This presentation is made by Samin VossoughiRad. American University for Humanities- Tbilisi campus
The security Dilemma is the them of the presentation and it has been explained exactly why states goes to war
Balance of power is a system of International Relations in which states seek security through internal build-up of power or by alliances with other states to prevent one state from accumulating too much power realism that rationalized great power rivalry, arms race, secret alliances and balance of power politician.
Relations among states take place in the absence of a world government. For realists, this means that the international system is anarchical. International relations are best understood by focusing on the distribution of power among states. Despite their formal legal equality, the uneven distribution of power means that the arena of international relations is a form of ‘power politics’. Power is hard to measure; its distribution among states changes over time and there is no consensus among states about how it should be distributed. International relations is therefore a realm of necessity (states must seek power to survive in a competitive environment) and continuity over time. When realists contemplate change in the international system, they focus on changes in the balance of power among states, and tend to discount the possibility of fundamental change in the dynamics of the system itself.
The following key thinkers all subscribe to these basic assumptions in their explorations of the following questions:
(1) What are the main sources of stability and instability in the international system?
(2) What is the actual and preferred balance of power among states?
(3) How should the great powers behave toward one another and toward weaker states?
(4) What are the sources and dynamics of contemporary changes in the balance of power?
Despite some shared assumptions about the nature of international relations, realists are not all of one voice in answering these questions, and it would be wrong to believe that shared assumptions lead to similar conclusions among them. In fact, there is sharp disagreement over the relative merits of particular balances of power (unipolarity, bipolarity and multipolarity). There is also much debate over the causal relationship between states and the international pressures upon them, and the relative importance of different kinds of power in contemporary international relations.
Balance of power is a system of International Relations in which states seek security through internal build-up of power or by alliances with other states to prevent one state from accumulating too much power realism that rationalized great power rivalry, arms race, secret alliances and balance of power politician.
Relations among states take place in the absence of a world government. For realists, this means that the international system is anarchical. International relations are best understood by focusing on the distribution of power among states. Despite their formal legal equality, the uneven distribution of power means that the arena of international relations is a form of ‘power politics’. Power is hard to measure; its distribution among states changes over time and there is no consensus among states about how it should be distributed. International relations is therefore a realm of necessity (states must seek power to survive in a competitive environment) and continuity over time. When realists contemplate change in the international system, they focus on changes in the balance of power among states, and tend to discount the possibility of fundamental change in the dynamics of the system itself.
The following key thinkers all subscribe to these basic assumptions in their explorations of the following questions:
(1) What are the main sources of stability and instability in the international system?
(2) What is the actual and preferred balance of power among states?
(3) How should the great powers behave toward one another and toward weaker states?
(4) What are the sources and dynamics of contemporary changes in the balance of power?
Despite some shared assumptions about the nature of international relations, realists are not all of one voice in answering these questions, and it would be wrong to believe that shared assumptions lead to similar conclusions among them. In fact, there is sharp disagreement over the relative merits of particular balances of power (unipolarity, bipolarity and multipolarity). There is also much debate over the causal relationship between states and the international pressures upon them, and the relative importance of different kinds of power in contemporary international relations.
Each response is 250 words eachResponse 1Mearsheimer’s orig.docxjoellemurphey
Each response is 250 words each
Response 1:
Mearsheimer’s original essay is exceptionally well laid-out and logical. In seeking to answer the question of whether or not international institutions promote peace, he examines the three most prominent international relations theories dealing with international institutions, provides detailed explanations of the theory, how it relates to realism, and its causal logic. He then proceeds to point out flaws in the causal logic of each of the theories and explains how that refutes or negates the theory itself. This clear and concise format is definitely a strength of his perspective, however his pessimistic realist perspective ignores a lot of the successes that international organizations have had and leads him to dismiss some of the other theories’ assumptions that may not actually be wrong. An example of this is states’ ability to trust each other. Mearsheimer dismisses it as impossible due to some basic assumptions of realism, that states can never know the true intentions of other states, and all are competing for relative power to ensure their survival. Since trust is a key component in all three theories dealing with international institutions, this rushed dismissal undermines his argument against each theory. There is a lot more evidence for the success of international institutions than there was in 1994, although there is certainly also more evidence that realist assumptions of mistrust are still accurate. The democratic peace theory has also still proven accurate, and probably contributes to the incredibly strong alliance between democratic English-speaking nations, which provides a counter-point to Mearsheimer’s assertion that states can never trust each other.
