Current Event – Totalitarian Restrictions or Ethnic Conflict

Write a paper on a current event article that discusses restrictions on freedoms by a totalitarian state or an article on ethnic conflict within a nation. Summarize the article and explain why this issue is important to the global community. What outside influences might help change this issue? How? Is the article neutral? Why or why not?

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on

Just from $13/Page

Order Essay

Be sure to include a scanned copy of the article in your submission in addition to citations. Articles may not be more than one month old.

Writing Requirements (APA format). Refer to the APA manual.

Length: 3 full pages (not including the title or references page)
1-inch margins
Double-Spaced
12-point Times New Roman font
Title and Reference page required
APA cite article with link
Scan copy of article required

· Textbook: Chapters 8, 9

· Lesson

(Links to an external site.)

Citation and Writing Assistance: Writing Papers At CU (Links to an external site.)

Library Overview (Links to an external site.)

How to Search for Articles – the Everything Tab (Links to an external site.)

· Article (no more than one-month old) from reputable news source such as The New York Times or The Washington Post

Instructions
Write a paper on a current event article that discusses restrictions on freedoms by a totalitarian state or an article on ethnic conflict within a nation. Summarize the article and explain why this issue is important to the global community. What outside influences might help change this issue? How? Is the article neutral? Why or why not?

Be sure to include a scanned copy of the article in your submission in addition to citations. Articles may not be more than one month old.

Writing Requirements (APA format). Refer to the APA manual.

· Length: 3 full pages (not including the title or references page)

· 1-inch margins

· Double-Spaced

· 12-point Times New Roman font

· Title and Reference page required

· APA cite article with link

· Scan copy of article required

Chapter 8
Comparative Politics

Chapter Objectives

1. Outline the comparative method.

2. Explore the meaning of the state and its key characteristics.

3. Define democracy, and identify ways in which it is measured.

4. Discuss patterns in postcommunist transitions and state development.

5. Define nationalism, and identify how it can often lead to conflict.

Today’s China is an interesting amalgam of communist ideology and capitalist practice. In 1949, Mao Zedong established the People’s Republic of China with himself as the ruler. Mao’s influence on China can hardly be overstated; under his dictatorial leadership, China underwent significant social, cultural, and economic change. Mao’s “Little Red Book” of communist thought and ideology was, and still is, required reading throughout China. His modernization programs quickly industrialized the country, but the Cultural Revolution decimated professional classes and easily set China back. Following his death, the Communist Party of China instituted a term limit for presidents at two five-year terms in order to limit the type of power Mao had acquired. While Chinese presidents remain quite powerful, perhaps even authoritarian, politicians since Mao have abided by these rules.

However, in March 2018, China’s National People’s Congress agreed to abolish term limits on China’s president, which had been in place since Mao Zedong in order to allow its current president, Xi Jinping, to hold power for many years to come. In addition to his position as president, Xi also holds the positions of general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee and chairman of the Central Military Commission. While many in the West had hoped that economic reforms in China, allowing for some capitalist practices, would eventually lead the country to a democratic future, Xi’s consolidation of power for the foreseeable time means that nothing like democratic principles appear to be at work. The challenge, then, for political scientists, is to understand the complex politics of a country as large and as complicated as China. With its long historical traditions and blending of communism and capitalism, it is a country that the West often misunderstands.

Comparative politics is the study of countries and politics around the world; comparativists examine the same thing political scientists do in American politics but do it in an international manner. They study institutions, political parties, public opinion, and voting all around the world. Some will compare patterns in one country to patterns in another or study the politics of an entire region. The name comparative politics also applies to another aspect of study: the methodology used. In comparing and contrasting countries, comparativists seek to understand why politics is different or the same around the world.

There are many ways of looking at politics around the world. We can look at different political institutions, the executives, legislatures, and court systems around the world. We can examine countries that are liberal democracies and those that are authoritarian. We can look at democracies versus monarchies versus oligarchies. We can look at health policy around the world or education policy or foreign policy. We can even look at the development of countries, from industrialized countries to developing countries, to the least developed.

So how to break up this chapter? If you were taking an introductory course to comparative politics, your professor may choose one of two main ways to organize the class: around regions and countries or around topic. In the country approach, you may study three or four countries in each of the following categories: industrialized democracies (think Europe here); communist and postcommunist countries such as Russia and China; and developing states such as those in Latin America, Africa, or the Middle East. Because patterns of politics are generally similar in countries in the same region or stage of development, by learning about the politics of some of these states, you can better understand the larger region. In the second approach, you may learn about major concepts such as the state, democracy, regime change, policy, and economics. This way, you learn not only about major concepts in comparative politics but can learn how to apply them across different countries. Either of these approaches is a valid and constructive way of learning about comparative politics.

For our purposes here, we’ll be using the second approach to exploring comparative politics. We certainly will not be able to address every major topic of study in comparative politics, nor will the ones addressed be considered by everyone to be the most important. However, major topics like states, including their structure, development, economy, and democracy, are some of the most important concepts you’ll come across in comparative politics. But first, we’ll need to address the methodological component of comparative politics, the comparative method.

The Comparative Method

In 1971, Lijphart wrote, “Among the several fields or subdisciplines into which the discipline of political science is usually divided, comparative politics is the only one that carries a methodological instead of a substantive label. The term, ‘comparative politics’ indicates the how but does not specify the what of the analysis.”1 Lijphart identifies the comparative method as one of the basic scientific methods that allows scientists to test out propositions and hypotheses; it is “a method of discovering empirical relationships among variables.”2

One immediate thing about this process to be noted is that there are many outside variables that could affect the main relationship; Lijphart calls this the problem of many variables, small number of cases. Given the large number of characteristics that could affect any hypothesis, it will not always be possible to find enough cases, enough countries, or enough governments to properly test the hypothesis, and even then, you may not be able to get enough cases with similar enough characteristics. And further, just because a relationship may be apparent in a test of five countries, who is to say that that relationship will hold for other regions, countries, or periods of time?

One other major problem can also be confronted when using the comparative method. Because scientists are picking the cases to study and test their hypotheses with, we sometimes see something called selection bias, or selecting on the dependent variable. This means that scientists pick the cases to study so as to ensure that their theory is not disproved. In a more technical way, Collier and Mahoney define selection bias as selecting extreme cases that could lead to biased “estimates of causal effects.”3 To be sure, scientists may not be doing this on purpose, they may not even realize that they are biasing their own results. This just means that comparativists must pay very close attention to how they choose the cases they study to ensure that selection bias does not happen.

That being said, the comparative method, when used properly, can offer political scientists the ability to understand patterns of politics around the world—particularly for countries that are similar in region, similar in history, or similar in government. This allows every state and every government in the world to come up for examination, including America. Therefore, when one studies political science in Europe, they do not recognize a difference between comparative and American politics; for everyone else, they comprise the same thing. The comparative method can be used in any study of politics, even in America.

The State

Here in America, when we say state, we’re usually referring to one of the fifty United States. While this is a legitimate use, the term state also refers to governments and countries around the world. In fact, when we refer to places like the United Kingdom, South Africa, China, or Chile, the proper term to use is state. Theorists going as far back as the Enlightenment and Thomas Hobbes have struggled with the meaning of the state—what it is, what defines it, what differentiates it from society or government. Social contract theorists like Hobbes and Locke theorized that the state arises from the social contract entered into by citizens. Steinberger argues that under Hobbes’s social contract, not only is a sovereign created in which all powers are bestowed but a commonwealth that allows the sovereign to exist and act.4

Idea of the State

Early political scientists also homed in on the idea of a state, attempting to define what exactly constituted a “good” state. Weber, the same prolific German sociologist so influential in early conceptions of bureaucracy and public administration, defined the state as an entity that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Force does not include only physical, military, or police, but legal coercion. For example, the state can coerce us to pay taxes or drive the speed limit by threatening us with

State Formation

Aside from identifying what the state is or is not, political scientists also try to understand what causes states to form and why. The origins of the modern state system date back to the times of Hobbes himself with the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The treaty ended the Thirty Years’ War in Europe and established principles of territorial sovereignty with competing states held in check by a balance of power. The Westphalian system led to a decline in traditional political authority like monarchies and feudalism, an increase in sovereignty over carefully defined land masses, and an increase in the complexity of governmental institutions.10

Vu takes the ideas of the state and state formation one step further, arguing that the way in which states form can tell us something about the meaning of the state itself.11 For many European states, war and the subsequent need for rulers to acquire resources to fight wars helped lead to state formation. A homogenous civil society with competing groups also seems to be a prerequisite. These characteristics can tell us a lot about when states do or not form, which is important because the largest growth in the number of states did not occur in the early period of state formation but much later. In fact, Germany as a state did not emerge until the late 1800s! Many states in Latin America and Africa did not emerge until late because they had been colonial outposts of European nations. Even then, it was not always easy for states to form; colonial powers had no interest in seeing countries develop economically and therefore compete with their mother countries. Other former colonies had, and still have, severe ethnic conflicts because colonial masters drew lines with no thought toward historical and natural conflicts. Conflicts in the Middle East and Africa demonstrate how these two problems have intertwined to either lead to late state development or the lack of development altogether.

State Strength

This last issue leads us to concerns about the strength of states. How strong or weak states are can be used to explain why state formation does or does not occur, why revolutions do or don’t happen, and how countries respond to crisis. For example, prior to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the state of Iraq under Saddam Hussein could be considered to be strong. Saddam was able to forcibly keep his country together despite the fact that three different ethnic groups all had reason to pull apart. And pull apart they did once Saddam’s regime fell; the result has been a weak Iraqi state that has been penetrated by outside forces such as the Islamic State. It isn’t easy for scholars to agree on what constitutes a strong state and what constitutes a weak state. Some have identified state strength as the ability of states to control political outcomes. Davidheiser identifies three criteria for a strong state: how deeply the state penetrates into society, the breadth of that penetration, and state autonomy.12 Correspondingly, fragile states are those that “lack the capacity to discharge their normal functions and drive forward development.”13

Fragile states can very often lead to failed states. Failed states exist where there is no entity that can exert sovereignty over their territory; this can lead to dangerous situations where no rule of law exists and chaos can reign. A prominent example of a failed state is Somalia, which has given safe harbor to modern-day pirates precisely because there is no legitimate authority or law in place to stop them. Piazza has come to this very conclusion; in studying 197 countries between 1973 and 2003, he finds that failed states are more likely to be home to transnational terrorist groups, giving safe haven to groups that are likely to strike outside of their home territory.14 On the other hand, Patrick questions this link, arguing that state failure is only imperfectly related to transnational security threats. In any case, failed states have come in for as much examination as states that do exert control over their territory.15

Democracy

In America, we often take the term democracy for granted. We’re taught that America represents the pinnacle of democracy without seriously thinking about what that means. For political scientists who study democracy around the world, the meaning of democracy is a very important thing, especially if we want to know what promotes democracy and what prevents it from taking hold.

