POL210 Notes: Introduction to International Relations PDF

Week 1 (10 January): Introduction to the Course and Overview of Key Concepts International Relations as a Science ​ Studies the actors, structures, and processes that interact with the international system ​ Seeks to understand how the people and states of the world get along–and why they do...

Week 1 (10 January): Introduction to the Course and Overview of Key Concepts International Relations as a Science ​ Studies the actors, structures, and processes that interact with the international system ​ Seeks to understand how the people and states of the world get along–and why they do not ​ Examines most pressing issues of the world: ○​ War and peace ○​ The organization of the global economy ○​ The causes and consequences of global inequalities ○​ The advancement, and regression, of liberties and freedoms Chinese and US tensions Taliban members in the Afghan Parliament Shanghai Port, largest international seaport in the world But international relations as an academic discipline is not “current affairs” per se (though it can and does inform our understanding of current affairs) ​ Rather, it is concerned with the rigorous application of concepts, theories, and methods to the study of international politics ​ It aims to: ○​ Describe ○​ Explain ○​ Predict ○​ Prescribe A common approach adopted in the field: ​ Develop an explanatory theory to explain some outcome or puzzle in the world ○​ At the most basic level, theories are abstractions; simplifications of our complex reality ○​ Note that there are alternative types of theories (e.g., critical, normative, constitutive) that are prevalent in IR, and these alternatives often have different theoretical objectives. See Dunne, Hansen, and Wight (2013) ​ From that theory, derive hypotheses ○​ Hypothesis: a testable proposition about how or why a phenomenon of interest occurs ​ The theory’s hypotheses are then tested using empirical data collected from the real world ○​ Empirical data: information acquired by observation or experimentation  ​ In Short: the goal is to apply the scientific method to the study of world politics ​ This is no easy feat: individuals, groups, and states are extraordinarily complex phenomena and experimentation is usually not possible in IR ​ Aspiration: to generate probabilistic claims about the factors that increase or decrease the likelihood of some outcome ​ We can then use acquired knowledge to inform the policymaking process at home and abroad The field of IR has made significant strides in this direction in numerous areas of inquiry, such as: ➔​ Deterrence ➔​ The democratic peace ➔​ The political economy of trade ➔​ The bargaining theory of war ➔​ Open economy politics ➔​ Among others See: Frieden and Lake (2005) for a discussion of these examples ​ But the field is still relatively young, and there is still much work to be done ​ Accordingly, in this course our goal will be modest: to establish a social scientific foundation for further study of contemporary challenges in international relations Levels of Analysis ​ The analytic level from which different causes of international outcomes emerge ​ We can distinguish between three broad levels: the international system level; the state level; the individual level Example; Russia’s invasion of Ukraine Explanations from different levels need not exclude each other ​ Key point: must be aware of this preliminary conceptual issue ​ Using different levels of analysis allows us to clarify what kinds of questions we want to ask and what kinds of questions might be answered most profitably from different perspectives ​ Different levels also place different emphasis on the importance of agency vs. structure in international affairs Agency and Structure Agency: ​ Refers to the idea that human beings and the organizations they inhabit are purposeful actors whose actions produce, reproduce, and/or transform the society in which they live Structure:  ​ Refers to the set of conditions that influence or constrain the choices and opportunities available to an actor ​ Act as “selectors”—they select by rewarding some behaviors and punishing others ​ Limit actors and point them in ways that tend toward a common set of outcomes, even though actors vary ​ Actors shape their own social context... ​...and the social context in turn shapes the actors ​ They are “mutually constitutive” Sovereignty ​ The expectation that states have legal and political supremacy within their territorial boundaries ○​ Monopoly on the “legitimate” use of force/violence ○​ Territorial integrity and border inviolability ○​ Control over own policies and political processes, such as the maintenance of domestic order and provision of governance Anarchy ​ The absence of a central authority ​ State sovereignty creates a condition of anarchy in the international system in the sense that there is no world government above states ​ This does not mean there is all out chaos and disorder; rather, it means that there is no legal authority to make and enforce binding contracts among sovereign states ○​ There is “no 9-1-1 to call” when things go bad for states Collective Action Problems ​ Obstacles to cooperation that arise when actors, acting rationally and in pursuit of their self-interest, have incentives to collaborate, but act with the expectation that others will pay the costs of cooperation ​ Often leads to the under-provision of public goods due to free riding  ○​ Public goods: Products that are nonexcludable and nonrival in consumption ○​ Free riding: The failure to contribute to a public good while benefiting from its provision by others Institutions ​ Sets of rules that serve to structure interactions and govern relations among actors ​ Help mitigate the uncertainty associated with anarchy ​ In this way, they play a positive role in promoting cooperation and peace Institutions serve to: 1.​ Reduce the costs of joint decision-making 2.​ Set standards of appropriate behavior 3.​ Reinforce practices of reciprocity 4.​ Increase transparency 5.