John Pevehouse and Bruce Russett’s counterargument agrees with Mearsheimer that the link between intergovernmental organizations and peace is problematic and not well developed. They focus specifically on democratic (or predominantly democratic) institutions and how they aid conflict resolution through mediation, socialization, and commitments. (Pevehouse and Russett, 2006, 1) Their argument seems to be an expansion of the democratic peace theory. They point out that between two states “joint democracy alone, independent of other influences, reduces violent conflict.” (ibid, 4) Additionally, the institutions they focus on are not those with universal membership, but those with restricted membership that may exclude states who are in conflict with an existing member. He cites the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, World Trade Organization, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund as examples. (ibid, 3) This exclusionary policy prevents external conflict from coming in to the organizations, and the great mystery of democratic peace theory prevents conflict from developing within these predominantly democratic organizations. I say “great mystery” because no one has conclusively explained why democracies are less.
Each response is 250 words eachResponse 1Mearsheimer’s orig.docxjoellemurphey
Each response is 250 words each
Response 1:
Mearsheimer’s original essay is exceptionally well laid-out and logical. In seeking to answer the question of whether or not international institutions promote peace, he examines the three most prominent international relations theories dealing with international institutions, provides detailed explanations of the theory, how it relates to realism, and its causal logic. He then proceeds to point out flaws in the causal logic of each of the theories and explains how that refutes or negates the theory itself. This clear and concise format is definitely a strength of his perspective, however his pessimistic realist perspective ignores a lot of the successes that international organizations have had and leads him to dismiss some of the other theories’ assumptions that may not actually be wrong. An example of this is states’ ability to trust each other. Mearsheimer dismisses it as impossible due to some basic assumptions of realism, that states can never know the true intentions of other states, and all are competing for relative power to ensure their survival. Since trust is a key component in all three theories dealing with international institutions, this rushed dismissal undermines his argument against each theory. There is a lot more evidence for the success of international institutions than there was in 1994, although there is certainly also more evidence that realist assumptions of mistrust are still accurate. The democratic peace theory has also still proven accurate, and probably contributes to the incredibly strong alliance between democratic English-speaking nations, which provides a counter-point to Mearsheimer’s assertion that states can never trust each other.
John Pevehouse and Bruce Russett’s counterargument agrees with Mearsheimer that the link between intergovernmental organizations and peace is problematic and not well developed. They focus specifically on democratic (or predominantly democratic) institutions and how they aid conflict resolution through mediation, socialization, and commitments. (Pevehouse and Russett, 2006, 1) Their argument seems to be an expansion of the democratic peace theory. They point out that between two states “joint democracy alone, independent of other influences, reduces violent conflict.” (ibid, 4) Additionally, the institutions they focus on are not those with universal membership, but those with restricted membership that may exclude states who are in conflict with an existing member. He cites the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, World Trade Organization, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund as examples. (ibid, 3) This exclusionary policy prevents external conflict from coming in to the organizations, and the great mystery of democratic peace theory prevents conflict from developing within these predominantly democratic organizations. I say “great mystery” because no one has conclusively explained why democracies are less.
Due 25 MayName _____________________In-class Assignment 1A In.docxaryan532920
Due 25 May Name: _____________________In-class Assignment 1A: Introduction to functions
1. State whether each is a set. If not, give a brief reason why not.
a. The students in this class
b. The smart students in this class
c. The students over 60 in this class
d. All the sets discussed in this class on Monday
2. State whether each example can represent a function. If so, indicate which is the domain and which is the range. Remember that the each element of the domain must map to exactly one element of the range.
a. On the “rate my prof” website, a number of students have given your instructor a rating on how hard a grader he is.
DOMAIN:
RANGE:
b. On the “rate my prof” website, a particular student has rated each of her instructors on how hard a grader he/she is.
DOMAIN:
RANGE:
c. On the “rate my prof” website, consider the set of all students who gave ratings and the set of all professors who were rated on how hard a grader he/she is.
DOMAIN:
RANGE:
3. My google contacts list represents one set. The phone numbers in this directory represents another set. Consider the mapping of people to phone numbers. State whether this is a set and give your reasoning.
4. Does this mapping of set A to set B represent a function? Why or why not?
5. Does this mapping of set A to set B represent a function? Why or why not?
6. Your computer directs each pixel on its screen as to what to display. The computer directs the color by specifying how much blue, red, and yellow to display. (It then has to also direct the saturation and the brightness, but let’s leave those out for now.) Consider the set of pixels and the set of colors each takes on in a particular image. Is this a function? Why or why not?
