2013-2014 International Relations Lecture Slides

10,796 views

Published on

International Relations Semester I Lecture Slides for 12th Grade.

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
6 Comments
61 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total views
10,796
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
671
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
6
Likes
61
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

2013-2014 International Relations Lecture Slides

  1. 1. Global Affairs and Politics Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 1
  2. 2. Levels Descriptor 0 No other level achieved. 1 Response is provided but does not show an understanding of the prompt. Response does not meet expected length given time limit. Response does not make connection to prior learning. 2 Response shows an understanding of prompt but is not addressed. Response does not meet expected length given time limit. Response does not make connection to prior learning. 3 Response begins to address prompt. Response nearly meets expected length given time limit. Response does not make connection to prior learning. 4 Response addresses prompt. Response meets expected length given time limit. Response attempts connections to prior knowledge. 5 Response clearly addresses prompt. Response exceeds expected length given time limit. Response clearly makes connection to prior knowledge. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 2
  3. 3.  Introduction  Nation States – What is a Country?  Types of Governments  Asking the Right Questions  Thinking About World Politics Strategically  Evolution of World Politics – Introduction to Political Theories  Nationalism  Globalization and Transnationalism  International Organizations  National Power and Diplomacy  International Law and Morality  National and International Security  International Political Economy and Cooperation  Human Rights and the Environment and Technology Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 3
  4. 4. International Relations Unit 1 Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 4
  5. 5. “The world is a stage and all the men and women merely players”  ~ William Shakespeare, As You Like It The Actors:  States  International Organizations (IGOs)  Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)  Multinational Corporations (MNCs)  Individuals Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 5
  6. 6. Anarchical International System One in which there is no central authority to set and enforce rules and resolve disputes. This remains the main thrust of world politics, but increasingly there is an alternative approach in evidence Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 6
  7. 7. • Society, Interest, Interaction, Safety, Prosperity, Authority, Dispute Resolution Dimension Human organization Interests Interaction Basis of safety Basis of prosperity Ultimate authority Dispute resolution Traditional Approach National societies National/self-interests Competition Self-protection Self-help Sovereign states Power prevails Alternative Approach Global society Global/mutual interests Cooperation Collective security Mutual assistance International organizations Law prevails Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 7
  8. 8. Q. Is the globalization approach pure fantasy? Think of the individual in a society and how we interact. There is a sense of common good in a domestic society. A century ago the UN, the WTO, the EU, the ICC would have been considered science fiction! Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 8
  9. 9. Q1. How many countries are there in the world? Q2. Are all countries equal? Q3. What are the three biggest MNCs in the world? What is their annual earnings? Q4. Name three people who have changed the way we look at the world through individual effort. Why? Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 9
  10. 10. Country= State Sovereign  The monopoly on the use of legitimate force within a territory A “state” is the sovereign entity of a territory Please note:  Public violence is an illegitimate use of force  National Governments might delegate power  Police, Military  But the authority to use force originates from the state’s permission Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 10
  11. 11.  Sovereign entities are not supposed to meddle in the internal affairs of other sovereign entities.  This is mostly true today but was not always the case.  A trivial analogy – Parents and Children and Kingdom A and B  Where did it all start?  Treaty of Westphalia  Signed in 1648  Ended the 30 Years War  Established the principle of sovereignty (Westphalia Sovereignty) Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 11
  12. 12.  Definition: the monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a territory  Dispute resolution between two or more sub-state actors occurs through the sovereign states.  Sovereigns are expected to ensure their sub-state actors do not use force against foreign actors.  Sovereign states control their own domestic affairs.  Sovereign states do not meddle with internal issues in other states.  But states violate this rule all the time!  US incursion into Pakistan to kill Bin Laden  US in Libya  Russia protecting South Ossetia from Georgia Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 12
  13. 13.  Why do states violate the sovereign rule?  Strong actors can violate sovereignty and get away with it.  They can do this because there is no punishment.  Why is there no punishment?  Anarchy! Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 13
