Module II Political Science PDF

*MODULE II POLITICAL SCIENCE* Immagine che contiene testo, schermata, diagramma, Carattere Descrizione generata automaticamente **Comparative politics**: within nations **International politics**: between nations [IR is one of the most recent academic disciplines]. The first chair in IR was est...

*MODULE II POLITICAL SCIENCE* Immagine che contiene testo, schermata, diagramma, Carattere Descrizione generata automaticamente **Comparative politics**: within nations **International politics**: between nations [IR is one of the most recent academic disciplines]. The first chair in IR was established in 1919 at the University of Galles in Aberystwyth, held by prof. Alfred Zimmern, a strong supporter of the "idealist" liberalism embodied by Woodrow Winston The first university dealing only with International Affairs was founded in 1927 in Geneva (IHEID) Why so late? Europe has almost constantly been at war in its history, but the scale of WWI changed things The battle of the Somme: 1 million casualties over 141 days (300 deads per hour) Every km costed more than 80'000 lives "How can a group, such as two countries, serve its collective interests when doing so requires its members to forgo their individual interests?" This is equal to enforcing a cooperative equilibrium in a prisoner dilemma game Example: Every state would gain from reducing global warming Every state gains from exploiting fossil fuels Every state has the incentive to take up deals that force competitors to diminish emissions and deviate on their promise How do entities in the international stage solve the collective action problem? Can be summarized in 3 ways: Dominance Reciprocity Identity **Dominance (vertical relationship)**: The establishment of hierarchy where those above control those below Conflict gets resolved through a decision of the higher-ranking actor (when one deviates from the prescript behavior every conflict is resolved on the behalf of the higher on the hierarchy) The higher-ranking actor may be due to their cornerstone importance to the establishment and maintenance to the alliance, not necessarily military power Like a government, it forces members to contribute to the common good and minimizes conflict within May not be only through force but can be much more complex [The UN Security Council and the veto power is an example of dominance] Battle of sexes game, two NE equilibria but one has eventually to take a dominant role in order to decide and the other one will eventually rebel **Reciprocity (horizontal)**: A system of incentives that rewards those who are part of a group and punishes those who deviate from the collective optimum of the group. It is enforced sometimes without external authority. Based on the "do ut des" or an "eye for an eye". When enforced without external authority, it can lead to a downward spiral of punishments and comebacks. Actors overestimate their own good intentions and underestimate the value of the actions of the opponents. [Reciprocal arms control agreements are an example of reciprocity] The application of trade tariffs in response to tariffs being applied to a counterpart Battle of sexes resolved that we do once what you like and once what I like but then unfairness could arise because the things I want to do maybe happen in a shorter season than yours, etc **Identity**: Based on the value structure of a group Actors may give so much importance to conforming to the values of a community that they may be willing to sacrifice some immediate benefit Arise from self-defined identities of the actors and create an in-group/out-group dynamic which can be problematic The demonization of the counterpart through propaganda is a common downside [Examples are the] [donation to disaster relief funds, the support that Arab and non-Arab middle eastern states have given to Palestine since the 50s] Deviation from the code can be punished hardly (think of mafia)  Most of the time, institutional and interpersonal exchanges between actors are formed by a mix of all three strategies; does not help us much in analyzing the causes of major international events European integration and the state-liability principle (only entity in the world that if a state does not acquire European legislation and a citizen suffer a damage from not acquiring that piece of legislation then he/she can sue his/her country in a national court and gain a compensation back). [EU has been built on reciprocity but also on identity] (set of shared values) One way is to categorize them into different levels of analysis **Individual level**: Focuses on the perceptions, choices, and actions of individual human beings. Great leaders, citizens, thinkers, soldiers, and voters. Ex: Studying the 1917 Revolution in Russia learning more about Lenin **Domestic level**: Concerns the aggregations of individuals within states that influence state actions in the international arena. Political institutions, parties, bureaucracies, political ideologies... **Systemic Level**: This level pays attention to states' relative power positions in the international system and the interactions (trade, for example) among them. It has been traditionally the most important of the levels of analysis (cross border issue: globalization, climate change...) Immagine che contiene testo, schermata, Carattere, ricevuta Descrizione generata automaticamente To understand the contemporary composition of the international system and the ways political units interact, we need to study the development of the nation state as we know it today The first stage goes from 1500 to 1659 **1500**: the birth of [Charles the V, the first modern emperor]. [He inherits nearly all Europe besides France] **1659** Treaty of the Pyrenees between Spain and France. [The end of European wars of religion]. After 1659, empires and other political units will stop fighting amongst each other for religious supremacy over Europe, but for reasons of state and power politics. Spain will cease to be the challenger for dominance The second stage goes from 1660 to 1815 [France now is the challenger for hegemony] **1815**: The congress of Vienna -- [The restoration of European equilibrium after Napoleon] The UK becomes the first modern great power Major events in international politics between 1500 and 1659: The Italian Wars (1494-1559): conducted to gain control of Italian territories, ultimately won by Spain who conquered much of the peninsula Ottoman-Habsburg Wars (16th Century): the Ottoman empire managed to siege Vienna for the first time in 1529. The advance of the Ottomans in Europe found its limits. Vienna will be sieged again in 1693 Eighty Years\' War (1568-1648): The eastern Flemish provinces (now the Netherlands) launch a rebellion against Spain for independence. War of independence of the United Provences against the Habsburg Anglo Spanish War (1585-1604): Spain tries to invade England; suffers the defeat of the "Incredible Armada" in 1588. The Thirty Years War (1618-1648): The Habsburg territories and the Catholic principates of Germany against France, England and the Protestant principates. Ended with the Treaty of Westfalia of 1648 (It has been considered the birth of the modern state system). Spain and France make separate peace in 1659 (Treaty of the Pyrenees) Why is this period important? Great powers will take turns at trying to gain hegemonic power in the continent and they will all fail like Spain did England will always be active against that continental power trying to rule over the continent What changes after 1659? (Domestic level) Great powers will not fight against each other in major wars for religious supremacy anymore\ Fighting will be justified by raison d'etat. It's the apex of the Absolutist Monarchies The systemic level of analysis: Scientific Inquiry (freedom of thinking) emerged as a primary method of understanding the world, challenging religious doctrines: Galileo Galilei (1564-1642); René Descartes (1596-1650); Isaac Newton (1643-1727) The Baroque Movement in the Catholic countries: grandiosity, dramatic contrasts, emotional intensity (catholic counter reform) Intellectuals began to lay the philosophical foundations of the Enlightenment: tolerance, empiricism, secular governance. Democracy has been built somehow out of this In the economy: Mercantilism and the development of colonial empires Development of [modern finance] with Kings relaying heavily on bankers and private lenders Major events in international politics between 1660 and 1815 ("France against everybody else"): Nine Years\' War (1688-1697): War of the Grand Alliance, Louis XIV of France against England, Spain, Dutch Republic, Prussia and the Holy Roman Empire. France lost but did not change the status quo considerably War of Spanish Succession (1701-1714): Charles the II of Spain dies without heirs. Britain, Austria, and the Dutch Republic fought against France to prevent a union of France and Spain Seven Years\' War (1756-1763): Considered the original first world war. England and Prussia against France, Austria and Russia. England and Prussia won with little gains in Europe but massive gains in Americas and India. England becomes the largest colonial power. Extremely expensive, it forced England to increase taxation in the American colonies, prompting the American war of Independence (no taxation without representation) This is also a time of Revolutions: Glorious Revolution (England): Bloodless overthrow of King James II of England by a coalition of Parliamentarians and the Dutch Prince William of Orange in 1689 Bill of Rights (1689): [the king could not suspend laws without Parliament or administrate justice on his own, royal prerogative subordinate to Common law, end of the divine right of the king subordinate to Common law, established a new way to leverage war funds] Impact on International Politics: Strengthening of anti-French foreign policy Stronger connections with the Dutch Mercantile and pro-trade policies across the Americas and Asia Fundamental policy blocks to understand the willingness to contrast France in the war of the Seven years, in the revolutionary wars and against Napoleon American Revolution (1775-1785): Inspired by Enlightenment ideals, the U.S. Constitution (1787) was drafted, establishing a federal republic with checks and balances. Also funded by France to weaken UK. The Bill of Rights (1791) ensured protection of individual liberties Impact on International Politics: [Influenced the French Revolution] (1789) and future independence movements Weakened the ability of England to be involved seriously on the continental wars against revolutionary France and Napoleon for a while French Revolution (1789-1794) Causes: Financial Crisis due to the Seven Years War and the support for the American war of Independence The tax burden was all on the shoulders of the Third Estate Extravagant spending and indecisiveness of the Monarchy Influence of the enlightenment ideas of Rousseau, Montesquieu, the American intellectuals and the English Bill of Rights Consequences: Abolition of the Monarchy and feudalism Declaration of the Rights of Men and of the Citizen (liberty, property and equality before the law) Secularization and reduced power of the Catholic Church Important phases of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Empire: National Assembly and the Fall of the Bastille (1789): Terror (1793-94) Robespierre executed Louis XVI and thousands of other perceived enemies Termidorian Reaction and Directory (1794-1799) Fall of Robespierre and the formation of the directory Rise of Napoleon: Napoleon distinguished himself as a commander in the Revolutionary wars Successful [campaign of Italy] (1796-97) [Campaign of Egypt] (1798-99) Ultimately unsuccessful but cemented Napoleon's reputation Amid corruption, inefficiency, a large amount of external threats Napoleon seizes power on the 18 Brumaire 1799 The peak of Napoleon's power is reached in 1812 after winning against 5 coalitions of all the other European states together Popularity witnessed by the citizen army The fall of