Defining Democracy

Theories of democracy go back to ancient Greece, where we are told democracy means rule by the people. But what does rule by the people mean? Does it mean all people or just some people? Does it have to be all the time or just some of the time? And what if the majority of people act to take away important rights or rules? Does the fact that the majority says something is acceptable make it democratic? If we simply think about the history of American democracy, there were large periods in history where African Americans and women were not allowed to participate and had limited rights; does that mean America wasn’t a democracy? These are just some of the basic concerns of democratic theorists in trying to understand precisely what democracy is.

In the mid-twentieth century, various definitions of democracy were put forward. Lipset defined democracy as follows:

[It is] a political system which supplies regular constitutional opportunities for changing the governing officials. It is a social mechanism for the resolution of the problem of societal decision-making among conflicting interest groups which permits the largest possible part of the population to influence these decisions through their ability to choose among alternative contenders for political office.16

Lipset’s definition focuses mainly on the requirement of elections, but how often do those elections need to occur? And do they need to be fair? Dahl adds to this definition by requiring that a democracy have elections that are fair, or rather, that everyone’s vote count equally.17 Downs goes one step further by saying that democratic elections should be held periodically.18 Combining these early definitions of democracy, comparativists came to the maxim that democracies are countries that have free, fair, and frequent elections.

But what about civil liberties—things that protect citizens’ rights or the structure of government itself? Bollen argues that democracy is better defined as “the extent to which the political power of the elite is minimized and that of the nonelite is maximized.”19 His definition encompasses many of the structures that would allow this to happen: elections and civil liberties, protections for citizens from government. Similarly, Muller defines democratic states as follows:

(1) The executive must be elected or be responsible to an elected assembly, in (2) at least two consecutive and free and fair competitive elections in which (3) at least approximately a majority of the population has the right to vote, and during which (4) the rights of freedom of speech and assembly are respected.20

Measuring Democracy

Knowing the definition of democracy is only half the battle; how do we measure how democratic a country is? There are a number of indices, or ways, of measuring democracy that have been put together in studies of comparative politics. Some measures are simply dichotomies; either a country is democratic or is not. In their study of measures of democracy, Bollen and Paxton divide measures of democracy into two traditions: one where measurements utilize voter turnout statistics, composition of legislatures, or availability of the vote, and a second that utilizes subjective determinations by a group of experts who rate how democratic a country is.21

One example of the later approach is the Freedom House ratings, which are released every year and widely used in comparative politics.

Figure 8.1

shows how the percentage of countries rated as free, partly free, and not free have changed since 1985, according to Freedom House. Another set of measurements is the Polity data set, which scores states on a scale of −10 (hereditary monarchy) to +10 (democracy) (see

Figure 8.2

). The rankings depend on specific variables: freedom of group opposition, competitiveness of the political nomination process, election of chief executive, and effectiveness of the legislature.

Figure 8.1 Freedom House Rankings through the YearsAfter years of major gains, the share of free countries has declined over the past decade, while the share of not-free countries has risen.

So what contributes to countries becoming democratic? In a comprehensive study of civic attitudes and democracy, Muller and Seligson find that the only attitude that positively contributes to democracy is a belief in gradual rather than sudden, revolutionary reform.22 Ross, in “Does Taxation Lead to Representation?” (which ironically appeared in the British Journal of Political Science), tests the idea of whether the need to raise taxes forces countries to democratize and finds support for this thesis.23 In studying Latin America, a region where patterns of democratization have been uneven, Perez-Linan and Mainwaring demonstrate the influence of history on democratization; in states with a stronger history, a stronger experience with democracy, democratization is more likely to proceed.24 All of these studies suggest that ideas in civil society and beliefs about what the government should or should not do contribute to the building of democracy. If we draw this line of inquiry out, democracy, then, can be very sensitive to place, time, and culture.

Culture is a concept that plays a role in a lot of comparative research. Some of the earliest research examining the relationship of culture to democracy was published by Almond and Verba in 1963 in a book called The Civic Culture. In examining the United States, Germany, Mexico, Italy, and the United Kingdom, Almond and Verba argue that what they call the civic culture supports a strong and vibrant democracy. Later generations of political scientists and comparativists have continued this tradition of research. Examining twenty local governments throughout Italy, Putnam identifies distinct historical legacies throughout Italy, which he argues have contributed to the strength of democracy throughout the country.25 Putnam adapted Almond and Verba’s concept of civic culture and focused on something called social capital. For Putnam, social capital represents the connections we have with one another that contribute to our resources for and abilities to contribute to a democratic life. Taken together, these two studies represent some of the major works linking culture to democracy.

Being able to measure how democratic a country is allows comparativists to study not only how democracies come about but what the effects of democracy are. Baum and Lake find that democracies lead to increased life expectancy in poor countries and increased education levels in richer countries.26 Li and Reuveny show that increased levels of democracy lead to decreased levels of environmental degradation.27 Boehmke finds an increased presence in interest group and associated activity as democracy increases.28 What else do you think democracy affects?

Globalization

A not-so-old saying says that when America sneezes, the rest of the world gets a cold. The saying refers to the connections of the global economy; if the American economy experiences a hiccup, the effects of that hiccup quickly reverberate around the world. Growing up today, it’s easy to notice the increased economic and other connections between states around the world; we call this globalization. In fact, globalization is often associated in many ways with democracy, political economy, and even culture. Without a doubt, the connection between economics, democracy, and globalization are often subtle and diverse. Does more democracy lead to globalization, or does globalization lead to democracy? How does the economy play a role in mediating these linkages?

Globalization as a process can be traced throughout history; for example, trade caravans in the Middle East, the Silk Road to China, and European colonialization beginning in the 1500s all represent globalization. While the first real coordinated efforts at setting the foundations for an international economy began at the Bretton Woods Conference after World War II, political science research into globalization did not begin in earnest until the 1980s. Kapstein describes the natural conflict inherent in the process of globalization: “how to benefit from increased economic intercourse while pursuing legitimate national objectives, such as bank safety and soundness.”29 Countries want to take advantage of increased opportunities for trade and commerce, but if one country sneezes, others need to avoid a cold.

Economic globalization means that individual state economies are increasingly knit together, something exemplified in international trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (recently renegotiated and pending ratification) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). American critics of these sorts of trade agreements argue that by eliminating or reducing barriers to trade, companies will outsource their manufacturing to other countries where wages and costs are lower, thereby reducing employment opportunities and wages for American workers. However, Scruggs and Lange find that as far as union membership is concerned, increased economic globalization produces no effect.30 While this may be the case for developed countries, Ha shows that among developing countries, globalization is associated with increased income inequality.31

Globalization does not just occur with economics but with politics; political globalization is the increasing connectedness of political institutions, particularly international organizations like the United Nations, the European Union, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and other nongovernmental organizations. Think about the European Union in particular; the European Union is a confederation in which member states have given up some of their state sovereignty to the central political framework, especially in economics. This brings countries as different as France, the United Kingdom, Greece, and Germany together in a political and economic relationship where the actions of one affect the actions of all others.

One of the areas in which political science research has proven fruitful has been in tracing the consequences of globalization. Li and Reuveny, for instance, show that while economic changes can contribute to the spread of democracy, the more powerful factor is the spread of democratic ideas.32 One easy way to see this finding in action is the history of the Arab Spring movement in 2011. One of the things that allowed the Arab Spring to spread across the Middle East was access to the Internet, which helped not only to organize the protestors but to familiarize them with democratic ideals. Although the effects of the Arab Spring are rather questionable, it still demonstrates the power of ideas and increased global connectedness.

Globalization also has social impacts. Gray, Kittilson, and Sandholtz as well as Richards and Gelleny find that increased globalization generally leads to the betterment of the status of women.33 For women, globalization often means employment and educational opportunities. An example of this is in the field of microlending, where organizations lend women in developing countries small amounts of money to develop a business, which leads to increased income for the women and their families. Mukherjee and Krieckhaus show that globalization positively affects human well-being; both child and infant mortality fall, and life expectancy rises as globalization increases.34

Communism and Postcommunism

Perhaps no other topic in comparative politics has been as researched and discussed as the phenomenon of communism. The Cold War, driven by the ideological conflict between communism and democracy, was a political battle of wills between the two great superpowers of the twentieth century. As such, it was a natural topic of research for political scientists. This brief examination will be by no means a complete record or analysis of research into communism but will briefly discuss some of the more pertinent aspects of what communism is as a concept; how political scientists have studied it; and how countries, most prominently Russia, have transitioned from communism.

Communism in Practice

The first thing to understand about communism is that the brand of communism actually practiced by the Soviet Union, China, and their subsidiaries is not the theoretical construct of communism initially envisioned by Marx and Engels in The Communist Manifesto. Recall from Chapter 3 that Marx and Engels looked at history and saw in it a history of class struggles. The owners of the means of production, the bourgeoisie, sought to have control over the working class, the proletariat. They theorized that once a society had become industrialized and education had spread so that the proletariat came to realize how they were being used, a final revolution would occur. The proletariat would overthrow the bourgeoisie and eliminate any form of the state or government; the resulting society would be one in which all people were considered equal and shared ownership of both the means and results of production.

It’s obvious why such an ideology would be attractive to those outside of the bourgeoisie. Particularly in countries where poverty and inequality were rampant, communism was easily able to gain a foothold. However, those same countries, Russia and later China, were not the theoretical hotbeds of communism that Marx and Engels envisioned. Neither were industrialized (both were incredibly agrarian in their economy), and neither country had an educated working class that had come to realize and support the communist doctrine. Instead, both countries saw revolutionary leaders emerge that took the seed of communist ideology and infused it with local flavor and characteristics that made the communism that came to be practiced unique in each country.

In Russia, the conflict between communist forces and czarist loyalists came during World War I. The Bolshevik revolution, first headed by Leon Trotsky, was soon to be taken over by Vladimir Lenin, who formed the intellectual heart of Soviet communism. Lenin, realizing that the requirements for a true communist revolution were not yet in place in Russia, modified the theory of Marx and Engels and believed that before a communist revolution could occur, there must first be a dictatorship of the proletariat to prepare the state for the coming communist movement. The leadership would ensure that conditions like industrialized and class consciousness improved such that communism could eventually be fulfilled as Marx and Engels wrote. Lenin would become the first leader of the Soviet Union to be followed by the murderous dictator Joseph Stalin. As we know today, the dictatorship of the proletariat never succeeded in preparing the way for communism; the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991.

