1 out of 6
Click the card to flip 👆
1 / 169
Terms in this set (169)
Less terrorism, but more countries having it The most dangerous group is still ISIL / ISISWhat trends are we seeing with Terrorism?In Americas (including South America) and Africa - not in conflict zones but in homocidesWhere do we surprisingly see the most lethal violence?No, it's mainly happening in Latin America and the Caribbean with young malesIs urban violence just happening everywhere equally?1) Addressing triggers in the life cycle of a person - so like young trauma, being a teenager, etc. 2) Make sure all groups get fair treatment and that the gov is trusted 3) Cohesion - Get locals to make and run programs 4) Change social norms to be nonviolent 5) Get all the stakeholders involved no matter their industry, class, level of gov, etc. 6) Need both short term stabilization AND long term root cause addressingWhat are the 6 ways to prevent violence?1) Different factors for different kinds (aka drugs don't cause war violence) 2) Different levels (aka a kid punching someone is very different than a mafia war) 3) Different sociopolitical and cultural environments - a government in a war may not care as much about IPVThree reasons why it's hard to address violence1) Govs seem to prefer responding instead of preventing even tho more expensive 2) Political cycles - person who started the program is kicked out before can make change 3) Hard to know how to scale pilot programs 4) Cooperation between different agencies, for example youth violence prevention and the navy, is challenging 5) We need more data and communication of violence prevention 6) Different parties analyze the data differently - they don't always fit togetherWhat makes it hard to scale violence prevention methods?1) Each country / sector of violence prevention has a lot in common deep down 2) It is pretty easy - just need to change the way funding for each sector is structured 3) This particular plan appeals to many different stakeholdersWhy should we follow the SD616 platform against violence?1) Broad goals that everyone can attach their own policies to 2) But also tailor the local contexts so that we don't alienate the regular people 3) Define the message clearly and powerfully 4) Use the most recent data and what works 5) Need specific goals but not too specific or people will be mad when they fail 6) Yes awareness, but more importantly giving people opportunities for action 7) Different actions to mobilize different actors to help out 8) Choose good messengers and champions, aka celebrities and politicians Challenges 1) Positioning - stating your position so that it's appealing for people 2) Defining the problem and solutions 3) Coalition building - aka struggles with building alliances with other sectors 4) Governance - aka inadequate structures to support the changeWhat is the SD616 global platform against violence? What are the challenges to this?1) Positioning - presenting your position convincingly 2) Defining what the problem actually is + solutions 3) Coalition building - making alliances beyond your sector 4) Governance - making sure there are structures in place to do the planWhat are the four challenges to global strategies to create peace?Social security aka like welfare and stuffWhat can security mean in the domestic setting?1) Firearms 2) Calling a group (aka Japanese Canadians in WW2) a threat to your countryGive examples of how something can be security to one person and a threat to another'a precondition for civilized life for people who cannot ensure their own security or security from others'What is the definition of security according to Thomas Hobbes?19th century - theoretical emerges (akin to Hitler's race theory) + peace projects 20th century - domestic security becomes a big thing cause if people asked to do wars and stuff they need better policing 20th century - security studies branch to two things 1) Peace studies - like League of Nations and community security 2) The problem of war 1940s - national security becomes a thing 1947 - institutionalized in American National Security Act Mainstream studies - developed during the Cold War - forced on external threats and very American centric + policy drivenThe timeline of security studies / security1) The police expanded 2) Armed forces dipped out to focus externally 3) State becomes more passive aka no more tortureHow did policing develop in three ways?It is negative in punishment and prevention It is positive in shaping good citizens and a good societyHow is policing both negative and positive security?Trade offs between liberty and security But also productive in creating freedom, agency and changing public perspectives Aka duelling -How is security both a matter of trade offs and productivity?1) Centralized policing 2) Power from the state over all the territory they own 3) Division between external and internal securityWhat are three factors of the modern definition of security?People like it because methodical and lots of theoretical research People dislike it because it is too narrowWhy do some people like and dislike the modern external views on security1) If you aren't American it is hella imperialistic cause it focuses on American views 2) It's too grand strategy and focused on things that tie into geopolitics - like specific war, peace, using