Napoleon: Campaign of Russia 1812: Napoleon's invasion of Russia ended in catastrophe, with the French Grande Armée suffering massive losses The Peninsular War (Spanish Independence) (1807-1814):The Iberian peninsula was slowly liberated by Portugal and Spanish insurrectionists with the help of England War of the Sixth Coalition (1813-1814):A coalition of Russia, Prussia, Austria, and Britain defeated Napoleon's forces at the Battle of Leipzig (1813) First exile at Isola d'Elba The hundred days and Waterloo (1815) Suffers defeat at Waterloo by the Seventh Coalition The exile to Saint Helena Conclusions: Monarchies that were thought immutable could be toppled in the blink of an eye The fate of kings and nobles if they lose is certain death Without a consistent effort to thwart the ambitions of states with hegemonic ambition, the continent risks becoming hostage of its ambitions You cannot underestimate the strength of revolutionary states A coalition of states attacked France in 1792 to eradicate the revolutionary threat. The people of France enrolled en-masse to sustain the revolutionary regime against the invasion This has shown the world [the strength of an army which has the popular support]. This is a prelude of the large national armies of the 20th century **THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA** (1815), Kissinger wrote a book on this The main protagonists: Metternich (Austria): key architect of the Congress of Vienna, chief advocate of restoring the balance of power in Europe, aimed at establishing Hapsburg dominance in central Europe, stop national revolutions, afraid of national independence movements Talleyrand (France): born from noble family, became Bishop, yet supported the Revolution and proposed the nationalization of the properties of the Church. Chief diplomat for the Assembly in 1792, then exile during the terror. Member of the Directorate after the fall of Robespierre. Supported the coup by Napoleon in 1799. Distanced himself from Napoleon at the time of the Russian invasion. Became foreign minister for the Bourbon restoration at the Congress of Vienna. Perhaps the most talented and opportunistic politician in European history Castlereagh (Great Britain) Aimed at formalizing an alliance to curb the hegemonic tendencies within the continent Aimed at assuring no power could idly threaten the safety of commerces and access to ports No nations could become too strong Tzar Alexander I (Russia) Wanted to turn Russia into the dominant land power in the continent Deeply religious and almost ascetic personality Adamant to uphold conservative and Christian values against rationalist, democratic and nationalistic ideologies Did not want to return home without acquiring half of Poland Fix the domestic level: [Reestablish the monarchical lines where toppled by Napoleon]: Italy, France, Spain, Netherlands, Prussia, Bavaria and others Fix the international system Purpose: To maintain the balance of power and [prevent the rise of another dominant power] like France Congress of Europe: regular diplomatic congresses to address crises Quadruple Alliance: England, Austria, Prussia and Russia pledge to intervene together against anyone who tries to upset the continental balance of power Fix ideologies: The Enlightenment supported rationality, separation of powers, the idea of progress towards better human conditions and the scientific revolution The rise of Romanticism at the end of the 18th century emphasized the individual connection with nature, society and personal emotions. It fueled the rise of nationalist sentiments that aimed at establishing unified homeland emphasizing common culture, language and heritage This is exactly what the powers at the Congress of Vienna wanted to avoid the most (especially Austria and Russia) Prussia, Russia and Austria established the **Holy Alliance**: had the purpose to intervene against national liberation movements all over Europe. The holy alliance was only partially successful in this last scope. It successfully thwarted republican insurrections in Spain (1823), Italy (1820-26) and Poland (1830). But couldn\'t entirely contain the July revolution in France (1830) and the Paris Commune of 1848 The Springtime of Peoples of **1848** marks the definitive decline of the Holy alliance, triggered by: Industrialization of and economic hardship: More people than ever are now urbanized and exploited in factories Severe food shortage due to the poor harvest of the previous year Financial instability and unemployment Lack of political representation The Congress of Vienna had re-established [absolute monarchies] (they [do not reflect anymore the changing world]) The Metternich system suppressed liberal activities and national aspirations The growing bourgeoisie and middle class had no voice Influence of Revolutionary ideas developed by the rise of Romanticism Liberal intellectuals strived for acquiring freedom of speech and civil liberties [Dreams of national unity in places under fragmented empires] (Germany and Italy) The request for autonomy and self-determination by oppressed minorities (Austro-Hungarian Empire) In this context, the most important elements of this period are: National Unifications (all through equal parts cunning and military power), achieved largely through careful diplomacy and alliances ITALY Alliance with France in 1859 against Austria: quite problematic but led to the acquirement of Lombardy, Tuscany, Parma and Modena. Loss of Nizza and Savoy "Spedizione dei Mille" in 1860: Garibaldi secured the unification of Southern Italy Alliance with Germany against Austria in 1866 for Veneto: took advantage of the French loss against Germany in 1870 to annex Rome GERMANY Achieved largely through authoritarian militarism: Bismarck War against Denmark for the Sleshwig-Holstein and Hannover (1864) War against Austria for the Northern German Confederation (1867) [War against France for Alsace, Lorraine (1871), defeat of Sedan in 1870] Bavaria "negotiated" access in 1871 Now Germany will become the main challenger to the status quo in the continent Imperialism The West colonizes the world This created an insurmountable tension that led to WWI The Scramble for Africa The race that European states run to take possession of the largest possible territories in Africa for economic, political reasons other than prestige This was made morally acceptable by [widely accepted racism] (white man's burden) Most relevant events: At the beginning of the 19 th century, Europeans had very little institutionalized dominions in Africa Suez Canal completed in 1869 -- England controls it by 1875 Egypt occupied by British forces in 1882 Berlin Conference 1884 -- The European Powers divide Africa amongst themselves Fashoda incident 1896 -- Inevitable clash between north-south British and east-west French expansion The Scramble for Africa was possible through a long series of atrocities from all sides British: Mau Mau Uprising: Brutal suppression with torture and detention camps in Kenya.\ Hut Tax Rebellion: Scorched-earth tactics in Sierra Leone French:\ Forced Labor in French Congo: Exploitation and abuse by concession companies.\ Voulet-Chanoine Mission: Widespread massacres, torture and rapes in Niger and Chad.\ Madagascar Uprising: Brutal suppression of nationalist revolt with mass killings Germany:\ Herero and Nama genocide in Namibia Imperialism in Asia By 1857, the British had total direct control over India Burma (todays Myanmar) was annexed in 1886 The Opium war (1839-1842, 1856-1860) de-facto subjugated China to the will of Britain (who took Hong-Kong) and Japan By 1887 France consolidated its control over Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, forming French Indochina Indonesia was under the control of the Dutch, who ruled the trade of spices The Philippines have been controlled first by the Spanish, then by the US Russia and Britain strived to expand their own spheres of influence in Asia Minor in what became to be called "The Great Game" Russia had an initial advantage with the Persian Shah to protect its possession in todays Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. England was ultimately successful in gaining control of Oil Rights in Persia and the control of Afghanistan JAPAN Suffered millennia of fragmentation and conflict between rival warlords (with short periods of unity) Japan was definitely unified by Ieyasu Togugawa Ieyasu Tokugawa started the Edo period and closed Japan off from the world (1603 to 1868) Japan was forced to open-up the borders in the 1850s by the cannons of Admiral Perry (US. Navy) A strong reaction to modernize the state led to the Meji Restoration (1868) Deep westernization Nationalistic and racist governments Massive army build-up Conquered all the Korean Peninsula Invaded China multiple times committing atrocious crimes Won against Russia already in 1905 and became the main force to be reckoned with in Asia The Rise of powers is as essential as the Fall of Empires to understand global equilibria\ There is no better example than the crisis of the Ottoman Empire (the "Sick man of Europe")\ Ottoman Empire: half Muslim, half orthodox -Lack of industrial revolution \- Inefficient and old fiscal and state system \- Late and unsuccessful reform attempts (Tanzimat) \- Severe autonomous tendencies in the provinces (Greek independence in 1830, British volunteers like Lord Byron, then Romanian, Bulgarian and others) \- Great extension and often impracticable terrain Made the Ottoman empire fall back in comparison with the European powers and Japan The European Powers took great advantage of the opportunity and take a bite of the whale Austria and Russia aimed to expand in the Balkans and the Black Sea France (Algeria), Italy (Lybia) and Britain (Egypt) wanted to expand on the Southern Mediterranean Russia and Britain clashed in their Great Game in Asia Minor France and Russia clashed for the supremacy over the special status of the holy sites in Palestine (Crimean War 1853-56) Eventually the Ottoman Empire became hostage of the capitals of the very states who ate part of its territories (France and UK) To break free from this situation, it entered WWI on the side of the Alliance The Arab Uprising was sustained by coalition of the British together with the Hashemite Family (Hussein bin Ali al-Hashimi) The sons of Hussein bin Ali became kings of Jordan (Abdullah) and Iraq (Faisal) "Lawrence of Arabia" Did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles in protest against the Balfour Declaration of 1917 Armenian genocide France and Britain secretly negotiated the Sykes-Picot Agreements (1916) and informed the eventually Treaty of Lausanne (1923) France would get Syria and Lebanon (Syria was promised to Faisal since his forces liberated Damascus during the war) Britain would get Palestine, Jordan and Iraq The agreement was obviously irrespective of the ethnic and religious subdivisions of the area. It's the very root of today's instability in the Middle-East What elements became essential features of International Politics? European powers will fight for hegemonic control over the continent Britain will always be against the candidate for continental hegemony The central unit of power are empires grounded on the nation state core European states need to rely on a fragile balance of power Continental powers strive for hegemony by claiming lands for themselves everywhere in the world The 18 th and 19 th centuries established western supremacy European powers draft the borders of much of the rest of the world, leading to conflicts persisting today Once the continental balance of power is settled, clashed over colonies and over the fall of the Ottoman Empire will re-ignite the continental wars The largest part of states in the world are autocracies and their survival rate can be [surprisingly high] Important elements: The selectorate The guardianship dilemma Legislatures and parliaments in dictatorships **Three waves of democratization**: aftermath of WWI, decolonization, fall of communism [Autocracies last longer than many other regimes bc they have less weaken tools than democracies] (turnover, freedoms, right to protest, fair elections) Mainly formal research has been done regarding autocracies, bc empirical research is very hard, given that data is difficult to collect (Giulio Regeni) In democracies it's easier to characterize agents, their objectives, information Authoritarian rulers are motivated by similar desires as democratic leaders but harder to identify important coalitions of notables Crucial difference between authoritarian and democratic rulers: Dictators are much [less constrained] in how they can pursue their goals, implying a broader range of means to their ends: censorship, propaganda, coercion Key issues for autocrats in the literature can be divided into two big categories: 1\. Compliance of close allies (\"oligarchs\") How much power to share with them? How much information? How do oligarchs coordinate their behavior? 