Much of the ideological concern and conflict would not come to a head until after World War II. Indeed, for the entirety of the war, the Allies included not only France, the United Kingdom, and the United States but also the Soviet Union. But in the absence of a common foe and the introduction of the atom bomb, the burgeoning conflict between the United States, democracy, and capitalism on one side and the Soviet Union and communism on the other blossomed into the Cold War. At that time, the forces of communism seemed stronger than ever and getting stronger by the day. Not only had the Soviet Union matched the United States in terms of the atom bomb by 1949 but more countries were succumbing to communism either by force or by choice. Many Eastern European countries that fell under the Soviet Union’s purview following World War II had communist governments pushed on them from the ultimate dictator of the proletariat. And perhaps most significantly, China adopted communism in 1949.

China’s road to communism, while sharing some similarities with Russia’s, led to its own distinct form of communism. Like precommunist Russia, China was largely agrarian with little industrialization and little in the way of widespread education. What China did have, however, was a strong streak of nationalism that led to increased resentment as foreign powers came into China in the beginning of the twentieth century. This led to a Chinese civil war following World War II, which ended with communists, led by Mao Zedong, defeating the Nationalists led by Chiang Kai-shek.

As Lenin did for the Soviet Union, Mao did for China in adopting Marxist thought to local conditions. This eventually led to a sharp split between the Soviet Union and China. Mao acknowledged that the vast majority of Chinese citizens were, in fact, peasants, and therefore that Marxist ideology would need to be adjusted to fit the circumstances in China.35 Writing in 1951 on the nature of Chinese communism, Littlejohn says this:

The ultimate oracle is at present in Moscow, whence come the highest directives, but the application of all ruling is, in my opinion, a matter of local usage. In fact I have a strong suspicion that the Chinese will before long consider their Communism to be superior to the Russian brand.36

Studies of Communism

Most of the political science literature on communism prior to 1960 focused on communism’s relation not only to individual states like Russia and China but religion and how it manifested in democratic countries like Australia. Scholar of Islam Lewis analyzed how compatible Islam would be with communism, notwithstanding Marxist communism’s prohibition on religion.37 Priestley argued that China’s assault on Christian churches had not so much to do with religion as it had to do with overcoming potential obstacles to consolidation of the regime.38 Also in regard to religion, Waddams explores the relationship between churches in Eastern Europe and the Russian Orthodox Church and the Moscow government, particularly in light of the Orthodox Church’s ability to avoid complete disintegration.39

Regional- and country-specific studies of communism continued into the Cold War. Recognition that communism was not as monolithic as it wanted to appear became commonplace. The United States was able to exploit this shift through an opening of relations with China in the early 1970s. Recognizing these distinct differences in brands of communism, Tucker, in 1967, called for a more comparative approach to studying communism that would allow analysts to more thoroughly understand the similarities and differences in communism around the world.

By the 1980s, changes in the communist world began to take their toll. With the opening of US-Chinese relations, China was rapidly industrializing, and their economy began to become the Goliath it is today. In the Soviet Union, partly under the influence of President Ronald Reagan, political and economic reforms were instituted. Under the leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev, the twin policies of glasnost and perestroika were introduced. Glasnost led to political reforms centered around more transparency and openness while perestroika represented economic reforms allowing for greater private ownership. Then, in 1989, many of the Eastern European satellite communist states finally rebelled against their political masters, tore down (both literally and figuratively) the wall separating Eastern and Western Europe and transitioned to democracy. By 1991, the Soviet Union itself was incapable of surviving and collapsed.

One of the great failures of political scientists was their inability to predict in advance the imminent fall of communism. Therefore, in the years following the end of Soviet communism, much of the research about communism focused on why it all of a sudden failed. Schopflin identifies economic problems, a lack of government legitimacy, and shifts in public opinion as key drivers of the Eastern European transition.40 Di Palma adds to this the existence of a civil society in Eastern European countries that survived the communist takeover.41 Janos reexamines communist theory and the historical record to try to reconstruct patterns of political change in the communist world.42

Postcommunist Transitions

Other political scientists focused not only on the effects of the end of Soviet communism but on examining the transition from communism. Schopflin sees possible problems for the formerly communist Eastern European states stemming from their intolerance of economic inequalities that would naturally occur in capitalist societies, as well as a hostility toward a middle class.43 White and McAllister looked at membership in the Communist Party in Russia and found that while it still held some sway as being the largest of the political parties to emerge after the fall of communism, younger and more religious Russians had left the party, leaving its future very much in doubt.44 Finally, Mishler and Rose find that skepticism abounds in postcommunist countries about government, which could make consolidation of democracy more difficult to achieve.45

Communism continues to be an intriguing topic for political scientists because it has left marks on societies that will exist for decades to come. Many comparativists continue to investigate these legacies and the continuing changes in communist countries that still exist today such as China. At the base level of politics, the antagonism that existed between the former Soviet Union and the United States continues to play out on other levels today as both countries compete for influence around the world and, in particular, in the Middle East. Although the Cold War may be over, the possibility for research is not.

Authoritarianism

While communism was merely the theory behind the operations of governments in states like the Soviet Union, it is critical to remember that ideology and government type are distinct concepts. For many of the major communist states of the twentieth century, and for some noncommunist states, the style of government adopted was that of authoritarianism or totalitarianism. Totalitarianism and authoritarianism are related in the sense that both are forms of government where the governing authorities have almost total and complete power. However, totalitarianism is a type of government in which the authorities have total and complete control over their society, whereas authoritarian government, while still exerting almost complete control, allows for some political freedoms although there are no political protections or democratic procedures in place.46 A good example of the difference between these two types of government is China. Under Mao in the twentieth century, China was considered a totalitarian government with Mao, as dictator, exerting near total control over the country. However, over time, China has allowed its citizens some limited political power although the state still controls the process. As such, today, China is considered an authoritarian state.

Concerns about authoritarianism naturally arise because of its lack of democratic principles and procedures but scholarly consideration of it increased greatly after World War II and the totalitarian and authoritarian governments involved in the war. In the early 1950s, Adorno and his colleagues published The Authoritarian Personality, which proposed that authoritarianism was a psychological trait or personality type distinguished by strict obedience to authority and oppression of diverse ideas and beliefs.47 Although The Authoritarian Personality was based on a Freudian psychological analysis, scholars since the 1950s have tried to understand authoritarianism as a political attitude, its origins and causes, and its implications for democratic government. For example, if a greater number of people adopt authoritarian attitudes, they might be more willing to allow for greater government control, more limited civil liberties and civil rights, and a weakening of democratic principles.

In considering the causes of authoritarian attitudes, political scientists, sociologists, and psychologists have often linked it to beliefs in traditionalism, a need to conform to group norms, fundamentalism, a need for social cohesion, and even racial prejudice. One dominant theme in the research is the influence of parental authority when an individual was young; those with more authoritarian attitudes have been found to have had parents who imposed stricter rules during their upbringing. In turn, authoritarian individuals tend to be more intolerant of minorities, to support greater use of military force, and “to condone and even endorse illegal and blatantly undemocratic government behavior.”48

One of the major findings since the 1950s is that authoritarian attitudes are often linked with right-wing, conservative political beliefs. This does not mean that there are no authoritarians who would be considered liberal but that there was a far higher number of authoritarians with right-wing beliefs.49 In assessing the prevalence of authoritarian attitudes in the United States, for instance, Cizmar and her colleagues found that the number of Americans exhibiting authoritarian attitudes has risen since the mid-twentieth century with a clear impact on political polarization itself.50 Indeed, Hetherington and Weiler make this argument explicit: that increasing polarization in the United States is most directly attributable to the rise of authoritarian attitudes.51 The rise of authoritarian attitudes is not limited to the United States; right-wing, authoritarian groups and political parties have emerged across Europe in recent years promoting racist policies, limits on judicial independence, and anti-immigrant policies. Norris notes that the share of votes that authoritarian leaders and parties have been achieving has consistently risen over this same time period.52

Why authoritarian attitudes and leaders are on the rise is more complicated. Norris suggests that the shift is a result of a backlash against more progressive social

Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict

One of the increasingly important concerns that has drawn attention worldwide is the phenomenon of nationalism and the consequences that flow from it. Before defining nationalism as a concept, it is appropriate to draw the distinction between state and nation. A state, while the definition is diffuse and uncertain, refers to institutions and forms of government, whereas nation refers to a social or ethnic grouping of people. Based on this, nationalism is a sense of group identity and belonging that often includes a desire for self-government based on national identity. For centuries, small states were generally referred to as nation-states or states that reflected national identities.

Career Guidance

State development requires the work of thousands of people andorganizations other than state governments. International nongovernmental organizations often assist less-developed states in improving their infrastructure, health and social outcomes, and economy. These organizations include the United Nations and its subsidiaries such as the World Health Organization and International Monetary Fund, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Doctors without Borders, and Oxfam International. Working for a nongovernmental organization such as one of these can be an exciting career path for those with degrees in political science and an interest in comparative politics or development studies.

The concept of nationalism is not new; Hah and Martin note that it was identified as early as 1836.65 Woodrow Wilson made nationalism and self-determination a foundation of his Fourteen Points proposal following World War I. Yet, while the former political scientist Wilson was calling for self-determination, his erstwhile allies in Europe, France and the United Kingdom, were redrawing the borders of the Middle East. In their quest for colonial territory, France and the United Kingdom drew territorial lines with no concern for the traditional ethnic and religious concerns that dominated the Middle East. As such, somewhat artificial countries were created—for example, Iraq, that had no common history but different religious and ethnic groups that do not care to live together.

Conflicts spurred on by nationalist and ethnic identities are increasing in the modern world. The end of the Cold War and the increase of globalization has brought more groups into contact with each other, leading to the potential for more conflicts.66 But nationalism can be a potentially valuable attitude as well; the belief in American values and ideals is a sort of nationalism that binds and knits a country together. But it “can just as plausibly be seen as a kind of particularism denying non-citizens or culturally deviant citizens full human rights and, in the extreme cases, even denying them membership in the community of humans.”67 It is this more extreme case that has led to conflict between groups such as the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, between Sunni and Shia Muslims in the Middle East, and Arabs and non-Arabs in Darfur.

