2018-0507 SISG-760 Group 3

                 When we consider legitimate violence within an independent state there is a relatively simple framework to work with. In the barest of terms there is the governing, and the governed. The debate over the legitimacy of international violence is more complicated, due to the fact that you are faced with not only the ‘official’ international actors, say Sudan or Brazil, but also the groups within those states and groups that exist in, around, and outside those states, like the Islamic State.                 For the moment, let us assume that violence is legitimate. What role does the international community, if any at all, have to play in regulating international altercations when state sovereignty is on the line? As a convenient example, I fall back on the Islamic State. In particular the portion of the conflict playing out in Syria. It is especially c...

Public authority is necessary to maintain some level of control over violence between states. Since public authority binds actors to a common promise, which autonomous sovereigns willingly commit too, the likelihood of fighting decreases. This is especially true concerning the use of nuclear weapons. For example, when the U.S., Soviet Union, China, France and the U.K, signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1970 they agreed to take “effective measures  relating to cessation of the nuclear arms and to nuclear disarmament”. Moreover, the treaty allowed actors to gain nuclear technology but not use it. In this case, the treaty acted as a public authority by preventing the signatories use of nuclear power. While public authority is not a complete peace guarantor it does prevent aggression between actors through treaties.  In Nuclear Weapons and the Other in the Western Imagination , Gusterson discusses the common perception that nuclear weapons are most dangerous in the hands ...

            It is a fallacy to think that we could simply walk away from nuclear weapons given the history of our nation and the current state of world affairs. Blair makes a valid point in his assertion that de-alerting the nuclear powers could save us from accidental catastrophe, but I argue that given our history and our current nationalist climate, it would be folly to think that we could do so safely and without consequence. Waltz argued that nuclear weapons helps to maintain the peace between major powers, but would that peace be secured if other countries knew we couldn't strike back? While idealistic, de-alerting is not in our immediate agenda.             One of the first arguments Blair poses is the ability of terrorists to hack our weapons and use them against us or other nations. The notion that removing these weapons from their silos and subs will stop terrorists from doing ill deeds would hinge upon our ability s...

Private violence is an equalizer for all states. All states suffer from it and their public authority is challenged and defined by it, as is the case in Colombia and Mexico which struggle against powerful transnational criminal organizations (TCOs). The powerful presence of TCOs attest to the permeability of our international system and also to the permeability of public authority. At the turn of the 21 st century the US engaged in a controversial campaign called the war on drugs. Increasing violence in the US and health implications from drug trafficking prompted the US to extend its own public authority beyond its borders to disrupt the drug trade at its source. The US has sought to extend its public authority in this new transnational community (TC). This community was inadvertently created by the TCOs themselves as neighboring nations struggle to counter their authority and regardless of physical and ideological differences, now find themselves in a common identity group. I ...

Globalization is already changing the international system by increasing interdependence between countries. Organized crime, a real threat to state sovereignty, has globalized and become a threat to security. Organized crime has managed to develop as economic and armed powers. Transnational criminal organizations (TCO), gangs, threaten peace and development nationally and globally, and ultimately place state governance and stability in jeopardy. Transnational crime challenges the power dynamic between countries and within countries. As Williams describes, TCOs are able to violate borders and use borders defensively to their benefit (166). They completely disregard state rules and policies. States maintain their sovereignty partially through coercive power. Organized crime exercise the use of coercive power as well, using violence to remove competitors to their businesses (Williams, 167). The modern TCO, these non-state actors, seem to be acting more towards long term objectives. Th...

Developing nations' nuclear ambitions have been demonized in the West for decades. As illustrated by Hugh Gusterson in his provocative call-out of Western elitism, nuclear weapons are a danger in the hands of all, regardless if they are occidental, oriental, boreal, or austral. Why then have the P5 so ardently opposed nuclear proliferation? To say this is Western is a misnomer as China is equally in this fight and Russia is continually buying into this Western typology. I argue that this is closer aligned with maintenance of the current order in which Russia and China have a stake. Ultimately, All of the P5 are enjoying their time at the top of the weaponized world. The greatest threat to this order would be for weaker nations to acquire these weapons and begin to threaten the international order established by the 5 nuclear powers. Considering that these powers also make up the UN security Council, and are leading members of such prominent IOs such as the IMF makes this argument...