2\. Compliance of the broader population How to get information about their preferences, and how to transmit information? How to control their behavior/ prevent them from rebelling? Delicate balance 3\. Implementing policies (largely ignored in the literature) Bureaucratic machine In case no individual is overwhelmingly strong, how do coalitions form to rule a country as an autocracy? The number of members can affect the stability of the coalition Can a coalition of 2 be stable? No Can a coalition of 3 be stable in a configuration where ya \< yb \< yc \< ya + yb? Yes, but careful with circularities What about 4? Sometimes, depending on the power configurations Do institutions have a role? [Coordination device for dictator's allies, help solving dictator's credible commitment] [\ ] [Increase monitoring effectiveness] **Selectorate theory:** Five key rules: [Depend on as few key people to keep you in power as possible]. Draw that small group of essential coalition members from as large a pool of people as possible. Tax people as much as possible subject to the constraints that they continue to work and pay taxes rather than take siestas and they are not made so miserable that they decide it is worthwhile to risk revolting rather than continue to live with the existing political system. Reward your essential backers just enough so they stick with you rather than shopping around for a new leader who might do more for them. Don't spend resources on benefiting the general population when those resources are needed to keep the loyalty of the members of your essential coalition. [1.Politics is about getting and keeping political power] Why do leaders do what they do? To come to power, to stay in power and, to the extent that they can, to keep control over money 2\. [Political survival is best assured by depending on few people to attain and retain office] Co-opt a few is easier (and cheaper) than large amount of individuals. In democracy more instability bc you have to convince many people to stay in a party 3\. When the small group of cronies knows that there is a large pool of people waiting on the sidelines, top leadership has great discretion over how revenue is spent and how much to tax Understanding outside option is key Contrast with theories of democratization: De-stabilizing regime from \"within\", not from outsiders The masses have no de facto power in non-democracies Any political system can be characterized by the following sets of actors: The leader (incumbent): the dictator of the place, decides the tax rate of the economy, the provision of public goods and the private rents to the members of the winning coalition, selectorate does not receive any gift A winning coalition of size W: the essential subset of the selectorate whose support the current leader needs to stay in power The selectorate of size S ≥ W : the subset of the population whose members may become part of the leader's support base The general population The challenger: wants to replace the incumbent, randomly selected by the selectorate.\ To replace the incumbent needs to convince at least 1 member of W to switch.\ Has to make an offer S(x, g, t) greater than the one W currently receives from the incumbent Members of the winning coalition: earn from the public goods distributed in the economy, pay the tax rate chosen by the incumbent, receive private rents (benefits, palaces, concessions etc...) Members of the selectorate: each has its own private political opinion, gain from public goods only and pay the taxes Incumbent leader survives in power as long as he is supported by a winning coalition of size W What is the credibility problem of a potential challenger? Members of the selectorate think they have a probability to enter the coalition ([W/S)] The challenger cannot say for sure if that member is going to enter W. It depends on ideological closeness to the challenger, but you don't know how close you are. If you support the challenger, you might not get nothing bc you are not sure that you're going to be chosen Why is it not that easy to convince the winning coalition to switch? Upon seizing power from the incumbent, the challenger may prefer to replace some members of the winning coalition that brought him to power with others from the selectorate 1\. The incumbent leader picks a coalition, WL, of size W from the members of the selectorate\ 2. A challenger is randomly chosen, and then simultaneously both the incumbent and the challenger propose tax rates and policy provisions. The proposal of the challenger: V(x, g, t) + δZL (continuation value) 3\. The incumbent makes a proposal to W that matches the one of the challenger. Both proposals need to be feasible, so they cannot use more resources than the ones produced by the economy\ 4. When a winner is selected, the leader chooses W based on the revealed affinities The maximum the challenger can propose is R/W where R is the total amount of resources gained from taxation If a member of the selectorate is part of the winning coalition is only revealed after the election though Each member of the selectorate knows she has probability W/S to be chosen in the end. Her expected value is: W/S ∗ R/W= R/S Knowing this, the incumbent will propose exactly this, keeping R −W(R/S) = R(1 −W/S) for himself The result? [The challenger can't win!] [No member of the winning coalition will switch. They already receive R/S with certainty, but ] [only probabilistically with the challenger] Size of the winning coalition and taxation: Private rents are what buys the loyalty of the coalition members, which also gain from the income they produce and public good provision. When W is small, the dictator can raise taxes. This depresses economic activity, but it can repay the members of the coalition with lavish private rents As W increases, the cost of private rents multiplies. Rewarding the coalition with public goods and income by decreasing taxes becomes more advantageous. [Taxes decrease as the coalition size increases] [Loyalty is bought through the difference in privileges between those inside the winning coalition and those outside] [When W is small], coalition members receive greater private rents, creating the conditions for [strong loyalty]. Leaving the coalition would damage the utility by a large margin, so members of W support the leader [As W increases], coalition members are compensated relatively more through public goods and lower taxation, decreasing the fall in utility caused by supporting another candidate ([Weak Loyalty]). The connection between the size of the winning coalition and welfare relies on two competing mechanisms, the relationship is non-monotonic: 1\. As W increases, the lavish private rents decrease. As economic activity and public goods cannot immediately compensate for the loss of Rolls Royces for the inner circle, welfare decreases. 2\. As W increases, taxes decrease and public goods increase, delivering more welfare for the larger population Once this second effect overcomes the first, the relationship between coalition size and welfare becomes positive. Selectorate theory made a series of assumptions regarding the power structure. The most important are: Members of the selectorate are relatively interchangeable (not always, military is more important usually) The leader decides everything **The guardianship's dilemma**: [Regimes need a strong military to consolidate power and repress upsprings from competing insurgents]. Dictators need to enjoy the cooperation or the allegiance of the military forces To gain the cooperation of military forces, dictators need to share power with high-rank militaries By relinquishing some control over the military, dictators create the opportunity for generals to take over. How can this dilemma be solved? To understand how dictators secure survival, Meng and Paine look at which kind of regime lasts longer. Civilian regimes, born out of partisan struggles without necessarily the full intervention of the army are more vulnerable to the guardianship dilemma as the military is not devoted to the party. Coup regimes are usually established in very little time. The precondition for a successful coup is the quick mobilization against the incumbent, often by the military. There might be little experience of cooperation with coconspirators. Rebel regimes, which survived years of struggle and finally managed to take over, proved to be the most durable. Delegating power to subordinates during armed struggles improves battlefield performance. Rebel leaders have already delegated military power to allies during the struggle for liberation. Once acquired power, delegation occurs through the appointment of a Minister of Defense; not all dictators have a minister of defense How do they solve the credible commitment dilemma? Not only rebel regimes are more likely to appoint a defense minister, but they are also less likely to replace it very often, signaling their credible commitment to power sharing. (Ethiopia, Mozambique, Zimbabwe \...) The average war to launch a rebel regime lasted 8.7 years. As with many cases of national liberation for colonial rule, this is much longer than other types of regime Lengthy fighting gives the opportunity to rebel leaders to test each other's allegiance and the grounds for credible power sharing. In most cases, rebel regimes completely transformed the pre-existing military structure, substituting the old ranks with loyal rebel fighters. Boix and Svolik elaborate on why some dictatorships create power-sharing institutions constraining their leaders' ability to rule autonomously and extract the greatest possible rent from the economy. [Autocracies where leaders share power via institutional arrangements are more likely to be durable and to have more peaceful transitions of power]. Institutions will positively affect stability and leadership survival only when [they alleviate commitment and monitoring problems] between the leader and his allies To alleviate such problems, the threat of rebellion by the allies must be credible in case the leader reneges on his promises. Also, if the leader alone gathers too much power, institutions are less effective and more prone to collapse.  It is more likely that the dictator disposes legislatures if he does not own the entirety of a country's resources needed to rule Immagine che contiene testo, schermata, Carattere, numero Descrizione generata automaticamente  Positive coefficients means that when you have a legislature that legislature increases survival time - Autocracy survives by enforcing the loyalty of a small coalition of notables and supporters [The size of such coalition has severe consequences for welfare, economic growth and regime stability] The crucial dilemma autocrats must resolve is the **guardianship dilemma**: [to ensure the loyalty of the defense apparatus, leaders must credibly delegate power to a minister of defense.] Rebel regimes appear to be able to do that better Dictators sometimes constrain themselves with legislatures, parliaments, politburos etc. This allows the winning coalition to monitor the agreement on the division of resources. While dependent on some conditions being met, [legislatures increase the tenure of autocrats, increase the likelihood of peaceful transition and decrease the chances of civil wars]. **[Strong autocracies aren't those with strong dictators, but those with mechanisms to ensure peaceful transition of power (perpetuate power without civil war)]** States, democratic or otherwise, aren't the only actors in IR Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs): Organizations composed of states (United Nations, European Union is supranational). Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs): Private entities aiming to achieve social, economic, or humanitarian goals (Amnesty International, Médecins Sans Frontières). Multinational Corporations (MNCs): Large companies operating in multiple countries (Apple, Amazon) Violent Non-State Actors: groups using violence to achieve political ends (terrorist organizations, mafia). Transnational Advocacy Networks: coalitions of NGOs, activists, and advocacy groups promoting a particular cause. Epistemic Communities: networks of professionals with expertise in particular areas (climate scientists). Some non-state actors are quite old The Order of Malta is considered the oldest humanitarian association, funded in the 10th century during the crusades The Anti-Slavery Society, formed in 1839, is probably the first international NGO. The Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine is maybe the first Intergovernmental organization Other institutions have been devised early on to deal with international standards of communications and exchange: International Telegraph Union (1865), Universal Postal Union (1874) Development of Intergovernmental Organizations: The League of Nations (1919-1946): founded in 1919 to maintain peace and prevent future wars through collective security, failed astonishingly due to weak commitment and institutional fragility (US never entered, no army) United Nations (UN): created in 1945 to replace the League of Nations.\ Three pillars: [international peace, promote development, and uphold human rights].\ Universalist scope (from environment to security), still flawed by institutional constraints and limited budget but a significant improvement Bretton Woods Institutions (1944-1945): stabilize currency and trade International Monetary Fund (IMF): Maintain global financial stability and provide short-term loans to countries World Bank: long-term financial assistance for development projects and reconstruction Specialized Agencies: World Health Organization (WHO) -- 1948 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) -- 1945 New International Organizations and Global Issues: World Trade Organization (WTO) -- 1995,\ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - 1988: provides platform on environmental negotiations. International Criminal Court (ICC) - 2002: prosecutes individuals for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity European Union Mercosur\ Custom union and political cooperation between Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venzuela (now suspended). Other four members are "associated" Asean Free trade agreement for economic integration in Southeast Asia. Founded in 1967 has 10 members and an active free-trade area African Union 55 member states. Has active military personnel (African standby force), contrary to EU Immagine che contiene testo, schermata, Sito Web, Pagina Web Descrizione generata automaticamente The General Assembly: 193 member states are represented. (No Taiwan, Palestine and Vatican are observers) Functions as a deliberative body Acts as a forum for discussion Passes non-binding resolutions Coordinates development programs and various agencies through the ECOSOC ECOSOC has 54 members elected by the general assembly every 3 years Convenes on special sessions every few years and in emergency sessions to deal with immediate treats to global security The main power lies in the financial control over UN programs and operations, including peacekeeping The Security Council: 15 members: 5 permanent members (China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US) with veto power and\ 10 non-permanent members elected for two-year terms. Currently: Algeria, Ecuador, Guyana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Switzerland The non-permanent members are chosen from the proposal of regional caucuses but need to receive qualified approval from the General Assembly Biased method of selection that overcompensates regional pivotal actors Responsible for maintaining international peace. Can impose sanctions or authorize military intervention. Votes at simple majority but the exercise of veto power cuts initiatives short. This can leave states in a state of uncertainty (Kosovo) Meets irregularly. Usually upon request from a UN member (most of the time when it has suffered an invasion) The Security Council (strengths and weaknesses): The veto: During the Cold-War, the Security council could only have very few successes due to the US-USSR rivalry. (Exceptions: Korean War and Lebanese Civil War) From the late 80s, the UN saw some successes: independence of Namibia, UN effort for the end of the Apartheid regime in South Africa From 1995 the use of vetoes diminished substantially 34 total vetoes (as of 2020): 18 from Russia, 14 from US, 10 from China After the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, serious divisions crippled the Security Council again Severe split regarding the intervention in Iraq -- "Kofi Annan declared it illegal" The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the war in Gaza-Lebanon has brought the Security Council to its worst impasse Every proposal to change the structure (or add permanent members) would water-down the current member's power The powers of the Security Council is also limited in two additional ways: Diplomats standing in the council depend entirely on the will of their own governments and rarely have independent power of compromise even if are in the best position to do so:\ even when powers agree on a decision, members try to soften the practical application. Imagine trade sanctions or embargoes. - Hard to monitor and enforce However: The decisions of the Security Council can still be of great impact even if are not approved by the 5 permanent states. Take resolution 242 and 338 about Israel-Palestinian conflict: drafted after the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 and 1973; include the return by Israel of the territories captured in 1967; the right of all states in the Area to live within well-delimited territories and jurisdictions; they laid down the basis for the Camp David agreement; it is likely that any future agreement will incorporate the outlines of those resolutions Peacekeeping operations: Active peacekeeping missions take up the greatest part of the UN budget, around 6 billion. Observers -- unarmed military officers sent in small numbers to watch and report to the UN Peacekeepers -- lightly armored soldiers with automatic rifles but no artillery and tanks They can interpose themselves physically between the parts Negotiate with military officers Usually get caught in the middle and shoot at when ceasefires are broken Peace enforcement forces -- fully armored with tanks and artillery They are meant to enforce a ceasefire if broken Mainly deployed in highly volatile environments such as DRC Pose severe budget constraint limitations All over the world, direct intervention of UN forces has likely saved thousands of lives. They also allowed for an easier distribution of humanitarian aid, changing the fate of millions of people. However, some cases have been a great failure to learn from **Yugoslavia** (1991-1995) After the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, ethnic conflicts broke out in the region, particularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina. UNPROFOR deployed in 1992 to ensure the safety of humanitarian aid and protect "safe areas." Failures:\ Srebrenica Massacre (1995): UN peacekeepers failed to protect the \"safe area\" of Srebrenica.\ Around 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were killed by Bosnian Serb forces. Dutch UN peacekeepers were unable to intervene, and the UN's lack of a mandate to use force effectively led to a massive failure in preventing genocide. Siege of Sarajevo: 2 million displaced, ethnic cleansing and mass rapes perpetrated by Serbian nationalist against Bosnians. Non- nationalist Serbians were also killed when refused to commit atrocities. UN managed to lift the siege but too late **Somalia** (1992-1995) Civil war erupted in Somalia in 1991, leading to a humanitarian crisis marked by famine and violence. UNOSOM I & II: distribution of humanitarian aid, nation-building and disarmament of warring factions. Failure of Mission: The Battle of Mogadishu (1993): Known as the \"Black Hawk Down\" incident, a failed US-led raid resulted in 18 American soldiers being killed, leading to the withdrawal of US troops and eventually the collapse of the mission. Lack of cooperation among clan leaders, hostile environment, and limited resources made it impossible for the UN to achieve its goals. Poor coordination and mission creep: the move from humanitarian relief to nation-building without clear authority and resources led to failure. The death of peacekeepers and high-profile casualties forced an early withdrawal without achieving any political stability After WWII, protectionism was recognized as one of the causes of global conflict. The Bretton-Woods institutions aimed to solve this problem. One of the solution was the GATT The WTO: Established in 1995 to replace the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).\ The GATT was more of a negotiating framework than a stable institution.\ The WTO became that stable institution with more structured bureaucracy and a dispute-settlement mechanism Italy, France, etc. are not in there anymore bc of EU WTO organizes "rounds", meetings of nations to negotiate tariffs. Last round failed because of liberalization of many products. Objectives: Ensure trade flows as smoothly, predictably, and freely as possible. Promote [multilateral] trade agreements and resolve trade disputes. WTO trade negotiations are based on two important principles: Most-favored nation clause (MFN): [Trade restrictions imposed by a WTO member on its most favored trading partner must be applied to all other partners]. Ex: Imagine India's favorite trade buddy is China. If India applies a 20% tariff on cars to China, it cannot apply a 50% tariff on cars against Australia. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP): [Richer states can concede favorable trading deals to developing countries in an effort to sustain their economic development without having to apply the same favorable treatment to another rich country.] Ex: The EU applies a 40% quota on corn to the US. The EU can still form an arrangement with Zimbabwe to sustain its agricultural production applying a 5% tariff. The WTO is kind of frozen at the moment. Globalized trade has caused massive adjustment costs in the world, with dire political consequences. States are not as willing as they once were to foster free trade Multilateral trade rounds have liberalized a lot of sectors but developed states and the EU in particular does not want to concede further openings regarding agricultural output. This has blocked the advancement of the recent rounds (Doha and Hong Kong) Rising international tensions and sanctions against other states have lowered the willingness to negotiate with other states belonging to different blocks As a result, bilateral trades have emerged again However, the WTO managed to have a strong advantage: [an efficient procedure to settle trade disputes.] [WTO dispute settlement mechanism]: 1\. A state opens a legal process with the WTO because it beliefs a partner has wrongly increased tariffs. 2\. The WTO opens consultations to resolve the issue more amicably and allow the partners to bargain their way out of the impasse within 60 days (informal way of adjudicating) 3\. If this doesn't work, the WTO opens a dispute panel. This dispute panel has to investigate the possible violation and submit its findings. 