Notes on Lecture 2

Notes on Lecture 2 - September 8, 2011 Nicole Katzman The...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: September 8, 2011 Nicole Katzman The Three Is Identify an empirical puzzle. o Georgia invades South Ossetia Who are the relevant actors? o Georgia, Ossetia, Russia, United States Georgia expected the United States to back them because at the time both of their leaders were close. However, the United States did not agree with their invasion. South Ossetia expected an alliance with Russia because Russia wants to protect fellow Russians and they dont want unstable borders. o What are their interests? To get control of the breakaway region of South Ossertia What choices (strategies) are available to each? Throw in arms Neutral attempt South Ossetia can resist o How do the choices interact to shape outcomes? o How does anticipated interaction shape the choices actors actually make? What institutions exist to constrain choices? o NATO o What are the rules of the game o http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2519908/Cau casus-in-crisis-Georgia-invades-rebel-region.html **article on invasion** Paradigms- This approach contrasts with more traditional approaches, with a focus on alternative paradigms. Each of the 3 traditional paradigms makes assumptions about each of the 3 Is. We will use the 3 I framework instead, but briefly introduce you to the traditional alternative. o Realism- oldest and most established states are the most dominate actors States can be power or security seeking States will barging to get what they want Power that is not mitigated by institutions International institutions are anarchic Anarchy- the absence of a central authority with the ability to make and enforce laws that bind all actors. o Liberalism-Robert Kohan (modern liberal thinking) Open to the idea that there are many kinds of actors Activists, ethnic groups, states, etc. Believe there is room for cooperation and common interest Conflict is always a failure of bargaining (when states fail to recognize their common interests) Believe international institutions facilitate cooperation by spreading information about other nations so there is no worry Monitor what actors are doing and give information o Constructivism- Most modern Similar to liberals, they believe there are many types of actors Interests are developed through social interactions Interactions socialize actors (give them different ideas) Bad = conflict / good = peaceful Interests Interactions Institutions Realism (Thucydides, Morgenthau, Waltz) State dominant actor. States seek security and/or power. States interests generally in conflict. International politics primarily about bargaining, with coercion always possible....
View Full Document

Page1 / 10

Notes on Lecture 2 - September 8, 2011 Nicole Katzman The...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online