Nationalism can exist in many forms. Economic nationalism promotes a country’s economy by protecting industries and businesses within the country and instituting tariffs and taxes to protect the domestic economy from outside economies. There exists a thread of black nationalism in American discourse. Then there is the ethnic nationalism that can often lead to the deadly conflict we see around the world today.

So why should nationalism necessarily lead to conflict? In many ethnic conflicts, the concern is about territory and sovereignty over a given parcel of land. If there are multiple ethnic or religious groups in one area and both believe they should have sovereignty, conflict will naturally develop. The Arab-Israeli conflict is yet another example of the types of conflicts that arise. And like the Arab-Israeli struggle, there is no easy answer to the question; there is no way to create more land and both groups want it and do not want to share it. Thus nationalism can also prevent solutions to conflicts.

Certainly, political scientists have been able to connect nationalism to a variety of consequences, most significantly war.68 However, de las Casas suggests that the aspects of nationalism that foster a sense of group identity and pride can lead to outcomes such as a stronger economy and less government corruption.69 It seems, then, that nationalism, like many of the concepts we’ve discussed thus far, isn’t necessarily good or bad; it’s in how it’s used that creates positive or negative effects.

Chapter Summary

· Comparative politics is not only a field of study in political science but a research method. The comparative method provides a means of testing hypotheses while controlling for potentially confounding variables.

· The idea of the state is a significant one in politics. States are key actors in the political system, and being a strong or weak state can come with significant consequences. However, given increasing globalization and the role of international organizations, the role of the state could be shifting.

· Communist countries played a key role in the twentieth century and into the twenty-first century. Political scientists have struggled to understand communist politics and patterns of developing in postcommunist countries.

· Many states around the world continue to develop in terms of politics, economics, and strength. Development studies examine best practices and help to identify key goals, but they are often hampered by pro-Western ideals that may not fit culturally elsewhere.

· Nationalistic attitudes and beliefs have contributed to both development and conflict. Ethnicity can reinforce nationalism and contribute to conflicts around the world.

Key Terms

· authoritarian: Type of government that, while still exerting almost complete control, allows for some political freedoms although there are no political protections or democratic procedures in place

· Cold War: Period of ideological conflict from the end of World War II to 1991 between the Soviet Union and the United States

· comparative politics: The study of countries and politics around the world

· democracy: States that have free, fair, and frequent elections and in which civil liberties are recognized and protected

· development: How advanced a state is in terms of economics and social problems

· economic nationalism: Attitudes in favor of protecting a country’s economic independence and autonomy

· failed state: No entity that can exert sovereignty over territory

· glasnost: Series of Soviet political reforms in the 1980s

· globalization: Increasing economic and other connections between states

· modernization theory: Less-developed countries (LDCs) to developmentally advance as they adopted more Western political and economic practices

· nationalism: Sense of group identity and belonging that often includes a desire for self-government based on national identity

· perestroika: Series of Soviet economic reforms in the 1980s

· selection bias: Occurs when the cases that are chosen to be studied are systematically skewed

· state: Groups of people living under a single governmental system

· state strength: The ability of states to control political outcomes

· totalitarianism: Type of government in which the authorities have total and complete control over their society

Discussion Questions

1. What is the comparative method? Give an example of how you can use it to study comparative politics.

2. What are some of the different ways democracy can be defined?

3. What are some ways in which democracy, globalization, and development might be related?

4. Do you believe globalization is a good or bad thing? What about nationalism? Why or why not?

Chapter Objectives

1. Explain the international relations theory of realism including its basic assumptions.

2. Discuss the liberal theory of international relations along with its different types.

3. Define constructivism and its central principles.

4. Explore feminist international relations theory and its recommendations for change.

5. Examine causes of war and peace in the international arena.

When Twitter was first introduced in 2006, its founders probably could not have imagined how people would potentially use it. Over the past twelve years, Twitter has expanded to more than 330 million active monthly users throughout the world. Governments have even gotten into the act: Twitter Government (@TwitterGov) even highlights how governments and politicians throughout the world use Twitter. Politicians and elected officials quickly took to Twitter, using it as a means to communicate with voters directly. Former president Barack Obama even originated a Twitter handle for presidents (@POTUS) in 2013.

The current US president, Donald Trump, has utilized Twitter to a far greater extent than his predecessor, although he does so from his own personal account (@realDonaldTrump) rather than the official @POTUS handle. In interviews, he has argued that communicating via Twitter allows him to get his message to voters without the filter of the media with the implicit argument that the media does not do a faithful and true job in reporting his actions. As such, President Trump’s tweets often come directly from the president himself with no staff filtering or discussion. One area where the president’s tweets have been particularly influential is in the US relationship with North Korea.

As of October 2018, President Trump has tweeted about North Korea more than 150 times since taking office. And while the tweets may not appear on the official @POTUS account or come in a statement on White House letterhead, they have played an integral role in American-North Korean relations. For example, on August 11, 2017, the president tweeted this:

Military solutions are now fully in place, locked and loaded, should North Korea act unwisely. Hopefully Kim Jong Un will find another path!

At a mere twenty-three words, the president stated what could have easily been seen as a military threat against North Korea that could have led to direct conflict. Realizing the potential implications of tweets like this from the president, US officials at the February 2018 Munich Security Conference reportedly told their counterparts not to pay attention to what the president is tweeting.1 However, in March 2018, North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un, apparently under pressure because of the president’s rhetoric, broached the idea of a summit between the two leaders. What followed was a historic meeting between the two leaders in June 2018 in Singapore as well as enhanced relations between North and South Korea.

Unlike the other subfields of political science where we were able to discuss individual concepts like public opinion, public policy, institutions of government, democracy, or so on, international relations is more organized around different theories of how states behave. This chapter summarizes and lays out the major arguments of four major theories of international relations: realism, liberalism, constructivism, and feminism. It ends by talking about one important area of research for international scholars aside from theoretical approaches, and that is the incidences of war and peace.

Before diving into the different theories of international relations, we should note here that these theories are just that—theories. Theories are built on simplified models of human behavior and as such, cannot explain all of the nuances of human action. Although it is easy to see some, or many, of the following characteristics in how states behave, we do not expect to see every characteristic. In other words, while these theories may help us explain and interpret state behavior, they probably won’t explain every individual situation.

Realism

For most of the history of the world, states have sought to achieve power and expand the area in which that power can be exerted. If a state is an entity that has a monopoly on the legitimate uses of force in a given area, states have usually sought to expand that area of power and influence. This rational motivation rooted in self-interest can be traced back to the days of Athens and Sparta; the Greek historian Thucydides identified the Athenian quest for power as a key driver of the Peloponnesian War. Machiavelli, in giving advice to his patron in The Prince, also endorsed this idea of states acting to protect their own sovereignty, as did Thomas Hobbes. This long tradition of realism in international relations has led to a large body of work expounding on these ideas and using them to explain the actions of states around the world and throughout history. Not only has realism been influential in academia but it has also made its mark on actual international relations around the world with many practitioners of foreign policy adopting the rationale.

Basic Assumptions

While there are many variants of realism, theories of realism all begin from the same four assumptions. One, when it comes to actors on the global stage, states are the main players. We know in the United States that there are a lot of political variables that go into calculations of what the United States will do in the world from public opinion to the balance of power between the political parties, but as far as realists are concerned, none of that matters. Realists view states as black boxes; situations go into the black box and reactions come out, but we are never privy to what goes on inside the box that leads from situation to decision. In that sense, the people involved in making decisions or the politics in play are not areas of interest for realists—only how states react and respond to one another. What happens inside the black box is seen as the purview of policy scholars who study how states make policy, including foreign policy.

A second assumption involves the idea of rationality and argues that states act in a rational, self-interested manner. What does the idea of rationality mean? People often mistake rationality for behavior that is the best choice in a certain situation, but this is not the case. Rationality is acting according to an individual’s (or in this case a state’s) ordered preferences. As uncomfortable as it may be, the easiest way to think about rationality is the case of Hitler. Many people would argue that Hitler acted irrationally in many ways, from expanding German territory to the Holocaust of the Jews. However, rationality means that Hitler acted in accordance with his preferences; in his list of preferences, expanding German power and eliminating the Jewish population were at the top. Therefore, as difficult as it is for us to think it, Hitler was acting rationally.

In the international system, a third assumption is that there is no higher authority than states; there is nobody to tell states what they can and can’t do. In realist terms, the state system is anarchic; there are no rules and nobody to enforce rules if there were any. This naturally leads to the last assumption that in a world where there are no rules, states will do anything they can to assure they survive. Survival means ensuring that they have the means to outlast threats from other states. The means by which that can be achieved is power, represented by military capability. If a state’s military is strong enough and its capabilities sufficient, it will be able to outlast any challenge to its sovereignty or its territory.

Consequences of Realist Theory

From these four basic assumptions, realist theory emerges. Much like Thomas Hobbes’s conception of human nature as inherently malevolent, realism accepts the same about states. The consequences, then, of state behavior do not necessarily lend themselves to a stable and peaceful international environment. If states want to ensure their security by building up military power, other states may interpret that build-up as threats to their own society; this is what’s known as a security dilemma. The arms race may not be directed offensively, but other states may not believe one state’s intentions as stated. If other countries begin to build up their own capabilities without sufficient cooperation and communication, the entire region may soon find itself in a devastating military conflict.

Arms races have happened often enough throughout history. In fact, World War I is a classic example of security dilemmas leading to war. States usually realize the futility of security dilemmas but all too often find themselves caught up in the system. This does not mean, however, that they do not try to find ways out of the conundrum. Paying close attention to a balance of power in a region is one of the solutions. If power is distributed roughly equally, no one state has an upper hand on any other. The Treaty of Westphalia discussed in Chapter 8 tried to enshrine a balance of power within Europe so as to avoid the devastating conflict that had pervaded Europe for centuries. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the United States engaged in a balance of power battle that largely led to a stalemate between the two countries directly. The balance of power can forestall the consequences of military buildups as long as all of the states in a region decide to abide by it.

There are other proposed solutions to the security dilemma posed by the search for power, one of them proposing that instead of a balance of power system wherein two or more powerful states exist so as to create a sort of equilibrium in the system; a unipolar world would find one country more powerful than all of the others and can police the rest of the system. This variation of realism assumes that a single hegemon or dominant actor seeking to expand their influence and power is able to amass enough power to keep other states weak. If weaker states attempt to move against others, the hegemon can strike and control the weak state’s actions.