4\. Each of the parts can reject the findings of this panel. If this is the case, the WTO requests the intervention of an appellative body who submits a new report, which is now binding. 5\. The member who has been found violating the trade agreement must comply to the recommendations of the report. 6\. If the guilty state does not comply, the member who is getting penalized can retaliate negotiating an increase of tariffs against that country in some industry. Why can't it work for human rights? There is no direct and observable impact on an other's country's economy Besides the most important organizations, many others have contributed to shape the international stage. Many NGOs have substantially improved the lives of people all around the world Amnesty International Emergency NGOs currently saving lives in the Mediterranean sea (Sea watch) Some actors are more problematic though: Multinational Corporations: have the power to negotiate directly with the executives around the world. Amazon will probably close the current year with over 600B of revenues (the GDP of Belgium). Their strategic interests can upset or create strong dependency for some countries while extracting resources from others through tax evasion ( tech giants in Ireland). They often employ individuals at ridiculous salaries with degrading labor conditions. Responsible for unlawful extraction of resources. Violent non-state actors like terrorist groups and paramilitaries are major security challenges. Private Military Companies (PMCs): Blackwater (now Academi) and their role in Iraq. PMCs operate as armed contractors for states, raising questions about accountability. To sum up, these are the major sources of uncertainty about non-state actors: Lack of Accountability: unlike states, many non-state actors are not democratically accountable. This is particularly problematic with MNCs and PMCs. Security Threats: violent non-state actors create instability and humanitarian crises. Fragmented Authority: the influence of multiple non-state actors can complicate international governance and lead to conflicting interests. **Theories of International Relations** Why theories? They are simply inevitable: the complexity of the world requires simplification to give sense to what happens. Theories are tools that people employ even if they do not realize it. What does a good theory need? Coherence = Watch out for internal inconsistencies Clarity = Formulated in a clear and linear form (when it's too complicated it's usually bad), it's more of a syntaxis matter (a civic value, Wittgenstein) Impartiality = Cannot be based purely on subjective values. No theory is devoid of values, nor it should be, but it is important to state them openly and to subject them to objective evaluation Breath = Needs to be relevant to a large number of important cases, applied to different contexts Depth = Needs to be relevant to a large number of aspects within one single case These theories are considered to be the "classical" ones in IR: Realism Liberalism International Society, or "English School" The classical Political-Economic Theories Contemporary approaches: Constructivism Post-modernism Critical Theory Post-colonial and feminist theories **Classical Realism** is the most traditional approach to the understanding of the relations between political units. It largely pre-dates the nation-state. The main historical proponents: Thucydides Machiavelli Hobbes Thucydides (The Peloponnesian war): Contributed largely to two basic tenants of realism: The structure of the international system influences the relations between states [Moral arguments have very little importance] (right and wrong don't exist, just strength) Foresight, caution and logic are the best allies of a leader who wants its state to survive Extract from the "Melian Dialogue": "[The powerful does whatever it can, the weak suffers what it must"] ([law of the strongest vs justice]). Athenians state that they have the right to their empire bc they gained it from the Persians. **According to the Athenians, justice is applied only if both parts are equally strong** ("the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel"), the only natural thing is therefore the [difference in capabilities]. Melians state that one day Athenians could find themselves in the same weak position and they will need justice to get out of it. Athenians are aware that one day their empire might fail but also want to maintain their reputation of being resolute now: if they free the Melians, they will be obliged to free many other people. Melians say that their allies with Sparta, but Athenians reply that Sparta reasons in the same way as they do. Melians say that gods are on their side, but Athenians reply that the law of the strongest apply at first among gods themselves. Machiavelli (the Prince) "The prince cannot observe all those practices that are deemed good and virtuous by men; for he often needs, for the sake of the State, to operate against faith, humanity, religion..." The world is a dangerous place, but is also filled with opportunity, and the Prince needs to be aware of the danger, be cautious but also strong and brutal if necessary. The lion (strength, you don't have to be afraid of being brutal in order to guarantee the survival of your state) and the fox (cunningness, if you're not attentive you might not see the dangers that are coming your way; chance is represented as a woman with bangs on the front and bold on the back, bc she runs blind and you have to be quick in catching her) are the best allied of the Prince. Some describe Machiavelli's writings as: "a manual on how to get by in a world absolutely chaotic and immoral" (Ford, 1992) Hobbes (the Leviathan) The state of nature is a place where life is "miserable, repugnant and brief \...", every man is against the other (man is man's wolf), there is no peace or stability For this reason, people group together to accept the absolute rule of a prince which ensures safety in exchange of freedoms This is not the case for the international arena, where no state can rule over all others. States are therefore people in the state of nature. Hobbes is the theorizer of one of the most important tenants of realism: the anarchy of the international system, also called the "international state of nature"  These three authors built the foundations of modern days' realism by sharing a few core tenants: The world is hostile environment where [the stronger tries to prevail over the weaker]. States must realize what their place is. If you're small, you'll have to concede more often and that's just the natural order of things In international affairs there will never be a peace that resembles the domestic realm. Moments of peace are transitory and never last. [Conflict is sooner or later inevitable] Being cunning, resolute and at-times brutal is the only choice leaders have to ensure national survival Knowledge and wisdom can be your ally. History keeps repeating itself so watch out for the patterns ([history is cyclical], so learn from it) The first modern realists (Morgenthau, Gelpin and others) gathered these notions and gave shape to the classical realist paradigm. It's called classical because it relies on "classical" authors and contributions Morgenthau, a classic realist in the modern world: All humans share a distinctive common trait: the animus dominandi, or the "thirst for power" There are two dimensions of this concept: Each human desires to be in a position of superiority towards another Each human wants to create a political space free from the impositions of others (the state). In order to have your own playground, you have to be relevant at an international level "Politics is a fight for the exercise of power over other people; whatever its ultimate goal, the immediate objective is **power**, the means to achieve it, keep it and display it determine the techniques of political action." (Morgenthau, 1965) This way of conceptualizing politics creates the issue on how to justify it. This is where he relies the most on classical realism: Saying that politicians should hold the same behavior and virtues of normal people is not only pointless but irresponsible. As Machiavelli, he is convinced that those [who act according to a pre-defined set of virtues (such as Christian virtues) are condemned to hurt the state], which requires pragmatism Sometimes, like in international emergencies, it might be necessary for decision-makers to take decisions that would be immoral in everyday life such as to spy, to conspire, to lie etc... In war, it may come the time that human rights are violated but it can be necessary for survival Six tenants of political realism according to Morgenthau: Politics is created by the immutable character of [human nature], which [is egotistic]. Politics is an autonomous sphere of actions, cannot be reduced to economics such as Marx did. International politics is the place where the interests of state crash against each other. But interests change, circumstances change, and realism acknowledges continuous change. Private ethical concerns must not get in the way of political conduct Nations cannot impose their ideological convictions to others. These efforts are pointless and dangerous Governing requires a deep understanding of the flaws of human nature. Power needs to be managed prosaically. In the strategic paradigm, [realism loses its moral connotation]. It is descriptive, not normative\ States are actors who carry their interests forward, no matter which they are, and they do it strategically according to logic and rationality. To understand it, you need rational choice theory and, in particular, game theory The contributions of Schelling: Use of game theory to explain the behavior of actors Credible commitment and deterrence: Actors want to compel others, this means that their threat need to be credible and capable given a realistic assessment of costs and benefits. [Psychological element in a rational framework]: the international arena is uncertain and perception can be mistaken. Schelling analysis rationally how this can influence the likelihood of conflict [Diplomacy as bargaining]: [Conflict is not inevitable. It just occurs when there is no space for efficient bargaining] Immagine che contiene testo, schermata, Carattere, numero Descrizione generata automaticamente Like structural realism, [neorealism is an attempt to give more scientific foundations to the doctrine]. It does not do it through its methodology (game theory and microeconomics for Schelling), but by removing some of the most antiquate elements of classic realism: No discussion about the human nature and its immutable character Ignores the whole discussion about what state-leaders should be like The whole debate about private/public ethic is uninteresting The national interest is taken for granted, no need to specify that states want to ensure survival Even if it wants to make classical realism more "scientific", it is not as cold and minimal as structuralism was. Neorealism clearly establishes itself in the normative debate. Aims to give an answer to the long peace between powers in the Cold War Main tenants of neorealism: Anarchic Structure: Like classical realism, neorealism assumes an international system without a central governing authority. States exist in anarchy and must rely on self-help mechanisms. Distribution of Capabilities: The primary concern for states is not the intentions of other actors but rather the distribution of capabilities across the system. This distribution dictates the behavior of states. States are not equally strong (Melian speech) Balance of Power: To ensure their security, states seek to balance against more powerful states either by increasing their own power or by forming alliances. State Behavior is Constrained: the structure of the international system constrains state behavior. The nature of the system itself, more than the character or ideology of states, influences how states act. Survival and Security: The primary goal for states remains survival, and securing one\'s state is the main national interest. Predictability: Neorealism posits that because the international system constrains state behavior, it is possible to make general predictions about state actions. Waltz is the main founder of this school of thought thanks to his book: "Theory of International Politics" (1979) The configuration of the international system also dictates its stability (Bipolar vs Multipolar). Bipolar is more stable (less people with guns, war can be a result of fewer interactions, easier to keep each other checked, no circularity of Condorcet paradox) There are three levels of analysis to take into account Explores the connection between structures and outcomes in international relations  Differences with classical realism: 1\. Human Nature vs. Structure: Classical realism attributes state behavior to immutable aspects of human nature, whereas neorealism focuses on the structural constraints imposed by the international system. 