POL 240: Introduction to International Politics
Theoretical Review
2007-10-30
Overview
•	Three Paradigms
–	Realism: origins, classical, structural
–	Liberalism: origins, classical, structural
–	Constructivism: origins, structural
•	Debates
–	Power and Morality
–	Just and Unjust War
–	Conditions for Cooperation
–	Balancing and Bandwagoning
–	Sociobiology and Feminism
–	Democratic Peace
–	Organizations
Three Levels of Analysis:
Singer 1960 [Waltz 1959]
•	1st Level: Individual
–	Nature of “Man” (“Man seeks Power,” “Men seek power”)
–	Individual Leaders (“George Bush likes to attack others”)
•	2nd Level: State
–	Democracies, Autocracies (“Democracies don’t fight each other”)
–	Individual States (“The US attacks others”)
•	3rd Level: State System
–	Distribution of Power/Threat/Interests (“Bipolar is more stable than multipolar”)
–	Positional Arguments (“Hegemons attack others”)
Realism:
Origins
•	Thucydides 1972 [400 BC]
–	Assumption: Justice only exists between equals
–	Prescription:
•	Strong do what they will, weak suffer what they must.
•	Machiavelli 2005 [1512 AD]
–	Assumption: Morality is preventing chaos, not individual rights
–	Prescription:
•	Utilitarian morality
•	Hobbes 1909 [1651]
–	War is the potential for violence to break out
–	Prescription:
•	Submit to central authority
Classical Realism: 
Morgenthau [1948]
•	Assumptions
–	Objectivity: World is separate, can be observed, relatively constant
–	Morality: National interest for national survival
•	Analysis
–	1st Level: Man desires power (control of man over man) as an end
–	2nd Level: Some states better than others at balancing (not democracies)
–	3rd Level: Consider the interests of others
•	Prescriptions
–	Minimize risks, maximize benefits, balance power
Structural Realism (Neorealism): Waltz [1979]
•	Assumptions
–	Ordering principle: Anarchy (vs. Hierarchy)
–	Character of the Units: States treated as functionally identical, rational, seek survival
–	Distribution of capabilities: Material
•	Analysis (3rd level)
–	Violence: War may break out at any time
–	Interdependence: Relative power gains
–	Strategies: Can’t overcome structure
•	Prescriptions
–	States try to maintain status-quo: Defensive Realism 
Structural Realism (Neorealism): Mearsheimer [2001]
•	Assumptions
–	Anarchy
–	Effective Offense
–	Intentions are uncertain
–	Own Survival
–	Utilitarian Rationality
•	Analysis (3rd Level)
–	Fear: Other states are deadly enemies
–	Self-Help: No subordination of interests
–	Power Maximization: Only way to be secure (Means, not End)
•	Prescriptions
–	States are all revisionist except hegemon: Offensive Realism
Liberalism:
Origins
•	Hobbes 1909 [1651]
–	Assumptions: State of Nature is War
–	Prescription:
•	Central Authority leads to commerce, internal peace
•	Locke 1824 [1689]
–	Assumptions: State of Nature is Peace, Violations cause War
–	Prescription:
•	Central Authority stops retribution cycle
•	Kant 1917 [1795]
–	Assumptions: State of Nature is War, Nations natural units
–	Prescription:
•	Republican (rule of law) Constitutions
•	Interstate Trade
•	International Organizations
Liberalism: 
Doyle [1983]
•	Assumptions
–	Treat others as ethical objects
–	This can be applied to the international system as well
–	Juridical equality, representative government, private property rights, economy shaped by supply and demand
•	Analysis
–	1st Level: Regular rotation of office
–	2nd Level: Individuals who rule the polity bear costs of wars; states act more rationally; commerce and trade pacifies.
–	3rd Level: International law
•	Prescriptions
–	Promote trade, democratization, organizations
Liberal Institutionalism (Neoliberalism)
Keohane [1998]
•	Assumptions
–	Cooperation is possible, but states need help
–	Depends on factors other than material power
•	Analysis (3rd Level)
–	Institutions Reduce:
•	Uncertainty of intentions
•	Transaction Costs
–	Institutions Increase:
•	Shadow of the future (multiple plays, value of the future)
•	Transparency
•	Prescriptions
–	More institutions!