National Interest

These assumptions have led to a rich body of work examining realism in international relations. In the post–World War II period, the theorist Morgenthau achieved prominence with his writings on realism. In an era where the Cold War had yet to fully begin and new faith was placed on institutions such as the United Nations to mediate conflict (to be discussed later in this chapter), the new question became what the United States’ major interests were. Morgenthau equated the US predicament with the conflict between whether man (and therefore states) is either inherently moral or immoral, the classic question of the original state of human nature.2 Morgenthau argued that abiding by the principles of realism in foreign policy rather than trust the liberal institutions and appeals to morality would lead to far more acceptable outcomes for the United States.

If one theme runs throughout Morgenthau’s writings it is that following the motivation of national interest and abiding by the principle of balance of power is the smartest strategy in foreign policy. He also endows realism with the highest of scientific principles in that realists also believe that objective laws of political science can be deduced through reason.3 He utilizes the idea of scientific principles not only to seek out the laws of realism but as a yardstick by which to measure alternative theories of international relations.4 Given that Morgenthau is also writing at a time where political science itself is continuing to press the idea of science and behavioralism in the study of politics, this is not at all surprising. Morgenthau thus presents realism not only as the natural and best way for a state to conduct its foreign policy but he also holds it up as a truly scientific, rational, and objective theory of international relations.

Another prominent realist theorist is Waltz. Waltz was a proponent of what he called structural realism—also known as neorealism. Neorealism differs from traditional realism in the emphasis on what causes states to behave as they do. For traditional realists like Morgenthau, it is the search for security in a world that is dominated by other self-interested and selfish states. Waltz and his fellow neorealists, however, recognize a more important role for the global system itself. States must respond to the conditions created by an anarchic state of international relations more than pressures from other states.

Neorealism is a natural reaction to a changing world where globalization is increasing and international organizations like the United Nations exist. The United Nations, International Monetary Fund (IMF), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and other international organizations undoubtedly do impact the international environment. A good example of this is the passage of sanctions in the UN Security Council or going to the UN Security Council to have security actions endorsed. Therefore, neorealists are still hemming to the original assumptions of realism, but they recognize the increased importance of the international environment to the conditioning of states’ actions. Even with the end of the Cold War, Waltz still argues that neorealism is essential to understanding the international system; even though the world became unipolar with the fall of the Soviet Union, it does not mean that the nature of the system changed. Instead, a changed world system “awaits the day when the international system is no longer populated by states that have to help themselves.”5

Realism in Practice

Realism has been dominant not only in academic debates but in real-life foreign policy. A well-known proponent of realist theory, Henry Kissinger served first as national security adviser and then concurrently as secretary of state in the Richard Nixon administration. In this position, Kissinger was a constant advocate for following US interests in crafting foreign policy. This ultimately led to the reopening of relations between the United States and China in 1972. Even though the United States had foreclosed relations with China following its establishment of a communist government, Kissinger and Nixon realized that they could exploit the schism between China and its erstwhile communist ally Russia. The main interest of the United States was to reduce tension with the Soviet Union, and to do that, it reopened relations with China to make the Soviets fear a renewed friendship between China and the United States. If that happened, the Soviets were afraid that both countries would turn against Russia. Therefore, the Soviet Union was forced to moderate its policies toward the United States, and America was thus the beneficiary not only of a new relationship with China but a better relationship with the Soviet Union.

Modern research into realism generally focuses on the relevance of realism to a changed world. Not only has globalization continued to increase the importance of international organizations in moderating state activities but non–state actors like terrorist organizations have emerged as major players on the international stage. Neither traditional realism nor neorealism have a place for these non–state actors; this has been reflected in the political science literature. Walker and Morton find that despite a dominance of realism in the international relations field from the end of World War II until 1970, international relations research from 1970 to 2000 has seen a reduced role for realism.6 Instead, liberalism (discussed in the next section) has become an integral driver of international relations research.

This is also reflected in the research that has been devoted to adopting realism to modern realities. For example, Patomaki and Wight argue for what they call critical realism, Chernoff presents a theory of scientific realism, and Sleat tries to combine liberalism and realism in a theory of liberal realism.7 And yet the traditional tenets of realism, while not being acknowledged as frequently as during the Cold War, continue to exert an influence on American reactions to the rest of the world. This is quite apparent when crises arise in other parts of the world and when considering whether the United States should become involved or not; analysts inevitably bring up questions of the interests that the United States has in becoming involved—the stipulation becomes that if the United States has no national interest in the resolution of the crisis—we should not become involved. But what about the people who do believe we should get involved in crises around the world—particularly those of a humanitarian or moral stripe? This alternative theory is known as liberalism.

Career Guidance

Ambassadors and their support staff are the face of a state to the rest of the world. In the United States, many of these personnel are drawn from the ranks of the Foreign Service. Foreign Service officers serve throughout the world and in different functional areas, including politics, economics, and public affairs. While there is no specific educational requirement to become a Foreign Service officer, to join, you must pass the Foreign Service exam and an interview, a very selective process. For more information on the Foreign Service, visit its homepage at

https://careers.state.gov/work/foreign-service/officer

Liberalism

Recall from Chapter 3 that liberal political ideology stems directly from the Enlightenment and its rejection of the divine right of kings. In accepting that people have natural rights and that one of those rights is freedom and liberty, the liberal ideology was inaugurated. Liberal political theory posits that the best normative outcome would be a situation where states integrate democratic principles and the idea of natural rights. Of course, liberalism in international affairs is a slightly different animal, but they both share the same ideological ancestor.

Liberalism in international relations theory also rejects its international relations predecessor: realism. Proponents of liberalism argue that states pursue many more objectives than simply power—how else to explain states getting involved in conflicts that have nothing to do with their national interest? Liberalism also recognizes the growing role for international organizations and the possibility that those organizations can be used to not only mediate conflict but avoid it altogether. Particularly in an era where our global connections are increasing by the day, liberals argue that cooperation in international affairs is the only route to sustained good relations in the community of states.

Because of its focus on increased interactions between states, liberalism is really a theory of its time. The earliest The earliest formulation of liberal theory came from the German philosopher Immanuel Kant in his essay “Perpetual Peace” published in 1795.8 In the essay, Kant argues that peace could be achieved within a region through a certain set of steps that all states would take. First among these was establishing a republican form of government and then recognizing the sovereignty of each state within its own territory. States would then proceed to establish open relationships between one another, stand down their armies, and agree to certain laws of war when conflict does emerge. Many of these ideas would later be enshrined in agreements such as the Geneva Convention and the UN treaty, but achieving peace and cooperation around the world still proves more difficult to achieve.

Basic Assumptions

As liberalism continued to develop as a theory, it too stipulated three assumptions to the theory. First, liberalism rejects the notion that states are only out for power as well as the idea that anarchy is the ultimate state of affairs. To be sure, believing that only anarchy reigns is a fairly dispiriting belief; there must be some other outcome possible than states constantly fearing the actions of another and preparing for an eventual war that must come. Liberals explicitly reject this, believing that something other than war can be a natural outcome of relations between states.

A second principle of liberalism is that international cooperation is not only possible but it can benefit the global community. If states are constantly wary of one another’s search for power and military buildups, conflict might be the only possible result. But liberalism argues that states can cooperate for the betterment of not only themselves but the rest of the world. We need only look at modern cooperation between states on issues ranging from poverty and hunger to global warming. Cooperation may be difficult and states still may not trust one another, but cooperation is just as plausible as conflict.

Finally, liberalism prescribes the establishment of organizations that can grease the wheel of cooperation among states. These international organizations ease cooperation, but they can also independently change the international environment—thus, shaping states’ desires and preferences. The role for international organizations also parallels the role of economic and cultural exchanges between countries. Liberal theorists propose that increased connections between states and between the peoples of free states will decrease the potential for conflict between them. For example, the extent of economic relations and ties between the United States and China greatly decrease the potential that either country would want to engage in a conflict that would disrupt the flow of goods that is so vital to each country. International organizations represent just one of the many types of ties that pull countries together and therefore encourage them to avoid conflict.

Liberalism in the Twentieth Century

Liberalism as an approach to international relations came into its own in the twentieth century. The first significant attempt at implementing liberal principles came at the end of World War I. Among Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points was a proposal to establish an institution called the League of Nations. The league was designed as a solution to the arms races and hostilities that led to the initiation of war in the first place. Although many countries signed on to it in the wake of World War I, the US Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles because it would obligate the United States to joining the league. At that point in American history, many in the United States were wary of continued involvement in world affairs, believing that the conflicts of other countries would only draw the United States into a continuous war.

Needless to say, the League of Nations failed in its ultimate goal of eliminating conflict. However, the failure of the league did not prevent states from trying again after World War II. This time, the United States did agree to join the new organization called the United Nations. In addition to the establishment of the United Nations, the United States and its European allies entered into an alliance: NATO. The NATO treaty specifically obligates its member states to the idea of collective security. Collective security is a means of discouraging conflict; it compels states to the defense of other states in the case that they are attacked. The so-called Article 5 means that if one state is attacked, the others must respond as if they were attacked as well. The idea behind collective security is that it will dissuade a state from attacking another state for fear of reprisals from others.

Types of Liberalism

A strain of liberal thinking that specifically focuses on the role of international institutions is called liberal institutionalism. Liberal institutionalists share some of the core beliefs of realists, primarily that the natural state of global affairs is anarchic. However, they depart in thinking from there. Liberal institutionalism argues that international organizations can be arranged in such a way as to provide order and structure in the world. These institutions can serve as a global police force that ensures states do not begin the often-deadly spiral of the security dilemma. Treaties and agreements between states can also fill the role of liberal institutions. In the process of states agreeing to certain practices or rules in areas like nuclear weapons and environmental degradation, they stipulate principles that the states must adhere to and procedures for policing the adherence to the treaties.

Another variant of liberalism is an idea called the democratic peace theory. Democratic peace theory posits that democratic states are much better able to avoid conflict than nondemocratic states. What is it about democracies that seem to prevent conflict? The cornerstone of modern democratic states today is that ultimately people have an opportunity to ratify the decisions of their representatives and leaders. Since leaders have to listen to the voices and opinions of their voters, liberals argue, they will be less likely to engage in a war or conflict that their countries don’t support. A good example of this was the war in Vietnam and, more recently, the US war in Iraq. When public opinion turned negative on both of these conflicts, American leaders were forced to rethink their approach and end hostile engagements.