​ Verify compliance ​ In short: institutions decrease uncertainty and reduce transaction costs Strategic Interaction ​ Interactions in which actors have to anticipate the likely choice of others and take that into account when making their own choices ​ Actors’ actions are purposive and contingent ​ Two types of interaction we are especially interested in: cooperation and bargaining A Little Game Theory Refresher ​ Actors (A1 and A2) have two choices, cooperation (C) or defection (D) ​ Actors’ interests determine how they rank the four possible outcomes, with higher “payoffs” representing preferred outcomes (4 > 3 > 2 > 1) ​ Actor 1’s payoffs are given first, Actor 2’s second ​ Four possible outcomes to this game: CC, DD, CD, DC ​ Actors choose simultaneously without knowledge of the other’s choices, but with knowledge of their own preferences and those of the other actor as well ​ The outcome is a function of the interaction of both actors ​ Therefore, actors must choose strategies that are a best response to the anticipated actions of the other actor  ​ When it makes sense for an actor to make the same choice regardless of what the opponent does, this is called a dominant strategy ​ An outcome that arises when each side is playing their best response strategy is called an equilibrium ​ An equilibrium is stable: actors have no incentive to unilaterally change their choice (because they cannot do better by unilaterally changing their choice) Let’s look at a few examples of games with applications to IR... The Prisoner’s Dilemma: ​ Two criminals have been detained by police, but the district attorney doesn’t have enough evidence to convict them on felony charges—only enough to get them for misdemeanors ​ The district attorney confines the prisoners separately and gives the following offer to both individuals: “If neither of you testify, I will charge you both with misdemeanor and you’ll get one year in prison. If you provide evidence on your accomplice, I will let you go free and he’ll get ten years. However, he has been offered the same deal. If you both squeal, you’ll each get a felony, but only five years in exchange for testifying.” ​ We can use a payoff matrix to think through this decision ​ Making choices based off of expectations ​ Equilibrium: equal outcomes ​ Cooperation: no losses and Bargaining: gaining and losing ​ Rather than sharing benefits, you are gaining, is it not clear that both win A few IR examples to consider: ​ Arms races ​ Environmental protections/conservation ​ OPEC and control on oil production/prices Chicken: ​ Two drivers speeding down a road toward one another ​ The first to turn aside will be the “chicken” and derided by an observing crowd ​ The other will win and enjoy the admiration of the crowd ​ If both swerve, neither is humiliated ​ If neither swerve... A few IR examples to consider: ➔​ Brinkmanship ➔​ Nuclear crises ➔​ Coercive bargaining more generally Stag Hunt: ​ Two hunters trying to kill a stag in the forest ​ Need to work together: one to flush stag out, one to kill ​ During the hunt, a lone rabbit wanders by. Each hunter could capture the rabbit on their own, but would need to abandon the stag ​ Cooperating would be best, but we have a coordination dilemma A few IR examples to consider: ➔​ Setting international standards ➔​ Revolutions ➔​ Any situation where there is a lack of trust between actors that would otherwise want to cooperate Week 2 (January 17): Nationalism and International Politics Motivation ​ Team Canada at the 2024 Summer Olympics ​ Poster from the Second World War What is Nationalism? Nationalism: “[A] political principle, which holds that the political and the national unit should be congruent” (Gellner 2006: 1) ​ The idea that membership in, and loyalty to, a nation is an individual’s central political identity ○​ The nation is explicitly tied to a specific piece of territory ○​ It is an “imagined political community” (Anderson 2006: 6) ​ Nationalism is one of the most potent forces in the world today For individuals, nationalism is a propensity to: ​ Identify your individual self-interest with that of a group (“the nation”) ​ Define group interests according to a “culture” and a “history” that the group is purported to share ○​ A belief that the nation has a “common destiny” ○​ A feeling of pride in your own nation; a view that it is superior to other nations ○​ “Chauvinist myth-making” that is self-glorifying and often other-maligning (Van Evera 1994: 27) ​ Believe that the group requires a state structure of its own to survive and manage its affairs National Self-Determination: ​ The principle that distinct national groups have a right to become sovereign states ▶ Secession: leave an existing state and form a new one on a specific piece of territory ▶ Irredentism: leave an existing state and reunite with another state, bringing a specific piece of territory with you The Origins of Nationalist Sentiment A key question for social scientists: what “caused” nationalism? ​ Major divisions in the literature can be identified between “primordialists,” “perennialists,” and “modernists” ▶ Primordialists: national identities are natural, socio-biological phenomena ▶ Perennialists: national identities are built upon pre-existing ethnic and cultural building blocks ▶ Modernists: nationalism is a product of key elements of modernization 1) Industrialization (Gellner 1983) ​ Nationalism is the product of the transition from agrarian to industrial society, which required cultural homogeneity for labor markets and bureaucratic and technological communication. The state achieved this through mass education, mass literacy, and a standardized vernacular. 