I.R. 210 Review Questions

46 terms by cwbinnig 

Create a new folder

Advertisement Upgrade to remove ads

What is meant by the Grotian tradition in IR?

The Grotian Tradition was one of Martin Wight's three IR traditions; he often referred to it as rationalism. The worldview is referred to as Grotian because Hugo de Grotius, a seventeenth-century Dutch lawyer, advocated for some of the earliest international trade laws. Hence, the worldview's emphasis on international rules and cooperation. Because the tradition emanates from ideas of Liberalism, Socialism, and Natural Law it covers a wide range of assumptions. Genreally, Grotians recognize the need for some modifications in the international system - which is not necessarily anarchic - because of interdependence (sensitivity/vulnerability) and globalization. Grotians also recognize that global problems exists but rather than accept a radical transformation in the system. Reformers seek cooperative multilateral efforts, collective security, international laws and institutions, the incorporation of civil society, and functionalism - they are problem solvers. In terms of the English School, the Pluralists are Grotian reformers who see international society in minimalist views; there is an aspect of Hobbesian anarchy. In this case, states will only cooperate when there is some incentive for them. The Solidarists are Grotian reformers who see international society as more of a community; it's more Kantian/WOMP and states will cooperate because of their moral obligation to cosmopolitan values, respect for human rights, and belief in diplomacy, just war, and education as a mean to teach people to be good (All of this cited from the April 15 lecture and Lamy's worldview analysis).

Why not study IR as if people mattered? What does this question mean?

Looking at the different worldviews, it is obvious that each has their own priorities in terms of what is important, and policies and regimes are created with different incentives. Because we are living in an international system that is dominated by the realist perspective, the priority is often on national interest. Machiavelli believes that leaders must conduct their foreign affairs so as to ensure the security of the state. "Realists are skeptical of the idea that universal moral principles exist and, therefore, warn state leaders against sacrificing their own self-interests in order to adhere to some indeterminate notion of 'ethical' conduct (BSO, page 92)"

The main idea shown through asking this question is to show that the focus on the community (human interest, human security, etc.) is lost in today's study of International Relations. This question would be asked by System Transformers. The idea that international relations should focus on the individual rather than the state or international system is shared by those in the transformer worldview. Richard Falk, especially, specifies in depth the shift of unit of analysis from the state to the individual. Feminist would also definitely agree on focusing more on the humanitarian aspect of how we see the world. They argue that the more the government is preoccupied with national security, the less its citizens, especially women, experience physical security (BSO, page 270, "feminist definitions of security").

What are regimes? How do they influence international relations? From a SM and a SR view, what are the purposes of regimes?

A regime is an area of rule-governed activity within the international system. Only recently have regimes become a recurring theme globally, and as such international relations have become much more complicated. While regimes generally enforce a strict set of rules upon the international community, it is always disturbing to observe outside actors take their shots at the regime system, particularly through acts of terrorism. Regimes, while providing fundamental benefits for all that are involved, often seem unremarkable at face value. An example of this is the system by which airlines are able to travel across the world without fear of being harmed. The theory of regimes within IR typically falls under the realist and liberal schools of thought. In each school, there is a different emphasis on what regimes contribute to the field of IR. For realists, regimes are seen as case studies by which one may examine how states exert power and influence the international system without directly using force in ways such as collaboration. While said collaboration may be heavily influenced by more powerful/ influential states, it still allows for tasks within the regime system to be completed with a degree of efficiency. Power is the keyword in this school of thought. For liberal theorists, aka liberal institutionalists, regimes are seen as liaisons in the many obstacles that prevent international cooperation. Exertion of power is not the defining factor of the liberal school of thought, and cooperation through the regime system is ultimately more crucial to success than heavy-handed power politics. For a system reformer, the purpose of a regime is to protect global goods/ the global commons and to prevent the problem of anarchy. Reformers are based in the liberal institutionalist school of thought. Microeconomics is key in the SR view as it explains the concept of market failure within the system in full, as public goods and public bads are necessary to be balanced by collaboration over competition; i.e. regimes. System maintainers would see a regime as a way of keeping less influential countries in line with the overarching structure of the international system. In other words, they might be bribed through financial or economic benefits to work within international politics. A maintainer purports a more conservative view of international politics, and is out to make sure that their power remains near the top of the pecking order. A regime is another method in which a world power may exert itself on other nations while making sure that said nations don't become overly fed up with the status quo; that is, the most powerful nations dictating what to do despite offering benefits.

With contending worldviews in mind, how might states increase their power and influence in international relations?

Maintainer: A system maintainer would build its relative power, build military power at home to prevent a security dilemma (arms race), and also give aid to developing states in order to have an influence over them. Ideally, maintainers would want to be the hegemony.

Reformer: A system reformer would advocate for a multilateral system in which states cooperate. Reformers also will emphasize the need for global governance, which will increase their influence in the international system because they now have the power to intervene or prevent another state from engaging in immoral activities. To increase their power, system reformers would want to be a part of a powerful regime.

Transformer: There are two kinds of transformers: confrontationalists and disassociationalists. Disassociationalists don't want to have anything to do with the system in the first place, so they wouldn't have any desire to increase their power or influence. Confrontationalists, on the other hand, have the desire to be a major influence in the international society. Transformers would also want to be a part of a powerful regime. In addition, transformer states would increase their influence through the categorical imperative by setting an example for other states to follow.

Do we have any examples of how System Reformers suggest we should respond to global problems?

System reformers believe in progress, that human beings are perfectible and that cooperation, collaboration, regimes, and institutions are needed in order to successfully solve global problems (Worldviews Sheet).

One example of how system reformers suggest we should respond to global problems is the 20 years crisis and the formation of the League of Nations. Wilson argued that a general association of nations must be formed to preserve the coming peace and that the League of Nations was to be that general association (BSO 114). Under the League of Nations there was a commitment to collective security - the arrangement where each state in the system accepts that the security of one is the concern of all, and agrees to join in a collective response to aggression (BSO 114). This idea of collective security and protecting other member states is representative of the reformer belief in collaboration and cooperation. The biggest challenge to Realism was right after WWI when there was a global peace movement and an era of excessive optimist called the 20 years crisis.
Another example is the UN and R2P and the EU. System Reformers supported the formation of the UN, but would like to have a more equal distribution of power, get rid of the permanent veto and have a new system of choice where each country would be treated more equally. In solving major global problems, the UN would play a significant role. Furthermore system reformers support the R2P, responsibility to protect, a document that was signed at the UN conference. If the government can't take care of their citizens, it is the responsibility of the world to do so and solve the problems within the state.
The Rockwood case represents the viewpoint as Roockwood expects Haiti to protect human rights and protect their citizens. A fundamental question that the case raises is - what is the responsibility of one state to another and national interest vs. human interest. Reformers would call upon an institution like the ICC to deal with human rights violations. The EU is also something representative of system reformers. The EU is a move towards a more Grotian system as states give up part of their sovereignty in exchange for cooperation and collaboration on common issues.
Lastly, the ICC case represents how system reformers would act to solve global issues. The ICC is an institution that would foster collaboration and cooperation among many different states. The like-minded states, the non-aligned movement, and the CICC were all groups in the case study that system reformers would support as they advocated for an independent and powerful ICC (ICC Case). Ideas of universal jurisdiction, independent prosecutor, independence from the UN Security Council, and state-party cooperation are ideas that undermine the Wesphalian system's traditions of national sovereignty, making the ICC a controversial issue, and therefore signifying a move towards a more grotian world. (ICC Case). The ICC attempts to protect the welfare and security of the world through cooperation and collective interest rather than self-interest (Worldviews Study Guide). Reformers believe that international law is key to managing the international system and the ICC is exactly that, international law (Worldviews Study Guide). Because the ICC functions independent of the Security Council and furthers common rules, reformers believe it is key to creating and maintaining global security.

Identify the following concepts and discuss their relevance for IR theory:
a. Reciprocity d. General Will
b. Functionalism e. Common Crises
c. Just War f. Moral Dualism

a) Reciprocity: the idea that people (or states) will behave in ways that they expect others to behave
• Expectations for reciprocity lead countries to cooperate and follow regime rules or international law
• Reciprocity leads to order, stability, and the avoidance of retaliation
• Grotius: we cooperate out of reciprocity
b) Functionalism
• States can cooperate if they focus on a common issue and work to secure common/mutual interests
• De Vattel
• Neo-liberal institutionalism
c) Just War
• War for a "just" cause...like defending territory
• St. Augustine supported just wars
• Grotian tradition recognized the state's right to wage just war
d) General Will
• Rousseau's concept of the social contract
• General will = rule of law, common good
• In a democratic society, people give up their rights to the states with the condition that the state provide for its citizens
e) Common Crises
• Crises that affect many people or states
• Why follow international law? -to prevent common crises
• Grotius: emphasis on common security
• Common future—shared responsibility
f) Moral Dualism
• Separate ethics exist for public and private spheres
• Morality for leaders = acting however necessary to secure national interests
• Realist belief
o E. H. Carr
o Morgenthau

During the Cold War, realism may have made sense. Now in the era of globalization, which worldview do you think makes the most sense in terms of providing useful and relevant descriptions, explanations, predictions, and prescriptions? Refer to specific authors and ideas that provide the most useful insights.

The system-reformer worldview makes the most sense in terms of the era of globalization.

Description: The concept of globalization is that we live in societies in which the core functions are determined by globally processes (Castells 10). Owing to globalization, the entire world is in the process of becoming more interdependent. The System-reformer view recognizes the need for modifications to the international system due to the growing interdependence (Lamy 15). Globalization goes beyond states, so main actors are not only nation-states but also non-state groups such as international, regional, and non-governmental organizations.

