s population. **GDP** is the total of goods and services produced by a nation in one year; it is very similar to the gross national product (GNP). For instance, the U.S. economy was nearly \$25 trillion in 2022, while Tuvalu\'s economy was only \$63 million. The global economy is dominated by a few major states, much like global population distribution. The 15 largest countries by both population and economy are significant players in world affairs, especially the nine that rank highly in both categories. Comparisons between countries with different currencies and economic systems should be made cautiously. The price of goods such as food can vary widely between countries, giving the same economic activity a different value depending on the country. A few large states, known as great powers, possess significant military and economic strength. The most powerful, termed superpowers had global influence, a title historically held by the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and now by the U.S. alone. Some entities, like Taiwan, function independently but aren\'t formally recognized as states due to disputes or colonial status. These include territories like Puerto Rico, Bermuda, and Guam. Entities like the Vatican and Palestine are nonmember observer states at the UN. Including these quasi-states, there are around 200 state or quasi-state actors globally. Besides national governments, nonstate actors, or transnational actors when they operate across borders, also significantly influence international relations. Other would-be states such as Kurdistan (Iraq), Abkhazia (Georgia), and Somaliland (Somalia) may fully control the territory they claim but are not internationally recognized. **Nonstate Actors** National governments are key players in international relations (IR), but they are heavily influenced by nonstate actors. These nonstate actors, also known as transnational actors, when they operate across borders, include organizations and entities that play a significant role in shaping international interactions and policies. Nonstate actors are influential entities in international relations, operating below or across state borders. They include: - **Intergovernmental organizations** (IGOs): Comprised of national governments (e.g., United Nations, NATO). - **Nongovernmental organizations** (NGOs): Made up of individuals and groups (e.g., Amnesty International, Red Cross). - **Multinational corporations (MNCs)**: Companies operating across borders (e.g., ExxonMobil, Toyota). - **Other actors**: Individuals, cities, and constituencies (e.g., Taylor Swift, al Qaeda). Together, IGOs and NGOs form international organizations (IOs). States frequently act through **intergovernmental organizations (IGOs)**, which are organizations composed of national governments. IGOs, such as OPEC, WTO, NATO, and the African Union, serve various functions and can range in size from a few states to global memberships like the UN. **Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)** are private organizations that also play a role in international relations. NGOs, such as Greenpeace and the International Olympic Committee, are recognized as legitimate actors, though not equal to states, and serve political, humanitarian, economic, or technical purposes. Together, IGOs and NGOs form international organizations (IOs). By one count there are more than 50,000 NGOs and 5,000 IGOS. **Multinational corporations (MNCs)** are companies that operate in multiple countries and often have interests that do not align with any single state\'s agenda. MNCs can control more resources and function more efficiently than many smaller states. Historically, some MNCs have even influenced or created governments, such as the United Fruit Company\'s role in Central America\'s \"banana republics.\" However, MNCs also benefit developing countries by providing foreign investment and tax revenues. In return, MNCs rely on states for protection, well-regulated markets, and political stability. **Nonstate actors**, such as terrorists and environmental groups, have gained significant power through technology, allowing them to operate globally. For example, ISIS uses the internet to coordinate attacks and reach global audiences, while Greenpeace broadcasts environmental actions worldwide. **Substate actors**, like U.S. states, also influence foreign policy and international business. For instance, the state of Pennsylvania is entirely a U.S. entity but operates an Office of International Business Development to promote exports and foreign investment, with 15 offices worldwide. As globalization and technological advancements reshape international relations, both state and nonstate actors increasingly interact across borders, reducing the exclusive influence of national governments. States are being gradually pushed aside as companies, groups, and individuals deal ever more directly with each other across borders and as the world economy becomes globally integrated. Information technology is also transforming international relations by enhancing actors' capabilities and global operations. **Levels of Analysis** In international relations (IR), scholars categorize the many influences, actors, and processes into different levels of analysis to help explain complex situations. A level of analysis is a perspective based on similar actors or processes that provides possible explanations for \"why\" questions. Commonly, there are three main levels of analysis, although some scholars include additional sublevels. This approach helps to organize and understand the various factors at play in IR. The **individual level of analysis** focuses on the perceptions, choices, and actions of individual human beings. This level emphasizes the impact of great leaders, citizens, thinkers, soldiers, and voters on history and international relations (IR). For example: - Lenin\'s influence: Without Lenin, there might not have been a Soviet Union. - 1960 U.S. election: If a few more college students had voted for Nixon instead of Kennedy, the Cuban Missile Crisis might have ended differently. The study of foreign policy decision-making pays special attention to individual-level explanations of IR outcomes due to the importance of psychological factors in the decision-making process. The **domestic (or state or societal) level of analysis** concerns the individuals within states that influence state actions in the international arena. These include interest groups, political organizations, and government agencies. They operate differently in different societies and states, leading to varied international effects. For instance: - Democracies vs. Dictatorships: Democracies and dictatorships may act differently from one another. - Election years: Democracies may act differently in an election year compared to other times. - Ethnic conflict and nationalism: These internal politics play an increasingly important role in the relations among states. - Bureaucratic battles: Within governments, foreign policy agencies often fight over policy decisions. The systemic (or interstate) level of analysis focuses on the influence of the international system upon outcomes. This level examines the interactions of states themselves, without regard to their internal makeup or the individuals who lead them. Key aspects include: - Relative power positions: States\' relative power positions in the international system. - State interactions: Trade and other interactions among states. - Transnational forces: Factors that transcend state interactions, such as the evolution of human technology, worldwide beliefs, and humans\' relationship to the natural environment. - Historical European imperialism: The lingering effect of Europe\'s conquest of Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Levels of analysis offer different explanations for international events. For example, the 2003 U.S.