2) Print capitalism (Anderson 1983) ​ Nationalism is the product of the interaction of a system of production (capitalism) and a technology of communication (print) which made language-based “imagined communities” possible. The “vernacularizing thrust” of print capitalism was key to the development of national consciousness. (3) Modern warfare and the mass army (Posen 1993) ​ Nationalism is strategically fostered by states—via mass education, literacy, and propaganda—for the purposes of improving their military capabilities in the context of mass mobilization warfare, rapidly replenishing losses. ​ These different explanations need not be seen as competing ​ Nationalism and modernization in the international system developed together ​ Over time, the spread of nationalist sentiment re-defined the nature of the “state”; before long, the nation-state would become the central institution of the international system Nationalism and the International System ​ From roughly the mid-1600s, a “Westphalian system” developed in Europe ○​ Treaty of Westphalia: long conflict comes to end, border stability ○​ General recognition of the principles of sovereignty and nonintervention ​ At this time, states varied in their form ○​ Europe was populated by empires, kingdoms, city-states, etc. ○​ But there were no nation-states The rise of nationalism changed:  ​ How people identified themselves ​ How people identified authority ​ Who people identified with ​ Beginning with anti-metropole resistance in the western hemisphere (∼1760-1830), amplified by the French Revolution (1789), and further spread by the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815), a new framework for international order began to emerge ​ Through conflict and imitation among different powers, the global map was re-sorted along nation-state lines; other types of states were slowly cast away ○​ One nation-state from several separate states (ex. Italy, Germany) ○​ Many nation-states from one state (ex. fragmentation of the Austro-Hungarian empire ​ Nationalist challenges in the peripheries of European empires were important, but with the exception of cases of imperial collapse (as occurred with Spain in South America), metropoles resisted the principle of national self-determination in their colonies ​ In the aftermath of WWII, however, the process of decolonization accelerated quickly ​ Beginning in Asia, then the Middle East, and finally sub-Saharan Africa, over 100 new nation-states were created between 1945-1970 ​ The collapse of the Soviet Union also saw the rise of new nationalist movements in Europe and the birth of yet more nation-states Some new nations emerged peacefully… ​ The former Czechoslovakia—now the Czech Republic and Slovakia ​ Vladiḿir Meciar and Vaclav Klaus..but other new nations emerged only after violent confrontations. ​ There is considerable evidence linking the (strategic) construction of group identities to violence ​ Case studies suggest that large-scale ethno-nationalist violence can be provoked by elites who “play the ethnic/nationalist card” in pursuit of political power ​ This violence tends to “harden” group identities and construct them in more antagonistic ways ​ More generally, most (though not all) nation-states have emerged when an old regime is weakened (often by wars that were unrelated to the nationalist cause itself) ​ This is especially evident in periods after empires collapse ​ One way to see the effect of this process on the organization of the international system over time is to visualize the spread of the nation-state as a series of “waves” (Wimmer 2013) ​ More recently, a resurgence of nationalism in defense of the nation-state has been seen in Europe, especially in opposition to supra-national politics and globalization Elsewhere in the world, some groups continue to fight to secure a nation-state of their own... ​ Kurdish areas of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran...while others have challenged the very idea of the nation-state.  ​ Increased globalization and cross-border relations have led some to question whether national identities and even nation-states may be losing their importance ▶ Economic: national to global economies ▶ Political: national to supra-national authorities (ex. EU) ▶ Social: national to global media and cultural consumption ​ Yet, its continued legal, cultural, and economic importance to everyday life, together with the recent resurgence of nationalism in Europe and elsewhere, suggests it is far too soon to proclaim the impending death of the nation-state A Brief Summary ​ At root, nationalism is an idea that holds that: 1.​ Membership in a particular group (“the nation”) should be the focus of an individual’s political identity and loyalty 2.​ The nation requires a state structure of its own to survive and to thrive ​ Its rapid emergence, its role in the formation of nation-states, and the violent conflicts it has often given rise to have profoundly altered international politics ​ While the nation-state model has been challenged in some ways in the recent past, it remains the fundamental organizing principle of the international system Week 3 (January 24): Managing Military Conflict Wars fought between states are exceptionally costly affairs: ​ Direct combat deaths ​ Civilian deaths ​ Injured, displaced, diseased ​ Destruction of property, territory, wealth ​ Financial costs enormous ​ Preparation for war is a huge expense For their part, civil wars regularly devastate the societies they afflict: ​ Large-scale killing, physical and psychological trauma ​ Strategic victimization of civilians ​ Forced migration on a massive scale; refugees, IDPs ​ Long-term economic costs: higher military expenditure, capital flight, and declining (if not reversing) economic growth ​ Effects persist for years after fighting ends Questions for today: How have states and international organizations sought to manage the worst consequences of inter- and intra-state conflict? Alliances: Institutions that facilitate military cooperation among actors in the event of war ○​ Sets of rules that guide behaviour ​ States form alliances when they have compatible interests in bargaining against some adversary ​ Just like other institutions, alliances specify standards of behavior and identify expectations of their members ○​ What is right and wrong and knowing people's behaviour, communicate, and understand each other ​ Can be defensive, offensive, or both ​ Alliances codify bargains between members over contributions and distributional issues ○​ In the even of x, what will countries contribute, behave, and they they would do for each other in case of a conflict ​ They can be symmetric, but also asymmetric (e.g., US alliances with Japan, S. Korea) ​ They can also serve as the basis for a “deal” of some kinds (e.g., security assistance in exchange for basing rights) ​ Alliances often form given common interests in security and fear of domination ​ A balance of power ensures that no state or coalition can dominate all others ○​ Balance of power: when the military capabilities of two states or groups of