force things excluded 3) Cuts off dissenters like people who are in peace research 4) Security of individuals threatened - like conscription and Japanese Canadians in WW2 5) Not broad enough - not considering economic, cultural, biosphere issues - rebuttal is this would make it too broadWhat are the five issues with the external, American security focus + rebuttal to the lastBecause security is a basic human need - it needs to be positive alsoWhy do people worry about the conservative view of security = threats?A challenge to the traditional way of thinking about security - what if not about the meaning of security (aka is it about the state, external, internal, etc.) because this will change with time and people - but rather about what it can do - aka does it address survival, emergency measures, etc.What is the securitization theory?Same because focuses still on extestantial fear, violence and extreme situations Different because doesn't say specific threats or specific objects to protect are constantHow does the securitization theory relate and diverge from the traditional external American views?Hurts people like immigrants and refugees That we should not be securing things without careful consideration. Security basically means a state of emergency and fear so desecuritizing is actually good if we can move issues from this to normal politics insteadWhy should we be careful about making things security issues? What does securitization theory have to say about this?What is Int and what is dom - like 9/11 And what is security and what is just politics because of stuff like internet security against hackersWhere are lines of security being blurredGrand strategy and geopolitics - "what are causes of war, how do culture and economics play into this" instead of focusing on the specifics of warWhat are security studies mainly about rn?Nothing really, it's a very diverse discipline and not really agreed uponWhat is the core of security studies?General people's safetyIn modern security studies we are moving away from just looking at war to...US allies in the South China SeaWar does not have a central place in security studies rn1) The world is in anarchy 2) Power is the language of IR (cause of anarchy) 3) Black box 4) States are rational - they make decisions that will get them what they want 5) State is a unitary actor - it functions like hive 6) States are the key actors in IR The international system is always in a possibility for war, which drives military and economic competition, which sometimes leads to warFeatures of realism + the bottom line that also counts as a featureSays that it is the system that drives states to war because seeking security is the status quo Motivational is saying it is inheritor in a state's interest to expand and conquerNeorealism aka structural realism vs motivational1) Waltz structural realism - that states recognize they can't get too powerful or others will align against them 2) Offensive - Mearsheimer - very aggressive - states love dominance 3) Defensive - states are best cooperating - the reason for realism is the security dilemmaWhat are the three competing theories inside of structural realism1) States misevaluate and that is why they act irrationally 2) Theory that states certain regimes are just right for states with specific ideologies to capture e.g. Japan expansion in the 30s cause of imperialism 3) Neoclassical realism - like motivational - so states are greedy but the international environment is super complex and so are internal factors (E.g. resources) so power does not translate directly into outcomesWhat are the theories that address the fact that states don't act rationally. Also known as suboptimal realist theoriesShould states always compete or do they benefit from cooperation?What is the debate in structural realism?States compete to get power in order to survive. They don't cooperate cause their opponents could cheat, or get better gains than you, or the state could turn on you in the future They exist in a system that encourages self-help and preventing ur opponents from getting ahead and this is what leads to power getting not greed Then states do something called balancing. External - forming alliances and internal - make better military and economics. When it is just two states leads to arms race and is only about internal. When more it can be either And because not motivational realism they don't want to get power, just survive in the system. And so balancing happens instead of bandwagoning cause if they join the powerful side the powerful states may turn against them, and they know the weak won't. This lead to balance of powerWhat is waltz structural theory bascially?1) Assume the worst about others intentions 2) Because of this need to maximize ur power so you can defend 3) It is a means not an end (so structural not motivational) 4) This is against waltz cause he says balancing will go down so states don't try to power maximize 5) But offensive counters this by saying states buckpass - like the USA in WW2 didn't rush in to stop Germany's power + states might be slow so balancing doesn't happenMearsheimer's theory of maximization / offensive realism1) Waltz says no to power gaining cause balancing, offensive says yes cause balancing irl doesn't play out cause states buckpass and are