  14. 14.  Who is sovereign over the sovereigns?  No one!  Domestic analogy: In Kodi  A man kills his neighbor  A bank robber steals millions in gold  The party last night got a little too crazy – Project X  Solution?  The police come take care of it – provided there is strong domestic policy  In weak systems this might not be true.  A mafia boss kills a rival  A drug lord assassinates a rival cartel leader  The local police is too weak to handle this situation Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 14
  15. 15.  No one comes to arrest:  US going into Pakistan  NATO going into Libya  USSR in Czechoslovakia  USSR in Afganistan  Life in International Relations is closer to the Mafia world  World Police (United Nations ad-hoc military force) is either too weak or non-existent to bring justice. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 15
  16. 16.  Definition: The lack of overall political authority  In international relations, no one is sovereign over the sovereign  Anarchy is a world of “self-help”  Solve it on your own  Convince a friend to come help you  The government isn’t going to come to your rescue  Anarchy is NOT chaos  Most states are not fighting  Anarchy permits many different outcomes Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 16
  17. 17.  If anything can happen, how do we predict or explain outcomes?  Anarchy is a trivial explanation – explains everything and nothing  We need more precise predictions and explanations Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 17
  18. 18. Q1. What were the key aspects of the Treaty of Westphalia? Q2. Other examples of states violating the idea of Westphalian sovereignty. Why can states get away with it? Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 18
  19. 19. International Relations Unit 2 Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 19
  20. 20.  Autocracy  Monarchy  Theocracy  Democracy  Republic  “Democratic Republic”  Communism Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 20
  21. 21.  Despotism  Rule by one individual with absolute power.  Dictatorship  Rule by individual with full power over country. Usually militaristic control.  Fascism  Rule by leader base only. Focuses heavily on patriotism and nationalism. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 21
  22. 22.  Absolute Monarchy/Emirate  A king or a non-elected “royal” is in power. Rule by inheritance. Ultimate governing body.  Constitutional Monarchy  Variant of monarchy where there is a monarch but with powers limited by a constitution. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 22
  23. 23.  A religious institute or “God” as the head of state.  Religious institute enforce law and policy in the state. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 23
  24. 24.  Rule by government chosen by an enfranchised population.  No discrimination on who can vote (except for an minimum age barrier) Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 24
  25. 25.  Similar to a democracy but the there is a system of elected representatives.  Q – Identify the qualities that distinguish democracy from a republic. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 25
  26. 26.  Usually a country that describes itself as “democratic republic” in modern history is neither democratic nor republic.  They are usually some form of autocratic government. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 26
  27. 27.  Built on the economic foundations created by Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels.  A form of Oligarchy.  Although the system should have the public’s best interest in mind, historically they have devolved into autocratic systems. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 27
  28. 28.  For your given country. Describe your ideal system of government. Create your own system. You can research other types of governments apart from the ones covered in this course. Why is your government better than democracy? Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 28
  29. 29.  Using what you have learnt about different systems of governments, defend your assigned form of government in terms of sustainability, equity, and moral superiority. Each person has 3 minutes to speak and 2 minutes for rebuttal. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 29
  30. 30. International Relations Unit 4 Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 30
  31. 31.  Two types of explanations:  Proximate Cause: Why did this happen the way it happened?  Underlying Cause: Why was this thing asking to happen?  We prefer “underlying cause” to “proximate cause” because:  Proximate gives us silly policy ideas  Underlying cause tells us how to solve the problem. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 31
  32. 32.  Proximate Cause:  The driver died because he went through the wind shield of his vehicle.  What have we learnt?  Don’t fly through the wind shield of your vehicle. Don’t get into car accidents.  Underlying Cause:  The driver died because he wasn’t wearing his seatbelt.  What have we learnt?  Wear your seatbelt. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 32
  33. 33.  Proximate Cause:  They lost because of poor fielding.  What have we learnt?  Don’t field badly.  Underlying Cause:  They were bad fielders because everyone was drunk.  What have we learnt?  Don’t drink and dive. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 33
  34. 34.  Proximate Cause:  Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated.  What have we learnt?  Don’t let assassinations of dukes happen.  Underlying Cause:  Military technology gave countries a huge first strike advantage.  What have we learnt?  First strike advantages cause war. Build defensive weapons not offensive. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 34