states are roughly equal ​ In this view, alliances form when states need to combine their capabilities to counter threats to their security; in this sense, they tend to be defensive and oriented toward deterring aggression ○​ Expectation is that states will prefer to join the weaker side However, alliances entail costs that may raise doubts about their credibility: ​ Commitment of blood and treasure to defend another state ​ Must be upheld to be credible, even if defeat is likely ​ Limits freedom (consultation necessary before taking action) ​ Risk of entrapment: an ally can cause a crisis that you would otherwise like to avoid Moreover, some alliances form given common interests in potential gains: ​ Bandwagoning occurs when losing or weak states join the stronger state or coalition in an attempt to share in the spoils of conquest ​ Bandwagoning alliances are usually offensive in orientation ○​ May increase conflicts between nations Do alliances help states manage military conflict? ​ Answer: they can, but different types of alliances have different kinds of effects on the likelihood of conflict ​ Research by Leeds (2003) finds that: ○​ States with defensive alliances are less likely to be targeted by militarized actions, suggesting a deterrent effect ○​ 28% decease of a war breaking out ○​ But states with offensive and/or neutrality alliances are more likely to initiate militarized actions, suggesting an emboldenment effect – 47% increase (more likely to go to war)  ​ In other words, alliances are a mixed bag when it comes to questions of war and peace: the specific content of alliance treaties determines whether they are more likely to deter open hostilities or facilitate aggression ​ The failures of alliances to keep the peace during the first half of the twentieth century propelled a different idea to the fore… Collective security organizations: International institutions that promote peace and security among a broad membership of states ​ Examples: League of Nations (1919); United Nations (1945) ​ Form when states have common interests in preventing war and promoting peace accept the view that the security of one is the concern of all, regardless of who the victim and/or aggressor might be ​ Have traditionally been conceived as being global in scope, the more broader the more successful What collective security organizations do: ​ Internally: forbid military force by one member against another; aim is to resolve disputes peacefully ​ Externally: collective response mechanism—an attack on one is an attack on all – take into account all the defendants, defers attacks ○​ Members can respond with economic sanctions up to full-scale military intervention (deterrent) ○​ Can also provide for mediators/peacekeepers to help states identify mutually beneficial bargains or monitor/enforce agreements Three effects: 1.​ Can ensure challenges to status quo are almost certain to fail (high cost of war for challengers) 2.​ Can help enforce agreements 3.​ Can serve as neutral observers and peacekeepers ○​ Increase costs of a resumption in fighting (diminished first stroke advantages, increased diplomatic costs) peacekeepers eliminate the first strike advantage. ○​ Monitor compliance, reassure both sides about each others’ intentions ○​ Provide local mediation, dispute resolution, and prevent escalation Challenges: the collective action problem ​ A problem that arises when there is incentive to cooperate, each state expects each state to pay the costs of cooperation ​ Recall that collective action problems arise when there are incentives to cooperate, but each actor expects that others will pay the costs of cooperation ​ Members of collective security organizations can enjoy the benefits of security whether or not they contribute troops, funding, equipment, and so on ​ Each state therefore has an incentive to “free ride”: to not contribute to the public good of collective security while benefiting from its provision by others ○​ Takes but does not want to contribute, so neither get it Challenges: the joint decision making problem ​ Complicating things further, the membership of collective security organizations is often diverse and includes states with conflicting interests ○​ When states are increased, the diversity increases and there are different interests ​ It can therefore be challenging to find consensus on questions of: what constitutes a threat; which state should be deemed an “aggressor”; how the organization should respond to that aggression ​ Example: During the Cold War, both the US and Soviet Union were members of the UN! An Example: The UN ​ UN Security Council: has authority to identify threats to international peace and security; decide organization’s response; authorize use of economic and/or military sanctions (Chapter VII of UN Charter) ​ 5 permanent members (“P5”) ○​ United States, Great Britain, France, Russia, China ​ 10 non-permanent members ○​ Hold seats on a rotating basis by geographic region, 2-year term ​ The P5 enjoy veto power to prevent the passage of a measure at the Security Council ​ Veto power: the ability to prevent the passage of a measure unilaterally ​ If there is a proposal, they can unilaterally say no if one out of the five say no For a vote to pass, you need at least 9 of 15 council members and all of the P5 Pros: ​ Reduces joint decision making problem, as the small number of decision makers makes it easier to arrive at consensus (imagine if all 193 members got a vote!) ​ Reduces collective action problem by ensuring consent of strongest members with resources to contribute; won’t be opposed by any of the most powerful members Cons: ​ Policing power wielded unevenly (helps those with “friends in high places”) ​ Permanence of P5 means UNSC’s veto powers do not reflect changes in distribution of power ​ Unanimity difficult to achieve, and veto can lead to paralysis The UNSC can authorize two types of military operations: ​ Peacekeeping: the deployment of troops, police, and/or observers to monitor a ceasefire or peace agreement ○​ Three basic principles: 1.​ Consent of the warring parties 2.​ Impartiality 3.