Explanation: Globalization is pushed by technology, transnational actors, and consumers, so it moves states from independence to complex interdependence. For that reason, multilateral cooperation, international laws, and regimes are emphasized with respect to the system-reformer perspective (Lamy 15). Nation-states have established regulatory institutions in order to manage their international interactions, and sovereignty is shifting to multilateral institutions in certain policy areas (Lamy 16). System reformers believe that power, in the era of globalization, is defined in terms of control or power over policy outcomes (Lamy 17).

Prediction: As multilateral institutions become more effective, support for this type of response will increase and spill over into other policy areas (Lamy 18). However, globalization is uneven and can result in denationalization. System reformers suggest that the international system is defined by "common crisis" situations resulting in global instability such as poverty (Lamy 17). As globalization exacerbates global inequality and challenges the international system, it is not good for the poor because they are left behind. Disparities may take place between states, types of social groups, and individuals because globalization does not bring prosperity to every state. Hence, poor states would not receive various benefits from globalization.

Prescription: In order to adequately address globalization, effective global governance required. System reformers argues that ideal global governance emerges not from a balance of power but from interactions between many layers of governing arrangements, comprising laws, agreed norms, international regimes, and institutional rules (Smith, Baylis, and Owens 5). System reformers prescribe economic planning between states aimed at benefiting workers and owners throughout the international market (Lamy 17). The key solution to respond to globalization is the existence of international institutions which permit cooperation to continue (Woods 251).

What would a foreign policy base on Kant's categorical imperative look like in terms of policy priorities? Is this kind of policy program possible to achieve? Why or why not?

Kant's categorical imperative revolves around the universal moral law of, "acting only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it shall become a universal law." People should always look upon themselves and others as ends, not means. War, slavery, and all injustices against fellow humans are all violations of the categorical imperative as well as not helping those in need. The categorical imperative treats all humans as equals and preaches universal thinking, consideration, and governance. Therefore, foreign policy based on Kant's philosophy emphasizes a cosmopolitan society that stresses human rights and security and the abolishment of war. This society would:
-involve civil society in foreign policy decisions
-increase responsibilities and precedence of UN like institutions
-place an emphasis on human security
-support a global federation of small republics
-advocate and comply with R2P
-support high developmental assistance and aid
-highly discourage isolationism and nationalism
-support ICC and similar fullbright programs
This sort of policy program would be extremely difficult to achieve because of the primacy of realists/pluralists (as well as maintainer and transformers) in society and in policy making positions

What are the critical differences?
a. Realism and Neorealism c. WOMP and SR reform-internationalists
b. Marxism and Neomarxism d. Neoliberalism and Third World Socialism

1) Neo-Realism→Structural realism and security neorealist
Five differences or traditionalist realism ( Agenda 36)
-Inductive to deductive theory—structure of system
-Wider definitions of power
-Anarchy defines all state behavior
-Less emphasis on self-interest and other aspects of human behavior
-Rational choice emphasis

Differences between Realism and Neo-realism (Kenneth Waltz)
1) Causes of Conflict in International Relations
The main distinction between the two theories is that classical realism puts human nature, or the urge to dominate, at the center of its explanation for war, while neorealism stakes no claim on human nature and argues instead that the pressures of anarchy shape outcomes regardless of human nature or domestic regimes.
2) Marxism and Neomarxism Difference:

The fundamental difference between classical Marxism and Neo-Marxism lies in classical Marxism's economic determinism and the Neo-Marxism's broader consideration of social and intellectual influences that perpetuate oppression of the working-class.
3) WOMP and SR reform-internationalists: (Agenda 37)
SR: based on problem solving theories that try to address problem in existing system in an effort to find a solution ( don't try to transform but rather reform)

WOMP: Based on Critical Theories: Critical about system and believe they can't fix it so instead seek to rearrange it.
Agenda 39
States obligations are threefold and in this order for reformers:
Primary: Domestic interest/ intstitutions
Secondary: International society of states
States obligations for transformers: Primary and secondary switched
4) Neoliberalism and Third World Socialism:
Chapter 7 page 133:
Contemporary neo-liberalism has been shaped by the assumption of commercial, republican , sociological and institutional liberalism while third world socialism was inspired by social democracy. Third world socialist regimes are followers of social democratic reformism that are state guided whereas neo-liberal institutionalist see institutions as the mediator in international system.

Answer all five of the questions:
a. What is an operational code explanation for Carter's decision to attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran?
b. What is a political culture explanation for the British decision to retake the Falkland Islands?
c. What is a systemic explanation for G-7 aid to Russia?
d. What is a global explanation for increases in pressure for domestic spending in most advanced industrial countries?
e. What is a political system explanation for Bush's decision to attend the Rio conference?

a. Operational Code is the concept that states should act in a manner while remaining conscious that their actions may become precedent. Carter's decision to attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran can be explained because Carter would want this action to be mimicked by other states in the future.
b. Argentina invaded and attempted to take the Falkland Islands in 1982 as Britain was scaling back forces. Britain political culture explains the decision to retake the Falkland Islands. Britain is a former hegemony and a country with pride in its imperial history. Letting a country such as Argentina take over a colonized area would prove embarrassing.
c. G-7 support and aid to the Russian economy can be explained systemically because in a system of anarchy the G-7 could gain power over Russia by giving them G-7 aid. The G-7 gains power if Russia owes them money from a loan.
d. With the recent recession that, because of increased interdependence of economies, affected the entire global economy, pressure for domestic spending in the most advanced industrial countries is up. Countries are trying to increase domestic spending to boost GDP and increase economic performance to give them an advantage in a global economy.
e. From a systemic perspective, the United States is invested as a security council member in the United Nations. As the Rio Conference was a major United Nations conference, the United States needed to attend if it hoped to retain legitimacy as a state that cares about multilateral cooperation through the United Nations.

Which strategy for achieving world order, if not peace, makes most sense to you? Would it be the ideas of Morgenthau, Carr, Wilson, Pearson, Mitrany, Falk, or some other key theorist? Describe in detail each author's prescription for peace/order. Then make an argument supporting your choice.

Morgenthau and Carr both believe that anarchy could be mitigated by wise leadership and the pursuit of the national interest in ways that are compatible with international order. They both recognized that acting purely on the basis of power and self-interest without any consideration of moral and ethical principles frequently results in self-defeating policies. Additionally, Carr believes that global governance would be another step in world order.
Woodrow Wilson's main prescription is the democratic peace theory, in that democratic states would not fight each other. He also used the fourteen points, believed in self determination and that the more powerful states shouldn't use their power to dominate smaller states but to exercise their concern for them.
David Mitrany believed that transnational cooperation was required in order to resolve common problems. His core concept was ramification, meaning the likelikhood that cooperation in one sector would lead governments to extend the range of collaboration across other sectors. As states become more embedded in an integration process, the cost of withdrawing from cooperative ventures increases.
Richard Falk seeks radical change through populist action against militarism and nuclear weapons. He seeks a revival of the world court and wants a bottom up approach.
Pearson's prescription is the integration of the global economy and mixing in women into the process.
The strategy that makes the most sense for me is Mitrany's democratic peace theory. We can see in today's society, especially the EU, that conflict is minimal between democratic states. Also, it seems like the most practical and viable solution, as the counties most likely to be in conflict (China, Libya, etc), are those that aren't true democratic states.

What are the lessons for IR scholars presented by Waltz's important book? Why did Stephen Walt say it is a top ten book in IR?

- Analysis of international relations is inaccurate unless levels of analysis are used to look at different international relations puzzles. In Waltz's Man, the State and War he critically looks at the three "images"- the individual, state, and state system- and how they explain war.
o Eg. Image 1- Individual: If human nature is the reason, what are the different images of this? Spinoza-every act for self-preservation, and "defectiveness of man cause of conflict". St Augustine- self-preservation does not explain all of man's (Waltz 162).
o 2nd Image: Domestic Attributes. This is an important analytical tool for explaining negotiations between states or other actors (Lamy Mar. 9). Examples of the different images of the state being the cause of war? Cobden, Bright, and Kant (Optimistic)- long-term reform, not revolutions, will bring peace (Waltz 103). Paine, Mazzini, and Wilson (pessimistic)- safety of the state is the primary interest, believes in democratic peace
- Understanding images is crucial to international relations: people don't respond to reality, but the image of reality (Lamy). Waltz explains how there are different degrees of pessimism and optimism- a pessimist is not necessarily pessimistic in all areas, and vice versa (Waltz 19)
- His images help IR scholars see the variety of explanations behind foreign policy decisions, educating on the causes and effects of decisions made in the international system. Waltz organizes foundational voices into the different images; Spinoza espouses the 1st image claiming that war is a product of man's defectiveness, and Hobbes espouses the 2nd image, promoting a powerful state and the external rule of law (Waltz 23)(Lamy Mar 23). Rosseau best represents the 3rd nature, claiming that natural man is good but society corrupts him, so if harmony existed in our anarchic system everyone would have to be perfectly rational- which will never happen (Waltz 269).
- To Waltz, the 3rd image, or structure of the system, explains the most/best tool of analysis (Lamy Mar. 2)
- Waltz's images makes the transition from knowing someone's worldview and being able to explain his or her actions and prescribe what he will do next (Lamy Jan 19)
World view → Image of the World →Information Strategies → Theories (E in DEPP) → FACTS

"The international is personal and the personal is international." What does this mean? If this assumption were at the center of your worldview, what would your foreign policy look like? What issues would be important to you and how would you play the game of international politics? What authors that you read would share your view? Who would criticize your position? What do you think is the most powerful criticism of this worldview?