7. This plot represents a function. Remember that a closed circle (a dot) on a point indicates the point is plotted, while an open circle indicates that point is not plotted. So, for example, the point (2,2) is plotted, but the point (3,2) is not. Note that the point (2.9999,2) IS plotted, since the open circle only indicates the endpoint (3,2) is omitted.
a. Describe the range and the domain of this function.
b. Describe in words what this function does. That is, how does it associate the set X with the set Y?
Unit 1A p. 2
MA 151 Mathematical Methods for Business Marymount University
Ontological Security in World Politics:
State Identity and the Security Dilemma
J E N N I F E R M I T Z E N
Ohio State University, USA
This article proposes that in addition to physical security, states also
seek ontological security, or security of the self. Ontological security is
achieved by routinizing relationships with significant others, and actors
therefore become attached to those relationships. Like its physical
counterpart, the ontological security motive is a constant. But states
may adhere to routines rigidly or reflexively, and variation in attachment
style has implications for security-seeking. This article conceptualizes the
individual-leve ...
Ho relasaun kadeira IMRI(introdusaun metodolozia relasaun internasional), iha ne iha rejumu badak kona ba seguransa internasional nb durante hau aprende iha tenpu badak nia laran, ho esperansa katak sei ajuda maluk le nain sira hodi bele komprende sa mk konteudu husi seguransa internasional ne rasik, maski ida ne ladun kompletu maibe sei ajuda maluk sira hodi bele halo kompleta ita bot sira nia kunesimentu.
Religious extremists, Paris terrorism attack on the November 13 and Beirut terrorism attack are briefly mentioned and explained in this ppt.
Enjoy and be nice to everyone
This presentation is made by Samin VossoughiRad. American University for Humanities- Tbilisi campus
Defense Planing is one of the major subject of NATO. this presentation shows who this defense works.
Jennifer Schaus and Associates hosts a complimentary webinar series on The FAR in 2024. Join the webinars on Wednesdays and Fridays at noon, eastern.
Recordings are on YouTube and the company website.
https://www.youtube.com/@jenniferschaus/videos
ZGB - The Role of Generative AI in Government transformation.pdfSaeed Al Dhaheri
This keynote was presented during the the 7th edition of the UAE Hackathon 2024. It highlights the role of AI and Generative AI in addressing government transformation to achieve zero government bureaucracy
Jennifer Schaus and Associates hosts a complimentary webinar series on The FAR in 2024. Join the webinars on Wednesdays and Fridays at noon, eastern.
Recordings are on YouTube and the company website.
https://www.youtube.com/@jenniferschaus/videos
This session provides a comprehensive overview of the latest updates to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (commonly known as the Uniform Guidance) outlined in the 2 CFR 200.
With a focus on the 2024 revisions issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), participants will gain insight into the key changes affecting federal grant recipients. The session will delve into critical regulatory updates, providing attendees with the knowledge and tools necessary to navigate and comply with the evolving landscape of federal grant management.
Learning Objectives:
- Understand the rationale behind the 2024 updates to the Uniform Guidance outlined in 2 CFR 200, and their implications for federal grant recipients.
- Identify the key changes and revisions introduced by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the 2024 edition of 2 CFR 200.
- Gain proficiency in applying the updated regulations to ensure compliance with federal grant requirements and avoid potential audit findings.
- Develop strategies for effectively implementing the new guidelines within the grant management processes of their respective organizations, fostering efficiency and accountability in federal grant administration.
What is the point of small housing associations.pptxPaul Smith
Given the small scale of housing associations and their relative high cost per home what is the point of them and how do we justify their continued existance
Russian anarchist and anti-war movement in the third year of full-scale warAntti Rautiainen
Anarchist group ANA Regensburg hosted my online-presentation on 16th of May 2024, in which I discussed tactics of anti-war activism in Russia, and reasons why the anti-war movement has not been able to make an impact to change the course of events yet. Cases of anarchists repressed for anti-war activities are presented, as well as strategies of support for political prisoners, and modest successes in supporting their struggles.