slow and argue 2) Similar though because both see a system in anarchy, both agree that sometimes they balance sometimes they buckpassWaltz vs offensive1) Security dilemma is key 2) Cooperation is beneficial - arms control - better political relations - get to see the state isn't greedy by doing costly things a greedy wouldn't 3) But also cooperation dangerous - cheating 4) Focusing less on power and more on the danger of adversaries + how well it can defend (power does not = good defence)Defensive realismCriteria = don't you know if ur enemy is offensive or defensive and would it be easier/cheaper for you to take the offensive or defensive 1) Don't know and offensive - war, expansion and intense arms races 2) You don't know and defensive - less war, less expansion, less arms race 3) You do know and offensive - important to control arms but risky, important to single you are chill but risky 4) You do know and defensive - you can control arms but won't do much and you can signal but same thing 5) Need to consider the motives of other states instead of simply assume the worst like offensive because this will tell if compete or cooperateWhat are the four types of security dilemma in defensive realism and the two criteria1) Trump support autocratic leaders - Biden supports democracy 2) Trump was huge on nationalism and Biden likes cooperation between world parties on Corona and climate change 3) Biden still backing Saudi military even though HR violations and still trying to negotiate 4) Both are about great power competitions and less about non-state actors (so realist) 5) Committing to bring troops home from Afghanistan was because of popular vote 6) Biden sends help to Ukraine trump didn't 7) Trump tried to fight Iran and end the Obama "no nukes" agreement - Biden is trying to negotiate it back 8) Both dislike China and say it's committing genocide abacus muslims and keeping tariffs up 9) Biden recognizing voters don't like free trade so isn't joining the Trans-Pacific partnership - dangerous because US needs to be friendly with other Asian countries if wants to counter China's economic influence 10) Biden really understands key of alliances and is strengthening them Some say similarities prove the strength of trump, others say it is because Biden's hands are tied by corporations and voters and groupthink and messed up foreign policy situation deemed "the blob"Trump vs. Biden. Why are there similarities?With China rising and Russia becoming bolder, you could say soIs the US a declining stateThe Bretton woods systems where everyone wanted to expand trade and end protectionism + wanted stability so they all based off of the US gold-backed dollar but each country was allowed to do their own economic thingEconomic globalization started with...Motivational says it is important to distinguish between states motives (specifically that they might be greedy and this is the motive), structural does not (thinks they are security seekers cause of the system's structure) To explain why states that would be better cooperating sometimes still compete And also why states still bandwagon sometimes because if they are greedy this will get them more territory And also says yeah sometimes they still won't expand because the balance in power is not in their favourMotivational vs structural realism. Why do we need motivationalWhen the offence is favouredWhat offence defence balance is likley to create war?No one knows Multipolar brings uncertainty and buckpassing and more enemies so maybe? Bipolar means two states are equal in power so maybe?Is war more likley in a unipolar, bipolar or multipolar world?1) Optimism - security dilemma isn't inherit and stuff like that + we should collaborate 2) Also not a theory in itself - it's a broad analytical approach - so people think it can't actually prevent conflict 3) States are most important, but other actors matter as well 4) Domestic actors matter - especially preferences and decisions of elites - this international politics can change if people in countries change 5) We are moving closer to interdependence and peaceTraits of liberalismDemocracy + capitalism + globalization and human rightsWhich regime does liberalism like? What about economic systems? What about our global way?Promoting open-markets economies and international trade + investmentWhat is commercial / economic liberalism?1) Greater cooperation 2) Less conflict and war (like with European Union)What are the benefits we expect from liberalism?1) Open market governments are statistically more likley to pursue conflict resolution and cooperate more 2) Liberalism = capitalism = higher living standards and wealth = why would we war?What are the reasons that people believe in liberalism?1) In the 19th century liberalism is notable for focusing on slavery, self-determination (bringing back westphalia), and anti-colonialism 2) 20th century - economic, sexual, gender, religious or political discrimination fought against 3) Today - core of it is coming from private and NGOs domestically / internationallyHistory of liberalism and human rights1) UN 2) World Bank 3) IMF 4) Other Bretton Woods systemsName some liberal organizationsThey are flexible cause they can kind of just happen naturally instead of being thought upWhat is so great about regimes?1) Neoliberal institutionalism / rational-choice liberalism - yes we agree with realists that there is a constant fear of cheating, but let's find ways to still cooperate using international systems (E.g. u lack information, let's get some NGOs to get you info) - good because less transaction costs internationally 2) Functionalism - We are becoming globalized so we need international organizations to meet our international needs - for example, groups needed to fight Covid 3) Less sovereignty in favour of better international institutions - better legitimacy, efficiency and power balance for the most powerful nations (for example, EU) - this has led to the UN Security Council being able to send huge military effort into security threatsThree different versions of modern liberalismThe other party not doing their part or cheatingWhat is free riding?1) Hegemon - aka big power like the US to 2) Shadow of the future - aka future gains 3) Establish international norms like no genocide or nuked 4) Have nations understand that national interest should transcend autonomy for the greater collective collaborative goodWhat elements may be required to gets states to pursue liberalism and give up some autonomy?Because they make their actors transparent about their intentions, they can provide good analysis and they can meet many political needs of nationsWhy do we like liberalism and international organizations?There is no one ruling authority and they don't fear attacks from each other Basically they say democracy will create PSCWhat is a pluralistic security community. What does this have to do with democratic peace theory?To spread democracyWhat is a major foreign policy aim of Democratic states?We don't actually know, cause like democracies war with non-demos all the timeWhy is Democratic peace theory true?Citizens hate the cost of war, so they will not vote to have itWhat is another argument for Demo peace theory?After the Second World War Western Europe, some of eastern, Japan, South Korea and some new democracies were down cause the US was in charge and providing economic help, leadership and instruction But then as a push back communist governments like USSR and China remerged and resisted and the Cold War went down Then the USSR collapsed and the US thought democracy would spread around the world. But it didn't and now there are problems. Like the US getting involved with the Middle East, Russia U.S. relations going down quickly because Russia was struggling with trying to get on board the capitalist US way.What is the history of liberalism / liberalist internationalism becoming an international phenomenon?Internationally 1) Russia and other eastern rejecting it and warring 2) NATO and US also gearing up for war 3) China and North Korea gearing up 4) Many states left democracy and human rights for authoritarian 5) China and Russia stealing as much U.S. info as possible 6) Disillusioned cause liberalism isn't doing what promised - so authoritarianism on rise Domestically 1) Costs of things like US V Middle East = casualties with no progress so ppl mad 2) Western middle class is poor and mad 3) People mad at elites for manipulating politics and economy for their benefit 4) Fear of immigration, racism stuff, etc. 5) Mad at limited economic progress Now the world is discussing whether we should re-examine liberal internationalism cause all the issues with too much globalization, capitalism and not enough real human rights progressWhere are we now with liberalism / liberalist internationalism1) States should all make agreements to establish norms and democracy 2) Liberal international organizations should intervene with other states to pursue liberal objectivesWhat is liberalist internationalism?Capitalism, free markets, deregulation and everything that comes with itNeoliberalism isan organized society; a state as a political entity.What is polity?Liberalism, realism and HMThe three paradigms of ISIt analyses the control and way of producing goods and services and how this shapes the emergences of classes, politics, how the individual is affected and how class conflicts generate changeHM summarizedTranscend capitalism (typically, at least when paired with normative values)HMs goal is toOne of imperialism where we are deluded into thinking capitalism is mutually beneficial and free and in tune with our natureHM says our world right now isClass and societies having production. It does NOT merely refer to objects or moneyWhat does the material part of HM refer toThat private property is naturalWhat idea was required for capitalism to be adopted?How particular productive systems create inequalities of powerWhat is HMs key interestQuite the opposite. It things it is dynamic and changing because different economic systems adopted at different timesDoes HM think the world is stagnant?Exploitation and alienation Exploitation is when workers are paid less than the value of their labour and this surplus value goes to the capitalist. Produces extreme inequality and structural violenceWhat two things does HM say are inherent to capitalism?That militarized manifestations of capitalismWhat does HM think of arms production and trading?Control and then profitWhat does HM think capitalism's priorities areTurning non-monetary social relations into profitable ones. Capitalism tends to do thisWhat is commodification