  35. 35.  Proximate Cause:  Hitler was a bad person.  Underlying Cause:  Reparations from WW 1 bankrupted Germany, allowing domestic institutions to fail.  What have we learnt?  Let all aspiring Austrian artists into art school.  What have we learnt?  Be magnanimous in victory. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 35
  36. 36.  Proximate causes are shortsighted.  Discovering underlying causes allows us to connect dissimilar situations and make sensible recommendations about today’s world.  The process is difficult. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 36
  37. 37.  Watch the 2008 German Film “Die Welle” (The Wave) and analyze the conditions that lead to a autocratic setup in a nation state. Do you think it is possible that it might happen in the world again?  Consider the fact that this is based on a true story about the life of Ron Jones and his experiment The Third Wave.  Keep your answer to under 500 words. The homework grading rubric applies. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 37
  38. 38.  The international realm is anarchic so how can we predict what’s going to happen? How can we narrow down our expectations?  Solution: Analyze actor’s abilities and desires and find plausible outcomes…  We need to develop tools of strategy to understand how the international world works.  Narrow down and eliminate choices  US will not bomb itself Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 38
  39. 39.  There are about 200 odd states in the world  How State 1 acts affects State 2’s outcomes  How State 2 acts affects State 1’s outcomes  How State 1 acts affects State 3’s outcomes  Etc…  States are strategically interdependent. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 39
  40. 40.  States are strategically inter-dependent.  States know they are so.  Intelligence is power.  US spends so much money on intelligence. Why?  Is there a way to scientifically study strategic interdependence?  Game Theory! Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 40
  41. 41.  Originally developed in the 1950s by Neuman and Nash to study economic interactions.  Applies very well to state level behavior.  Note:  Game theory is not black magic  Does not capture all elements of reality  It helps us model the world in simpler terms  Cannot tell us anything new that good research will not unearth  It maps assumptions to logically valid conclusions Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 41
  42. 42.  Create some assumptions using research  Conduct some analysis of those assumptions  Reach logically valid conclusions Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 42
  43. 43.  If your assumptions are silly, then your conclusions will also be silly even though they might be logically valid conclusions.  Results are only as good as our assumptions  Assumptions need to be narrow in focus and concrete, too open ended assumptions will lead to vagueness and nonconclusions. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 43
  44. 44.  If your assumptions are silly, then your conclusions will also be silly even though they might be logically valid conclusions.  Results are only as good as our assumptions  Assumptions need to be narrow in focus and concrete, too open ended assumptions will lead to vagueness and nonconclusions. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 44
  45. 45.  Big Question:  Under what conditions can two parties play nice with one another?  Remember there is no authority figure!  Incentive to cheat  Example: Your roommate leaves Rs. 2000 outside.  Disincentive to cheat – consequences  If you steal the money you go to jail.  But in the International World…  Anarchy – no world police  No laws forcing two states to play nice  Is cooperation under these circumstances? Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 45
  46. 46.  How can individually rational behavior lead to collectively bad outcomes for all?  Can the shadow of future interaction induce two states to play nice with one another?  No, if we know when the period of play ends.  Yes, if we do not know when the period of play ends. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 46
  47. 47. The situation:  Two students are caught by the Dean  The Dean think that they were both smoking  But the Dean can only smell smoke, he can’t prove it.  Thus the Dean needs one of the students to rat out the other. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 47
  48. 48.  The deal:  If no one confesses to the smoking, the Dean can only punish them for being out late.  Punishment – Dorm pounding  If one confesses and the other does not.  The confessor gets off  The other one gets expelled  If both confess  Both get suspended  [DIAGRAM] Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 48
  49. 49.  Imagine that they are working in their best interest.  How will they react?  Nash Equilibrium is for both to Confess even though it is socially the worst possible outcome. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 49
  50. 50.  “Cult of the Offensive” and the Origins of World War I  Tariffs and free trade policy  Arms races and arms treaties (Cold War)  “The Evolution of Cooperation” (Trench Warfare) Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 50
  51. 51.  Reflection on Autocracy – “The Wave” due on 12-08-2013 by midnight on Turnitin and hardcopy in your folder.  Read up on World War I – Causes. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 51
  52. 52. International Relations Unit 3a Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 52
  53. 53. Why did World War I start? Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 53
  54. 54.  Serbia wanted a united Yugoslavia  June 28 – FF killed  July 28 – AH declares war on Serbia  July 28 – Russia declares war on AH  Aug 1 – Germany declares war on Russia Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 54