Constructivism:
Origins
•	Rousseau 1913 [1755] 
(A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality)
–	Assumptions
•	State of Nature is peaceful and lacks morality
•	War is created through civilization
–	Prescriptions
•	Social reform, collective state with “General Will”
(Structural) Constructivism:
Wendt [1992]
•	Assumptions
–	People act towards other actors on the basis of their understanding of those actors (collective meaning)
–	Actors acquire (relational) identities by participating in collective meanings
–	Identities are the basis of interests
–	An institution is a relatively stable set or structure of identities and interest
–	Self-help is such an institution
•	Analysis (3rd Level)
–	Anarchy is what states make of it:
•	Competitive (Hobbesian)
•	Individualistic (Lockean)
•	Cooperative (Kantian)
•	Prescriptions
–	States should act based on how their actions reinforce structures
Power and Morality: 
Morgenthau [1948] v.Tickner [1991]
•	Assumptions
–	Objectivity: World is separate, can be observed, relatively constant
–	Morality: National interest for national survival
•	Analysis
–	1st Level: Man desires power (control of man over man) as an end
–	2nd Level: Some states better than others at balancing (not democracies)
–	3rd Level: Consider the interests of others
•	Prescriptions
–	Minimize risks, maximize benefits, balance power
•	Assumptions
–	Dynamic Objectivity: World is not separate, is affected by our lenses, changes
–	Morality: Multidimensional national interest
•	Analysis
–	1st Level: Masculinity values control; power is collective empowerment as well
–	3rd Level: Common moral elements can de-escalate international conflict
•	Prescriptions
–	Band together to solve pressing collective world problems
Just and Unjust War:
Machiavelli [1512] v. Walzer [1977]
•	Assumptions
–	Morality is preventing chaos, not individual rights
•	Prescriptions
–	Utilitarian morality
–	Better to be feared than loved; avoid hatred
•	Assumptions
–	Act in a moral world
–	Shared judgement are possible
•	Prescriptions
–	Wars should be fought only for just causes (e.g., defense from another’s attack)
–	Wars should be fought morally, using appropriate restraints (e.g., not attacking civilians)
Conditions for Cooperation:
Jervis [1978] v. Oye [1985]
•	Assumptions
–	Security dilemma (SD increase in my security decreases your security) prevents cooperation
–	Offense/defense advantage and differentiation affect this
•	Analysis (3rd Level)
–	Differentiation eliminates SD
–	Defensive advantage mitigates SD
•	Prescriptions
–	Get defensive weapons where possible
•	Assumptions
–	Structure of payoffs, shadow of the future, number of players  determine cooperation
•	Analysis (3rd Level)
–	Payoff structures can be changed through publicizing agreements, defensive weapons, hostages,…
–	Shadow of the future useful for PD, SH. Reciprocal strategies help. Regimes, linkage, decomposition over time.
–	Number of Players: Transaction costs, autonomous defection, etc. increase; sanctioning and monitoring abilities decrease.
•	Prescriptions
–	Alter structures, increase shadow of the future, decrease players.
Balancing and Bandwagoning:
Walt [1987] v. Schweller 1994
•	Assumptions
–	Balance versus threat, not power
•	Analysis
–	Bandwagoning (3rd Level) if:
•	Relatively weak
•	Geography (Unavailable allies)
•	End stages of war
–	Balance otherwise
•	Prescriptions
–	Better to balance than bandwagon in most circumstances
•	Assumptions
–	Balance versus interest
•	Analysis
–	Bandwagoning (3rd Level)
•	End-of-war
•	Wave of future
•	Contagion
–	Types of States (2nd Level)
•	Wolves, Jackals: Rev, Bandwagon
•	Lions, Lambs: SQ, Balance
•	Prescriptions
–	Bandwagon when profitable and your security isn’t threatened
Sociobiology and Feminism:
Fukuyama 1998 v. Tickner 1999
•	Assumptions
–	Young Men are more aggressive
•	Analysis
–	1st Level: Male leaders might be more aggressive
–	2nd Level: States with many males will be more aggressive
–	3rd Level: “Feminized” states won’t respond fast enough
•	Prescriptions
–	Need male leaders against aggressive states
•	Assumptions
–	Masculinity is constructed, as is femininity
•	Analysis
–	1st Level: Old Men send Young Men to war; leaping from individuals to  aggressive states silly.
–	2nd Level: Colonial thinking ridiculous
–	3rd Level: Zones of peace come from legitimate states
•	Prescriptions
–	Work together to eliminate unequal social structures
Democratic Peace:
Doyle [1983] v. Layne 1994
•	Assumptions
–	Treat others as ethical objects
–	This can be applied to the international system as well
–	Juridical equality, representative government, private property rights, economy shaped by supply and demand
•	Analysis
–	1st Level: Regular rotation of office
–	2nd Level: Individuals who rule the polity bear costs of wars; states act more rationally; commerce and trade pacifies.
–	3rd Level: International law
•	Prescriptions
–	Promote trade, democratization, organizations
•	Assumptions
–	Should observe processes claimed by DP theorists:
•	Institutional/Political Constraints
•	Adjudication of Disputes
•	Analysis
–	2nd Level: Polities often want war in democracies
–	3rd Level: No accomodation, dispute resolution
•	Prescriptions
–	Create zones of peace, don’t try to offensively democratize.
Organizations
Allison 1969
•	Model 1
–	Assumptions: Rational Unitary Actor
–	Analysis (3rd Level): Optimal decisions are made for security.
•	Model 2
–	Assumptions: Government is a group of organizations
–	Analysis (2nd Level): Inputs and outputs are made based on SOPs that are good for the organization, which constrain decisions.
•	Model 3
–	Assumptions: Government is a group of interested individuals in particular positions
–	 Analysis (1st Level): Decisions are made based on bargaining games between individuals with different levels of power in different positions.