and what does HM have to say about capitalism in regards to this1) The state must protect individual freedoms, but then it also must limit those freedoms for its own interests 2) Wages must be decreased so that u get more value from production, but also wages must be increased so that get top of the line people to work so demand for items produced goes upWhat contradictions does HM say capitalism holds?A kind of market competition that exists rn in which people are coerced economically into being exploited as wage labourers by capitalists Connected to politics, armed coercion and the lawHow would an HM enthusiast describe capitalism?Labour to capitalNeoliberalism is shifting power and wealth from...Pure market freedom. No, in practice some market control is necessaryNeoliberalism is... and does it work in practice?Serve capitalistsHM believes that our current security studies in the west have been created to...Life threateningHM argues that the lack of ownership over production is actually...Postcolonialism is combining HM, poststructuralism and feminism Decolonial projects are efforts to overcome exploitative, repressive and hierarchal relations of domination and subordinationWhat is postcolonialism and what are decolonial projects"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"Marx's ideologyIf it is radically reformed it could turn out well, but it may turn out catastrophicallyReasonable HM proponents on capitalism sayReductionism aka saying everything can be explained by this one thing Rationalism to an excessive amount aka saying that everything the capitalist ruling class does is selfish and evilWhat pitfalls must we avoid in exploring security studies?A historically specific class-based system of market competition where people are coerced by capitalists to be wage labourers and exploited and is connected but distinct from politics, military, etc.Capitalism can be defined as (in the eyes of HM)1) Communist tainted 2) HM says security studies is a western capitalist propaganda studyWhy is HM not included much in ISLacking ownership and control over the means of production and being exploited for your labourWhat is the fundamental most dangerous thing according to HM?Neoliberals and the transfer of power from labour to capitalWhere does HM argue 08' came from?Both are committed to emancipatory change (freeing people from constraints that prevent full living) - and hm says that capitalism prevents this kind of changeHow are CSS (critical security studies) and Marxism similar?Freedom from fear, want, indignity of individuals, social groups and humanity as a whole Reminds us that just because a state is secure doesn't mean the citizens are. A functioning state might repress or neglect them or not be able to provide security It is used by HM to challenge structural violence and prioritizing states over people It also can be dangerous HM claims because capitalist actors can use it to justify imperial intervention into weak statesWhat is human security? Can it be dangerousA theory that says social meaning is created through humans interacting and interpreting words from each other. So instead of saying "oh Pakistan has to make nukes to deter from India" we are saying "Pakistan, through the making of nukes, is building the narrative that they have to protect themselves from India" HM agrees with this but also gets more specific by focusing on the systems that make these meanings and narratives and do actually have objective conditions, e.g. a capitalist societyWhat is social constructivismSays all individuals are equal including women, but then women who are not capitalists suffer stillHow does capitalism offer false gender equalityJust to protect other individualsWhen does liberalism say we should limit individual freedom?That we all have shared norms and complex interdependence that when embraced will lead to less warLiberalism's concept of an international societyDoesn't vibe with itWhat does HM think of teleology (aka history has a determined path)Similar = there are some common patterns in human society Different = HM thinks these regularities are historically specific where realists see them as timelessHM similarities and differences with realistsIt is a process and relationship defined by the modes of production (producing and distributing goods and services) related to it. Which also includes the ideals that come with being in such mode of production They think it is important, but care less about social class and more about the class that comes from exploitation and capital accumulation aka ECONOMIC CLASSWhat does HM say class isSecuritization theory basically says issues are focused on more when they are presented as extreme security threats + agrees that security is multidimensional but must focus on each dimension separately Sees security as overused concept HM says the sectors make more sense examined together Securitization is also very state focused which makes it more realist than liberalHM and securitization theory- both focus on structural violence and agree capitalism promotes - Peace studies is empirical and produces practical solutionsHM vs peace studies1) When you treat capitalism as a social order instead of just a kind of economy 2) When you engage with what people think and feel as a force for action 3) When you