  55. 55.  Aug 2 – Germany invades Luxemborg  Aug 3 – Germany declares war on France and Belgium  Aug 4 – United Kingdom declares war on Germany  Aug 6 – AH declares war on Russia  Serbia declares war on AH Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 55
  56. 56.  Aug 11 – France declares war on AH  Aug 12 – UK declares war on AH  Aug 22 – AH declares war on Belgium  Aug 23 – Japan declares war on Germany  Aug 25 – Japan declares war on AH Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 56
  57. 57.  Nov 1 – Russia declares war on the Ottoman Empire  Nov 5 – UK and France declare war on OE. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 57
  58. 58.  Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by Serbian Nationalists on 28 June 1914.  The war started because a dude with a funny mustache died  Why are these states preemptively declaring war on one another? Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 58
  59. 59. Offense is the best defense? Military and political leaders at that time believed that the offense had an enormous advantage – first mover advantage.  New technology: machine guns, chemical weapons, railroads  Believed that this technology favors the first mover. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 59
  60. 60.  Consider a world with 2 states  Two strategies: Preemptive attack, Defend  Outcomes – ranked by benefits  I preempt, you defend. (Surprise attack! – I win!) - 3  We both defend. (Peace) - 2  We both preempt. (War) - 1  I defend, you preempt. (I lose, I’m a sucker) - 0  What do these assumptions mean?  [DIAGRAM] Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 60
  61. 61.  Regardless of Germany’s move, France is always better of preempting.  Therefore France preempts.  Similarly, regardless of France’s move, Germany is always better of preempting.  Therefore Germany preempts.  The PEACE outcome is inherently unstable even though this is an overall more beneficial outcome for all. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 61
  62. 62. Country Total Mobilized Russia France British Empire Italy USA Japan Romania Serbia Belgium Greece Portugal Montenegro Total 12,000,000 8,410,000 8,904,467 5,615,000 4,355,000 800,000 750,000 707,343 267,000 230,000 100,000 50,000 42,188,810 Germany Austria-Hungary Turkey Bulgaria Total Grand Total 11,000,000 7,800,000 2,850,000 1,200,000 22,850,000 65,038,810 Dead Wounded Allies 1,700,000 4,950,000 1,357,800 4,266,000 908,371 2,090,212 650,000 947,000 126,000 234,300 300 907 335,706 120,000 45,000 133,148 13,716 44,686 5,000 21,000 7,222 13,751 3,000 10,000 5,152,115 12,831,004 Central Powers 1,773,700 4,216,058 1,200,000 3,620,000 325,000 400,000 87,500 152,390 3,386,200 8,388,448 8,538,315 21,219,452 POW or Missing Total Casualties Casualty as % of Mobilized 2,500,000 537,000 191,652 600,000 4,500 3 80,000 152,958 34,659 1,000 12,318 7,000 4,121,090 9,150,000 6,160,800 3,190,235 2,197,000 364,800 1,210 535,706 331,106 93,061 27,000 33,291 20,000 22,104,209 76% 73% 36% 39% 8% 0% 71% 47% 35% 12% 33% 40% 52% 1,152,800 2,200,000 250,000 27,029 3,629,829 7,750,919 7,142,558 7,020,000 975,000 266,919 15,404,477 37,508,686 65% 90% 34% 22% 67% 58% Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 62
  63. 63. BARON VON RICHTHOFEN Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 63
  64. 64. International Relations Unit 35b Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 64
  65. 65. Big Question: Why is it so hard to implement free trade? Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 65
  66. 66.  Free trade is a historically new phenomenon.  In the past, states used to set up high tariffs (import taxes) on imported goods.  Taxes are not fun – but taxes are good for bolstering domestic companies.  Recall from micro and macro that taxes raise consumer prices and that generally leads to inefficiency. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 66
  67. 67. Mexico doesn’t have the best grape-producing climate  Thus El Vino Nacional must spend more money to produce quality grapes.  The company must pass on the additional costs to the consumer or go out of business. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 67
  68. 68. California has great climate for grapes and makes wine with ease.  California companies can flood the Mexican market and put El Vino Nacional out of business.  But this funnels Mexican money out of Mexico and into California. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 68
  69. 69.  If Mexico taxes the imported wine, los precios del Vino Nacional will become competitive  El dinero stays within Mexico Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 69
  70. 70. California doesn’t have the best agave-producing climate.  Thus, California tequila companies must spend more money to make good quality tequila.  The company must pass on this cost to consumers. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 70
  71. 71. Mexico has great climate for agave and makes great tequila.  Mexican companies can flood the Californian markets put the California tequila makers out of business.  But this funnels American money out of the US and into Mexico. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 71
  72. 72.  If USA taxes the imported tequila, California tequila makers are competitive.  Dollars stays within USA Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 72
  73. 73. Tariffs everywhere Mexico taxes imports from California USA taxes imports from Mexico Everyone loses. [Strategic Model Diagram] Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 73
  74. 74. New puzzle:  The prisoner’s dilemma predicts that we have high tariffs for both sides.  This was true before WW2, but not true any longer, why?  How have states managed free trade agreements recently? Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 74