Thumbnail picture is by MediaZona, you may read their report on anti-war arson attacks in Russia here: https://en.zona.media/article/2022/10/13/burn-map
Links:
Autonomous Action
http://Avtonom.org
Anarchist Black Cross Moscow
http://Avtonom.org/abc
Solidarity Zone
https://t.me/solidarity_zone
Memorial
https://memopzk.org/, https://t.me/pzk_memorial
OVD-Info
https://en.ovdinfo.org/antiwar-ovd-info-guide
RosUznik
https://rosuznik.org/
Uznik Online
http://uznikonline.tilda.ws/
Russian Reader
https://therussianreader.com/
ABC Irkutsk
https://abc38.noblogs.org/
Send mail to prisoners from abroad:
http://Prisonmail.online
YouTube: https://youtu.be/c5nSOdU48O8
Spotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/libertarianlifecoach/episodes/Russian-anarchist-and-anti-war-movement-in-the-third-year-of-full-scale-war-e2k8ai4
2. The security dilemma, is a term used
in international relations and refers to a situation
in which actions by a state intended to heighten
its security, such as increasing its military
strength or making alliances, can lead other states
to respond with similar measures, producing
increased tensions that create conflict, even when
no side really desires it
3. The security dilemma
“A structural notion in which the self-help attempts
of states to look after their security needs tend,
regardless of intention, to lead to rising insecurity
for others as each interprets its own measures as
defensive and measures of others as potentially
threatening”
4. The essential and intractable problem that results from
this state of affairs is known as the security dilemma:
Assume that a particular state seeks only to survive by
pursuing a status quo policy (which necessitates the
maintenance of power)
This state’s possession of power – no matter how much the
state tries to assure others that it is for defensive purposes
only – must necessarily result in fear/suspicion on the parts
of others
Main reason: The same tools that are used for status quo
and prestige policies are used for imperialist policies
Absent any enforceable guarantee against the use of force
for expansion – and anarchy precludes the enforcement of
any guarantee – the realist worldview stipulates that the
global community is fraught with arms races and the
constant threat of both imperial and preventative war
Thus, war is likely to occur even when
political “reasons” for war – like revenge,
but even territorial disputes, etc. – are
absent!
5. Although actors may know that they seek a
common goal, they may not able to reach it
Even when there is a solution that is everyone’s
first choice, the international case is characterized
by 3 difficulties not present in the Stag Hunt
Even if the other state now supports the status
quo, it may become dissatisfied later
In order to protect their possessions states seek
to control resources or land outside their own
territory
States tries to increase its security decrease the
security of others
6. There is no solution that is in the best interest of
all the participants
7. The stag hunt is a game that describes a conflict between safety and social
cooperation
The stag hunt differs from the Prisoner's Dilemma in that there are
two Nash equilibria: when both players cooperate and both players
defect. In the Prisoner's Dilemma, in contrast, despite the fact that both
players cooperating is Pareto efficient, the only Nash equilibrium is
when both players choose to defect
CC CD
DDDCDefect
Cooperate
DefectCooperate
8. There is no solution that is in the best interest of
all the participants.
CC CD
DDDCDefect
Cooperate
DefectCooperate
9. Decision makers act in terms of the vulnerability
they feel, which can differ from the actual
situation.
Two dimension are involved in the subjective
security requirements:
people can differ about how much security
they desire
perception of the threat
10. Defecting not only avoids the danger that a state
will be exploited, but brings positive advantages
by exploiting the other
To encourage the other state to cooperate, a state
may try to manipulate them. It can lower the
other’s incentives to defect by decreasing what it
could gain by exploiting the state
11. An increase in one state’s security decreases the
security of others
Defensive weapons and policies can be
distinguished from offensive ones
Defense or the offence has the advantage
12. Definition of advantage over each other
Arms races
Is it better to attack or defend
How strongly the security Dilemma operates
13. The intensity of the security dilemma
"very intense".
"intense”
"not intense“
"doubly safe" Offence has the
advantage
Defense has the
advantage
Offensive
posture is not
distinguishable
from defensive
one
Offensive
posture is
distinguishable
from defensive
one
Double
dangerous
Double stable
Security
dilemma, but the
requirements
may be
compatible
No security dilemma,
but aggression possible.
Status-quo states have
other choices. Warning
given.
14. Evidence of the security dilemma can be found in the
earliest examples of IR, as illustrated by Woodruff’s
introduction to Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian
Wars
Greece, 3rd Century BC: Athens and Sparta dominate
Two very different city-states
Athens: Sea-faring, commerce-based, democratic, home of
the “new thinking”
Sparta: Land-based, self-sufficient, oligarchic, military ethos
Despite all these differences, there seem to be very few political
reasons to go to war
Thucydides’ only answer: the Peloponnesian Wars were caused
by Athens’ rise to power, and the fear that that power caused
for Sparta – no more, no less
15. Main factors which determine whether
the offense or defense has the
advantage
The technical capabilities of a state and
its geographical position are two
essential factors in deciding whether
offensive or defensive action is
advantageous.
16. "Preventative war“
"Preemptive war“
The deterrence model: by Paul K. Huth
Preventing armed attack against a country's
own territory ("direct deterrence")
Preventing armed attack against the territory of
another country ("extended deterrence")
Using deterrence against a short-term threat of
attack ("immediate deterrence").
the balance of power