-led war against Iraq can be explained at multiple levels: - Individual level: Saddam Hussein\'s gamble that he could defeat the forces against him, or President Bush\'s desire to remove a leader he deemed threatening. - Domestic level: The rise of the powerful neoconservative faction that convinced the Bush administration and Americans that Saddam was a threat to U.S. security in a post-September 11 world. - Systemic level: The predominance of U.S. power, with no state willing to back Iraq militarily, allowing the U.S. to attack Iraq without fear of a large-scale military response. - Scholars often focus on one level of analysis, but multiple levels can simultaneously influence a problem. - No single correct level exists for a "why" question; multiple explanations and approaches should be considered. - Higher levels of analysis operate more slowly than lower levels (e.g., individuals change frequently, but the international system's structure changes rarely). **Globalization**: - Encompasses trends like international trade, telecommunications, monetary coordination, multinational corporations, technical and scientific cooperation, cultural exchanges, migration, and relations between developed and developing countries. - Defined as the increasing integration of the world in terms of communications, culture, and economics. - Globalization is changing both international security and international political economy (IPE), with a more profound impact on IPE. - Three competing views exist on the process of globalization. - Liberal economic perspective - This global marketplace has brought growth and prosperity, particularly to countries most integrated with the global market. - Entities like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the European Union (EU), multinational corporations (MNCs), and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are becoming more economically powerful than states. - The values of technocrats and elite, educated citizens in liberal democracies are becoming global values, reflecting an emerging global civilization. - The old North-South division is seen as less significant, as the global South is moving in different directions based on their integration with world markets. - Skeptical Perspective - Skeptics argue that the world's major economies are no more integrated today than before World War I. - They doubt that regional and geographic distinctions, like the North-South divide, are disappearing in favor of a single global market. - Instead, they see the North-South gap increasing with globalization. - Economic integration may lead to distinct and rival regional blocs in America, Europe, and Asia. - The supposed emerging world civilization is disproved by the fragmentation of larger units (e.g., the Soviet Union) into smaller ones along cultural lines. - Transformationalist Perspective - Transformationalists see globalization as more profound than skeptics believe but more uncertain than liberal economic supporters suggest. - State sovereignty is being eroded by institutions like the EU and WTO, making sovereignty one of many bargaining leverages held by states. - Globalization diffuses authority, causing state power to operate in new contexts with new tools. - **Popular Debates**: - Focus on the growing power of large corporations, disruptive costs of joining world markets (e.g., job loss, environmental impacts), and growing disparities between the rich and poor. - Anti-globalization protests have targeted policies to expand free trade, with notable protests in Seattle (1999), Washington, DC (2000), Quebec (2001), Genoa (2001), and Mexico (2003). While not as violent, they continue to persist as WTO meetings are still targeted - Anti-globalization rhetoric grew in 2016 with the UK's Brexit vote and the election of President Trump in the US, who criticized global trade agreements and military alliances, and attempted to limit immigration. **Disagreements Among Globalization Skeptics**: - Skeptics of globalization have differing goals and tactics. - Union members in rich Western nations want to stop job outsourcing to countries with cheaper labor. - However, workers in lower-income countries may want those jobs for better wages and working conditions. - In the U.S., populist elements from both major political parties (e.g., Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump) express skepticism about global trade, though both parties also have free trade supporters. - Supporters of Trump and Sanders may agree on trade policy but differ on other policies. **Contextual Aspects of Globalization**: - Future issue areas revolve around (1) relations among major world regions, especially Western industrialized nations and non-Western developing nations and (2) evolution of the international system over the past century. **Global Geography**: - World is split into nine regions based on insights from a global level of analysis. - These regions differ in the number of states, cultures, geographical realities, and languages, but each represents a geographical corner of the world and reflects larger global divisions. **Global North-South Gap**: - The most important geographical element at the global level is the gap between the relatively rich industrialized countries of the North and the relatively poor countries of the South. - The North includes the West (North America, Europe, Japan) and the old East (former Soviet Union, now Russia, and the Commonwealth of Independent States, a loose mix of former Soviet states excluding Baltic states). - The South includes Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and much of Asia. - The South is often referred to as the third world or developing/less-developed countries, in contrast to the developed countries of the North. **Commonalities Between Global North and South**: 1. Both regions contain a mix of cultures, geographical realities, and languages. 2. Both regions are part of the global economic system and are affected by globalization. 3. Both regions face challenges related to development, though the nature and extent of these challenges may differ. **North-South Gap**: - The disparity in resources (income, wealth, and power) between the industrialized, relatively rich countries of the West (and former East) and the poorer countries of Africa, the Middle East, and much of Asia and Latin America. **Criteria for Regional Distinction**: - Beyond income levels, regions are distinguished by similar economic levels, cultures, and languages. - Historical interactions, such as empires or trading zones, also group countries together. - Potential future unifications (e.g., South Korea with North Korea, China with Taiwan) are considered. - Some states, like Turkey, are influenced by multiple regions. **Geographical Notes**: - **East Asia**: China, Japan, Korea. - **Southeast Asia**: Myanmar through Indonesia and the Philippines. - **Russia**: Considered European, though Siberia is in Asia. - **Pacific Rim**: East and Southeast Asia, Siberia, Pacific coast of North America and Latin America. - **South Asia**: Sometimes includes parts of Southeast Asia. - **Middle East**: Narrow definitions exclude North Africa and Turkey. - **Balkans**: Southeastern Europe, bounded by Slovenia, Romania, and Greece