  75. 75. Test – 29 AUG Essay type, short answers, and objective. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 75
  76. 76. International Relations Unit 3c Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 76
  77. 77. In a world of anarchy what is the most important force? Having a powerful military allows you to have your way. But military power is relative not absolute: The Roman Empire is more powerful than Italy is today So a state only makes a relative gain against a rival if it builds and the rival does not. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 77
  78. 78. Making weapons costs money – opportunity cost [DIAGRAM] Outcome is to build for both states. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 78
  79. 79. If the outcome always states build weapons then why do we have so many arms treaties? Why are arms treaties sustainable? Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 79
  80. 80. Can future interaction inspire cooperation today? One shot – No, because players prefer to act aggressively as it is in your best interest. Some interactions are one shot – preemptive war Some interactions are repeated – trade and arms races. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 80
  81. 81. [DIAGRAM] – Moves from first round will be disclosed publicly. Question – Can the players cooperate in the first round under threat of punishment in the second round.  Is “I will cooperate today, and if you cooperate today as well, then I will cooperate tomorrow” a viable strategy? Stage 1:  Defect Stage 2: Must optimize in this turn as it is the last.  Defect Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 81
  82. 82.  Stage 1  Stage 2 … … …  Stage N-2  Stage N-1  Stage N  Defect – must optimize as it is the last period of play Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 82
  83. 83. Cooperation is not possible in repeated games if the length of the game is finite. Endgame sabotages cooperation in earlier stages. How much is $100,000 worth if the world ends:  Tomorrow  At the end of the year  Ten years from now What if the shadow of the future is indefinite?  We do not know when the interaction is going to end Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 83
  84. 84. The shadow of future fails to inspire cooperation if the game has a definite end. But interactions in the real world seem to be unlikely to end.  Can the states maintain cooperation? Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 84
  85. 85. The Model:  Play the Prisoner’s Dilemma repeatedly between two states.  After every period, they will play again with probability p.  Note p is fairly large. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 85
  86. 86. “Tough Love” strategy:  Begin by cooperating  If at any point in the game a player defects, then defect for the duration of the game… So, would two grim trigger players have an incentive to defect on one another? [DIAGRAM] Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 86
  87. 87. Today’s payoff: 1 Tomorrow’s payoff: (p)(1) The day after’s payoff: (p)2(1) … The sum of this infinite geometric series is going to be 1/(1-p) Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 87
  88. 88. Today’s payoff: 2 Tomorrow’s payoff: (p)(0) The day after’s payoff: (p)2(0) … The sum of this infinite geometric series is going to be 2. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 88
  89. 89. Cooperate: 1/(1-p) Betray: 2 (Technically could be slightly more if the betrayal happens after n rounds.) However, if p> ½ then cooperating is in my best interest. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 89
  90. 90. As long as we are likely to keep interacting with each other indefinitely, then cooperation is possible as it is in the best interest of both states. Threat of future loss of gain (i.e. punishment) keeps states in line even without a world police. States must not know when the game is going to end. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 90
  91. 91. International Relations Unit 6 Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 91
  92. 92. Repeated play assumption was not sensible when we were talking about war mobilization. But most states most of the time are not in a state of war. Why? “Cooperate” and “Defect” are very restrictive strategies.  We need to allow states to bargain with one another. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 92
  93. 93. Why do states fight costly wars? Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 93
  94. 94. If war is detrimental to both sides, why do you think we have wars?  Limit your answer to 300 words. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 94
  95. 95. A man falls over a wet floor and sues you for negligence. Your lawyer and his lawyer agree on the following:  There is a 60% chance of the lawsuit will be successful.  If he wins you have to pay him $40,000  Going to court will cost each of you $10,000 in fees regardless of outcome. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 95
  96. 96. Either you or him concede immediately  Your payoff: -$40,000  His payoff: 0 You reach an out of court settlement  A settlement of less than $34,000 is better for you.  A settlement of more than $14,000 is better for him. You let the court decide the matter  Your payoff: (-40,000)(0.6) – 10,000 = -$34,000  His payoff: (40,000)(0.6) – 10,000 = $14,000  How should we expect the matter to be resolved? Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 96
  97. 97. War produces a winner and a loser – unless the power is very skewed, it is probabilistic. Fighting is costly because it kills people and destroys things. So why can’t two states settle the matter of the battlefield?  Rationalist’s Explanation of War Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 97