​ Non-use of force expect in self-defense of a mission’s mandate ​ Peace enforcement: the application of coercive measures, including military force, to make/or enforce peace among warring parties ​ Do peacekeeping and peace enforcement work? Examples:  -​ successful UN sanction, former Iraq leader, Kuwait was invaded in doing so they had 20% of the oil supply -​ Humanitarian role of the UN, providing emergency aid -​ Barbaric conditions of the Rwanda Genocide, the UN system was there and it took place at the same time -​ Former yugoslavia, young boys and men got killed and were used as shields The UN and Collective Security: Successes and Failures ​ The presence of peacekeepers reduces the probability of cease-fire breakdown by ∼85% (interstate), ∼60% (civil war) (Fortna 2004, 2008) ○​ On average a powerful and beneficial role and effect ​ UN deployments can also reduce violence in conflict zones by resolving commitment problems (e.g., providing security guarantees) and increasing the costs of continued fighting (e.g., separating and disarming combatants) ○​ Function of deployment capacity and constitution ​ Number of troops and types of troops or personal ​ Unarmed, police, less effective or combat troops (more affective and larger) ○​ See Hultman, Kathman, and Shannon (2014) ​ On the other hand, the UN has sometimes struggled in the context of peace enforcement deployments involving the strategic employment of coercive force (Doyle and Sambanis 2006: 185) ​ More generally, without compelling national interests, member states have sometimes proven reluctant to pay the costs associated with stopping aggression and ending humanitarian crises ​ In light of some of the failures of the UN system (such as the Rwandan genocide and the Srebrenica massacre), policymakers began experimenting with new ideas to prevent mass atrocity crimes Responsibility to Protect ​ Worst crimes of the UN: Rwandan genocide and the Srebrenica massacre ​ They were there and never did anything ​ Canada makes an effort to fund a commission led by senior policymakers, read a report, idea gets distributed, 2005 world summit is held among all state leaders, two paragraphs consist of the Responsibility to Protect, gets signed by all leaders, had a consensus in the international community Responsibility to Protect (R2P): ​ A fledgling norm to prevent and respond to the worst forms of violence and persecution, including genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity ​ Basic idea: states have a responsibility to protect their citizens from these crimes, and when they prove either unwilling or unable to fulfill this duty, that responsibility is transferred to the international community ​ Changes the idea of sovereignty, responsibility to prevent crimes from happening otherwise other states will get involved Three pillars: ​ Pillar 1: primary responsibility of states to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, and their incitement ○​ You as a sovereign state should not let these crimes happen ​ Pillar 2: international community’s responsibility to assist and encourage states to meet these obligations (help to address causes and build capacity) ○​ Less developed state to militarily respond to these crimes, capacity building, help other weaker states ​ Pillar 3: international community’s responsibility to take timely action to protect populations when a state fails to meet its responsibilities (can be peaceful, but also forceful, means) ○​ If it does happen, respond. ○​ Can you guess which pillar is most controversial? ​ Weaker states and less developed states may feel threatened feel most opposed to help because they feel they will be next Since 2005, a number of resolutions and presidential statements from the UN Security Council have been informed by the Responsibility to Protect. These cases have been revealing, both in instances of “success” and “failure”. A few examples: ​ Sudan 2006 ○​ Genocide takes place, UN takes interest, reference made but do not invoke it, the genocide began before everyone signed on. Not appropriate to use it this time, despite the fact there was a genocide happening. ​ Kenya 2007/2008 ○​ Elections turn violent, reference it and invoke it, send a mediator and successfully mediate the conflict. First time R2P is invoked. ​ Libya 2011 ○​ Invoked and military invention force is used, leader refers to rebel groups with inflammatory language, preventative intervention gets a green light led by other states to protect civilians, then leads to civil war. ​ Syria 2014 ○​ Most intense and violent civil war. China and Russia veto this and Russia would not want this to happen. ​ Five structural problems undermining the assumption that coercive humanitarian intervention can prevent/ end mass killing: 1.​ The mixed motive problem ​ Self interest to pay the costs 2.​ The counterfactual problem ​ To succeed something should have not occurred, killing did not occur, cannot prove what would have happened 3.​ The conspicuous harm problem ​ In order to prevent killing, there will be killing, hurt civilians and destroyed building  4.​ The end-state problem ​ How to get one of these, go in and separate rebels but then stuck in the middle 5.​ The inconsistency problem ​ Knowing all that you know, inconsistently apply R2P system, sometimes intervene, sometimes not sure how fast or when a crisis will occur, gets called a hypocrite for being inconsistent The debate over the utility and future of the R2P concept is important, but also contentious ​ On the one hand: ○​ Candidate cases for intervention invoke core ethical/moral principles ○​ Legal arguments: UDHR commits states to protect human rights, Genocide Convention commits states to prevent and respond to genocide ○​ Inaction can be horrific, costly, and have lasting effects ○​ Important national security implications for affected states (e.g., conflict spillovers) On the other hand: ​ Peace enforcement and coercive humanitarian interventions are a messy business ○​ Not as easy as “good guys” vs. “bad guys”; threat of moral hazard; “mission creep” ​ Interventions regularly require the employment of significant military power in combat operations ○​ “Even if the ends of such actions could be unambiguously humanitarian, the means never are” (Valentino 2011: 64) ​ Outcomes are unpredictable, difficult to assess ○​ Was the NATO intervention in Libya a “success”? ​ Opportunity costs (a crude, but necessary, calculus) ○​ The US alone fired about 220 Tomahawk missiles into Libya at $1.4 million a piece; what life-saving initiatives can you undertake with $308 million? A Brief Summary ​ Alliances and collective security organizations are important institutions that can help manage military conflict ​ Alliances: created to facilitate military cooperation in the event of war ​ Collective security organizations: form around common interests shared by all members in promoting peace, preventing war ​ The track record of both types of institutions is mixed ​ R2P is a fledgling norm to prevent and respond to the worst forms of violence and persecution ​ The concept is subject to considerable contestation in both the academic and policy communities ​ The use of force to protect populations, foster negotiations, and/or manage conflict remains highly controversial Week 4 (January 31): Norms and International Law Central questions: What are norms and international law? Why would sovereign states agree to be bound by them? Do norms and international law matter for outcomes we care about in IR? Norms: “a standard of appropriate behavior for actors with a given identity” (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998: 891) ​ Norms shape and constrain the behavior of states ​ They have a “taken-for-granted” quality when internalized Logic of appropriateness: internalized roles and rules to which an actor conforms, not for instrumental reasons, but because they understand the behavior to be “good” and/or “appropriate” ​ Compare with “logic of consequences” (cost/benefit assessments) ​ Violations of norms often bring shame, excuses, risk of being ostracized by the community Three types of norms: 1.​ Constitutive norms: who is a legitimate or appropriate actor under what circumstances ▶ E.g., what it means to be a “state” (e.g., flag, national anthems, ministries of science and technology, etc.) 2.​ Procedural norms: how decisions should get made ▶ E.g., all states are formally equal 3.​ Regulative norms: what behavior is appropriate ▶ E.g., “civilized” states do not use chemical weapons Where do norms come from? (1) Emergence ​ Norm “building” stage ​ Norm entrepreneurs play a critical role: ▶ Try to convince others to embrace their ideals ▶ Call attention to or create new issues; dramatize them; “frame” them to make them resonate with broader public understandings ​ Organizational platforms are used for promoting new norms on the international stage (e.g., UN, Greenpeace, Red Cross) ​ Goal: get norm adoption to a tipping point—when a critical mass of states have adopted the norm (2) Cascade ​ When cascade occurs, states are rapidly socialized and pressured into norm adoption ​ States adopt due to legitimacy, conformity, or esteem concerns ​ By the end of the cascade, the norm has gained sufficient support that it becomes a near universal standard of behavior (3) Internalization ​ The norm takes on a “taken-for-granted” quality ​ Conformity is automatic, habitual ​ Violations of the norm bring with them disgust, shame, abhorrence, disapproval ​ Once internalized, actors interests or “payoff functions” are changed Why norms matter: ​ State behavior can be altered by efforts of activists (such as advocacy networks, NGOs, human rights and environmental groups) to promote new norms (the “norm entrepreneurs”) ​ When these norms become entrenched and viewed as legitimate, they can profoundly affect state behavior ​ E.g., nuclear taboo ​ Once new norms are adopted, governments can be held accountable for behavior that violates them ​ Violations can be called out publicly (“naming and shaming”) and can be associated with reputational costs ​ States can be punished by other states (e.g., sanctions, forgone cooperation) ​ States can be punished by their own citizens (e.g., voted out of office, demonstrations and domestic instability) ​ In sum, while isolating the direct effect of norms on state behavior and policy making is difficult, norms constrain states in two key ways: 1.​ Redefining interests: shapes what states believe is “right” and “appropriate” behavior 2.​ Changing state interactions: violations of existing norms can invoke the coercive power of other states International law: “A body of rules that binds states and other agents in world politics and is considered to have the status of law” (Bull 1977: 127) ​ Set of rules that are linked together, with a common logical structure (core principle is sovereignty) ​ Includes primary and secondary rules ▶ Primary: “do X, don’t do Y” ▶ Secondary: the rules about how rules are made What does it do? ​ Clarifies the obligations of states ​ Defines violations that are subject to retaliation ​ Can provide for independent tribunals to resolve disputes (sometimes) ​ Like any other institution, it helps facilitate cooperation ▶ Decreases uncertainty ▶ Reduces transaction costs How is it made?  1.​ Customary international law: international law that develops over time as states come to recognize practices as legal obligations ▶ Custom or accepted practice ▶ E.g., diplomatic immunity: in effect for centuries; codified only in 1961 2.​ Conventions and treaties: international laws that are explicitly negotiated, bargained over, and then ratified ▶ States voluntarily accept the law ▶ E.g., Geneva Conventions Variation in international law: 1.​ Obligation: the degree to which states are legally bound to a rule ▶ Some rules must be followed and require reparations if violated; others are more aspirational 2.​ Precision: how specific obligations are (definitions, terms, rules, etc.) ▶ More specific = less room for interpretation 3.