Unformatted text preview: IR 100 Theoretical vs. Historical Approaches to International Relations Wednesday, Sept. 5, 2007 Prof. Mary Elise Sarotte Pearl Harbor, Dec. 7, 1941 Pearl Harbor = 9/11? Surprise attack On American soil US unprepared Significant loss of life Declarations of war Same features repeated Pearl Harbor 9/11 Nation state behind attack Military target Multipolar world News spread by radio Joined allies in war Terrorist cell behind attack (non-state actor) Civilian and military targets Unipolar world Turned down allied offers to help in war Components of a Theory Actors: individuals (people and individual states) and/or institutions Incentives: money, power, prestige Actions: what can actors do to get what they want? Components of a Theory Constraints int'l system, norms, resources, other actors Outcomes Foreign policies: wars, sanctions, strategies What makes for a good theory? A) Coherence: can you explain it to others? B) Generalizability: How widely can you apply the theory? C) Parsimony: How much information is needed? What makes for a good theory? D) Plausibility: do assumptions accord with reality? E) Testability: Can we confirm or disprove this? Must use observable data F) Accuracy: Does it actually explain what's going on? Realism: Key features
Exist in an unchanging world of anarchy Only actors are states Interested only in survival, security, and sovereignty All actions aimed at securing the above in an anarchic world Most important level: international Key Authors
Classical Realists: Thucydides?, Machiavelli, Hobbes Neo-Classical Realism: Hans Morgenthau Neorealism: Kenneth Waltz Liberalism: Key features
Even in world of anarchy, there can be change and cooperation Primary actors are states, but there are other actors as well Interested in own health and welfare - can achieve many ways Interested in institutions, treaties, organizations Key Authors
John Locke Jeremy Bentham Sociological Liberalism: Richard Cobden, revived by later authors Interdependence Liberalism: Stanley Hoffmann, Joseph Nye, Andrew Moravcsik Republican Liberalism: Kant and later authors (Democratic Peace) Larry Diamond on the Democratic Peace Diamond, Larry. "Universal Democracy," Policy Review (No. 119, June/July 2003). Available online at www.policyreview.org in archives. Can every country become a democracy? Answer: "There is no model of governance with any broad normative appeal or legitimacy in the world other than democracy." Diamond continued Diamond defines democracy as "a system of government in which the people choose their leaders at regular intervals through free, fair and competitive elections" By this definition: mid-1970s: Greece and Spain 1979-85: military withdrew in favor of elected civilian government in 9 Latin American countries Diamond continued 1986: Philippines 1987: martial law lifted in Taiwan 1989: Eastern Europe, Chile 1991: Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal Summary: In 1974, there were 41 democracies among the existing 150 states. Today: about 3/5 of the world's states are democracies. Adam Przeworski From 1950 to 1990, no country with a per capital income higher than $6055 in 1985 PPP dollars (which is $8773 in 2000 dollars) suffered a breakdown of democracy. Constructivism
Constructs that matter are the ones that we think matter (i.e. no objective significance other than that which we assign) Actors: Constantly changing Constraints: Norms that govern society Actions: Words matter as much as force IR 100 Theoretical vs. Historical Approaches to International Relations Wednesday, Sept. 5, 2007 Prof. Mary Elise Sarotte ...
View Full Document