2\. Complexity of Power: Classical realism considers various elements of power, including military, economic, and soft power. Neorealism often simplifies power to capabilities that influence the balance of power. 3\. Flexibility: Classical realism allows for more flexibility in state behavior based on leadership, morality, or domestic issues. Neorealism sees states as fairly uniform actors constrained by the international system. 4\. Scientific Approach: Neorealism aims for a more scientific and systemic approach, allowing for general predictions, whereas classical realism is often more descriptive and case-specific. Criticisms: The inability to explain and predict systemic change In particular, realism was highly criticized by the inability to explain the bloodless collapse of the USSR Mearsheimer's twist The end of the Cold War appeared to trigger an epistemic problem to realism in particular, due to a transition that they could not foresee Classical realism aimed to explain why wars and attempts at hegemony will always happen Schelling established a framework to make sense of state conflict during the nuclear age Waltz introduced the important of systemic attributes to explain why the Cold War led to such stable peace between great powers Mearsheimer argues that neorealism is still relevant after 1989 and will be useful to explain and foresee global changes in the future as it has done in the past Mearsheimer asks himself, what happens if the Cold War gets replaced by a multipolar system?\ The answer: [Global systemic instability] He defines Waltz as the proponent of a defensive realism. According to Mearsheimer, states do not look for security only, but they enjoy conquest, and they strive for hegemony. This also occurs because [states are safe only when they are the hegemons] He is considered the proponent of the offensive realism (biased) A suggestion: Don't listen to Mearsheimer anymore (The Enlargement of NATO and the war in Ukraine) Anarchy compels you to invest in military power for your protection. What if I cannot tell whether you are buying these weapons to defend yourself or to attack me? By making myself more secure, I decrease the security of everybody else Example: Iran is surrounded by several hostile states (Israel, Saudi Arabia, USA). It builds a nuclear weapon and declares that it is for defense. Anarchy compels you to invest in military power for your protection. What if I cannot tell whether you are buying these weapons to defend yourself or to attack me? By making myself more secure, I decrease the security of everybody else Example: Iran is surrounded by several hostile states (Israel, Saudi Arabia, USA). It builds a nuclear weapon and declares that it is for defense. Can Saudis or Israels be certain that Iran will not use its nuclear weapon to blackmail its enemies? What if Saudis also get a nuclear weapon as insurance against Iranian blackmail? Security Dilemma [Anarchy compels you to invest in military power for your protection]. What if I cannot tell whether you are buying these weapons to defend yourself or to attack me? By making myself more secure, I decrease the security of everybody else Example: Iran is surrounded by several hostile states (Israel, Saudi Arabia, USA). It builds a nuclear weapon and declares that it is for defense. Everybody is less secure than they were before Can Saudis or Israels be certain that Iran will not use its nuclear weapon to blackmail its enemies? What if Saudis also get a nuclear weapon as insurance against Iranian blackmail? Now Iran is less secure again. The cycle starts anew. Waltz states that Iran should get a nuclear bomb ([nuclear balancing would mean stability]). He states that cold war was balanced bc both superpowers had nuclear weapons **Liberalism** Entails a completely different conception of human nature and social life compared to realists Humans surely are competitive and self-interested, but they are also capable of reason When individuals share common interests, they can engage in collaborative and cooperative social action This is true both domestically and internationally Conflicts and [wars are not inevitable] even if the international system can at times be anarchical When guided by reason, mutually beneficial cooperation between states will be the norm This is based on one core belief: **Progress** Progress was made possible by Scientific revolution Industrial revolution (and technical revolution) Modernization To be sustained in the long term requires: Basic freedoms (property, expression, political association) Democracy (spread successful models among people by giving voice to them) Economic development Some inspirers: **Locke**: [Property and the rule of law] **Bentham**: Utilitarianism (happiness for the greatest number of people) and the idea that liberal states respect the rule of law **Kant**: An international union of republics to establish perpetual peace Liberalists also share a completely different view of the state compared to realists: Machtstaat: A concentration of power (Hobbes) Rechtsstaat: A constitutional entity (focus on rules and rights) Utopian liberalism [Developed at the end of WWI] [with the scope of avoiding history to repeat itself] Why did that happen? Due to the cynical calculus of non-democratic powers heavily militarized. Without true elections, the people could not have either information about the risk, nor to remove the people in power Even democratic countries were dragged into the conflict because they were not able to establish structures of cooperation to prevent them The alliance system created the inevitable clash of the Entente and Alliance blocks What can be done about it? Free trade agreements The Society of Nations International Treaties about the orderly conduct of hostilities What was wrong with that? Refusal to keep up with the obligations No effective mechanisms to curb individual states' military buildup Widespread hypocrisy Distrust in democracy Modern Liberalism Tightly connected to the industrial revolution, the emergence of constitutional democracies, advancement in mobility and communication that create connections that are independent from STATES States aren't independent and separate atoms like realism argued anymore 4 main schools: Focus on the nation-state level **Sociological Liberalism**: not just international relations, but transnational relations,\ relations conducted by government have decreased in importance vis-à-vis the relations between groups of individuals across state borders, this changes completely the paradigm If relationships between people are more peaceful than the ones between states. Let's make state interaction more human. [Less government interaction, more national interaction] It focuses on norms and on the need to have an "international community" that transcends nations. If this does not happen, then people will become enemies to each other It also takes a look at cooperation through non state actors, societal networks and all the important players in the international arena [International structures of governance need to enforce the respect of human rights] Soft power, negotiation and persuasion are powerful tools. Realism did not even consider those Relies on the advances in mobility that allow people to travel across borders **Republican Liberalism:** based on one strong core assumption that "[Liberal democracies are more peaceful and law abiding than other political systems]" Democracy is grounded on a culture than supports peaceful conflict resolution Citizens are the ones who ultimately fight and die in wars. If they can vote, they will choose not fight Democracies hold common values that Kant though could ensure a "universal pacific union of republics" Three conditions are necessary for liberal peace: 1\. [Democratic norms of peaceful resolution of conflicts] 2\. Peaceful relations between states 3\. [Economic cooperation and interdependence] To what extent are these conditions met in the global system? Hegre, Bernhard and Teorell (2020) show that between 1900 and 2010, two elements have contributed to peace Social accountability: healthy horizontal connections between sectors of the population that diffuses economic wealth but also cooperative social contacts Vertical accountability: effective electoral accountability that secures democratic power The end of the Cold War has sparked optimism about future international relations given that many states transitioned to democracy, but the connection between democracy and peace has shades too [Widespread democratic backsliding]. Democracies are getting weakened by globalized pressures and more aggressive narratives take hold The process of democratization can leaf to intermediate regimes who prove to be particularly aggressive (the reverse U curve) Focus on the systemic Level **Interdependence Liberalism:** The International system is not made of states only, but by complex institutional layers that create repeated interaction (EU) In the post-war decades, the most successful states aren't those with large natural resources and great power, but those who can provide WEALTH. Trade and international cooperation is the foundation of wealth, war occurs only if countries do not gain from exchange Some issues are not being dealt at the national level anymore: WTO, functional evolution of the European Union etc... International relations is not so anarchic as it once was. Now there is structure, organization and cooperation (the relevance of G7 and G20 compared to military alliances to decide on important matters) Complete anarchy is the international system is nonsense now. There are structures that allow for constant and peaceful engagements **Institutional Liberalism**: Iterated Interactions: The concept of iterated interactions suggests that states are more likely to cooperate if they expect to interact repeatedly over time, a situation that institutions often facilitate. Collective Security: The theory often involves the idea of collective security arrangements, where an attack on one is considered an attack on all, thereby deterring aggression. Dispute Resolution: Institutions provide mechanisms for resolving disputes peacefully through legal and diplomatic channels, reducing the likelihood of war. Interdependence: Like other forms of liberalism, institutional liberalism recognizes the growing interdependence among states, particularly in economic matters, and sees institutions as a way to manage and benefit from this interdependence. Long-Term Benefits: The approach suggests that, while states may incur short-term costs for participating in international institutions, the long-term benefits of cooperation outweigh these costs. These elements are possible through the establishment of stronger international institutions\ International institutions can be more or less "institutionalized" The scope concerns the number of issues the institution is concerned with The depth is based on three elements: Commonality: How much behaviours