International Studies Paper(Graduate students)

IAFF 6101 Interna-onal Affairs Cornerstone

Lecture 3: Liberalism September 13, 2016

Today’s Class •  Quick Review of Realism

•  Introduc;on to Liberalism

•  Neoliberal Ins;tu;onalism

•  Economic Interdependence

•  Democra;c Peace Theory

Structural (Neo) Realism

•  Key assump;ons: anarchy, states, survival, uncertainty

•  Structure of the system induces compe;;ve behavior, balancing, imita;on

•  Even defensively mo;vated states can end up in compe;;on

•  Maximize security, not power, because: –  States balance against power –  Security dilemma

Offensive Realism

•  Same basic star;ng assump;ons

•  Different key predic;on: states maximize rela;ve power

•  SD = unavoidable; states have no choice but to compete

•  All GPs bid for regional hegemony

•  But isn’t maximizing power irra;onal if you know the SD exists?

Defensive Realism

•  Same star;ng assump;ons, but portrays a less compe;;ve world where coopera;on is not only possible, but some;mes a beTer route to security than compe;ng

•  Emphasis on the SD, but SD can vary in intensity

•  Offense-defense balance causes the SD to vary

•  ODB determined by technology and geography

Mo-va-onal Realism Builds on defensive realism in two ways:

•  Introduces varia;on in state type –  Greedy/revisionist –  Security-seeker/status quo

•  Introduces informa;on variables –  Your informa;on about adversary’s type –  Your informa;on about adversary’s beliefs about your type

–  Informa;on is generated through signaling

Hegemonic Realism

•  Preponderance = peace

•  Balance = war

•  “The growth of the power of Athens, and the alarm which this inspired in Sparta, made war inevitable.”

•  Preven;ve war

The Bargaining Model •  Three ra;onal explana;ons for war:

– Private info and incen.ves to misrepresent

– Credible commitment problems

–  Issue indivisibility

1st Image 2nd Image 3rd Image

Realism Human nature/ Classical

Mo;va;onal/ Neoclassical

Neorealism Offensive Defensive Hegemonic Bargaining model

Realism and Levels of Analysis

What Unites Realists? •  Emphasis on structure of system, defined in material terms

•  Emphasis on states as main actors

•  Ra;onality

•  Security dilemma

•  Ins;tu;ons – interna;onal or domes;c – play liTle role

What Divides Realists? •  What comprises structure

–  Power –  Power + ODB

•  Interpreta;on of the security dilemma –  Highly constraining –  Not constraining

•  System structure most conducive to peace, stability –  Unipolar/hegemonic vs. bipolar vs. mul;polar

•  Varia;on in state type –  All seek security –  Some seek only security, some seek things beyond security

Today’s Class •  Quick Review of Realism

•  Introduc-on to Liberalism •  Neoliberal Ins;tu;onalism

•  Economic Interdependence

•  Democra;c Peace Theory

The Kan-an Triad

•  Republican cons;tu;ons (liberal democracy)

•  Interna;onal law and organiza;on

•  Cosmopolitan law (free trade)

Wilsonian Liberalism

•  Make the world safe for democracy

•  League of Na;ons

•  Remove barriers to trade

The Liberal Tradi-on in America

•  U.S. presidents tend to be liberal interna;onalists – Promote democracy

•  More or less forcefully – Work with mul;lateral ins;tu;ons

•  Bush excepted – Support free trade

•  NAFTA, TPP

•  Hillary Clinton?

•  Donald Trump?

Dueling Anarchies

Realism •  Anarchy: life is nasty,

bru;sh, and short

Liberalism •  Anarchy: individuals have

rights, should not violate rights of others

Liberal Assump-ons

•  Anarchy, but state of nature ≠ state of war

•  Interstate rela;ons not zero-sum

•  Coopera;on is possible

•  States differen;ated by internal characteris;cs

•  States have aims that go beyond security è In sum, anarchy does not preclude beneficial coopera;on and stable, peaceful rela;ons.

