Class notes
Introduction to Year 2 Modern International Relations
- Course
- Institution
Full lecture notes to MIR. The booklet is a good revision and essay guide.
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
tpaukstyte
Content preview
Modern International Relations28 September 2020 20:46
Upload Date: Monday 12:00 noon
Lecturer:
- Dr Joseph O'Mahoney: j.p.a.omahoney@reading.ac.uk
Topics:
Autumn:
1. What and how we study in IR? Reading:
2. How to think about theories Seminars:
3. Rationalism 1. Analysing Theory:
4. Rationalism and War John Mearsheimer, Anarchy and the Struggle for Power, in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics,
7. Constructivism W.W. Norton, 2001, pp. 29-54.
8. Constructivism and Order 2. Model of War:
Reiter, Dan. "Exploring the Bargaining Model of War." Perspectives on Politics 1, no. 1 (2003):
9. Collective Action 1: Climate and the Commons
27-43.
10. Collective Action 2: Trade and Arms Races 3. Norms and Order:
Philpott, Daniel. 2001. Revolutions in sovereignty: how ideas shaped modern international
Spring: relations. Princeton University Press, Chapter 8, Ideas and the End of Empire, pp. 153-167
1. Feminism in IR: Where are the Women? 4. Collective Action Theory:
2. Individuals and Psychology Scott Barrett, Why Cooperate?: The Incentive to Supply Global Public Goods, Oxford University
3. Globalization Press, Chapter 1, pp. 1-21.
Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Science, 13 December 1968, pp. 1243-48.
4. Nuclear Weapons
5. Essay Writing
7. Terrorism Sample Essay
8. International law 6. Evaluating Theories: The Nuclear Taboo:
9. US Hegemony Nina Tannenwald, “The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear
10. Cyberspace and IR Non-Use,” International Organization 53:3 (summer 1999), pp. 433-468.
7. Evaluating Theories: Why are people terrorists?
Abrahms, Max. "What terrorists really want: Terrorist motives and counterterrorism strategy."
International Security 32, no. 4 (2008): 78-105.
Chenoweth, Erica, Nicholas Miller, Elizabeth McClellan, Hillel Frisch, Paul Staniland, and Max
Abrahms. "What makes terrorists tick." International Security 33, no. 4 (2009): 180-202.
8. Exam Review
PO2MIR Page 1
,--------------------
10 May 2021 22:00
PO2MIR Page 2
,Rationalism
29 September 2020 10:39
Explaining with theory:
1. We observe some international political outcome or phenomenon or situation,
2. We ask why we see this particular outcome rather than something else
3. We then use theories and concepts as tools to explain why or how international politics is the way that it is.
Rationalism and Strategic Choice:
- As a way of thinking about a group of theories. Not in itself a theory.
- Rationalism - actors make choices between particular actions based on their beliefs about which outcomes would be better for their
interests.
- To have a strategic choice or rationalism theory you just need to state:
○ Actors: who are they
○ Actions: what are the actions they can take
○ Beliefs: what are their beliefs
○ Interests: and how would the outcomes affect their interests.
- Strategic choice makes a distinction between the environment and the actors.
○ Environment:
▪ actions that can be taken and
▪ the info that is available to different actors in different ways.
□ What the actors know and what do they have to infer or guess.
○ Actors: in the environment. Can be anyone: people, states, organisations, etc.
▪ They have some preferences or interests over the outcomes and ideally these could be based on anything. In practice
they are often based on material considerations like money or power.
□ Actors can rank best to worst the possible outcomes of the actions that you can take in a consistent manner.
Rational for rationalism or strategic choice theory to work. Have to be able to say:
◊ "I prefer this to this, and I like this the least"
▪ They also have some beliefs about the outcome and what are the consequences of what they do. Also have preference
of beliefs about other actors over the dame outcomes.
□ Actors do not know the other actors preferences but do have beliefs about them and what they want.
□ The interaction of beliefs that different actors have can be really useful in explaining why some seemingly odd
combinations of actions occur.
▪ i.e. US (actor) has some choices of actions available in the environment
- Strategic Choice -Actors are purposive (they take action on purpose). In order to pursue
those goals they develop strategies that they believe are the best
response to the anticipated strategies of others.
▪ In order to get the best outcome I will do ---, take this action and it will
interact with what other people will do in order to get me the best thing.
○ Other actors will also be pursuing the same actions of their own best interest and the
interaction of action is known as Strategic Interaction.
○ Strategic Interaction: each actor's strategy or plan of action depends on the anticipated strategy of others.
▪ The core of a strategic choice of presidential politics.
▪ When we encounter a situation we should see it as a strategic interaction and phenomena or outcomes are a
result of a strategic interaction.
▪ Despite strategic interaction, it is rare that everyone is equally satisfied
- Rationalism and strategic choice example:
- US has a choice to sanction or not sanction Iraq over its nuclear program
- Iraq with its nuclear program has a choice: does it stop its program or continue the program.