I wanted to offer some of the things I found during my research for the coming mid-term. I think that this was an interesting part of my research which demonstrated that alternative versions of state-like actors have existed anciently. It also points us to the conclusion that the current Westphalian system of autonomous and impermeable actors seems to be more closely aligned with Western value systems than an unchangeable state of nature. A brief analysis of the past helps to frame possible alternative international systems which have existed and how they created fundamentally unique actors. However, once analyzed the majority of further examination will focus on how the current international environment has key characteristics which will help to transform statehood from impermeable actors to possibly porous centers of decentralized power. Erik Ringmar illustrates that the current international system is more associated with western mentality than it is with rea...

Over a four-day period our class debated the potential for fundamental change in the international sphere in the form of a slow-motion exchange of written rebuttals. I gained a renewed appreciation for my decision to avoid law school. On a more serious note, the exercise was a valuable summation of the concepts we’ve covered to date. As we’ve seen in class all along, from Hobbes’ chapters dedicated to explaining his precise personal interpretations of terminology, to confusions in class, expressing your definition of a word can improve the clarity of your argument, but even change it.                 Personally, the time spent reflecting on perspective with which I don’t necessarily agree was highly educational. I challenged my own viewpoints, which is always healthy, and was able to consider why someone else would see things differently. This class is dedicated to the theory behind international relations. U...

It is not surprising that realists are continually updating their philosophies to remain relevant in modern international discourse. This is not to say that realists have everything wrong. In my view they accurately see anarchy in the international system, but they ascribe too much human nature to anarchic framework. Their arguments have evolved to account for undeniable change throughout history, yet fall short of accepting the possibilities of human nature. Let us not forget that modern rationalism and its greatest proponents evolved in the west. Developed by the schizoid and disconnected mentality that prevails in the Occidental world, they ascribe all human nature to their own cultural reality and this perception distorts all other events. It is a vicious cycle which in their mind is a self-perpetuating theory. Some middle-eastern nation attacks another and they immediately diagnose the stark appearance of self-interest while they remain ignorant to cultural and ideational factor...

For the most part I was surprised by how much I agree with the realist perspective on fundamental change after helping put together the material for the CON argument. Mostly because I don't think I had my mind wrapped around what fundamental change meant to me and in the realm of international politics. I have only ever thought of it in a societal/individual way. At times I did find it difficult to stick to the CON argument when presented with different scenarios in class, especially when talking about ideas. Previously I have agreed with the notion that ideas underline interests and the two work together to shape foreign policy. When Austin brought up ideas as being a catalyst, really, for fundamental change I found myself nodding my head. I can see that: ideas fueling social movements which change the structure of society. I still think, though, that this would only amount to a substantial change in the international system, not a fundamental change. As mentioned in class, a ...

I appreciate the module 3 group project because it improved my understanding of the 2x2 model and the assigned readings regarding fundamental change. Moreover, our class debate was entertaining, insightful and informative. Hearing my colleagues defend their position in different scenarios allowed me to comprehend the justifications for the pro and con sides which also helped me determine whether I believe fundamental change is possible or not. After completing the readings, participating in the debate, and reflecting on my experiences and knowledge of the world, I would say that I am more inclined to the pro-change argument. I don't think the anarchic system or frame-of mind always dominates. I believe that it exists and that it can be applied in certain circumstances, but for the most part I think fundamental change is possible. In fact, I am not quite sure how anarchy has become the default for many in international relations. I understand that the world has witnessed many wars...

            The question of fundamental change really seems to stem from our desire as humans to seek what we cannot have, to obtain the next vision of Utopia. Realists and liberals, neo-realists and constructivists, we all are attempting to argue what ultimately comes down to words. We try our best to characterize our environment so we can invent solutions, but to what degree will bias always set in? Fundamental change, I argue, is not possible, because how can we ever truly define fundamental change with a common definition?             Realists argue that fundamental change cannot happen, that impermeable, sovereign states will continue to live in a state of anarchy. We postulate that security and self-preservation define our existence; the balance of power is the ultimate equilibrium that decides between peace and war. To the extent that nations are truly sovereign, not just in their personal view, but in a global sense is...