This quote means that the international system is one that must be mindful and protect the individual. The international system is comprised of global civil society, which is in turn the reason the state must work for. This quote would mostly come from one that supported Utopian Realism. An author that would best fit this description would be E.H. Carr, who talks about how the international system can be changed so that it can prevent war and create rules that would protect the individual. The issues that would promoting human rights and economic welfare, and work for environmental protection.
A theorist that would critique Carr would say:
There is no universal morality in the international sphere because theories of international morality are the function of dominant nations or groups of nations. With respect to Carr's description of historical process that theory comes after practice, during the interwar period the utopian call for the system of international law and organisations was nothing more than a fig leaf to cover the Great Powers' desire to maintain their status quo by moulding the discourse that the First World War was the breakdown of diplomacy. Nevertheless, this argument can be refuted on the grounds that the state behaviour reflects morality of man. Carr's realist critique therefore amounts to man's lack of progress in moral sense. With the creation of the system of collective defence materialised in the form of NATO for instance, albeit short of universal collective security, it would seem that Carr has underestimated progressive change in human conscience. The utopian's 'peace through law' approach by means of the League of Nations and its imposition of Germany's reparations was to legitimize the victors' utopian norms on universal rule of law and mask their true aim to maintain the Great Power status quo. While it is true that human being has the ultimate goal of self-preservation that does not necessarily preclude the possibility of co-operation in particular when common interests can be established. Carr, instead, refused to admit that a political cause can be 'better' than another. and that institutions have the potential to mould individuals to conform to a particular norm for the future great good. On this account, Carr's realist critique on moral considerations is under attack on empirical and theoretical grounds.

With reference to various system reformer theorists, discuss the relevance of regimes and multilateralism in international relations. Will regimes make nation-states obsolete? Is it still possible for a nation-state to secure its interests unilaterally? How would two realists, reformers and transformers reply?

First I will discuss the SR view on regimes and multilateralism as a way to explain its relevance in international relations. A SR rejects the anarchic view, which is a key difference from maintainers. SRs seek cooperative multilateral efforts that are aimed at responding to the system's inequities. This is significant because SRs like Grotius, seek more equity and justice. Within the Grotian view there are different levels one of them being in terms of international law. International law and its multilateral form of legislation root back to the Grotius idea of natural law derived from God. This is critical for IR because multilateralism takes into consideration non-state actors, such as international/regional organizations and NGOs, in other words regimes. Regimes are governing arrangements, which in this case are shown with the multilateral form of legislation. In terms of nation-states becoming obsolete because of regimes, I think that since SRs also take into consideration nation-states, a possibility that will happen is the sharing of sovereignty. Since nation-states won't easily give up their sovereignty and SRs support the transfer of national authority/sovereignty to multilateral institutions, the sharing of sovereignty would be most ideal. In this case, the state will have more difficulty securing its interests unilaterally because it will have obstacles such as more organizations and rules, to overcome. I don't think it will make it impossible, but it will definitely not be an easy process. As states will continue to try and achieve their interests unilaterally, morality and ethical values will go down the drain, thus also revealing the duality of morality where public morals differ from individual morals.

"Realism is a clear recognition of the limits of morality and reason in politics: the acceptance of the fact that political realities are power realities—power must be countered with power. Self-interest is the primary datum in the action of all groups and nation states." Is this still the substance of IR? Defend or refute, include references to SR-liberal internationalists, WOMP, and feminist views.

There is a dominance of realist thought in international relations. Morgenthau provides six principles of political realism: politics are objective laws that have roots in an unchanging, self-serving human nature, the main signpost of realism is defined in terms of power that is universally valid, there is a tension between the moral significance and the political action, realism refuses to identify moral aspirations of a nation with the moral laws of the universe, and realism maintains the autonomy of the political sphere. It is also believed that there is a duality of morality, in which the leader of a nation follows a different moral code than the individual because of the difference in duties. States have always been the primary actors of the international system and still are today. The international system is anarchic and there is a constant struggle for power amongst the states. As power is control over man over man, the states composed of individuals are the primary actors who practice power politics. As man has his own interests at heart over the common good, a state does as well.
Refute: However, it depends on your worldview. Realists would support this notion of realism as the core substance of IR, but WOMP, SR- liberal internationalists, and feminists share a different viewpoint. Especially in today's society, there is a non-polar power system on the international stage. As NGOs and nonstate actors are becoming prominent and factors such as technology continue to advance, the world is shifting into non-polarity. WOMP or the World Order Model Project likes nonpolarity the best as it is not concerned with power specifically, but with four goals: peace, social justice, economic wellbeing, and ecological balance. These radical liberalists or utopians dismiss national interests and rather focus on cosmopolitan rights and transformative ideals. System reformers/ liberal internationalists differ in that they do not want to transform the system, and are more optimistic about the world than realists. They focus on social democratic values and believe that private interests should not control the state. However, they believe that states are effective problem solvers. SR believe that we can control self interests of states with a rule-based system and means of enforcement, or to create a system of equal gains. Feminists such as Ann Tickner contradicts Morgenthau's six principles of realism. From a feminist perspective, realism is not strictly as Manchean/ black and white as it seems. She claims that national interests are multi-dimensional and cannot be defined merely by power especially in today's society that demands cooperation in various issues such as natural disaster relief. Also, power is not universally valid as power is connected to ideas of domination and control, which ignores the aspect of collective empowerment. Also, moral aspirations of a state cannot be universal moral principles, but should be focused on common moral aspirations.

The writings of Kant suggest that the imperatives of economic modernization and the greater potential for destructive wars limit the behavior of states and increase the obligation of states to adhere to cosmopolitan morality. If this notion is embraced by the leaders of a country, how would they react to the following international relations issues:

a. Ethnic conflict in the former Yugoslavia
The ethnic conflict in the former Yugoslavia was a result of a selfish leader whose own desires led the country into conflict. The way to correct the problem would be to establish a democratic community that uses reason over aggression. Kant believes that bad leaders and bad governments prevent us from order in the international system.
b. The North-South gap
The North-South gap is a result of the most powerful states imposing their will upon weaker, broken states. The solution to the problem would be the establishment of a world government that partners with global civil society to make sure all countries would be fairly treated. Kant would also prefer to see a system made up of small republics because in that case, countries will have less power and will be more inclined to use reason over force.
c. Global Warming
Global warming is a result of man's inherent drive for power and the use of the world's resources to attain that power. The constant competition between major powers has resulted in the over-usage of fossil fuels and other resources, which deteriorate the earth's atmosphere. Kant's solution to this problem would be to educate citizens around the world on the problem. Kant is optimistic that man can change and laws and education can teach us to be good. "Have the courage to know," he once said.
Notes:
Kant: Optimist
• Laws and education teach us to be good
• Kant wants small republics and capitalism is good
o Social democracy
• Enlightenment Values
• Small Republics are good
o Small armies are more inclined to use reason over aggression
• Deal with root problem of power, like cosmopolitan rights
• Bad leaders and bad governments prevent us from order

Is it possible to have an ethical foreign policy? Why or why not?

It is not possible for there to be an ethical foreign policy because political advisors today and in the past do not care about ethics. When we look at the modern realist voice of Hans Morgenthau, we find that humans are constant, egotistic, and self-serving by nature. There is always a struggle for power amongst the states. Through the duality of morality, ethics is divided into two spheres, the public and the private. One can be ethical if it serves the interests and enhances the power and security of the state. (Lecture Agenda #31 & #36)
When we look at Thucydide's ideas, we find that power always wins over ethics. Human nature and the behavior of states are guided by fear, self-interest, and honor and these aspects are what cause war and instability between states. Crisis and war happens when pure instinct triumphs over laws and politics and the government fails. When states are confronted with external necessities and driven by internal compulsions, they violate moral principles in foreign affairs in order to reek the most benefits. According to the classical realist thinking, the security dilemma that leads to the arms race is one of the greatest factors in violation of ethics and laws. Only the weak resort to moral arguments. Great powers pursue only their national interests and they are unable to restrain their desire for power. Self interest always defeats ethics. So an ethical foreign policy would not be a binding set of rules. Any states would violate these laws for their own good. (Lecture Agenda #30)
All states are out for their own self-interest and if there are no benefits that a state can gain from intervention, they will stand aside in such matters. When we look at the Libya situation today, the US would not have intervened and used its resources if Libya did not have its oil reserves that the United States regards so precious. The United States did not intervene in the Ivory Coast or other small states that are in crisis from the violations to the laws of human nature. An ethical foreign policy can only exist when states can benefit through intervention

Does realism fit with US political culture? Why were the ideas of Niebuhr, Morgenthau, and Kennan more attractive than those of Wilson?

I would argue that the United States is not primarily a realist state, but a neoliberal intuitionalist state due to its support of capitalism and democracy. If one examines the actions of the United States one would see that this country not only supports, but also created several international institutions that support the flow of free goods and ideas. For example, the US created both the Washington Consensus and Bretton Woods system, and set up institutions such as IMF, World Bank, etc. The goal of these institutions is provide a rulebook and bring other states into the system to play by the United State's rules. Therefore, the US is certainly a maintainer state, but they seem to be more concerned with economic rather than military issues. These are all very typical characteristics of a neoliberal state. If someone were to reject this idea, it would most likely be Bacevich who would argue that the US is a hardcore realist state mostly concerned with high power because the military industrial complex has continued to dominate domestic and international politics even after the cold war's end.
In order to understand why the neorealist ideas were accepted, but not Wilson's liberal ideology one must consider the context of the times. After WWI, Wilson proposed an international institution called the League of Nations, but the United State's refused to join. The US rejected, not by principle, but because they were unwilling and/or unready to take a leadership position and become involved in European affairs. Whereas after WWII, the US was confronted with a growing threat from the Soviet Union and was forced into a realist position concerned primarily with high politics and power. President Truman was also virtually a blank slate when it came to international policy, and the realist Kennan "filled" his head with realist ideology.