So what do democratic peace theorists believe will lessen the incidence of conflict? If democracies are less likely to go to war, then they would prescribe more democratic governments around the world. Obviously, the extent to which states around the world can enforce this idea is doubtful. While the United States and other democratized countries can support the idea of spreading democracy, actually implementing that is very difficult. Many thought that the advent of the Arab Spring heralded a new wave of democratization, but nine years after the first protests, little in the way of actual democratic government has emerged in the Middle East. While the reasons for this are many and out of the scope of this book, it demonstrates the difficulty of prescribing democracy in regions where it is not the normal order of the day.

There is also an economic corollary to the democratic peace theory that is colloquially known as the McDonald’s thesis. The theory is that no two states with a McDonald’s have ever gone to war with one another. As Friedman puts it, “The question raised by the McDonald’s example is whether there is a tip-over point at which a country, by integrating with the global economy, opening itself up to foreign investment and empowering its consumers, permanently restricts its capacity for troublemaking and promotes gradual democratization and widening peace.”9 In other words, the more economic ties that exist between countries, the less of a chance that either of those states would want to disrupt those flows through conflict. Adding all of these ideas together leads to the theory that the more relationships that exist between the people and their governments and then between states around the world leads to decreased conflict. These relationships can be diplomatic and formal, economic, cultural, or through international organizations, but the bottom line is that when added together, they reduce conflict or the chance of conflict.

While it would seem that the establishment of liberalism would preclude further exploration of the meaning of it, current political science research into liberalism has delved back into the realm of deep theory. While some examine liberalism in modern political theory such as that of John Rawls (discussed in Chapter 3), others go back to the period of Enlightenment for insight on international relations. For example, Walker goes back to Kant and his ideas of perpetual peace and compares them to the writings of a contemporary, Thomas Paine of “Common Sense” fame.10 Walker argues that Paine and Kant, while describing early iterations of liberalism, recommend different types of intervention thereby demonstrating Walker’s overall argument that differences in liberal thought appeared early on. Ward also brings another Enlightenment thinker to bear on liberalism: this time, John Locke.11 Rengger also notes this trend of tying international relations theory to political theory, naming it international political theory.12

Another stream of research into liberalism connects us with the next topic to be discussed: constructivism. As we will see shortly, constructivism argues that ideas and words hold power, and we can imbue those words and ideas with certain perspectives that bias them one way or another. This line of research, therefore, looks at the power of ideas in liberalism from uncertainty to balance of power; these scholars attempt to show the power of language and perspective in the policy prescriptions liberals advocate.13

Constructivism

Have you ever stared at a word for so long that all of a sudden it doesn’t look like a word anymore? Or have you wondered why a certain word has the meaning that it does? For example, in feminist circles, there has been a controversy over the word bitch and whether women should try to reclaim the word for themselves instead of allowing it to be a derogatory term. These examples highlight the fact that for most ideas and concepts, society determines their meaning and whether the meanings are correct or not. This is the heart of constructivist theory; they reject both the ideas of liberals and realists and instead argue that all of international relations is socially and culturally constructed. What this means for international relations is that anarchy, power, or other consequences stemming from following either of these theories is not necessary nor inevitable; instead, we imbue these words with certain ideas that can be changed and often do change.

Wendt is one of the first political scientists to try to conceptualize constructivism. In his 1992 article, he attempts to explore what anarchy means, arguing that “anarchy is what states make of it.”14 In this basic principle, it’s obvious just how radical a departure constructivism is from realism or liberalism. Both assumed that anarchy meant one thing: no structure or overriding control of the international system. If words or concepts have no exact meaning except the meaning we give them, situations are liable to change. If situations can change, then maybe anarchy is not the natural end state; perhaps states can create a situation of their own liking simply by changing their thinking about the international system.

Constructivist Concepts

Although constructivism is not constructed in the way that liberalism and realism were with assumptions and conclusions that then follow, Wendt provides some idea as to the concepts that constructivists are concerned about. The first of these is identity. “Actors acquire identities—relatively stable, role-specific understandings and expectations about self—by participating in such collective meanings.”15 Collective meanings are the definitions we give other actors and concepts; they “constitute the structures which organize our actions.”16 Thus, in a given situation, actors take on identities based on their own understanding of who they are and who others believe them to be. Wendt’s example is that the way we perceive enemies and allies is affected by the identities we ascribe to them. What’s key in the idea of identity is that identity can shift and change. Just because one state has taken on a particular identity does not mean that it becomes permanent and incapable of change. On the contrary, constructivists stress the idea that changing identities can lead to change in the international system.

Constructivists also emphasize in a way that would be familiar to liberals, that identity can even be shared across states. A good example of this is the European Union. Even though European states fought against each other for centuries, in recent decades, they have been able to engage in the project called the European Union, establishing broader diplomatic and economic ties, hoping to foster a European identity. This shared identity is also indicative of the way in which constructivists argue that identity can change and for the better; if peoples across multiple states identify with one another, relations between states could become more peaceful.

Identity becomes very important in defining another key concept of constructivism: that of interests. Whereas realists assume that a state’s interest is stable, the pursuit of power and security, constructivists believe that the interests of a state are not at all stable and are instead capable of changing and being changed. Wendt argues that “identities are the basis of interests,” states “define their interests in the process of defining situations.”17 A good example of how this may work is how the United States and the former Soviet Union changed their interest with the end of the Cold War. Because Russia no longer had the identity of a Cold War, ideological enemy, the United States became uncertain of its interests with respect to them. The ability for interests to change once again highlights constructivism’s focus on the idea that concepts are socially constructed. Interests are backed by ideas about what is best for a country, and those ideas can and do change based on circumstances around the world.

While this focus on ever-changing ideas, interests, and identities demonstrates the fact that words mean only what we believe them to mean, Wendt’s constructivism does allow for some entities that are stable in the international arena. Institutions are “relatively stable” sets of identities and interests.18 These institutions are formed through norms and rules that are codified and known to all. Examples can include something as real as the United Nations or something as amorphous as the idea of self-help.19 Institutions can still change as they are subject to what actors know or believe, but they do provide some stability in constructivist theory.

A final concept integral to constructivism is the idea of norms or beliefs about what are acceptable behaviors, institutions, or ideas in the rest of the world. An example of just such a norm would be a prohibition against torturing or killing prisoners of war. Norms set the rules for how states can or should behave in regard to one another.

The key insight of constructivism is that not every action or belief in the international system is set in stone. Just because states want one thing today does not mean that it won’t change tomorrow. Just because relations between states are one way today doesn’t mean that they can’t get better or worse. Constructivism highlights the power of ideas and beliefs and the ability we have to change them for ourselves. Much like the saying “Behave your way to success,” constructivism says we can create the world we want if we only change the way we think.

Constructivist Research

Political research into constructivism today continues to flesh out constructivism as a theory as well as discuss connections between it and other theories of international relations. For example, Barkin argues that although realism and constructivism seem diametrically opposed, they are in fact compatible in the study of power politics.20 Similarly, Sterling-Folker argues that realism and constructivism are not only compatible but that they “need one another to correct their own worst excesses.”21 Others have examined the connections between constructivism and liberalism as well as constructivism and the feminist approach to international relations.22 All of this research aims to flesh out the relationships between constructivism—a relatively new approach to international relations and more traditional approaches.

Since constructivism is such a new theory, other political scientists have continued to sketch out a research agenda and methodology for the field. Farrell attempts to lay out a research agenda for constructivists by laying out potential objects subject to study.23 Farrell does note the difficulty in such a task, especially for constructivists who may not completely agree on the roles or meanings of concepts. Pouliot expands on this foundation in laying out how knowledge may be developed in constructivist theory thus allowing for theories to be generated and tested.24

Feminism

Much how constructivism urges us to think about international relations from a different vantage point than traditional conceptions about power and conflict, feminist international relations theory also asks us to look from another angle. For most of the history of the world, everything from business to government to social relations have been driven by men. Women have been in a historically disadvantaged position comparatively. Feminist theory reminds us that international politics and the international system may indeed be biased toward the view of men. If women are “brought back in” to the realm of international affairs, we can better understand state to state relations.

A Gendered Experience

Feminist international relations theory goes beyond the simple notion that the world discriminates against women to try and emphasize that ideas can be “gendered,” or rather take the position of masculine ideas rather than feminine. This mirrors the constructivist idea that the ideas behind words and concepts have significance and can change. Gendered norms and concepts have the same emphasis, but feminist theorists argue that the gendered norms can have significant effects on how states get along with one another. One reason this may be important is that historically, women have been discriminated against and feminine ideals and characteristics derided. Take for instance a scenario where a world leader is caught crying; it doesn’t matter if that person is a man or a woman, crying is seen as weak and feminine. But what makes crying inherently terrible? What makes it undesirable are the social norms and ideas associated with crying as a feminine characteristic.

Feminist theory also focuses on the fact that much of the world of international affairs is dominated by men. With no offense directed toward either gender, research has shown that men and women do indeed think differently. For example, research into the presence of women in state legislatures shows that legislatures that have more women in them tend to be more cooperative and pass more legislation. What if more world leaders were women? Would the way the world works change? Cohn writes about this very phenomenon in her study of the male-dominated world of defense intellectuals.25 After spending a year immersing herself in the environment of defense studies, Cohn describes that she found her own thinking changing about nuclear strategy. From this experience, she argues that we should pay better attention to the words we use to study and describe different phenomenon because different language allows us to communicate in different ways with different people.

Following up on Cohn’s piece, Enloe, one of the primary contributors to feminist international relations theory, argues that our attention to feminist issues must go beyond just the language that is used in international affairs; instead, we need to remember the role that women and girls play in the international system.26 Women not only make up half of the world’s population but they are intimately involved in the rearing and educating of children—both boy and girl. They pass on social identities and norms; they function as the heart of the family. In many countries, they are the breadwinners and supporters of their families. They are often also responsible for the care of older family members. In a way that directly ties into the international system, girls are often sold into slavery, taken across borders as slaves—sexual or otherwise—forced to carry drugs and carry out vicious attacks, and often exploited by men for their own purposes. The issues these girls and young women face are significantly tied to the international system, and without worry or concern for the most vulnerable of participants, feminists argue that we will never really get anywhere in issues of war and peace.

Know a Political Scientist Cynthia Enloe

Cynthia Enloe is a prolific feminist theorist who has taught around the world. Raised on Long Island, Enloe received her PhD in political science from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1967. Afterward, she joined the faculty at Clark University, where she spent the rest of her career. During her career, Enloe received Fulbright scholarships to study in Malaysia and Guyana and served as a guest professor in Japan, Britain, and Canada. Enloe’s research has focused not just on feminism but the role that gendered variables play in international and national politics. To that end, she has published fourteen books and countless articles. She received the International Studies Association’s Susan Strange Award in 2007 and the Peace and Justice Studies Association’s Howard Zinn Lifetime Achievement Award in 2010.