This week’s lecture about agency and structure helped me view the creation of different institutions and the unfolding of certain international events, by way of actors, in new ways. By using the 2x2 model Professor Jackson was able to convey the different levels of agency each type of actor possesses and what drives them to change and what factors constrain them. Actors in Box 1 (hard autonomy) are not capable of much change because of the Hobbesian state of nature. This line of thought coincides with the realist belief which views the rise and fall of great powers as inevitable. The only change that is possible in this box is complete change which implies no longer having states in anarchy. Since structure here is strong there is less possibility for change. Box 2 (hard attunement) implies that our institutions are rationally chosen and that change occurs based on our interests. Thus, change is basically a recalculation of costs and benefits. Box 3 (soft autonomy) implies that chang...

We've been discussing fundamental change, and whether it is possible according to differing schools of thought. Realists argue that fundamental change isn't possible because it is grounded in consistent human nature, driven by self-interests. Liberals would argue that it is possible through international institutions and shared ideas. Does the rise of the BRIC states represent a fundamental change to the nature of the international system? With the formation and continued growth of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China), the inevitable shift in global world order from unipolarity to multipolarity is becoming more and more apparent. BRIC's presence and power in the global political system is driven by cultural diversity, economic inequality, political fragmentation, and conflict of interest between wealthy industrialized countries and emerging economies. These countries are seeking to establish more sovereignty. BRIC challenges Western hegemony, and this could lead to re-s...

The reading by Waltz points out some key points that Neorealists believe in. Neorealists view power as a possibly useful means. Neorealism contends that international politics can be understood only if the effects of structure are added to the unit-level explanations of traditional realism. It rejects the assumption that man’s innate lust for power constitutes a sufficient cause of war in the absence of of any other. Specifically, we need to look at the causal link interacting units and international outcomes. We’ve established before with Hobbes that the system we live in is anarchy. States are rational actors that at their basest level want to survive. Neorealism states that within an anarchy, states need to provide their own security to protect themselves from threats. This security dilemma is a problem, war occurs. This depends on situations and characteristics of states, not because states want to have war. The more important question then becomes what started th...

A consideration of the interactions between the pressures of anarchy and autonomous sovereign actors seemed like a reasonable way to process this week’s readings. A common theme across all articles was the conviction that anarchy on the level of international politics/relations creates a large system of balances. The self-correcting capacity of that system is a matter on which there is less agreement. Wendt in particular views the balance as fragile. If one actor enters on the stage with an aggressive approach, the extant actors/agents are most likely going to take a similar approach. This creates a self-propagating cycle that is unlikely to end without disastrous wars or individual, internal changes. Wendt does believe that the possibility for that change exists, and that external powers can influence other, sovereign agents to make those changes. He proposes that by one power, the ‘ego’, treating a second power, the ‘alter’, as though the alter has already made internal changes...

           While discussing realist motives and intentions, it seems that the United States is headed down a curious path worth looking at. Clearly a powerful nation, the United States should be in a unique position to latch onto globalization in order to secure a stable future. Calm, cool, collected domination is a much better look than ramping up rhetoric and perceived might, because your neighbor's interest to attack is seemingly when they are most threatened by show of force.             The United States has long taken advantage of its allies, while using economic bargaining to secure peaceful existence. The European Union is a clear ally in the spread of Democracy and Capitalism, two tenants central to the existence of the United States. It is this point that makes recent events troubling with regards to a peaceful future.             In an effort to bolster nationalism, our country has tur...

September 11 th , 2001 is now memorialized in the collective memory of the United States. American children are already being taught about this relatively recent event in terms of its historical importance. Throughout history single events have symbolically signaled a shift in world views, international structured ideas, and norms. I argue that September 11 th is one of the most recent monumental shifts in international relations equivalent to the peace at Westphalia, and the Berlin wall. The point of debate in this blog is whether these events can be explained by neorealists who maintain a competitive and self-interested inherent state of nature or constructivists who challenge how we see the state of nature and its relation to human behavior. Institutionalism will not be discussed although it also has a significant weight in the argument considering the high level international organizations have attained. Neorealists supplemented rational-based models by accepting that change ...