​ Delegation: whether third parties have authority to implement, interpret, and apply the rule ▶ Courts, arbitrators, mediators Take all three dimensions and you can distinguish between “hard law” and “soft law”: ​ Hard law: obligatory; precise; delegates substantial authority to third parties ▶ E.g., Rome Statue of ICC and crimes against humanity ​ Soft law: aspirational; more ambiguous; does not delegate much (if anything) to third parties ▶ E.g., Paris Climate Agreement ​ Note: “the choice between hard law and soft law is not a binary one” (see discussion in Abbott and Snidal 2000: 422) Does it matter? ​ Supporters: States do comply with international law the vast majority of the time; therefore, international law is an effective tool in facilitating cooperation and managing conflict ​ Skeptics: International law is unrealistic/utopian; effective laws are simply those that are written and interpreted according to states’ interests (a big selection effect in compliance rates) ​ Majority of international laws do not contain explicit enforcement provisions ▶ States must still “self help” ​ Value of law is as an institution: facilitates cooperation by establishing standards of behavior, encouraging reciprocity, serving as a signal of mutual understanding, lowering costs of decision making, helping manage disputes ​ States have an interest in following international law so that other states follow the rules too; in this sense, it is self-enforcing ▶ Consider the laws of war and the treatment of POWs ​ International norms and law shape and constrain state behavior ​ Norms affect how individuals, and in turn states, conceive of their interests ​ Norms are also fundamental to the constitutive rules that make up international politics ​ International law plays a prominent role as an institution that facilitates interstate cooperation Week 4 (Feb 7): Human Rights and Advocacy Networks 1 hour closed book. 9:20-10:40 am Multiple choice 11 marks Identification 3x3 9 marks General short answer 2x5 10 marks Readings related short answer 2x5 10 marks Focus on things flagged in lecture and slides Human rights: ​ The rights possessed by all human beings, regardless of their citizenship, group membership, or any other status ​ Human rights as a concept can be dated back to ideas about natural rights derived from natural law in the 18th century ​ The concept is abstract, but has enormous impact on daily life worldwide Three historical trends that supported international human rights: 1.​ Democratization a.​ Domestic institutions of free speech, free press, free elections b.​ Governments increasingly accountable to their own people 2.​ Accountability in International Law a.​ Trend to submit to monitoring and reporting in other domains, such as arms control, the laws of war, trade relations, etc b.​ Growing norm of “peer accountability” 3.​ Growth of International Civil Society a.​ Rapid increase in number and range of NGOs worldwide b.​ There has been a corresponding growth in their opportunities for advocacy and policy influence – SIMMONS (2009) The Development of the Human Rights Regime ​ The atrocities of WWII were the turning point for the development of the modern human rights regime ​ The question of how the concept of human rights would be ensconced in the postwar period was central to discussions framing the charter of the new UN ​ Simmons (2009: 41): “The UDHR, negotiated as practically the first piece of business of the new UN, has been interpreted as a nearly line-by-line response to the horrors the Nazi Third Reich had perpetrated Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR):  ​ Proclaimed by UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948 as “a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations” ​ Forms the foundation of modern human rights law ​ Contains 30 articles that identify a diverse set of rights possessed by all ​ A soft law institution UDHR, a few examples: ​ “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” (Art. 3) ​ “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms” (Art. 4) ​ “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (Art. 5) ​ “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile” (Art. 9) UDHR, a few examples (continued): ​ “(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses” (Art. 16) ○​ What does it mean by full age, what is allowed? ​ “Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others” (Art. 17) ​ “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures” (Art. 21) ​ See: Universal Declaration of Human Rights The Human Rights ​ The next step for the UN was to try to translate the UDHR into hard law—that is, make it legally binding and enforceable ​ International cooperation on human rights broke down here ​ Why? The Cold War ​ The US and Soviets privileged those aspects of the UDHR that were politically useful for the purposes of undercutting their superpower foe ▶ US: civil and political rights of liberty ▶ Soviet Union: economic, social, and cultural rights of equality ​ The end result of this breakdown in cooperation was the production of two separate agreements: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) ​ As of today: ▶ 174 member countries party to ICCPR ▶ 172 member countries party to ICESCR ​ Collectively, the UDHR, the ICCPR, and the ICESCR make up what is referred to as the International Bill of Rights ​ Together, they form the core of the international human rights regime  ​ Over time, they have been supplemented by additional conventions ○​ On women’s rights, torture, children’s rights, migrant workers, persons with disabilities, etc. ​ The human rights enterprise is not without continued controversy, however... Human Rights in Practice ​ The tension between the US and Soviet Union during the Cold War highlights that, while human rights are universal, different states are not always willing to promote the same rights ​ Critics argue that the UDHR stems from a Western, liberal philosophical tradition that privileges individual rights over collective rights ​ An alternative—“Asian values”—elevates the goals of communities and of social and political stability over the rights of the individual ▶ Codified in the Bangkok Declaration (1993) ​ This debate demonstrates that: ▶ The human rights enterprise is an institution subject to change ▶ Human rights are themselves a product of struggle, debate, and social interests ▶ Human rights have not been internalized in all societies and governments to the same extent ​ More generally, sanctions by states against violations of human rights are relatively rare ​ The mechanisms to address violations of human rights are also relatively weak ▶ The European Court of Human Rights presents a notable exception, though it too lacks enforcement powers ​ Individuals and states still often act on human rights and enforce laws only when it is in their self interest to do so ​ The practices of some states—including those who promote