What is the neo-neo- debate? Is it a real debate?

The neo-neo debate is about the differences between neo-realism and neo-liberalism. This is not a real debate; it is more of an academic discussion. Both are in the maintainer category, are problem-solving theories, and they share many common ideals.

6 main features of the neo-neo debate: (From Lamy's Chapter 7 in BSO, Box 7.2)
1. Both agree system is anarchic. Neo-realists say that the anarchy constrains actions in foreign policy, and that neo-liberals minimize the importance of survival in the international system. Neo-liberals say neo-realists minimize the importance of globalization, interdependence and regimes.
2. Neo-realists-cooperation will not happen unless the states force it to happen. It is hard to achieve, since everyone looks out for their own national interests. Neo-liberals believe cooperation is easy to achieve in areas where states have mutual interests.
3. Neoliberals think the ultimate goal in the international system is absolute gains, and they want to maximize total gains for everyone in the system. Neo-realists think the most important thing is relative gains.
4. Neo-realists are concerned with relative power, security, and survival in the international system. Neo-liberals are concerned with are concerned with economic welfare, international political economy issues, environmental concerns and other non-military issues.
5. Neo-realists focus on the capabilities of other states, since there is uncertainty about the intentions and interests of states. Neo-liberals emphasize intentions and preferences.
Neo-liberals see institutions and regimes as significant players in the international system. Neo-realists say neo-liberals over emphasize their influence, for the anarchic system mitigates what effects they can have.

How do belief systems influence the policy-making process?

Because the political culture of every country dictates its policy (domestic or foreign), the belief system is vital in the policy making process. The three dominant belief systems; maintainer, reformer, transformer act as the lense to the world. These three systems describe the most important concerns, actors, and plans of action in the international system. For example, a system maintainer such as the United States created polices that either enhance or maintain their level of power in the system. A reformer state such as Norway or other small democratic countries would implement policies aimed at creating a more equal playing field and developing a form of international government. These countries usually place a higher emphasis on human rights because the citizens of small democratic states demand this type of action. Lastly, a system transformer would attempt to create an alternative system where they are able to create their own rules. These states value the individual as being a part of the policy making process just as states are involved. With that said, the policy of a transformer would reject the ideas of both a maintainer and reformer. All in all, belief systems influence the objectives of actors in the international system by acting as an operational code and reflecting what they think are the crucial objectives in international relations

What would Carr say about the recent attempts by some states to reform the UN by expanding the number of states on the Security Council and by making the UN a more activist force?

As a realist, and one who saw power as implicit in maintaining the order of the international system, Carr would see the UN S.C. as an anomaly. On one hand, it is an organization striving for collective security, but on the other hand, it is controlled by the agendas of the powerful states that have seats on the council. Since Carr believed that power is the driving factor of outcomes, he would probably say that the fewer states with equal control on the Security Council, the better/more efficiently it would function, and so he would be against expanding the size of the council. Additionally, expanding the UN as a more activist force likely means allowing it to intervene in a wider array of conflicts. This either means by way of force or diplomatic peace efforts, both of which Carr saw as less effective in marinating BoPo as opposed to economic control and public opinion, so it is unclear what he would say depending on the circumstance. All in all, he would likely be in favor of reducing the scope of power of the UN as an activist force, and leave states to act individually in their spheres of influence.

How would you explain the US behavior at the global warming talks in Copenhagen?

The US is looking to push through a protocol in order to display that still carries the role of international mediator and facilitator. China denied the policies, because it saw them as a limit to their power, yet the US insisted in creating something due to its beliefs and pressure from NGO's. Obama also promised to create a policy in Copenhagen, and would face pressure if he didn't come away with some results. The US and China also wary of each other were not willing to give any sort of strategic gain to the other side, and China balked at the transparency that would be needed by the international community to prove that they are indeed reducing emissions. They do not want interference in their sovereign affairs. Also, Obama couldn't reduce any further carbon emissions within the US, due to fear of it not going through Congress. In an anarchic system, each state will look to its own interests, which is why no state was willing to decrease its emissions further.

Use two-level games to explain German and French policies during the Persian Gulf War.

German and French Policies: On 14 January 1991, France proposed that the U.N. Security Council withdraw from Kuwait along with a statement to Iraq that Council members would contribute to a settlement of other problems of the region, particularly the Arab-Israeli conflict. The French proposal was supported by Belgium (at the moment one of the rotating Security Council members), and Germany, Spain, Italy, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, and several non-aligned nations. The U.S. and Britain rejected it (along with the Soviet Union). American U.N. Ambassador stated that the French proposal was unacceptable because it went beyond previous U.N. Security Council resolutions on the Iraqi invasion
While Germany did not contribute to the forces, they did contribute monetarily (checkbook diplomacy). This can be analyzed by level two because it reflects Germany's size and resource base as well as economic capabilities to contribute monetarily but not with force.
France was the opposite and contributed with force (Part of coalition assembled by US to combat Iraq with force): With forces from the United States and the UK, France continued to pursue retreating Iraqi forces over the border and back into Iraq, eventually moving to within 150 miles of Baghdad before withdrawing from the Iraqi border. This reflects France's resource base and ability to contribute with force. They were also able to cultivate support and had the power capabilities to get involved in this way.
Paris and Berlin act in tandem regardless as to whosoever is leading their respective governments. It is Franco-German policy at its core depends on powerful economic interests. The latter call the shots and override the elected politicians. These economic interests determine in both France and Germany, as well as at the level of the E.U., the nature of government policy - also a level two analysis.
Explanation of level II analysis:
• Level II: Natural attributes and domestic factors
o More permanent elements:
• Size and Resource base, Geographic Factors, Political Structures, Economic System, Political Culture
o Changing Elements:
• Power capabilities, Domestic Politics: Finding coalitions for policy and support for retaining power, Decision-making style and structures: Bureaucratic politics and organizational behavior

While Germany did not contribute to the forces, they did contribute monetarily (checkbook diplomacy). This can be analyzed by level two because it reflects Germany's size and resource base as well as economic capabilities to contribute monetarily but not with force.
France was the opposite and contributed with force (Part of coalition assembled by US to combat Iraq with force): With forces from the United States and the UK, France continued to pursue retreating Iraqi forces over the border and back into Iraq, eventually moving to within 150 miles of Baghdad before withdrawing from the Iraqi border. This reflects France's resource base and ability to contribute with force. They were also able to cultivate support and had the power capabilities to get involved in this way.
Paris and Berlin act in tandem regardless as to whosoever is leading their respective governments. It is Franco-German policy at its core depends on powerful economic interests. The latter call the shots and override the elected politicians. These economic interests determine in both France and Germany, as well as at the level of the E.U., the nature of government policy - also a level two analysis.
Explanation of level II analysis:
• Level II: Natural attributes and domestic factors
o More permanent elements:
• Size and Resource base, Geographic Factors, Political Structures, Economic System, Political Culture
o Changing Elements:
• Power capabilities, Domestic Politics: Finding coalitions for policy and support for retaining power, Decision-making style and structures: Bureaucratic politics and organizational behavior

What is a puzzle in international relations? Identify an interesting research puzzle in international relations. Show how you could use operational code, image/perceptions, political culture, bureaucratic politics, distribution of power, and linkages/constraints, to explain the behavior of the actors in your puzzle. Be certain to fully describe each analytical approach.

A puzzle in international relations is "a decision or behavior that, given our understanding of international and human relations is expected or surprising" (Lamy Notes - Puzzle assignment). A nations operational code is based on their natural political life and view which will affect the level two aspect from (Handout 21). Image and perception pertains to the individual level of the system. Polictical culture affects the level 2. Bureaucratic politics affects level 3. Distribution of power is a level three. Linkages and constraints is also level 3. (Handout 21)
The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in 1994 by the United Nations Security Council due to a mass genocide of one million people in Rwanda. Since then the ICC tried countless measures to prevent another humanitarian crisis. However, this new creation of global authority raised a lot of insecurities, though the idea of a global justice seemed fair. One important critic is the United States who is against the International Criminal Court. This leads me to question why a state that is domestically valued is against the international legal system? (ICC case)
Hypothesis:
Dependent Variable: States who value domestic rights are against international legal system.
Independent Variables
Level 1: Individual
If a leader has a Machiavellian value, then they will oppose the international legal system
Level 2 Domestic Sources
The more powerful the interest or realist groups consider the electoral calculations, then they will oppose the international legal system
Level 2 Domestic Sources
The more powerful the economic interests are in the determining election then the less likely they will support the international legal system
Level 3 Systemic Factors
In an anarchic system, the states will want a more absolute and relative power resulting in an opposing view of the International Criminal Court
Level 4 Global Factors
The less impact transnational social movements have on region, then the more likely they will oppose the International criminal Court

What is the Grotian moment? Are we in such a period? What are the options we have in reconstructing the international system? Which do you think is more likely?