analyze concrete historical circumstances instead of coming to abstract conclusionsThree things that are needed to make HM function at its bestThe U.S. right leadership is unravelling which leaves hope that the left can come make things better with the wealth inequality and pandemic, but they don't have a coherent strategy rn So the US has always held exceptionalism e.g. it can do whatever it wants because it is the global power to hold the world in check And the left says that we can use that power to pursue security issues that will make the world a better place and have internationalism Issue now though with the who U.S. hegemony is super Covid wealth inequality, US not handling global issues well + low key supporting class and racial hierarchies So the left is now like huh. How do we do something from here to better global order? The security people think that use their military might and aggressive sanctions to impose control - some say we need more international organizations But issues the left face w that - All the liberal IGOs collapse into rich people leading - Foriegn policy and domestic policy is all dividedWhat does Aziz Rana think about the US, the left and the right RNDomestic issues are what Americans organize around and foreign policy is an issue for the elites / right. The problem is that foreign policy does impact domestic you cannot seperate them fully.What is an issue between the left, foreign and domestic policy?International organizations are breaking down and authoritarian powers like China and Russia are on the rise. And they don't have a coherent anti-imperial / anti-authoritarian visionWhat is the issue with the left's love of a multipolar, interconnected IGO world?1) Foreign and domestic divide 2) Breaking down of international institutions 3) No collective plan for a better worldWhy is the left so fragmented?1) Securing labour rights 2) Decriminalize the border 3) Less security budget + Give up on American primacy and overtake neoliberalism to disperse powerAccording to that guy who thinks the left is fragmented what should their global vision to challenge capitalism entail? (To create ripple effect to strengthen left)CCS draws upon wide range of studies like feminism and post-colonialismCSS vs Normal Sec StudiesConstructivismWhat's another of the big IR paradigms1) The world is not given, including security and security threats. They are constructed through the actions of the actors 2) This is because we process knowledge through our own biases (like that we accept money as a common agreement 3) Language and speech have great power over how we construct our worlds 4) Anarchy is made by states not natural and can be fixed, unlike the realist thought Positions 1) Idealogical structures matter as material ones 2) Identities matter - they give actors interests and thus guide their actions + identity comes through interactions W others 3) Structures are mutually constituted e.g. we shape structures and they shape usDescribe the key concepts of constructivism. Then the three ontological positionsThe world we construct is constructed by our nature and also constrains oursGiddens structration theory of constructivismMaterial forces V ideas Rationalism /Neorealists = material forces help us understand security Constructivism = ideational as well as material construct the world around us Intersubjectivity V causality Rationalism = Causality - straight line of action reaction Constructivism = Intersubjectivity - action and meanings come from interaction Identity Rationalism - identity is given or negligible - exogenous from structure and unchanging Neorealists - all states are the same and just seeking security in the anarchy - exogenous from structure and unchanging Liberalism - same as neoliberalists in the fact that they have material interests - exogenous from structure and unchanging Constructivists - think identity is deeper - comes from interaction and can be changedDifferences between constructivism and rationalism + throw some realism in thereConstructivism - it's all because of their identities as liberal democratiesWhat approach would be really good at defining why the USA is scared of North Korean Nuclear weapons but not British onesRationalist = science determines everything hard and structured Reflectivist = social variables have a role, more looseReflectivist vs RationalistA theory that says social meaning is created through humans interacting and interpreting words from each other. So instead of saying "oh Pakistan has to make nukes to deter from India" we are saying "Pakistan, through the making of nukes, is building the narrative that they have to protect themselves from India" HM agrees with this but also gets more specific by focusing on the systems that make these meanings and narratives and do actually have objective conditions, e.g. a capitalist societyHM vs. ConstructivismIdentity - cause tells us their interestsWhat is central to constructivism? Why?The other paradigms see neutrality as geographic location, state weakness, isolationist, etc. - exogenous factors Where constructivists realize that it can become part of a national identity - like Finland and Sweden didn't rush to join NATO because the people voted it against their identityHow do constructivists vs the others view neutralityBig concept = anarchy is