  98. 98.  Part 1: The Research Question  Assumptions  War’s Inefficiency Puzzle  Part 2: The Answers  Preventive War  Misinterpretation Information  Issue Indivisibility  Preemptive War Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 of 98
  99. 99.  BIG QUESTION: Can two perfectly intelligent, perfectly unbiased leaders fight a war against each other?  Let’s name some major wars in the last 100 years. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 99
  100. 100. Assume that states are a single entity, and their leader is only interested in maximizing the overall welfare of the state.  Is this always true? NO  Is this true some of the time? MAYBE Leaders often justify wars using the unitary actor assumption. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 100
  101. 101. I really suck at running our domestic economy. Everything is terrible so I will start a war to distract you from that. You’ll see I am a war hero and then you will reelect me. The media is too involved in a scandal about an intern and me so I am going to bomb some country in Africa that you’ve never heard of to distract them. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 101
  102. 102. This war is in the best interest of our national security. Fight them there so you don’t have to fight them at home. We have a moral obligation to intervene. Stabilizing the region will secure our economic interests.  It’s about WE not ME. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 102
  103. 103.  The unitary actor assumption allows us to analyze the validity of these explanations.  The war dynamics we will discuss also affect states that are not unitary actors.  Although even with non-unitary actors we can extend the same assumptions, but we will not cover that. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 103
  104. 104. Can wars be mutually beneficial? Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 104
  105. 105. Let us assume a scenario: Venezuela discovers an oil deposit worth $80 billion Columbia declares the deposit is actually in their side of the border. The sides call in their military and prepare for war. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 105
  106. 106. Venezuela will win the war 60% of the time – which means they have 60% chance of winning the $80 billion in the oil. Cost of death, destruction, and lost oil is about $15 billion, regardless of the outcome. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 106
  107. 107. Columbia will win the war 40% of the time – which means they have 40% chance of winning the $80 billion in the oil. Cost of death, destruction, and lost oil is about $12 billion, regardless of the outcome. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 107
  108. 108. Is war inevitable for these two countries? Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 108
  109. 109. Expected Payoff from the war: (80)(0.6) – 15 = $33b Venezuela must receive at least $33 billion to be satisfied. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 109
  110. 110. Expected payoff from the war: (80)(0.4) – 12 = 20 Columbia must receive at least $20 billion to be satisfied. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 110
  111. 111. Both countries have positive expected payoffs from fighting.  So war can be a rational choice for both parties. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 111
  112. 112. War is not rational here! Venezuela and Columbia’s demands sum up to $53 billion. The revenue from the oil is $80 billion to go around. Where did the other $27 billion go?  Cost of war - $15b + $12b Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 112
  113. 113. Let x be Venezuela’s share of the settlement. Then if x > 33 it satisfies Venezuela. And if 80 – x > 20 then x also satisfies Columbia. Or if x < 60. Think of this as terms of trade. Then x is mutually satisfactory when 33 < x < 60 Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 113
  114. 114. Any settlement that gives Venezuela $33 billion but no more than $60 billion is preferable to war.  Such a settlement exists  Bargaining is mutually preferable to war. Say 50-50 split. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 114
  115. 115. Why do states sometimes choose to resolve their differences through the inefficient means of war when bargaining, in theory, leaves both parties better off.  Maybe the assumptions are not agreeable. Maybe there is a mathematical quirk to the numbers?  We are going to study this in more detail. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 115
  116. 116. Using your understanding of the recent Syrian situation, and what we have learnt about the rationality for war, argue a case for President Obama requesting the Congress to approve military action against Syria. The homework rubric will apply Keep your essay to under 750 words. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 116
  117. 117. Preemptive war Preventative war War from misinformation Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 117
  118. 118. To prevent a shift in the balance of power A war to prevent an inevitable war  Self fulfilling expectations Examples:  Pearl Harbor  The 1967 6-Day War  The 2003 Gulf War II Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 118
  119. 119. Preventive war without the permission of the UN is illegal.  The Bush Doctrine declared that these expectations are unrealistic Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 119
  120. 120. International Relations Unit 4 Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 120
  121. 121. A hypothetical situation:  Consider two tribes Og and Ug  Og has game, and Ug does not  What happens? Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 121