A grotian moment is a paradigm-shifting development when new rules and doctrines of international law are formed with unusual rapidity and acceptance. A grotian moment in an instance when the international system changes thereby provoking the emergence of new customary law. Richard Falk coined the term in 1985.
No, we are not in such a period. Since the Cold War ended, there have not been major man-made global security threats to provide the opportunity for alternative world views to challenge realism. The world largely abides by Realist principles, as the rule-making nations shape the international scenery according to securing their national self-interests.
The options we have in reconstructing the international systems are:
a. Realism: State security and power above all else.
b. Neo-liberal institutionalism: assumes states as major international actors but also takes into account Non-State actors and intergovernmental organizations.
c. Constructivism: Normative and ideational structures are as, if not more, important than material structures. Constructivists have found common ground with legal theorists.
d. The new liberalism: seeks to reformulate liberalism as a positive social scientific paradigm, in a 'nonideological and nonutopian form appropriate to empirical social science'
e. Regime theory: assumes cooperation is possible in the anarchic system of states since regimes are instances of international cooperation.
In my opinion, we are heading towards a constructivist system. International Law is becoming the norm as seen in the case study of ICC.

How would Morgenthau, Mitrany, Keohane and Nye, Kant, and Tickner respond to the persistence of war and inequality in the system?

Morgenthau: He would support war and understand why war and inequality are persistent in the system. He argued that states need to be strong and willing to do whatever they need to secure their national interests. He believed that the main problem is that people need to understand that the political world is all about power. "Human nature is constant, egotistic, and self-serving." Thus, war and inequality are inevitable. He was also a believer of duality of morality.
Mitrany: David Mitrany wrote A Working Peace System in 1948 to discuss the persistence of war and inequality. As a theorist and policy-maker, he argued that there is no possibility for a United Europe. He believes that both war and inequality are impossible to avoid due to the lack of functional cooperation between states. Ultimately, he remained optimistic that one day we could have a world without wars, but the inequality that continues to exist between the elite rulers and the people does not allow us to achieve that dream.
Keohane and Nye: They were both part of Wave VI, focusing on interdependence and neoliberal institutionalism. Nye also developed Peace in Parts. He believed that in order to rid the world of war and inequality, the world must be organized with regional organizations. In order to end the persistence, the system needs to be reformed, not thrown away. However, both emphasized the importance of a free-market capitalism
Kant: As a transformer, Kant believed we needed to get rid of the system. In order to avoid war and inequality, the world needs to find democratic peace (democracies don't go to war with one another, more stable, and take care of their citizens more). He favored federal structures of small democratic states, assessing the issues of insecurities and cosmopolitan rights. Also, he argued that states need to create FOPO oriented by international law. Kant believes that war is a direct result of impulse and inclination overcoming reason. He blamed the continuity of war and inequalities on defective states, not being able to execute laws, rather than defective human nature. Ultimately, he believed that war needs to be abolished as a "tool of statecraft."
Tickner: As a critical feminist, Tickner heavily emphasizes her work on the lack of gender equality in the system. She believes that human violence does not necessarily translate to state violence. However, in order to end the persistence, the system does need to be transformed directly addressing these issues. She believes in democratization as the narrow and institutional definition of democracy. However, Tickner argues that democracy needs to reach beyond the state to focus on inequalities. In order to avoid war and inequalities, we must redefine democracy as "bottom up" since women tend to be better represented at local levels.

Mitrany: David Mitrany wrote A Working Peace System in 1948 to discuss the persistence of war and inequality. As a theorist and policy-maker, he argued that there is no possibility for a United Europe. He believes that both war and inequality are impossible to avoid due to the lack of functional cooperation between states. Ultimately, he remained optimistic that one day we could have a world without wars, but the inequality that continues to exist between the elite rulers and the people does not allow us to achieve that dream.
Keohane and Nye: They were both part of Wave VI, focusing on interdependence and neoliberal institutionalism. Nye also developed Peace in Parts. He believed that in order to rid the world of war and inequality, the world must be organized with regional organizations. In order to end the persistence, the system needs to be reformed, not thrown away. However, both emphasized the importance of a free-market capitalism
Kant: As a transformer, Kant believed we needed to get rid of the system. In order to avoid war and inequality, the world needs to find democratic peace (democracies don't go to war with one another, more stable, and take care of their citizens more). He favored federal structures of small democratic states, assessing the issues of insecurities and cosmopolitan rights. Also, he argued that states need to create FOPO oriented by international law. Kant believes that war is a direct result of impulse and inclination overcoming reason. He blamed the continuity of war and inequalities on defective states, not being able to execute laws, rather than defective human nature. Ultimately, he believed that war needs to be abolished as a "tool of statecraft."
Tickner: As a critical feminist, Tickner heavily emphasizes her work on the lack of gender equality in the system. She believes that human violence does not necessarily translate to state violence. However, in order to end the persistence, the system does need to be transformed directly addressing these issues. She believes in democratization as the narrow and institutional definition of democracy. However, Tickner argues that democracy needs to reach beyond the state to focus on inequalities. In order to avoid war and inequalities, we must redefine democracy as "bottom up" since women tend to be better represented at local levels.

Why are transformers right? Why are they wrong?

· Education in a belief of human possess potential to morality
· Economic modernization: more cooperation and multilateralism are good for the system
· Pushing a cooperation realizing the cost of war
· Deal with Anarchy- a federation of small Republic
I will disagree that
· Cosmopolitan rights- obligations and duties of states to provide those rights - grotians want a regime based on the international system rather than promote human rights. No intervention is the norm
· Democratic peace- if you have democracies they are less likely to go to war - the war should be prevent through a international cooperation and regimes
· Eliminate Standing Armies- difficult because it would freeze existing balance of power. Security precedes disbarment containment.
· Increase Moral Interdependence and Moral Freedom/International Autonomy - international system should be built on a rule-based system
· Categorical Imperative

What realities of man, the state, and the international system might cause one to be cynical about the predictions and pleas for global cooperation made by the Brandt, Brundtland, Palme, and Carlsson commissions? What are their arguments for cooperation? What kind of world are they trying to create? Do these efforts appear to have any impact on world policy?

The Brandt Report was created in 1980 as a response to the central concern of why so many countries within the world-economy remained underdeveloped despite promises of modernization and global growth. It was considered the most sympathetic official 'Northern' answer to this concern. The Brandt Report is the findings of a group of high-level policy-makers who had been asked to examine how and why the int'l community should respond to the challenges of interdependence and development. It suggests that a great chasm in standard of living exists along the North-South divide and there should be a large transfer of resources from developed to developing countries. It envisioned a new kind of global security and built its arguments on a pluralist perspective that combines several social, economic, and political perils together in classical military perils.
The Brundtland Commission (1987) is also known as the World Commission on Environment and Development. This commission formulated the concept of sustainable development (development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs). Its political essence is an accommodation between the environmental concerns of developed states the development demands of the South. The report helped bring about Earth Summit and Rio process.
The Report of the Palme Commission (1982) was foremost in the move towards human security. This report proposed the doctrine of 'common security' and stressed that: 'In the Third World countries, as in all our countries, security requires economic progress as well as freedom from military fear.' The report also acknowledged that while conflicts will continue to exists, the task is to ensure that these conflicts don't build up to war.
The Carlsson Commission (1992) is also known as the Commission on Global Governance. It was co-chaired by Swedish Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson and former Commonwealth Secretary-General Shridath Ramphal. The commission produced the controversial report Our Global Neighborhood in 1995. It established a standard definition of global governance.
The effects of the Brandt Report demonstrates how while many industrialized countries were sympathetic to the developing countries' case in the 1970s, these governments did not act on the agenda in the 1970s. By the 1980s, a new set of governments with distinctly less sympathetic ideology had come to power in the US, the UK, and Western Germany. The Brundtland Commission did not fare any better with environmental degradation continuing nonetheless. Public attention have rose and receded throughout the years while the demand remained the same: for int'l action and governance. The Palme Commission was comparatively more successful. The commission's notion of common security became the conceptual basis of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). This conference made East-West security cooperation conditional upon the improvement of the human rights situation in the former Soviet bloc. In the post-cold war era, the importance given to people's security has grown in salience. The Carlsson Commission called for UN reforms that would increase its power, and was criticized by pro-sovereignty groups and world federalists who dislike the term "global governance."

Do the rich and powerful states have an obligation to assist the weak and poor states in the world?

A maintainer would argue that assistance would only be necessary if it is in the rich state's self-interest; that is to say, if the weaker country has resources that the powerful state needs. In the case of the Rockwood example, the United States, under Clinton, was determined to spread democracy to Haiti. Haiti was considered to be a failing state because it was not able to carry out its basic defining activities. However, Captain Rockwood misinterpreted Clinton's speech and was convinced that humanitarian intervention was necessary and was the core mission. Being a maintainer state, the US thought it imperative to intervene in the Haitian government, but being more of a reformer, Rockwood wanted to provide humanitarian assistance to the country as well.
*Refer to worldviews chart from beginning of the year, Rockwood case, BSO text chapter 29

Reformers believe that a multilateral world is best. In other words, cooperation through regimes and other international or regional institutions would be ideal. Because a reformer's view of a world future is the organization of a number of different nation-states, they would say that a need for cooperation on a multilateral level is important. In regards to foreign policy, reformers tend to want to stabilize the system and keep it from collapsing; to do so they try to support the poorer states to keep them in the system. When looking at the reformer perspective on this issue, it is important to keep in mind the idea of the categorical imperative; states and leaders should act as if they were to be a guide for how other states or leaders should act. Therefore, it is essential to consider that

A transformer would think that the system needs to be completely changed because in its current state the rich states are exploiting the poorer ones. They would advise that the poor states ban together to transform the international system. In other words, it they would not agree that the powerful states need to assist the weak ones because it creates inequality within the system. In the view of a transformer, it should be NGOs or other international organizations that provide aid to the weak countries of the world.

What is globalization and how will it influence the foreign policy of major powers and small powers or weaker states?