Modern conflicts today also involve issues of women. Issues in the Middle East and in Islamic societies naturally bring up discussions of the role of women in society. This can be a sensitive topic. While we in the West would look at prohibitions on women driving, voting, and being full participants in society as vindictive and cruel, in many of those societies, they are culturally and socially accepted norms. This does not mean that practices such as genital mutilation, the marrying off of young girls, or harsh punishments for women who escape from marriage are any more acceptable in those societies than they would be here. But it does make relations with those countries far more difficult and nuanced. In fact, Youngs argues that understanding the role of women and gender is paramount if we are truly to understand the relationships of states.27

Recommendations for Change

While it would seem as if feminism lacks the concepts and assumptions of the theories that we have previously discussed, they do adopt a particular point of view about how we should change the way we view international relations. For example, feminist theorists have developed feminist perspectives on all types of traditional concepts examined by international relations theorists. For example, Sjoberg advances a feminist view of war in Gendering Global Conflict.28 By taking traditional concepts like international organizations, anarchy, and realism, Sjoberg shows not only how these concepts are gendered but proposes how feminist theory might be constructed around them. Zalewski takes this same approach to describing a feminist approach on issues like human rights and the military.29

Like constructivism, a strain of feminist theory has also endeavored to not only expand feminist theory but establish a methodological foundation to studying feminist issues. Responding to the critique that feminist theory has little in the way of testable theories like realism and liberalism do, Tickner attempts to identify the possible research questions that feminists can pursue using traditional social science methods.30 This in and of itself can be tricky; if traditional social science itself is dominated by men and potentially gendered in its own beliefs and views, why should feminists use such a standard by which to measure their academic work? Tickner notes that feminists have actually been loath to develop a methodological standard by which they can perform their research. Instead, they focus on methodological pluralism, descriptions of knowledge, discussions and critiques, and understanding how women view their lives and the world around them.31 Partially as a response to Tickner, Caprioli argues that feminist scholarship would do well to engage multiple methodologies and goes on to show how work on gender, social justice, and quantitative methods can all be combined to create a fruitful research project.32

To this end, Ackerly and True take on the daunting task of developing a standard by which feminist research may be judged—something they call the feminist research ethic.33 They argue that there are “four commitments that undergird a feminist research ethic: attentiveness to the power of epistemology, boundaries, relationships, and the situatedness of the researcher.”34 The last standard, the situatedness of the researcher, highlights a potentially dangerous flaw in how scholars engage feminist theory; if we are studying the projection of power in the world and at the same time are engaged in continuing to propagate and contribute to that structure, how can we objectively identify solutions and assumptions? Thus, Ackerly and True call for the researcher engaging in feminist scholarship to pay very close attention to their own subjectivities and bias.

War and Peace

At the end of the day, theories like realism, liberalism, constructivism, and feminism are merely theories. Real actions throughout the world actually affect the life and death of millions of global citizens. It’s only natural, then, that causes of war and peace would be a topic that scholars of international relations tend to study. War is particularly amenable to study because it is a phenomenon that happens, unfortunately, all too often. It is also chronicled in histories of past periods, thereby giving scholars a bevy of information to work with in divining the causes of conflict throughout the centuries.

Defining War

And yet, even though political scientists have lots of information with which to avail themselves, settling on the cause or causes of war has eluded us. Why? Well, first of all, deciding on what specifically is a war has been difficult. While this might seem silly, defining our concepts is an important part of doing political science. Is it a war when states have fought for one day, one week, or one month? In other words, is there a timetable or length associated with it? Or is it a war when so many people have died? If that’s the case, then how many people must die before a conflict is declared to be a war? Do wars differ in size and scope, and if so, how? Two political scientists took up just these questions in inaugurating what would become the Correlates of War project. Small and Singer sought to conceptualize and define what political scientists mean in invoking the terms war or state. Small and Singer defined states as entities with populations of more than half a million with diplomatic recognition from other states or international organizations such as the League of Nations or the United Nations.35 With respect to the definition of wars, Small and Singer delimited wars as being conflicts with deaths of over 1,000.36 They also identify different types of wars from interstate wars to imperial or colonial conflict.

Defining our concepts is only one barrier to understanding the patterns of war. Even though historians and political scientists have more access than ever before to information about the thoughts and actions of leaders and states, it is still difficult to dive down into the brains of the participants and to uncover exactly what was being thought about at the moment in which war is initiated. Indeed, when leaders do make statements or speeches about going to war, how can we be sure they are telling the truth about why and not playing to politics and giving the politically acceptable answer? An excellent example of this was the US intervention in Iraq, beginning in 2003. Although the George W. Bush administration claimed they were sending troops to Iraq because the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and supported terrorism, some critics argued that the Bush administration was really going to war to secure oil supplies in the Middle East. While this says nothing about ultimate causes or whether the motivation was correct or not, it does go a long way to demonstrating how and why it can be difficult to truly understand what states and their leaders are thinking in a time of war.

Causes of War

In looking at causes of war, there are a few directions at which we can come at the subject. The first approach is through the theories that we have just elaborated on. Realists argue that war is the result of power politics and states seeking out the assurances of their own security. The search for security can lead to the security dilemma and staggering arms races that ultimately lead to conflict. For realists, it is only rational that states do what it takes to stake their place in the global system and to protect their people, even if that means the result is war. Liberals, on the other hand, argue that “dissension and strife do not inhere in man and society; they arise instead from mistaken belief, inadequate knowledge, and defective governance. With the evils defined, the remedies become clear: educate men and their governors, strip away political abuses.”37 In other words, men (and women) are naturally at peace with one another; when states do enter into conflict, it is usually because of miscommunication or mistakes of one kind or another. The liberal solution, then, is to institute better forms of government and new forms of international organizations to minimize the chances of states coming to blows with one another.

These two perspectives on the causes of war are called structural theories; they represent explanations of war and conflict at the global, large-scale level. There are other ways that we can look at war, however. Realism and liberalism indict (or vindicate in the case of liberalism) the global system that all states live in. But what about causes at the lower levels? The next step down from the global level would be the state level. What is it about states, or types of states, that cause conflict? The democratic peace theory is an example of a theory that explains conflict, or the lack thereof, in states as a result of states being democratic. Are there other types of states that are more likely to engage in conflict? The research on this is wide and varied and not at all possible to fully in engage in here. However, we can think of some examples that may help to give us clues as to the types of states that may go to war more often.

In thinking back only on the twentieth century, the two most significant conflicts were World War I and World War II. World War I was triggered when Franz Ferdinand, nephew of the Austrian emperor, was shot but the major contributing cause was the arms race in Europe in the preceding years. For World War II, Germany was engaged in an imperialist project of overtaking or retaking portions of Europe that they deemed to be German territories. In both of these cases, the actions of aggressive states led to ultimate conflict. For the United States, in particular, this was not the end of war in the period. During the rest of the twentieth century, the United States engaged not only in the Korean and Vietnam Wars but countless smaller-scale conflicts and the moderately sized endeavor of pushing the Iraqi army back into Iraq from Kuwait. For Vietnam and Korea, the United States became involved because of an ideological conflict with communism—therefore suggesting that states with different types of regimes may be more likely to engage in war with one another. In the case of the first Gulf War, the United States and other countries were responding to the actions of an aggressor country: Iraq. These examples point the way toward the main explanations that political scientists have developed to explain war at the state level: imperialist aggression and conflict between states with dissimilar regimes.

The next level of analysis just below the state is that of the politics of the state. Some political scientists argue that instead of looking at states as black boxes as many realists and some liberals do, we need to peer inside the box and see what types of politics are occurring in the country. There are any number of political dramas on the big screen and television screen that demonstrate these ideas, and that is perhaps one of the best ways to describe them. First, in a little bit of art imitating life, the 1997 film Wag the Dog depicts an American president (fictional, of course) enduring a sex scandal. In order to take attention off the scandal, the president hires a movie producer to “produce” a war that will redirect the public’s attention. Although the movie is fictional, the scenario is very real. Following the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, the government of Russia began to come in for criticism aimed at the amount of money it had spent to prepare the Olympics site (approximately $50 billion). Partially as a means of disrupting such criticism, Russia invaded the country of Ukraine under the pretext of protecting pro-Russian separatists in the eastern part of the country.

Finally, we come to the lowest level of analysis, the individual level. At this level, political scientists seek to explore and understand individual behavior and how that may push countries to war. In some situations, wars could be attributed to the actions of one leader who may be off balance mentally. While we may colloquially ascribe the term crazy to any number of individual leaders, Hitler and Napoleon are two potential candidates for such a label who have pushed their countries to the brink. Other political scientists will argue that a leader need not be “crazy” or “insane” to take a country to war. Charismatic, well-loved leaders could influence their countries on the path to war simply because they are well liked or well spoken. In generalizing the argument, then, we could say that states that go to war may likely be influenced by significant and important leaders who have the ability to sway the opinion of the public to support engagement.

Other analysts stop short of the crazy label and argue, like Hobbes, that human aggression is natural as is the will to go to war. We can see that plain as day on our television screens most Sundays in the fall and winter as football players go helmet to helmet on the field. The desire for combat—whether it be in soldiers or athletes—could be part of the reason that states enter into conflict; the need to satisfy the desire for hard-won battles may also be part of why states go to war.

Other human characteristics can just as easily lead us down the path to war. The likelihood of individuals miscommunicating or misunderstanding each other can initiate a war. Part of international relations between leaders is being able to understand and correctly interpret the behaviors and actions of others. A good example of this was the former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Although the Bush administration claimed that Saddam had WMDs, following the American invasion, it was discovered that this claim was false. Some analysts have argued that Saddam had an interest in maintaining the idea that he possessed WMDs in order to make Iran believe that it retained the ability to fight a destructive war with them. (Iraq and Iran had previously engaged in a war in the 1980s that was fought to a stalemate.) This is just one example of how leaders may misrepresent their own actions in order to make others believe something they wouldn’t otherwise. However, we can just as easily see how this can lead to war, particularly in the case of the second war in Iraq.

Chapter Summary

· Realist international relations theory proposes that states are the main actors in international relations, that they act rationally, and that their main motivation is protecting their own power. The changing geopolitical system, however, places greater pressure on realists to respond to actors other than states.