Today’s Class •  Quick Review of Realism

•  Introduc;on to Liberalism •  Neoliberal Ins-tu-onalism

•  Economic Interdependence

•  Democra;c Peace Theory

Neoliberal Ins-tu-onalism

•  Primarily a structural theory – Keohane emphasized that neoliberalism is built on the same core assump;ons as structural realism •  Anarchy, states, ra;onal unitary actors

•  Different conclusions – Significant coopera;on is possible under anarchy – Interna;onal ins;tu;ons are the key

Defini-ons and Types •  Ins;tu;ons: “persistent and connected sets of rules (formal

and informal) that prescribe behavioral roles, constrain ac;vity, and shape expecta;ons” (Keohane 1989, 3) –  a.k.a., regimes

•  Possible forms/types –  Can include a formal organiza;on (NATO, WTO, IMF), but need not –  Alliances –  Arms control agreements –  Trade deals –  Regimes, which can include broader understandings, norms, decision-making procedures •  NPT regime: includes NPT, but also addi;onal ins;tu;ons, norm against prolifera;on

Player 2

Keep Quiet (Cooperate)

Rat

(Defect)

Player 1

Keep Quiet (Cooperate)

Good, Good Worst, Best

Rat

(Defect)

Best, Worst Bad, Bad

By doing what is individually ra;onal, both players get a worse outcome than they could have goTen by coopera;ng

Prisoner’s Dilemma

Coopera-on in a Neoliberal World

•  Chief obstacle to coopera;on = (fear of) chea;ng

•  How to alleviate this obstacle? •  Itera;on •  Reciprocity •  Monitoring and verifica;on

Providing Informa-on: Chea-ng

•  A key func;on played by ins;tu;ons is providing informa;on

•  Ins;tu;ons usually lack enforcement capability •  Anarchy is lem unchanged

•  Provide informa;on about state behavior •  Reduces barriers created by collabora;on problems, poten;al for chea;ng •  Effec;ve monitoring reduces the risks of being cheated •  Examples: U.S.-Soviet arms control; NPT—IAEA inspec;ons; Iran nuclear agreement

Providing Informa-on: State Type

•  Ins;tu;ons can also provide informa;on about state type •  Uncertainty about type = key problem in realism, helps fuel the SD

•  State can gain a reputa;on via coopera;on in an ins;tu;ons of being a trustworthy type

•  Mechanism: costly signaling •  Forego threatening forces •  Reducing your ability to cheat à security seeker •  Constrain ability to use forces you have – seeking UN authoriza;on

•  Enhance credibility of commitments

Establishing a Nego-a-ng Forum

•  Reduces costs of beginning nego;a;ons

•  Create shared set of understandings, terminology

•  Arena to learn about/resolve others’ concerns

•  Help resolve issues that arise later, unforeseeable at the ;me ins;tu;on is created

Issue Linkages

•  Creates linkages across issues that make deals more feasible •  States may have incompa;ble preferences over a single issue

•  Broadening the issues being bargained over, linking them, can facilitate agreements •  Side payments: climate change example

Neoliberal-Realist Debate •  There was—and con;nues to be—debate between realists and neoliberals

•  Some debate was unproduc;ve b/c it was based on arguments that were wrong •  Realism predicts only compe;;on, not coopera;on

•  Some debates ini;ally seemed stark, but evolved as both sides moderated their posi;ons •  Rela;ve gains

Neoliberal-Realist Debate, 2 •  The big debate con;nues to be over establishing the independent

effect of ins;tu;ons

•  The standard realist response is that ins;tu;ons are an effect, not a cause •  Ins;tu;ons reflect the balance of power •  The same factors that make coopera;on likely also cause ins;tu;ons

Ins;tu;ons Structure Coopera;on

•  Ins;tu;ons are “endogenous” to structure – NATO example