what states make of it through interactions 1) Corporate identity - intrinsic identity 2) Social identity - identities that come from interaction with others - can have more than one a) Type - classified via type aka a capitalist state - intrinsic b) Role - only exist in relations to others (like student and teacher) c) Collective - where self and other becomes blurredWendt's identity categories of constructivismIt matters. It gives meaning to experiences and actions and can influence security policy. Constructivists see the cold war as a cultural rather than material situation Examples - seeing other cultural immigrants as a threat to our national identityWhat do constructivists think of culture? How does this relate to the Cold War?Culture is meaningful knowledge transmitted through symbols through history which people use to communicate and perpetuate their knowledge about life 1) Evaluative - norms and values 2) Cognitive - rules and models These define how we exist in a system and how we relate to othersWhat is culture? What are the two aspects of culture and what do they do?Collective expectations about proper behaviour given your identity Created through shared practice. They guide behaviour and can be seen as good or bad. They are intersubjective meaning they are both shaped by society and shape it They don't 100% determine behaviour but they sure shape itWhat are norms?1) Constitutive - identity of an actor, their behaviour and interests 2) Regulatory - the rules that tell an identity how to act - like sovereignty They kind of overlap because like if a state does sovereign things it will become sovereign and other actors will recognize the sovereignty of that state The nuclear taboo represents a regulative norm cause it tells you what to do aka don't make nukes and constitutive norm aspect because you are seen as civilized if you don't launch nukesThe two kinds of norms that constructivists believe in. How does the nuclear taboo represent both?An emerging stable normWhat would we call the intervention policy against human rights abuses in the international arena?Epistemic communities are groups with expert knowledge who share norms and create new norms based on their expertise Norm entrepreneurs forge new normsWhat are the epistemic communities and norm entrepreneurs evaluated by constructivists?Groups who have common interests for peaceful conflict resolution Two kinds 1) Amalgamated - a unified security community where government is shared - amalgamated = conjoined 2) Pluralistic - integration is deep but states have political independence = pluralistic = many separate entities - like the Nordic regionKarl Deutsch's idea of security communitiesRationalists believe in stagnation Constructivism believes in the capability for changeThe key distinction between rationalists and constructivistsThey both effect each other e.g. we shape our world and it shapes us. For example, in the consturictivst worldview of securityWhat does mutually constitutive mean?Coercion, interest and legitimacy (aka in a state deciding to comply with norms)The three levels of cultural internalizationWhat extent state action is influenced by structure aka the anarchy or process aka interaction and learning + institutionsAccording to Wendt what is the current debate between liberals and realists?Conventional because he believes there can be a link between rationalism and constructivismIs Wednt more a critical or conventional constructivist? Why?1) Hobbesian - enemies 2) Lockean - rivals 3) Kantian - friends But each culture doesn't produce a definitive structure of anarchy, this all depends on how deeply the culture has been embedded Wendt believes in change and that we are moving toward kantianWednt's three cultures of anarchyRationalism - Conventionals think there is a bridge between rationalist and reflectivist approaches aka between science and social variable approaches - Critical think this goal is contradictory Identity - Conventional think it is solid and singular - Critical think it is complex and you can have more than one Language - Conventional don't care - Critical thinks is important in shaping our reality e.g. it's power to securitize States - Conventional accept them as the most important actors + their identity is given - Criticals argue that we must be more critical about state identity formationConventional vs critical constructivistsCause language can securitizeWhy do constructivists put such a huge focus on language when it comes to security?1) Hard to test empirically 2) Which norms are operating in a given situation? We'll never know 3) Wendt is all about cultures of anarchy and can't tell us much about domestic identity 4) Uncritical and apoliticalCritiques of constructivism1) US is not relying on China for trade as much 2) Chinese government wants to control its own rice 3) EU not importing as much Russian gas We will probably see - Higher prices - Increased domestic jobs - The developing world suffering - Potentially more military spending - Russia suffering from all the sanctions - independence backfiredHow might the Ukraine war slow globalization?To critique how Eurocentric ideas and historical writings have formed how we think about social situations and political thoughtWhat does it mean to decolonize in IR?Because the way we think about it