human rights on the international stage—also call into question just how much human rights have been internalized ​ The reality is that human rights abuses continue across the globe ​ States violate human rights for a range of reasons: ▶ To preserve regime/ethnic/group rule ▶ In defense of national security (whether threats are real or imagined) ▶ Lack of state capacity ​ Generally speaking, the weaker or less legitimate the government, the more likely it is to abuse human rights ​ Thus, the human rights project remains a work in progress ​ While codified in soft law, human rights as a concept remains subject to political contestation ​ Countries differ in the degree to which they feel bound to protect the full set of human rights ​ Countries also disagree about which rights ought to be enforced, and to what degree, especially when doing so challenges the principle of state sovereignty ​ Even though abuses continue to occur, we might nonetheless ask whether countries that sign human rights treaties protect rights better than those that do not  ​ This is a difficult question to answer: ▶ Many human rights practices are difficult to measure accurately and consistently ▶ Human rights violations are not advertised by abusers, and states have incentives to hide this behavior ▶ Some states sign human rights agreements even when they have little intention of abiding by them ​ Methodological challenges notwithstanding, research suggests the international human rights regime is having a positive effect ▶ Conditional on domestic institutions, rule of law, civil society, and expected tenure of political leaders ​ International human rights institutions also exert a beneficial effect on human rights norms and practices ▶ Empowers social actors to conceive of their interests in new ways, provides a shared vocabulary, and emboldens individuals to advocate for their rights ​ In addition, international human rights law permits advocacy networks to put pressure on governments to enforce human rights standards... Transnational Advocacy Networks (TANs) ​ “A transnational advocacy network includes those relevant actors working internationally on an issue, who are bound together by shared values, a common discourse, and dense exchanges of information and services” (Keck and Sikkink 1998: 2) ​ Composed of a number of non-state actors: ▶ International and domestic NGOs ▶ Philanthropic foundations ▶ Research groups, intellectuals, and epistemic communities ▶ Trade unions, churches, and other civil organizations ▶ Regional and international intergovernmental organizations ▶ Powerful, wealthy individuals and celebrities ​ TANs coordinate the activities of these various actors around the globe; direct non-violent collective action TAN Issue Focus ​ Nearly all major issues have TAN activism ​ The number of TANs has greatly increased over time, from 100 in 1953 to thousands today ​ Key questions: ▶ Do TANs really have much power in a state-dominated international system? ▶ Where does their power come from? ▶ Do they have an impact on international politics? ​ We can distinguish between different domains in which TANs have influence: information politics, symbolic politics, leverage politics, and accountability politics (see Keck and Sikkink 1998)  1.​ Information Politics a.​ Power to disseminate information to a wide network via email, newsletter, social media, the web b.​ Research and studies used by media and government officials c.​ Empowerment of voices and testimony that may not otherwise be heard d.​ “[T]urning the cold facts into human stories” (Keck and Sikink) 2.​ Symbolic Politics a.​ “Issue Framing” i.​ Calling attention to or creating new issues; dramatizing them making them resonate for an audience that is often far away. 3.​ Leverage Politics a.​ Use of material or moral leverage to persuade and make demands of governments b.​ Mobilization of membership public opinion c.​ “Naming and shaming” to alter behavior d.​ Use of media to expose hypocritical rhetoric and behaviors, raise public awareness 4.​ Accountability Politics a.​ TANs serve as watchdogs of national and international agreements b.​ Can sound the alarm when violations occur c.​ Make governments aware they are being monitored TANs influence international politics in other ways as well: ​ As informational shortcuts/endorsers ​ As third-party monitors ​ As norm enforcers ▶ Punishment by constituents ▶ Punishment by citizens of other states (the boomerang) ​ NGOs blocked in State A can draw on transnational linkages ​ NGOs in State B pressure their government or international organizations, who then demand State A alter its behavior ​ See: Keck and Sikkink (1998: 12-13) ​ It is important that we do not exaggerate the power of TANs ​ Given the diversity of organizations and individuals that make up a TAN, messages can sometimes become blurry, imprecise, and thus difficult to translate into policy ​ Different participants often disagree on strategy  ▶ “Insiders” vs “outsiders”; “reformers” vs. “radicals” ​ Power asymmetries can exist between the different organizations ▶ Ex. resource rich NGOs from the global North vs. resource poor NGOs from the global South ​ States remain the sovereign authorities in world politics ​ But recall the importance of norms: ▶ Norms and identities define state interests and understandings of what is “right” and “appropriate” ▶ “Naming and shaming” violators of human rights can affect state behavior ▶ Public awareness and monitoring state practices create political pressure on states, both internally and externally A Brief Summary ​ International human rights are a relatively new institution; they are not yet shared equally by all countries ​ While some states have interests in the protection of human rights, they are not always passionate about their promotion ​ TANs can influence state behavior through information politics, symbolic politics, leverage politics, and accountability politics. They also facilitate state-to-state cooperation by serving as informational shortcuts and third party monitors ​ However, TANs lack enforcement capacity and authority ​ Thus, while the human rights enterprise has progressed in remarkable ways over the last century, more work remains to be done to see the project realize its full potential