Globalization is the interconnectedness and reliance that states have adapted for one another. It is the growth of dependence and influence shared between state lines. Globalization has come about as a result of society's phenomenal communication advances. These advances allow states the advantage of knowing what is going on in other places immediately, which also means that they can influence the decisions of other states instantaneous and find the need to do so because they understand that due to the interconnectedness, they will be affected. Globalization has increased the speed of deterritorialization and degree to which "distance, borders, and places" influence the way people in a state identify themselves and act in seeking political voices and recognitions. (Baylis and Smith)

We can see the effect that globalization has already had on major powers in the way they have been forced into compromising their state sovereignty. This is result of globalization because the interconnectedness has made it so that citizens who are dealing with more than one states may be breaking the law of one state while still following the law of another. This has lead to power issues in deciding who reigns. Globalization has also shifted major power to participate in organizations such as the United Nations while encouraging the start of organizations such as the ICC. As for the smaller states and their foreign policies, we can see their influence on foreign policy when looking at cases like that of Nigeria and Italy. Globalization has allowed for parasitic relationships that are negatively affecting smaller powers that are now wearier of this and find the need to regulate their foreign relationships.

What are regimes? How do they influence international relations? How do maintainers and reformers differ in their views of the purposes of regimes?

Regimes are ruled governed activity within the worldwide international system. They are social institutions that are based on agreed rules, norms, principles, and decision-making procedures. Regimes have had such a huge influence on international relations that regimes are so embedded in the system. Even though they play a crucial role in the international system both maintainers and reformers have differing views on the purposes of regimes. Maintainers are skeptical of the usage of regimes, but do use them to maintain their power and system. Reformers on the other hand focus on the way regimes allows states to overcome the obstacles to collaboration imposed by the anarchic structure of the international system. Maintainers do not like to give up their sovereignty and because of that tend to deal with regimes that are dealing with low politics issues. Some of these issues include fisheries, trading, etc. They especially do not like to deal with regimes regarding nuclear weapons. Reformers rather like to view regimes as problem solvers. Those problem-solving regimes must be able to help solve a problem that is in the national interest of reformers. A good example of a failed regime in the eyes of reformers is the ICC and Hazardous Waste case. The regimes in the hazardous waste failed because they were unable to come together and put a regime together that would actually be a problem solver.

How are wars today different from those in the past?

To examine the variations in war over time I will look at war in the pre-cold war era compared to war in the post-cold war era. Chapter twelve in Baylis, Smith, and Owens specifically discusses the changes in these two eras and the resulting influences on war. Although the practice of war has not and will not disappear, the amount of wars has significantly decreased since the end of the cold war. This is a result of international and domestic changes. Since the end of the cold war, the world has seen changes in the international system as the end of the cold war marked the end of an unstable bipolarity and brought the world to a temporary state of US hegemony. In this hegemonic state, clashes between major powers no longer create constant conflict. Domestic political systems have also experienced change as there has been an increase in the number of democracies, also resulting in less conflict.
Changes brought by globalization and a rising interconnectedness also influence modern war as past wars were primarily clashes between states, but today, many actors are involved and wars are played out on various fields. Non-state actors such as NGOs, intergovernmental organizations, media, and the internet now influence contemporary warfare. For example, as alluded to in the France and Nazi case study, the internet opens up a new field of cyber warfare. Terrorist groups now have more of a global reach with the power of the media and internet. Also, with the rising interconnectedness of the world, military weapons and technologies are more readily accessible. Modern warfare technology is more destructive than ever and more accessible on the global marketplace.
Furthermore, since the cold war the types of threats causing countries to increase military power have also changed. In the past, accumulation of arms resulted from state versus state conflict, but now, countries build up their military powers in response to threats such as terrorism and revolts. These types of threats are less predictable, resulting in arms buildup to ensure security

What makes the study of IR different from the study of domestic politics?

Kenneth Waltz argued that international politics was not unique because of the regularity of war and conflict, since this was also familiar in domestic politics. The key difference between domestic and international orders lies in their structure. In the domestic polity, citizens do not have to defend themselves. In the international system, there is no higher authority to prevent and counter the use of force. Security can therefore only be realized through self-help. In an anarchic structure, 'self-help is necessarily the principle of action' (Waltz 1979: 111)

Are we going back to the future? Are current debates in IR the same as previous debates? Consider the waves of IR theory.

In 1990 John Mersheimer wrote an article entitled 'Back to the Future' where he suggested that the end of the cold war is going to lead to a return to the traditional multilateral balance of power politics where extreme nationalism and ethnic rivalries would lead to widespread instability and conflict (Baylis). Because the cold war brought on a bipolar structure of power, with the collapse of this system Mersheimer argued there would be a return to the great power system. The waves provide a systemic way in which we go through history but with the suggestion of Mersheimer he believes that we will go back into history
The debates of IR have changed in time. For example after 9/11, it becomes apparent that sates are not the only people who could cause problem and nationalism is reinforced more than ever (Lamy). Additionally, a bigger focus on transnational actors came into play such as religion (Lamy). Some even believed in the necessity to spread democracy.

What is the difference between a prudent foreign policy and an ethical foreign policy?

The idea of prudence comes from Hobbes, who proposes that altruism, moral convictions and prudence are the three possible deterrents of war. Out of these, he proposes that prudence is the only valid one, saying that men seek only power and so morals have little importance, and that altruism only occurs when the stakes are negligible. So prudence is the only viable deterrent of war - weighing the costs and benefits of one's actions. "As he that foresees what will become of a criminal re-cons what he has seen follow on the like crime before... Which kind of thoughts is called foresight, and prudence... But this is certain: by how much one man has more experience of things past than another; by so much also he is more prudent, and his expectations the seldomer fail him." (Hobbes 23) Man will not act in ways where the risk is too high or too much is being spent for too little gain. (this comes from section III foundational voices part of notes, around agenda # 32 or so.) Typically concerns money.
The idea of ethical foreign policy comes also from Hobbes though it has roots in Machiavelli - this states that a leader's first priority must be the survival of their state, and to do this they cannot follow the same morals as one does to their neighbor, but need to kill, lie, cheat, steal when dealing with other states. ( lecture notes, around agenda 32 or so). The emphasis is on doing these things with the end that the state survives.
So the difference then is that an ethical foreign policy is one that would focus more on whether the state would survive and become safer - more a relative gains focus, whereas a prudent foreign policy is whether or not there are absolute gains. So under an ethical foreign policy a state might go to war because they will survive and have that much less competition, yet under a prudent foreign policy a state might not go to war because it isn't really necessary and worth it.
There are also different definitions of prudence and ethical based upon other worldviews - though the above is probably the most important. Prudence stays virtually the same for all others, but what is moral or not changes: Kantians would see moral foreign policy as one in which rights are given to others and norms are set. Grotians would probably think that a policy in which institutions are working together for something that helps others but still keeps the system the same as being ethical. The major difference between an ethical foreign policy and a prudent foreign policy remains the same though - if it is prudent then actions might be regulated differently to ensure that the state has absolute gains

Considering the changes in warfare today and the emphasis on nonstate actors and terrorism, is just war theory relevant today?

Just war theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. The justification can be either theoretical or historical. The theoretical aspect is concerned with ethically justifying war and the forms that warfare may or may not take. The historical aspect, or the "just war tradition," deals with the historical body of rules or agreements that have applied in various wars across the ages.
For Machiavelli, there was no distinction between just and unjust war. He believed that one should take the initiative and wage war when you have certain advantages and the timing is appropriate or necessary. Grotius said we have the right to wage war as long as it is just. Can we have a world without war? Not likely, but just war. For St. Augustine, he believed that wise men would wage just wars, and would propose no wars if they were not just. For him, just war meant getting possessions back that were taken or securing safety and peace.
The difference between preemptive war and preventative war may also solidify whether or not the war is considered just in the eyes of the spectator. Preemptive war is preventing the other guy from attacking because you see them mobilizing their troops. Preventive war is taking action if one thinks the enemy might attack- keeping their own people safe in case there is risk looming. Either way, one should always prepare for war- we cannot be in a notion of peace and arms control but be ready to keep the state going and always be ready to use force to gain power. In modern day warfare and the changing emphasis on nonstate actors and terrorism, just war theory can still be relevant today. Some argue that preventive war defeats these purposes because we are deterring and defending against threats before they are even unleashed, but one may argue that even preventive war is just and in the interest of the strength of the state. In the case of terrorism, there is the possibility that we will enter into a war with undue haste and hope for revenge, which is unjust; in this sense the way in which war is waged and how a state goes about it are what make it right or wrong. There is still possibility for just war and the just war theory to be supported if states make rational decisions and war is based on legitimate cause.

Reminder: Jus ad bellum -- justice of war
• Last Resort: War must not be entered into with undue haste. War is an option only if all other means of resolution are exhausted.
• Legitimate Authority: Any decision to go to war must be made by a duly constituted governmental authorities not any disgruntled groups or unofficial communities.
• Right intention and just cause: War is unacceptable if motivated by aggression or even revenge. Self-defense, recovery of possessions, righting a wrong, and responding to an aggressor are examples of just causes.
• Chance of Success Only: when there is a reasonable chance of success of an acceptable outcome is war justifiable.
• Goal of Peace: It must be possible to envision a peace that is preferable to the situation that would prevail if the war were not fought.
Jus in bello -- conduct in war
1. The Principle of Discrimination: The direct targeting of noncombatants is not allowed.
Restraints on the Conduct of War: Proportionality and the banning of certain weapons and certain behavior.

What are the Washington Rules and how do they matter?