is based on the history and social structures that were around the nation-state formation in the westHow do Eurocentric ideas relate to the concept of war?Real wars are between nation states and fought between regular armed forces Other conflicts are small wars, insurgences and uprisings or other But this is from the western experience remember. Leads to the war/peace binary + binaries of international and civil warWhat do we think of as real wars vs small wars in our Eurocentric understanding? What binaries does this kind of thinking lead to?1) The war peace binary aka either in a state of instability/war or stability and peace. He fights it by saying that there can still be battles or repression going in in times of "peace", aka that there can be constant war. 2) Fights the notion that there are just sovereign nation states and two types of war by saying it is a lot more transnational, based on hierarchies and imperialism than that.How does Tarak B. Decolonize war?Through our education, official dates for war and that the media and gov claims "wartime" and "peacetime" War consists of at least 1000 battle deaths in calendar year We make war seem like this extraordinary interruption of society, politics and the economyHow is the war/peace binary reinforced?1) There are times in war that are stalemates of practical peace 2) Sometimes wars are just displays of power and not really wars 3) We make war seem like this extraordinary interruption of society, politics and the economy where in reality they are mutually constitutive 4) The threat of war overhangs peace and shapes it, sometimes orientating it toward war. Politics can't be thought of as separate from force There is not a distinction between peace and war but rather between the threat of force and it being actually used. Politics and use of force are not separate. Realists realize this but unfortunately is still super Eurocentric cause only focused on great powersHow is the war/peace binary untrue? What is more accurate. Who realizes this?We fail to see the wars happening all around usWhat is the problem with the war/peace binary?1) There is a constant war between the north and south now because of violent repression and small wars. The colonial situation is identical to war. 2) Is the violence we see to every day people warfare with organized reciprocal fighting or coming from the security apparatus enforcing order. This implies that war can be coercion when fighting is not reciprocated.What did the global south war orientation colonialist view lead to? Two things and their implicationsThe threat of force whether this is from a colonial police, death squad or settlerRepression requiresThe issue is that force and war together are instruments in sustaining social orderWhat is wrong about the war/peace binary concept of war = disorder and peace = order?YesIf there is violence conducted by proxy or informally or by armed representatives can it still be a war?It means referring to everything in terms of the nations state - state army and society are all bounded within the territorial sovereign package. This means that armies come from people in the polity to fight for its aims. - Uses the Max Weber definition of state aka whoever can hold the monopoly of physical violence in a territory This is Eurocentric because it makes us think in terms of major wars and ignore small wars + many societies and conflicts do take Trinitarian forms. For example, many conflicts recruit nationals from colonized societies, so they aren't members of state fighting for state - like how in Cold War US and Soviets used Koreans and Vietnamese to fight the hot parts So we shouldn't just think that international politics is a bunch of trinitarian entities fighting each otherWhat is the trinitarian vision, and what does this have to do with war and Eurocentricness and why this is problematicBecause most deaths and political impact. But not because most of humanity historically lives in the southWhy should we focus on the western world wars? Why not?We always think of things as the Eurocentric trinitarian view with the military being made of people from the country but it is more common to have nationals fighting. Even Hitler's Waffen SS was made largely of foreignersWhat is strange about foreign-born militaryHAShould we look at war as civil and international or as hierarchal articulations?It is thinking that the western experience with war applies to the whole world and ignores the global southThe problem with modern war thinking is thatSlavery and empire and this continues today in its inequalities A key part of it is making people of colour fight each otherWhat led to capitalismWe can answer these with Eurocentricism but not if we want to decolonize warWho fights in a war? Why do they fight? When is it war and when is it peace?That civil-military relations needs to be an inherently international field - Nicaraguan peasants almost unseated Reagan, SS Waffen Foreign, Vietnam war being a super significant part of American history, etc. Also war and peace time blendWhat does Tarak who writes on decolonizing war think?To try to undermine legitimate conflicts that could come to overwhelm western governmentsWhy do we use the term small war?NoCan we separate the use of force from politicsKeeps them in powerWhy do the elites want racism