○ The choice interaction produces 4 different outcomes that are the result of the choices made by the actors involved.
○ If there was a larger range of choices, it would result in a larger range of outcomes as a product of that strategic interact ion.
Examples of rationalist or strategic choice theory works.
- UN Security Council:
- Background:
○ UNSC was created after WWII, set up by the winners of the war: The Main Actors.
PO2MIR Page 3
, ○ UNSC was created after WWII, set up by the winners of the war: The Main Actors.
▪ US, Soviet Union, UK and associated allies (Nationalist Chine, remainder of France)
○ Set up as an international organisation to save the world from the scourge of war.
▪ Explicitly aimed at preventing war.
▪ Following up from the League of Nations that people claimed had failed in many ways, one way in which that there was
no executive decision making body.
▪ LN had lots of members and those members had to vote on actions. It was decided that this was a downside. Best
course of action was to have the most powerful members -who could do something about the threats to security
and to peace - have more of the decision making power.
▪ UN has a Security council which is a much narrower body that can take more executive actions.
○ 5 states with a permanent membership:
▪ US
▪ Russia
▪ China
▪ UK
▪ France
○ The total membership holds 15 states thus other states take turns in rotating membership of the security council.
○ Security council can authorise the use of force.
▪ Even though the UN was set up to prevent wars, the security council can actually authorise it.
▪ Chapter VII, article 47:
▪ Security Council can take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore
international peace and security.
- Alexander Thompson:
○ Why do superpower states seek authorisation for the use of force from the United Nations Security Council ?
▪ Small states go to the UNSC to seek authorisation so that the power states can use force on their behalf. But why do
powerful states seek authorisation?
○ Intuitive ideas:
▪ Maybe they want to get some help so payment & burden is distributed.
▪ No need to go to the security council to get help, you can just ask bilaterally.
○ Theoretical idea:
▪ Inis Claude - theorised that it was legitimation.
▪ States would go to the UNSC because they carried moral force. Using Force seems immoral, but if the security
council say it is ok, then the other states would say ok we agree that this use of force is legitimate
○ There are costs to going to the security council and asking for authorisation:
▪ There' a chance that the council will say no. And they often do say no. Force may seek to be used in a state that is
protected by let's say Russia or China, the other power states will veto the resolution so the overruling answer is no.
▪ They might say yes, but may also add conditions. i.e. Yes you can use force but the outcome has to look a certain way -
you can't take territory, or one ethnic group has to be in power at the end, and so on. There may be additional
conditions.
▪ Not only is it a lot of hassle and effort to go to the UNSC and try to persuade everyone, it also slows things down which
has military costs. If you ask the UN council for the use of force, it is no longer a surprise attack.
- Thompson takes this question/situation and thinks about:
○ The actors involved,
○ What their beliefs are
○ What limited info they have
○ And what actions they could take.
- Comes up with a theory of Strategic Information Transmission.
- Strategic Information Transmission:
○ The idea that by going to the UNSC, you strategically transmit information to several different audiences. By doing this you
signal to the leaders of other states that you are unthreatening, that you're willing to play by the rules.
▪ i.e. If the US wants to use force in Iraq, other states may think why the US is invading Iraq, is it rogue and attempt to
invade the world? Or the Middle East?
▪ By going to the UNSC, you show other states that the force is not aggressive, but rather a law enforcing action.
▪ It strategically transmits that information to other states as they have limited info about your intentions.
○ It also signals to foreign publics that force is justified in this case, and that it is in the interest of international comm unity.
▪ If a powerful state wants to use force and has been given authority by the security council, then ordinary people will
realise that the state is not going rogue (like Hitler's Germany did). The public now thinks that the force is used justly
and is in the interest of international community.
○ If you were to not have foreign publics on side, it could cause a big problem for the foreign leaders that may want to suppor t
you but now are unable because of domestic unrest.
- There are specific actors which are the powerful states, the foreign leaders, the foreign publics. They have limited information and
have beliefs about what is going on. These can change in accordance to what is going on. Thompson explains why these powerful
states seek authorisation for the use of force in the UNSC even though there are all of these costs mentioned above. Some states
still go ahead anyways - Like when the US invaded Iraq the second time round without authorisation.
Why build nuclear weapons?
- Sagan's Security model:
○ If you have a rival state that is threatening you and they have nuclear weapons, if you get nuclear weapons then you can
deter them from using those nuclear weapons against you.
○ If you're a strong state, you can develop your own nuclear weapons (US, Soviet Union, UK, etc.). If you're a weak state and
can't develop your own nuclear weapons, then you can ally with a nuclear power. (Belgium has access to nuclear powers
because it is allied with the UK, France and the US, thus Belgium doesn't need to develop its own nuclear weapons).
▪ Why did the Soviet Union develop nuclear weapons? Because they wanted to have nuclear deterrence from the US -
who at the time were the only state who had used nuclear weaponry against Japan post WWII.
PO2MIR Page 4
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller tpaukstyte. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $20.28. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
62890 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now