The Washington Rules are the assumptions and habits that have defined America's foreign policy actions since the end of WWII. Andrew Bachevich says that this postwar tradition has two components: the American credo of global leadership and the sacred trinity of US military practice. The American credo obliges the US to lead, save, and liberate the world. Also, it calls for the US to maintain military capabilities in excess of those required for self-defense. The sacred trinity of US military practices consists of 1. International peace and order require US to maintain a global military presence 2. To configure its forces for global power projection and 3. Counter existing or anticipate threats by relying on a policy of global interventionism. This leads to a condition of perpetual war and a permanent war economy. The Washington Rules matter because they define America's political culture after WWII and shape America's foreign policy. The Washington Rules explain America's role as a leader and a power-projecting realist nation in the international system. ). Furthermore, these rules perpetuate a condition of constant war (and thus a permanent war economy).

From each worldview perspective, what are the critical issues in each of the four worlds?

The political/military and economical worlds are most important to Maintainers because they believe that war is inevitable and so they are concerned with survival and maintaining their sovereignty; accumulating military defense and money enhance a state's national interest, power and national security. This focus on survival is applied to the economic world—they believe in mercantilist policies and that the world-economy is "an arena of competition among states seeking to maximize relative strength and power" (Woods 249). In the cultural world, maintainer realist's negative view of human nature prompts them to believe in Morgenthau's view about international ethics, that there is "no concrete universal meaning" (Shapcott 194-195) because humans are in "a collection of separate communities each with their own standards and no common morality." Thus, realists believe that cultural ethics involve self-interest and survival and so they are "local" and "specific" and cannot be universalized. Similarly, to a realist, there is no concept of "universal rights" The realists emphasize national security over human security; furthermore, they try to maintain their state's sovereignty and will not voluntarily give up power to NGOs thus explaining why the UN does not really work. However, their primary interest is guaranteeing the survival and security of the state so they will do whatever it takes, even in the social world, to maintain and enhance their power.
The reformer wants to change the political system to be more multilateral where there is more global governance due to regimes based off of International law revolving around common rules because of God given natural law, mutual interests, cooperation, and reciprocity (Armstrong 45). For example, a Grotian reformer would support efforts like the ICC. In terms of the military world, a Grotius reformer would support "just wars." In the economic world, a Grotian desires a "balance between free-market and judicious public management or intervention." This reformer would support a more redistributive economy to close the financial gap between social classes (social democratic countries)—the powerful and the wealthy have the responsibility to help others; collective efforts like the Brandt commission should be encouraged (and enforced) to reverse global poverty and help development in third world countries. Similarly, the social world interests him/her because it includes non-state actors who promote a collaborative, interest-based International law system and uses NGOs to help with problem solving. Since reformers stress that humans are sociable and can become enlightened through education, they believe that education can improve tolerance within the cultural world.
The transformer stresses the categorical imperative and cosmopolitan rights. He/she values the importance of the political and economic worlds and desires a new system that emphasizes universal equality with regards to government representation, economic distribution, and different cultures (cultural world). A Marxist, specifically, believes that the workers have been estranged and alienated due to the bourgeois class. In the economic world, capitalism makes the rich richer and the poor poorer; therefore, the working class must emancipate themselves and create "a society in which wage labour and private property are abolished and social relations transformed" (Hobden 146). Class conflicts dominate the Marxist thinking and the source of all social and cultural problems are due to the capitalist system and so it must be eliminated.

The reformer wants to change the political system to be more multilateral where there is more global governance due to regimes based off of International law revolving around common rules because of God given natural law, mutual interests, cooperation, and reciprocity (Armstrong 45). For example, a Grotian reformer would support efforts like the ICC. In terms of the military world, a Grotius reformer would support "just wars." In the economic world, a Grotian desires a "balance between free-market and judicious public management or intervention." This reformer would support a more redistributive economy to close the financial gap between social classes (social democratic countries)—the powerful and the wealthy have the responsibility to help others; collective efforts like the Brandt commission should be encouraged (and enforced) to reverse global poverty and help development in third world countries. Similarly, the social world interests him/her because it includes non-state actors who promote a collaborative, interest-based International law system and uses NGOs to help with problem solving. Since reformers stress that humans are sociable and can become enlightened through education, they believe that education can improve tolerance within the cultural world.
The transformer stresses the categorical imperative and cosmopolitan rights. He/she values the importance of the political and economic worlds and desires a new system that emphasizes universal equality with regards to government representation, economic distribution, and different cultures (cultural world). A Marxist, specifically, believes that the workers have been estranged and alienated due to the bourgeois class. In the economic world, capitalism makes the rich richer and the poor poorer; therefore, the working class must emancipate themselves and create "a society in which wage labour and private property are abolished and social relations transformed" (Hobden 146). Class conflicts dominate the Marxist thinking and the source of all social and cultural problems are due to the capitalist system and so it must be eliminated.

How would explain the follow:

a. The Bush Administration insistence on being able to use torture in the war on terrorism
b. British support for the debt relief movement
c. Norway's leadership in resolving the civil war in Sri Lanka
d. US rejection of Germany and India as members of the Security Council

a. The Bush Administration was insistent on being able to use torture in the war on terror because they argued that through torture, the US government would be able to unveil secret terrorist plans. Also, they argued that this was the way to save lives of US citizens because it would allow the US government to prevent future attacks by knowing what was being planned and because the only way to find this information out was through torture, torture is justified. The US would go around the rules and transfer prisoners to regimes with poor human rights records and foreign policy excluded these regimes from the rules of torture. (Case Study 1. Baylis, Smith, Owens. Page 509)
b. Britain supported debt relief in part because of the push by NGOs and individuals in the community that rallied for debt relief and made their voices heard to the Prime Minister; which he then supported after the rallying by these groups. Britain hoped that by taking the lead on debt relief other countries would follow their example and help with debt relief as well.
(case study. BSO. Page 464)
c. Norway has been involved in several peace keeping situations and it was natural to help out with Sri Lanka. Norway would be the unbiased facilitator for the situation in Sri Lanka because they want peace in Sri Lanka. Also, Norway and Sri Lanka have a history of helping each other, which explains why Norway was willing to facilitate the problems.
d. The argument for the US rejection of Germany and India into the Security Council is that the Security Council will lose effectiveness if membership was expanded. They also argued that if they allowed smaller states that were not as powerful to join the Security Council then the Security Council will lose its legitimacy.

The Cold War was all about determining the global rulebook and after the Cold War it is about who will control the rulebook. What does this mean?

• A state's political beliefs, domestic policies, foreign policies, and structure influence their own "rulebook" in the international system. Therefore every state's "rulebook" is different, which was a main cause of the Cold War.
• The rise of the United States and the Soviet Union in 1945 as world superpowers created much tension because they had conflicting rulebooks. Whereas the United States wanted to promote democracy and contain communism, the Soviet Union stood as the leading communist country looking to expand its borders.
o "In March 1947, the Truman administration sought to justify limited aid to Turkey and Greece with rhetoric designed to arouse awareness of Soviet ambitions, and a declaration that America would support those threatened by Soviet subversion or expansion." (BSO, 61)
o "In Eastern Europe, democratic socialists and other anti-communist forces were undermined and eliminated as Marxist-Leninist regimes, loyal to Moscow, were installed." (BSO, 61)
• Standing as two Machiavellian Realist states, both the U.S. and USSR were looking for a global rulebook that met their own national interests and increased their power→ with conflicting national interests, it became very difficult to determine a global rulebook. Therefore, The Cold War was about determining a global rulebook (that was the main problem).
• Standing as the strongest states, the United States and the Soviet Union became the two world superpowers, shifting the international system to a bipolar structure. Bipolarity was the "term employed by scholars of international relations to describe the post-war order before the USSR fell apart in 1991." And, "if one feature of the cold war was its bipolar structure, another was its highly divided character born in the last analysis out of profoundly opposing views about the best way of organizing society." (BSO, 72)
• Organization of the international system during the Cold War and after the Cold War was very structured, because it was basically about choosing sides (either with the U.S or the USSR). There were few countries that made up the "Third World" of non-aligned states. However, the question was WHO would control the rule book—the U.S. or the USSR?
• The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, in a way, solved this much debated question because the United States was left standing as the only world superpower. "As a result of the Soviet collapse, followed in short order by the economic crisis in Japan and Europe's manifest failure in former Yugoslavia, the United States by the turn of the century had been transformed from a mere superpower to what the French foreign minister Hubert Vedrine in 1998 termed a 'hyperpower'." (BSO 75)
o This shift from bipolarity to unipolarity in the international system left the U.S standing, as many would argue, as a hegemon—giving them the control over the rulebook.
"In any period, the political object of struggle is to determine who rules. In this century, the question has been the far most momentous one of how rule should be structured." -Lecture, Jan. 21, 2011

What would offensive and defensive neorealists say about the Bush Doctrine?

Bush doctrine— The Bush Doctrine was released in 2001 as a way to address George W. Bush's foreign policies. Included in this is the defense from any terrorist or terrorist support groups. Unilateral pre-emptive/preventive war to defeat terrorism, stop nuclear proliferation and democratize global politics.

Defensive Realism: those who argue that states are security maximizers.

Defensive Realism—a theory developed by Stephen Walt, proposes the "Balance of Threat." This theory states that a security-seeking strategy can be misconceived and can spread the perception of aggression by one state. According to Defensive Realists, conflict can be avoided if a nation succeeds in allaying fears of hostility and diminishing the perception of a potential threat. A state will only pursue the power that it needs to ensure its survival.
The Bush Doctrine holds that enemies of United States are using terrorism as a war of ideology against the United States. The responsibility of the United States is to protect itself and its friends by promoting democracy where the terrorists are located so as to undermine the basis for terrorist activities. Defensive realists could say that the U.S.'s fight against terrorism is only to ensure its survival and through spreading democracy, it will be able to get the power to ensure its survival. Defensive neorealists (Robert Jervis & Jack Snyder) claim that most leaders understand that the costs of war clearly outweigh the benefits. The use of military force for conquest and expansion is a strategy that most leaders reject in this age of complex interdependence and globalization. For the defensive realists, the Bush doctrine is at best a-strategic—it fails to establish a priority of goals—and at worst counterproductive. Since it is open-ended, threatening the use of military force whenever necessary, it is very costly.

