Appunti di international relations

WWI - Change in Perception of Military Technology and the Goal of the War

Change: There was a shift in perception of military technology as offensive, which proved to be an advantage in the rivalry between nations. This led to the development of the "myth of the offensive," where offensive strategies, such as massive assaults by soldiers, were seen as the key to winning the war.

Goal: The war was fought for control of the European continent and for the ideals of democracy against autocracies.

Liberalism and International Relations

Liberalism is based on several important principles:

• Legal equality of citizens
• Protection of fundamental rights and liberties, such as security, property, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press
• Rule of law, which regulates relations among individuals and the state, determining duties, rights, freedoms, and limitations
• Separation of power to prevent tyranny

According to liberals, war is seen as irrational because it wastes resources and human lives. It only benefits a few, such as weapon manufacturers who gain power and the military. The goal of liberals is to reduce or abolish war altogether.

Feudalism was also seen as an enemy by liberals because it did not recognize the individual, only group members based on religion, village, family, etc.

citizens are excluded from foreign policy they• cannot know their future self-determination (Mazzini)• international institutions (Crucé), where states can meet and sort their conflicts through• diplomacy

Two different liberalist approaches to war: pacifist approach (war is always evil) or "peace may require war, perhaps the last war" (Wilson).

The most important liberal writer is Immanuel Kant and his “perpetual peace” from 1795. Its goal was to design a path to perpetual peace, not possible in the short term. Six preliminary articles and three other final articles:

1. no secret treaties
2. self-determination
3. abolition of armies in peace time (once they were small and well trained so they could be dissolved and reformed quickly)
4. national debt shall not create external friction
5. no interference in the affair of other states
6. during war acts of great hostility must be avoided

Three definitive articles, the real solution to war: states should be republics.

Since people are those who pay for war, they will not fight easily.¹ Instead democracy thinkers believe democracies are peaceful with other democracies but definitely not with autocracies² confederation of states² cosmopolitan law: universal hospitality, individual can move among states (=/ international³ law). Very important because it incentivizes international trade.

The Kantian solution was then a confederation of states trading among themselves.

In IR theory there are three liberalisms:

• institutional: international organization
• commercial: interdependence. Changes in the structure of the domestic and global economy alter costs and benefits of international exchange and foreign policy can incentivize or hinder it
• republican: democratic regime. Domestic political representation determines what objectives are privileged

Republican school DPT or democratic peace theory: democracies do not wage war against democracies. This does not suggest that democracies are more peaceful overall.

Iron law that proves that there are not wars between democracies in history. Exception extreme case: Finland allied with Nazi Germany against the invasion of Soviet so war against UK.

Two main explanations that try to account for this regularity:

1. Institutional explanation: decision making is more complex (separation of powers), slow (majority principles) and transparent (freedom of opinion and expression). Another reason is elections; with elections leaders are more risk adverse because they might lose their seat.
2. The second explanation is considered weak because a leader can lose a war and get re-elected or win a war and not get elected (eg. Churchill).

Normative explanation: it looks at the political norms that rule democracies. They are based on the rule of law and legal methods to solve disputes. In foreign policy they outsource internal rules. When democracies confront other democracies they have the expectation of resolving disputes through compromise.

According to some real most

Statistical data is gathered after the cold war so it's too early to determine if democracies are really more peaceful.

Democratization

If we want to count the number of democracies we first have to define what a democracy is (PolityIII). Huntington wrote a book called "the third wave" about the three democratization waves. He uses the word "wave" purposely; like a wave that then reverses, after a growth there is a decline in the number of democracies:

• first wave: 19th-1920
• second wave: post WWII-1962 (end of colonial regimes, south east Asia and latin America)
• third wave: 1974-today

If democracies do not wage war and are the best solution for peace, different American administrations do not agree on how to obtain democracy:

• separate peace: nothing to be done, just set an example (John Quinsy Adams' doctrine)
• universal peace: democracy promotion (financing democratic movements around the world, Clinton administration) or exporting it

abroad (with force, Bush administration which rarely worked: only successes were Italy, West Germany and Japan after WWII, Panama in 1989 and Grenada in 1983)

Mansfield and Snyder point out that democratic peace only works between stable democracies. Democratizing regimes are actually more warlike than autocracies. The lack of consolidation of democratic legitimacy and the erosion of traditional legitimacy can lead the elites to use ultra-nationalistic rhetoric.

If we look at commercial trade, if there is free trade between states they are gonna have peaceful relations. Two versions:

• classic theory: economic interdependence generates interest in peace regardless of the regime, but there are empirical exceptions (eg. WWI)
• complex interdependence: composed by trade, multinational, NGO and other transnational actors which are interested in peace

Taking preferences seriously (Moravcsik)

A sophisticated attempt to a liberal theory that looks at domestic preferences in a non legalistic

Neo-realism assumes that states are unitary actors that choose their foreign policy based on their position in the international scenario. Another assumption of neo-realism is that states are compelled by the anarchic system to act rationally, otherwise they risk being eliminated from the system. Moravcsik challenges the idea of a state as a rational actor, but does not deny that once they establish a preference, they become rational. Therefore, the state aims to maximize its national preference. Rationality lies in the ability to choose the best means in relation to the purpose, rather than in the choice of the purpose itself.

There are two levels of foreign policies:

• Liberal pluralistic level: when preferences are formed domestically. This level can only be analyzed using liberalism because realism lacks a comprehensive theory of preference (the state's actions are determined by the structure and polarity).
• Intergovernmentalism: implementation of preferences in a strategic environment (international arena).

where the moves of other states need to be taken into consideration

So security is a priority also for liberalist, but the source of the threat is not the configuration of power, but rather different ideologies, regimes or objectives.

The superiority of the liberalist approach lays in the possibility of change in objectives which then changes foreign policy (no repetitiveness of history).

fi fi fi Neo-liberalist or neo-institutionalist school and cooperation

They critique the realist school about cooperation: according to them there is not because states are self interested but empirical tests prove otherwise.

Cooperation is different from harmony: cooperation is at least two actors that coordinate their actions in order to reach a goal (no gain no cooperation); this is a situation of pure conflict.

Harmony doesn't need cooperation, or coordination because there is no competition.

Cooperation requires common, but not perfectly harmonic interests: ("mixed-motive")

"Cooperation". One way to understand interests is game theory, the study of interdependent decision-making (decisions based on what others have decided). The assumption is that actors want to maximize their profits (pay off). Two situations:

• Nash equilibrium: particular situation in which given the choice of one actor, the other has no interest in changing its choice. It's a finished game
• Pareto efficiency: the best result possible, given the choices of the two players. A cannot improve its situation without worsening the one of Beg. prisoner dilemma: two criminals arrested held in separate cells. If they both confess they get 5 years, if they don't confess they get one year, if one blames the other and the other doesn't the one who did will be set free and the other will get 15 years. They will choose to both confess because they're afraid the other