· Liberal international relations theory does not believe that anarchy is the natural state of the world; rather, it believes cooperation among states is possible. Cooperation can be encouraged through international organizations, increased economic ties, and the spreading of democracy.

· Constructivists believe that the world as we know it can be changed by changing how we see it. In that sense, “anarchy is what we make of it.” Concepts such as identify, global norms, and interests can contribute to more peaceful outcomes.

· Feminist international relations theorists argue that historically, international relations has been gendered toward men—that is, men have dominated decision making, often leaving women and their interests out of the equation altogether. They suggest that by including more women in international decision making, the issues and concerns of women will be better integrated in the global system.

· The causes of war are numerous and complicated. Scholars can use three levels of analysis to identify causes of war: systemic level, state level, and individual level.

Key Terms

· balance of power: How evenly distributed power is across a region or the world

· collective security: Compels states to defend other states if they are attacked

· constructivist: Argues that all of international relations is socially and culturally constructed

· democratic peace theory: Theory that democratic states are much better able to avoid conflict than nondemocratic states

· feminist theory: Argues that the international system may be biased toward the view of men, systematically disenfranchising and ignoring the role and views of women

· liberal institutionalism: Posits that international organizations can be arranged in such a way as to provide order and structure in the world

· liberalism: An international relations theory that proposes that states pursue things other than power and can cooperate with one another; anarchy is not a natural outcome of the global order

· neorealism: A variant of realism where states must also react to the anarchic state of the world in addition to the actions of states themselves

· rationality: Acting in accordance with one’s ordered preferences

· realism: An international relations theory that posits states are the main actors in world affairs, that they act rationally, and that the world is naturally anarchic

· security dilemma: Can occur when states interpret another state’s arms and military buildup to be a threatening act

· unipolar world: Situation wherein one country has amassed more power than any other

Notes

1. Michael Birnbaum, “Donald Trump’s Tweets on NATO, Russian Meddling, and North Korea Should Be Ignored, Say Top US Security Officials,” Independent, Feb. 19, 2018,

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-ignore-tweets-nato-europe-russia-collusion-north-korea-munich-conference-hr-mcmaster-a8217201.html

2. Hans J. Morgenthau, “Another ‘Great Debate’: The National Interest of the United States,” American Political Science Review 46, no. 4 (1952): 961–988.

3. Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 5th ed. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978).

4. Morgenthau, “Another ‘Great Debate.’”

5. Kenneth N. Waltz, “Structural Realism after the Cold War,” International Security 25, no. 1 (2000): 39.

6. Thomas C. Walker and Jeffrey S. Morton, “Re-assessing the ‘Power of Power Politics’ Thesis: Is Realism Still Dominant?” International Studies Review 7, no. 2 (2005): 341–356.

7. Heikki Patomaki and Colin Wight, “After Postpositivism? The Promises of Critical Realism,” International Studies Quarterly 44, no. 2 (2000): 213–237; Fred Chernoff, “Scientific Realism as a Meta-Theory of International Politics,” International Studies Quarterly 46, no. 2 (2002): 189–207; Matt Sleat, “Liberal Realism: A Liberal Response to the Realist Critique,” The Review of Politics 73, no. 3 (2011): 469–496.

8. Immanuel Kant (trans. Mary Campbell Smith), “Perpetual Peace,” Project Gutenberg, Jan. 14, 2016,

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm

9. Thomas K. Friedman, “Foreign Affairs Big Mac I,” New York Times, Dec. 8, 1996,

10. Thomas C. Walker, “Two Faces of Liberalism: Kant, Paine, and the Question of Intervention,” International Studies Quarterly 52, no. 3 (2008): 449–468.

11. Lee Ward, “Locke on the Moral Basis of International Relations,” American Journal of Political Science 50, no. 3 (2006): 691–705.

12. Nicholas Rengger, “Political Theory and International Relations: Promised Land or Exit from Eden,” International Affairs 76, no. 4 (2000): 755–770.

13. Brian C. Rathbun, “Uncertain about Uncertainty: Understanding the Multiple Meanings of a Crucial Concept in International Relations Theory,” International Studies Quarterly 51, no. 3 (2007): 533–557; Deborah Boucoyannis, “The International Wanderings of a Liberal Idea, or Why Liberals Can Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Balance of Power,” Perspectives on Politics 5 no. 4 (2007): 703–727.

14. Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization 46, no. 2 (1992): 395.

15. Ibid., 397.

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid., 398.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. J. Samuel Barkin, “Realist Constructivism,” International Studies Review 5, no. 3 (2003): 325–342.

21. Jennifer Sterling-Folker, “Realism and the Constructivist Challenge: Rejecting, Reconstructing, or Rereading,” International Studies Review 46, no. 1 (2002): 73–97.

22. Jennifer Sterling-Folker, “Competing Paradigms or Birds of a Feather? Constructivism and Neoliberal Institutionalism Compared,” International Studies Quarterly 44, no. 1 (2000): 97–119; Birgit Locher and Elisabeth Prugl, “Feminism and Constructivism: Worlds Apart or Sharing the Middle Ground?” International Studies Quarterly 45, no. 1 (2001): 111–129.

23. Theo Farrell, “Constructivist Security Studies: Portrait of a Research Program,” International Studies Review 4, no. 1 (2002): 49–72.

24. Vincent Pouliot, “‘Sobjectivism’: Toward a Constructivist Methodology,” International Studies Quarterly 51, no. 2 (2007): 359–381.

25. Carol Cohn, “Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals,” Signs 12, no. 4 (1987): 687–718.

26. Cynthia Enloe, “‘Gender’ Is Not Enough: The Need for a Feminist Consciousness,” International Affairs 80, no. 1 (2004): 95–97.

27. Gillian Youngs, “Feminist International Relations: A Contradiction in Terms? Or: Why Women and Gender Are Essential to Understanding the World ‘We’ Live In,” International Affairs 80, no. 1 (2004): 75–87.

28. Laura Sjoberg, Gendering Global conflict: Toward a Feminist Theory of War (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013).

29. Marysia Zalewski, “Well, What Is the Feminist Perspective on Bosnia?” International Affairs 71, no. 2 (1995): 339–356.

30. J. Ann Tickner, “What Is Your Research Program? Some Feminist Answers to International Relations Methodological Questions,” International Studies Quarterly 49, no. 1 (2005): 1–21.

What Will You Get?

We provide professional writing services to help you score straight A’s by submitting custom written assignments that mirror your guidelines.

Premium Quality

Get result-oriented writing and never worry about grades anymore. We follow the highest quality standards to make sure that you get perfect assignments.

Experienced Writers

Our writers have experience in dealing with papers of every educational level. You can surely rely on the expertise of our qualified professionals.

On-Time Delivery

Your deadline is our threshold for success and we take it very seriously. We make sure you receive your papers before your predefined time.

24/7 Customer Support

Someone from our customer support team is always here to respond to your questions. So, hit us up if you have got any ambiguity or concern.

Complete Confidentiality

Sit back and relax while we help you out with writing your papers. We have an ultimate policy for keeping your personal and order-related details a secret.

Authentic Sources

We assure you that your document will be thoroughly checked for plagiarism and grammatical errors as we use highly authentic and licit sources.

Moneyback Guarantee

Still reluctant about placing an order? Our 100% Moneyback Guarantee backs you up on rare occasions where you aren’t satisfied with the writing.

Order Tracking

You don’t have to wait for an update for hours; you can track the progress of your order any time you want. We share the status after each step.

Order Now Talk to Us

Areas of Expertise

Although you can leverage our expertise for any writing task, we have a knack for creating flawless papers for the following document types.

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Areas of Expertise

Although you can leverage our expertise for any writing task, we have a knack for creating flawless papers for the following document types.

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Trusted Partner of 9650+ Students for Writing

From brainstorming your paper's outline to perfecting its grammar, we perform every step carefully to make your paper worthy of A grade.

Preferred Writer

Hire your preferred writer anytime. Simply specify if you want your preferred expert to write your paper and we’ll make that happen.

Grammar Check Report

Get an elaborate and authentic grammar check report with your work to have the grammar goodness sealed in your document.

One Page Summary

You can purchase this feature if you want our writers to sum up your paper in the form of a concise and well-articulated summary.

Plagiarism Report

You don’t have to worry about plagiarism anymore. Get a plagiarism report to certify the uniqueness of your work.

Free Features $66FREE

Most Qualified Writer $10FREE
Plagiarism Scan Report $10FREE
Unlimited Revisions $08FREE
Paper Formatting $05FREE
Cover Page $05FREE
Referencing & Bibliography $10FREE
Dedicated User Area $08FREE
24/7 Order Tracking $05FREE
Periodic Email Alerts $05FREE

Our Services

Join us for the best experience while seeking writing assistance in your college life. A good grade is all you need to boost up your academic excellence and we are all about it.

On-time Delivery
24/7 Order Tracking
Access to Authentic Sources

Academic Writing

We create perfect papers according to the guidelines.

Professional Editing

We seamlessly edit out errors from your papers.

Thorough Proofreading

We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.

Thorough Proofreading

We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.

Delegate Your Challenging Writing Tasks to Experienced Professionals

Work with ultimate peace of mind because we ensure that your academic work is our responsibility and your grades are a top concern for us!

Check Out Our Sample Work

Dedication. Quality. Commitment. Punctuality

It May Not Be Much, but It’s Honest Work!

Here is what we have achieved so far. These numbers are evidence that we go the extra mile to make your college journey successful.

0+

Happy Clients

0+

Words Written This Week

0+

Ongoing Orders

0%

Customer Satisfaction Rate

Process as Fine as Brewed Coffee

We have the most intuitive and minimalistic process so that you can easily place an order. Just follow a few steps to unlock success.

Call Us +1 (877) 657-8180 Discuss Order Details Now

See How We Helped 9000+ Students Achieve Success

We Analyze Your Problem and Offer Customized Writing

We understand your guidelines first before delivering any writing service. You can discuss your writing needs and we will have them evaluated by our dedicated team.

Clear elicitation of your requirements.
Customized writing as per your needs.

We Mirror Your Guidelines to Deliver Quality Services

We write your papers in a standardized way. We complete your work in such a way that it turns out to be a perfect description of your guidelines.

Proactive analysis of your writing.
Active communication to understand requirements.

We Handle Your Writing Tasks to Ensure Excellent Grades

We promise you excellent grades and academic excellence that you always longed for. Our writers stay in touch with you via email.

Thorough research and analysis for every order.
Deliverance of reliable writing service to improve your grades.

Place an Order Start Chat Now