  122. 122. System-Level Causes The distribution of power The anarchial nature of the system System-level economic factors System-level biosphere stress Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 122
  123. 123. State-Level Causes of War Militarism Externalization of Internal Conflict Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 123
  124. 124. Individual-Level Causes of War Human Characteristics Individual Leaders’ Characteristics Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 124
  125. 125. Terrorism and Humanitarian Intervention Social Justice Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 125
  126. 126. The nature and limits of terrorism Distinguish between domestic and international Terrorism:  Violent  Carried out by individuals, non-government, covert government  Target civilians  Uses clandestine methods  Attempts to influence politics Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 126
  127. 127. State Terrorism Transnational Terrorist Groups Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 127
  128. 128. Between 1968 and 2006, more than 10,000 international terror attacks and over 14,000 deaths Domestic terrorism is more common Middle East leads the terror charts with more than 60% of all attacks Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 128
  129. 129. Conventional weapons Radiological weapons Chemical and biological weapons Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 129
  130. 130. System-level  Global imbalance State-level  US support of Israel Individual-level  Psychological drivers? Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 130
  131. 131. “War on terror”? Unconventional Force  Arms Transfers  Special Operations Conventional Force Diplomacy Avoid unchecked escalation Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 131
  132. 132. Biological Weapons Chemical Weapons Nuclear Weapons Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 132
  133. 133.  Choose a terrorist organization listed below and research the causes and rationality behind their formation and motivations of the organization and identify potential resolutions.  United Liberation Front of Assam  Hamas  Hezbollah  Hizbul Mujahideen  Jaish-e-Mohammed  Lakshar-e-Taiba  Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 133
  134. 134. International Relations Unit 5 Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 134
  135. 135. Chanakya and Machiavelli  Chandragupta Maurya and The Medici  Arthashastra and The Prince Sun Tzu’s The Art of War Development of political theory from the medieval times. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 135
  136. 136. Realist (Realpolitik) – a zero sum game. Classic and Neo Realism  Difference in root of conflict  Inherent distrust v. anarchy  No place for morality or ideology in foreign policy Realism – Emphasis on power  Secure your own country’s interest  Establish a balance of power  “Peace through strength” ~ Ronald Reagan  Do not waste power on peripheral goals Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 136
  137. 137. Human Nature  Pessimistic, self interest and competitive Core Concepts  Power, conflict Reality  Largely objective Political Stakes  Zero-sum Conflict in System  Central and Inevitable International System  Anarchic Cause of Conflicts  Pursuing self Interest Best Path to Peace  Balance of Power Key Organizations  States Morality  None Policy Prescriptions  Self Interest Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 137
  138. 138. People and countries are capable of finding mutual interests and cooperating to achieve them by working through and with international organizations and international law.  Shutting down of Guantanamo Bay Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 138
  139. 139. Liberals reject the realists’ contention that politics is inherently and exclusively a struggle for power. Unlike realists, for liberals, morality plays a large role in the play for power. Altruism is a weapon for realists. Non-zero sum game. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 139
  140. 140. Classical is a direct descendant of idealism. Unlike realists, classic liberals are optimistic about human nature.  Jean-jacques Rousseau – “The Social Contract”  Humans join together in society because it is easier to survive. Neoliberalism developed in the 1970s and 80s. Competition between states in the anarchic world causes conflict – parallel to Neorealism. However, unlike the Neorealists, Neoliberals believe in a complex interdependency of states in the anarchic world which may help promote internationalism. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 140
  141. 141. Cooperation does not mean that they are unwilling to use military power. However, place emphasis of legitimacy on the UN and IGOs. Surrender some sovereignty to improve themselves  European Union Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 141
  142. 142. “There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so” ~ Hamlet Political realities are mindsets Politics is driven by class warfare – Marx and Engels … or by structures such as states and organized religion – Feminists States are held together by means of force for the structure, not the people. Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 142
  143. 143. International Relations Unit 6 Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 143
  144. 144. Is nationalism a good thing? Why do we feel patriotic? Is it for the land or for the people living in it? How would the world be different if we did not enforce patriotic emotions? Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 144
  145. 145. International Relations Unit 10 Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 145
  146. 146. International Relations Unit 13 Abhishek Maity 2013 11/6/2013 146

×