and norms are shared by the members of the institution. This creates predictable and compliant behavior Specificity: The decree to which expectations about behaviors are specified in the form of rules Autonomy: The extent to which institutions can alter their rules to fit external constraints How institutionalized is the UN? Mind, institutions won't solve the problem of anarchy alone, but they are not just paper scraps. They deliver tangible improvements Realism criticizes liberalism fiercely. These are the most important points of rupture: Human nature: This is an old critique. Both realist and liberals really fail to understand the complex nature of humans. Social context is more important Institutions are just other platforms where states bring forward their egotistical interests. [History is not progress, history repeats itself] States use interdependence and institutions to force their hegemony. Institutional cooperation still relies on a power system where one hegemon was able to enforce cooperation. In a multipolar system, cooperation will inevitably break up. Now we look at schools that challenge the realist and liberalist view of the world directly **Constructivism:** The political system is no fixed entity Ideas, culture and human consciousness changes and gives new meaning to the interaction of states (R2P has taken the place of non-intervention) Social interaction shapes and changes the identities of peoples, creating transnational agendas (NGOs, Green policies) The international structure does not only constrain actors (realism) but actors also change the structure by acting in new ways, giving new meaning to phenomena States act also knowing that they belong to a common "logic of appropriateness" States obviously pursue their own interest (like realists said) but what the interest is mutates all the time: It can reflect the needs and aspirations of a group, class, culture, nation or other aggregations Some examples: 1\. How states think about each other (Hobbes -- Locke -- Kant) 2\. The development of international humanitarian law and conventions on the conduct of conflict Alternative to Materialism Realism and liberalism are intrinsically materialists: they seek to explain behavior of international actors as the result of material, objective and observable forces such as military capacity, strategic and economic resources Socially mediated forces and beliefs are inconsequential Constructivism insists on the fact that the meaning we attach to so-called "objective concepts" and practices are socially constructed. As such, they change over time, take the difference in the concept of sovereignty between 1648 and now The ideas that shape world politics aren't just individual beliefs They are intersubjective: need to be shared among actors They are institutionalized: repeated behavior based on shared norms creates expectations and mutual identities State Interest Constructivist can agree with the fact that [states are moved by national interest]. They agree that you can observe and predict what national interest is at a given moment They even contemplate that the objectives of state can be reached through a rational cost-benefit analysis Constructivist only remark that the forces shaping ideas and interests are social Actors acquire identities and role-specific expectations by participating in collective meetings and through repetitive interaction Therefore,\ The actors with which a state interacts The social environment The procedures and rules of such interactions all contribute to form an historically and socially dependent national interest [Neorealism focuses on how the interaction of actors is dependent on fundamental systemic characteristics of the state system]. Constructivists do not reject that the state system influences the actors, but they add that the interaction of actors influences the structure of the international system too. This is an approach of co-construction "Anarchy is what you make of it" By structure we mean institutions and shared meanings that make up the context of the international system The essential units driving interactions are intergovernmental institutions Think about how states behave within the European Union: States adapt their behavior to the rules of interaction of the Union to be able to meet their objectives, but also try to change the rules of interaction within the institution to create new norms that facilitates their objectives **Political-Economic Theories** Mercantilism This theory is intimately connected with the development of the nation state throughout the 16 th and 17 th century Mercantilists believe that economic policy must be one of the tools through which states increase their power. The international economic system is an arena where states compete aggressively It is a sum-zero game (what I win you lose, it is a matter of competition, not cooperation) There is no point in choosing between economic and military power. They are complementary tools for the only goal that matters, enlargement and survival. This can be achieved though accumulation of wealth and positive balance of payments Marxism Economic production is the only thing that really matters because the dominant class needs it to prolong its power States make use of military strength to increase their consumption and production base at the detriment of others. War are means to enlarge the capitalist production, accumulate wealth and retain power Stalinism (communism in one country) vs Trockijism (communism world spread) Politics, religion, philosophy serve only the goal of retaining power and accumulate more Communism has failed to attract the hopes of the agricultural/rural classes (ex. Italy) Lenin: Imperialism and slavery are nothing but the extreme consequence of the capitalist system. The search for raw materials, minerals and undercompensated workforce demand the conquest of other areas of the globe in a competitive strife Wallerstein (this school developed after many African states became independent, formal imperialism was almost over, less west subjugation, imperialism did not end, however, it just changed; you can see the whole world as an economic system)  The design is done in the core but the raw materials come from the periphery and the goods themselves are produced there. The core is anti-immigration and especially the semi-periphery And others theories that are more concerned with the challengers of modern societies: **Post-modernism** **Post-structuralism** **Critical Theory** **Post-colonial theories** **Feminist Theories if IR** **Neoconservatism** Out of the neo-Marxist critique of society, developed a series of contemporary approaches that greatly influenced 20 th century's political thought Incorporated several innovations from Jurgen Habermas and the Frankfurt School And also [new attention to language and cultural expressions] (Gramscian influence) The schools are: Post-structuralism Post-modernism Critical-theory All three share the common idea that [ideas, behaviors and norms are inherently connected with underlying power structures]. What differentiates them is "[what to do about it]". Rejection of materialism All three schools are wary of knowledge and objectivity (there are no objective truths because out of these truths there is always someone that benefits from it and someone that loses out of it) Knowledge is always biased because it reproduces the perspective of the analyst (biased by underlying political structure) Reject objective positivism to embrace "genealogical analysis" and linguistic analysis The words and the narratives that people of power employ to define events and each other reflect their own interests Power structures create narratives to ensure survival and diffusion Focus **Language and Discourse**: Language makes reality. Discourse is not merely a way to describe reality; it constructs reality. **Power/Knowledge Nexus**: Power and knowledge are deeply intertwined, and what is considered \"true\" is often shaped by those in power. **Deconstruction**: Focuses on deconstructing dominant narratives. Who gains from such narratives? Impact on IR Focus on Discourse: Poststructuralists are primarily concerned with the language that constructs international relations, how power operates through language, and how dominant narratives shape global politics. They often emphasize the fluidity and instability of identities, borders, and other IR constructs. Post-modernism greatly overlaps with post-structuralism and they are often considered to be the same school Common points Same focus on language and narratives. They research how grand narratives serve the reproduction of existing power structures Differences regarding optimism Post-structuralists believe that it is possible to reach the truth of a matter when you are able to disentangle the power structures that produces and perpetuated a give discourse Postmodernists are even more cynical. There is no stable truth behind any linguistic construct Reality itself is fragmented and individual. IR cannot be based around stable truths free from political agenda that is always repressive and reactionary Critical theory is even more influenced by the Frankfurt school than the others Has an explicitly ethical purpose It aims to expose and address the underlying social and political structures in international politics The scope is to transform the system, liberating individuals and societies from economic, political and social oppression It is not enough to study the world, it needs to be transformed Given its strong commitment to social progress and emancipation, it is inherently more optimistic than postmodernism Critical theory is a normative theory (gives you suggestions on how to change things) compared to the other two that are more positive/descriptive They focus on language as well but are more interested in knowledge itself and how can be employed for social emancipation. [Language is not bound to replicate power dynamics, it can be used to subvert them] Change is possible, according to critical theorists Post -- Colonialism Focus on the way in which by including perspectives of less developed states we can understand global situations better [\ IR is arguably the most Eurocentric of all political science-related disciplines]. The Cold War was called a period of "long peace". Only in Europe though. The developing world is considered uninteresting and uncivilized. Disrespectful of the plethora of cultural, political and social traditions found elsewhere. This axiom permeates language, science and ultimately policy Two discussion cases: Asymmetric warfare: the notions of asymmetrical tactics is used to justify ferocious tactics against non-state actors: where is Cuba in the Cuban crisis? Feminism in IR IR feminists focus on the basic inequalities between men and women and the consequences of such inequalities for world politics What's gender? (Nothing to do with sex). [It refers to "socially learned behavior and expectations that distinguish between masculinity and femininity"]. Changes through space and time We have a problem of gender discrimination if those qualities associated with femininity are considered of lower quality, utility and consequence. This leads to a hierarchy where a system of power privileging any gender specific values over others (even if no values are per-se gender specific) The realist value system is very masculinist. The same value system that prescribes subjugation of other political units also underpins the material subjugation of women in the domestic jurisdiction. The gender component of conflict is always underrated. [Women and children are the ones who suffer the greatest hardships in times of conflict as well, but they are not part of the narrative on costs and advantages of conflict.] International indexes of development (GDP) hide the substantial employment gap, wage gap and segregation of women. The body of women as land of conquest. The case of forced assimilation in the Armenian Genocide -- tattooed women Neoconservatism So far today we've mostly seen schools that originated