Offensive Realism: those who argue that states are power maximizers.

Offensive Realism--a theory developed by John Mearsheimer. Mearsheimer shares the same assumptions of Neo-realists and focuses on the anarchy in the international system, not human nature, as the cause of conflict. Offensive Realists see a state's main goal as power maximization through a build-up in military power to achieve hegemony. A state will seek to acquire as much power as it can get.
Mearsheimer and Walt (offensive realism) were critical of the decision by George W. Bush to war in Iraq because they argued that the Bush administration 'inflated the threat' by misleading the world about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and its links to terrorists who might attack the US. in the future. More importantly for security neo-realists, this was unnecessary because the containment of Iraq was working effectively and there was no 'compelling strategic rationale' for this war. This was with Iraq will cost the US. billions of dollars and it has already required a tremendous commitment of the US military forces. Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the global war on terrorism, the US military is over-extended. The unilateralism of the Bush administration concerns both offensive and defensive neorealists because it hurts the absolute and relative power of the US.

The Bush doctrine undermines cooperation with others, reinforcing the perception that the United States is a bully. Accordingly, it jeopardizes the international unity necessary to defeat global terrorism. Indeed, it will increase anti-American sentiments throughout the world, especially in Islamic states

Why is UN reform such a difficult task?

Although the UN is composed of many different actors and bodies of governance, power falls predominantly with the Security Council. "The UN Security Council was given the main responsibility for maintaining international peace and security...it includes five permanent members...these five permanent members therefore have veto power over all Security Council decisions" (Baylis, Smith, and Owens, Taylor, 315). Thus, reform would have to come from the Security Council. Since the Security Council retains the most power as a body in the UN (and has the most responsibility), if reform threatens the power or sovereignty of these permanent members, it will inevitably be vetoed or overruled. This creates a catch-22 of sorts, preventing drastic reform from ever truly occurring: "It is very unlikely that the P-5 countries will relinquish their veto" (Baylis, Smith, and Owens, Taylor, 317). While reform if the UN has been possible in some areas (that are mainly areas of low politics—see (Baylis, Smith, and Owens, 326), issues of high politics (which are reflected by the agenda of the Security Council), are not likely to undergo any great reform. This again is derived from the structure of the UN and the veto power the permanent countries hold.
Because many of the permanent members of the Security Council come from a realist perspective, they will not willingly give up veto power in UN for the good of the world. For the system reformers, the biggest problem with the UN is that nothing gets through if the great powers do not want it to—this limits the range of the UN. While system reformers and system transformers would welcome reform to the UN, specifically removal of the veto power of the great powers (which would give them more of a voice in a realist-dominated system), realists perceive this as a threat to their power.
This is related to the case of the ICC, in which some of the permanent Security Council members were also part of the P-5 coalition that opposed the formation of an international court, without oversight of the UN Security Council. Reform is impossible without the support of the great powers; unfortunately, the great powers stem mostly from the realist worldview (and are strictly interested in maintaining or enhancing their power, above other things). This impossibility of reform is also evident in the series of major UN reports (discussed in Professor Lamy's lecture on 4/20/11). All were aimed at encouraging major reform. Some of the most brilliant minds came together for these reports (such as the Brandt Commission, the Brundtland Report, etc.), but for the most part, they were ignored by the major powers.
The UN is intended to promote principles and enforce universal rule and procedures: "the UN was created by states for states and the relationship between state sovereignty and the protection of the needs and interests of people has not been fully resolved" (Baylis, Smith, and Owens, Taylor, 314). This tension prevents reform from truly occurring.

How would you explain the attractiveness of realism to most countries and reformist views to others?

Realism is attractive for many reasons. Firstly, it is all about the preservation of national self-interest, sovereignty, and power. This is particularly attractive to strong states because they are powerful and they have a certain capacity to shape international events through political power (ex. China with Taiwan). These stronger states wish to keep their economic fortunes, and therefore, they disagree with many reformist and transformers' viewpoints about aid and development in third world countries. They see the system as anarchic, with balance of power being the norm, and they want to stay on top, so they place their national interest before the international interest. However, it is also for states that want to gain power, or more specifically, for leaders that wish to have more power. For example, many developing countries have leaders with very powerful personalities that also have realist viewpoints, as they are trying to gain sway in the international community.

Reformism is mainly attractive to middle-power states who do not have the capacity to bring about real change in the international community, but can be leaders in their region. These countries can share moral ideals about multilateralism and such, and it is in their political culture to have a concern for humanity as well as their own citizens. They believe in the "we" over the "I," and because of this, they exhibit certain reformist views toward the international system.

What is the best system for preventing war and responding to global inequality?

According to Spinoza, inequality and war result from unchangeable human imperfection. These problems can therefore be addressed only by strict laws, but because domestic laws are inapplicable in the international level, it is impossible to actually solve either problem. According to Kant, war and inequality are caused by defective states in which the government does not represent the people, and is not able to execute laws. Conservative forces such as a standing army also lead to the creation of defective states. Because Kant believes that people, including those in positions of political power can be made good, these problems can be solved. The mechanism of doing so is the creation of a civil state. Rousseau thought that inequality resulted from unjust laws that did not represent the general will of society. By legislating in accordance with the general will, especially in a utopian system where laws are made by an independent legislative body not impacted by their own laws. Marx thinks that war can be prevented after an initial violent revolution of the proletariat. Without class conflict, both inequality and war will disappear.

Who are the pessimists and optimists in Waltz's Man, the State, and War? What are their arguments?

: Those who accept a First Image explanation for war (the notion that man and human nature are the root of war and therefore must be changed), include what we call "Optimists" and Pessimists." Simply put, Optimists, according to Waltz, believe "the possibilities of progress [are] so great that wars will end before the next generation is dead" (18), and Pessimists are those who believe that war is a never-ceasing component of our human existence. Philosophically, pessimism is "the belief that reality is flawed" (18). Pessimists believe that while we may be able to place constraints upon evil, our permanent state as flawed human beings makes enduring goodness (and absence of war) impossible. Conversely, Optimists believe "reality is good, and society basically harmonious," and that all problems that men create or encounter are "superficial and momentary" (19). While Optimists believe the wicked can be turned good and wars can be ended, the Pessimists see little hope in the likelihood of "man righting himself" (20). Those who fall furthest towards the Optimistic extreme would believe that ultimate success in eliminating war is not only possible, but can be done once and for all. An interesting distinction lies in the fact that Pessimists may be better at postponing war, for while they believe ultimate aversion of war is impossible, they are more willing to take functional steps towards avoiding it, whereas Optimists believe nothing should be done that falls short of eradicating all war for all time. Optimists and Pessimists exist within each image. While both parties agree in their analysis of the root cause of war (whether that be the First, Second or Third image), they differ in their belief in the ability to alter or fix that cause.
These opposing parties can be best applied to the transition Caption Rockwood undergoes in "Captain Lawrence Rockwood in Haiti." It can be argued that Rockwood started as Optimist, recognizing the flaws of human beings in both the Haitians beating the prisoners and the American government's lack of intervention at that point. He believed that such evils were being committed by "a few, evil men" (Wrage 3), in other words, he believed the abuse to be "superficial," "momentary" or otherwise easily remediable. Then he realized that such atrocities were being committed by a preexisting structure of violence inherent of a system that the US was a member of. Once he realized that an "essential defect" in human nature that couldn't be remedied was the cause, he transitioned to a more Pessimistic view that "Reality is flawed" (18), and despite his or anyone's efforts, such evil cannot be eradicated, only constrained.

The Rockwood case raises some fundamental issues about IR. What are they?

1. National Interests vs. Human Interests
a. Dominant Machiavellian worldview: you are immoral if you don't secure your country's national interest
b. Rockwood is a universalist, human rights is most important
2. Universal view of rights vs. Particularistic view of rights
3. Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
a. Signed in 2005 at a United Nations meeting
b. If governments can't take care of their citizens, it's the responsibility of the world to take care of those issues
4. Sovereignty
a. Slowly changing idea of sovereignty
b. Commanding officer says to Rockwood: that's not our mission, those are sovereign issues, leave it up to Haiti's government

-The choice ethical decisions vs. self-interest = National Interest vs. Human Rights.
-International Law vs. National Interest
-Basically Rockwood believed it was ethical and under international law to help the prisoners in Port-au-Prince (who were starving and under inhumane conditions. However, he was not instructed to help the prisoner. In fact, the chaplain did not want to get involved with politics of the failing state. His lieutenant, Coronel Frank Bragg, ordered him to focus on protecting US forces and not Haitian civilians.

Please allow access to your computer’s microphone to use Voice Recording.

Having trouble? Click here for help.

We can’t access your microphone!

Click the icon above to update your browser permissions above and try again

Example:

Reload the page to try again!

Reload

Press Cmd-0 to reset your zoom

Press Ctrl-0 to reset your zoom

It looks like your browser might be zoomed in or out. Your browser needs to be zoomed to a normal size to record audio.

Please upgrade Flash or install Chrome
to use Voice Recording.

For more help, see our troubleshooting page.

Your microphone is muted

For help fixing this issue, see this FAQ.

Star this term

You can study starred terms together

NEW! Voice Recording

Create Set