from Marxism and/or encourage a progressive view of international and domestic affairs. However, one of the most influential recent IR approaches is inherently conservative, especially during the Bush (jr.) administration (invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq) Culturally and socially conservative Society needs to be directed towards morality New ways of life, different sexual orientation, gender culture, diffusion of violent and sexually explicit audiovisual material inspire morally deviant behaviors that endanger the core fabric of society. [Multiculturalism and diversity undermine the traditional culture of any country] Foreign policy: The values of democracy (as understood by them) have to be actively promoted everywhere in the world Multilateral diplomacy is inefficient. You just constrain the liberty of actors such as the US which are exceptional American exceptionalism is grounded on the fact that the US is a beacon of democracy and liberal values and hegemonically strong, so it must act freely from constraints for the sake of the world American military intervention is a force for the good and presidents should not be afraid to use force and even act preemptively against perceived threats. This logic informed the 2003 invasion of Iraq Criticisms: Military interventions do not build nations, you need to strengthen critical institutional development. Neocons have created more damage than good in Iraq and Afghanistan Left a tragic blow to American and western reputation around the world and also among traditional allies The incalculable human and economic cost of neoconservative policies **Theory of IR - The Godfather** \"The Godfather\" trilogy follows the rise and fall of the powerful Corleone crime family, led initially by patriarch Vito Corleone, who values loyalty, family, and balance among rivals while navigating the underworld. After an assassination attempt, his youngest son, Michael Corleone, reluctantly takes charge, transforming from an idealistic outsider to a ruthless mafia boss determined to consolidate power. Michael\'s ambition leads to violent conflicts with rival families, betrayal within his own ranks, and an ever-growing isolation as he expands the family\'s influence but sacrifices relationships and morality. **More appropriately:** It's a trilogy of great Mafia movies that follows the trajectory of a gangster family in their pursuit of power, wealth and security from enemies. (Does it ring a bell?) Such trajectory is filled with moral dilemmas that most often end in tragedy, with the criminals always looking better and better thanks to a fiercely patriarchal value system. **Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando)** **Main characteristic:** **\ ** **Pragmatic** but violent if necessary **Prudent** and wary of dangers coming from all directions Very **cautious** about the expansion in narcotics His cautious attitude prevents him to see danger coming from a new actor **Possible schools:** **\ Neorealism (defensive realism):** **\ **Focused on maintaining and **conserving strength** rather than expanding aggressively given systemic pressures **Classic realism** Great attention to knowledge and human interaction allows him to read people and situations. **Sonny Corleone (James Caan)** **Main characteristics:** Impulsive Violent Completely embedded within a righteous and self-indulgent value system Very conservative views of women and family Below Nobel-level intellectual sophistication Possible school: **Neoconservatism** - No moral afterthought about the use of violence - Failure to evaluate costs and benefits - Principles and reputation inhibit cautiousness **Tom Hayden (Robert Duvall)** **Main characteristics:** Diplomatic Trustworthy Educated and analytical **Possible school: Institutional liberalism** - Believes in the power of institutions and - Prefers negotiation to acts of force - **Michael Corleone (Al Pacino)** **Main characteristics:** Increasingly disillusioned about power and love Practical Unafraid to strike tremendous compromises (using violence preventively) Violent and cynical **Possible school: Offensive realism** - He views the world through the lens of a **security dilemma**: increasing his power and eliminating threats before they can act against him - Knows the **family will be secure only if hegemonic** - **Unafraid to act preemptively** even in the face of the most atrocious moral dilemmas (Fredo) 2^nd^ movie: speech between Michael and Nevada senator, the senator states that Michael has to pay him the license for the casino but he mafia gangster replies: "We are the two faces of the same hypocrisy", neither of them is the original American inhabitant, so the Nevada senator is not the core identity of the American value Why Wars? Structuralist explanations States try to maximize their power to survive When they see their rivals maximizing power, they feel threatened This creates a security dilemma Increases the chance of miscalculation because states try to conceal aims and misrepresent strength War! Balance of power theories The distribution of power among leading states in the international system determines war Number of leading states How much power each leading state controls  Anarchy is constant. But war is not... War is very costly. Why not just reach a compromise if we know who will win? Hard to explain war beyond a few cases... Why would the U.S. invade Afghanistan according to structural explanations? Cultural explanations [Identities and norms lead to war] (cultural differences bring countries to clash) Huntington (1993) wrote that a clash of civilizations will define conflict Idea is that some cultures/civilizations want to expand or impose their norms on others Leading to conflict with other civilizations Any issue with that? How true is this empirically? Do you remember when Saudi Arabia and Iran declared war on Europe? No, because it never happened Clash of civilizations would predict that Muslim and Western countries would be in conflict Saudi Arabia cut oil to the West in 1973 But is now talking about normalization with Israel and defense treaty with US during the war in Gaza... Civilizations did not change. Interests did... Issues with cultural explanations for war Most conflicts occur within civilizations Can this be because of identities? Saudi is Sunni and Iran is Shia... but things are a bit more complicated Wars occur within civilizations because they're competing neighbors ---\> more opportunities for war Issues with cultural explanations for war THE BARGAINING MODEL To understand why wars occur, we need to understand why wars are inefficient\ Idea: War is costly. There's always a better solution than going to war\ States should be able to reach a compromise instead of fighting\ Question becomes: Why do states fail to reach a compromise (and fight wars instead)? Extreme case example Imagine both countries value some territory at 1 billion euros Currently, country A controls 90% and country B controls 10% If they go to war, B will control 95% and A will control 5% War costs country A 500 million and costs country B NOTHING Is there a solution better than war for both countries? i.e. [Is war inefficient for both sides? YES, even if war is costless for one of the two\ ] Model Setup Two countries (A and B) Disagree over territory (or any other issue) Territory is currently divided (status quo) If they go to war, territory could be divided differently (war outcome) War is costly (deaths, economic destruction, etc)    Immagine che contiene testo, schermata, Carattere, linea Descrizione generata automaticamente But if war is inefficient, WHY DOES BARGAINING FAIL? Classic strategic explanations for war Uncertainty Indivisibility of contended issues Hawkish leaders Commitment issues Audience costs Resurrection hypothesis Pacific dove hypothesis Selectorate theory on wars Immagine che contiene testo, schermata, Carattere Descrizione generata automaticamente Immagine che contiene testo, schermata, Carattere Descrizione generata automaticamente Sometimes countries disagree about important factors in the game probability of victory of each side (m) cost of war for each side (k) Suppose A believes m = 0.5, but B believes m = 0.8 Suppose cost of war is k = 0.1 for both Then B accepts deals X ≥ m − k → X ≥ 0.7 But the best deal A is willing to offer is X = 0.6 There cannot be agreement! Suppose now that m = 0.8 Suppose cost of war for A is 𝑘𝑘𝐴𝐴 = 0.3 But A does not know if B's cost of war is 𝑘𝑘ℎ = 0.4 or 𝑘𝑘𝑙𝑙 = 0.1 B has a high cost 𝑘𝑘ℎwith probability q If B has high cost, he accepts deals X ≥ 0.4 If B has low cost, he accepts deals X ≥ 0.7 What does A want to do? A is willing to offer X ≤ 1.1 A, in theory, is willing to give up the whole resource to avoid war! But will A ever offer 1? NO A offers either X = 0.4 or X = 0.7 Either you convince them both by offering up to X = 0.7 or at least you convince the high cost offering X = 0.4 (since you're willing to offer even X = 1) There is no reason to offer something in between, like X = 0.5 - you still only convince the high cost type, but now you pay him more! So A compares 𝐸U (𝑋= 0.4) ≥ 𝐸U ( 𝑋 = 0.7) Which is 𝑞 · (1 − 0.4) + (1 − 𝑞𝑞)(0.2 − 0.3) ≥ 0.3 If q \> 4/7, A prefers offering X = 0.4 If B has low cost → WAR Truthfulness and mediation can help, but states have little incentive to be truthful But if war is bad for both sides, why not simply share information honestly? Both sides have an incentive to bluff! If the other side believes you're stronger/have more resolve ---\> better bargaining outcome Efforts to bluff and attack can be identical! information asymmetry can cause war only when incentives to misrepresent are present Otherwise, states can honestly share information... [Indivisibility of contested object] Some stuff you cannot be divided efficiently But what if dividing the issue reduces its value (e.g. holy site)? Can control in time---or place under international control States may have incentive to claim issues are indivisible! Commitment problems Presence of first-strike advantage: both actors would benefit from negotiations, but first-strike advantage is profitable deviation for both countries; what kind of strategic interaction is this like? Time inconsistency Let's suppose A offers part of a territory to B With the new territory, B is stronger (e.g., more resources etc) How can B promise it will not use these resources to make further demands tomorrow? "Salami tactics" - cut the sausage into thinner and thinner slices and then at the end there is nothing left, incentive for A not to give up initial concessions. Preventive incentives: **Preventive war**: fought to prevent the adversary from becoming (relatively) stronger in the future Why not simply agree on a deal now? The weaker state now (country B) cannot commit not to exploit its power in future bargaining E.g. A country working on obtaining nuclear weapons or a country that's growing economically \- US-China rivalry? \- Iraq 2003? Preemptive incentives **First-strike advantage**: A situation that arises when military technology/strategy/or geography gives a significant advantage to whichever state attacks first in a war. **Commitment problem**: each state should credibly commit not to attack first but that can be impossible **\ Preemptive** war: war fought with the anticipation that an attack by the other side is imminent Notable examples: ♣ Six days war (Israel, 1967) ♣ Peloponnesian war (both preemptive and preventive incentives) Theory of Audience Costs Leaders in democracies, when making choices in the international area, they are doing so in front of large audience [Audience costs make it hard to back down once the threat is made] Let us look at this theory using the Cuba missile crisis as a guide Build up of events: Approaching elections - Kennedy's Cuba policy under pressure Failure of Bay of Pigs had discredited Kennedy - seen as indecisive Cuba now seen as legitimate threat to US White House denied for months accusations that it was ignoring dangerous Soviet missiles in Cuba Cuban Crisis 4th September 1