2018-0507 SISG-760 Group 3

           Taking international relations theory with quantitative methods was admittedly sadistic in hindsight, but I feel that when theory meets practice sometimes the fusion is wonderful. As difficult as writing a multivariate regression analysis paper on 200 countries was, it would have been much harder without some solid theory to back it up. I initially wanted to look at internet access throughout the world to dissect why different countries have such vastly different penetration rates. Ultimately, I found my theory guiding me to my conclusions.             I initially thought that infrastructure would be quite important to the level of internet access in a country. I was looking at this from a very realist perspective...money plus critical infrastructure must equal high rates of internet. My results showed me, however, that the picture was much more cloudy than I would have thought. My main hypothesis centered around co...

               International Theory is a core class in American’s Masters in International Relations for a good reason. Many of us are headed for, or are already engaged in careers in the public and private sector that rely on a solid understanding of not only current events, but also the historic and theoretical precedents that underline them. From Hobbes, whose Leviathan seeks to distill the human experience, particularly as it pertains to government and societal interactions, down to words that can transmit this vast concept, to Thucydides and others like him that have focused their attentions on specific events, there is a vast body of work out there for us to reference.                 The point of this class is not necessarily to ‘pick a side’ per se, it is to make yourself aware of the sides and different ways we can view the situations that we come across in ou...

I enjoyed the back and forth debate over who poses the greatest threat to the US in yesterday's class. I think the takeaway from that was that there is no one sole threat that will completely knock us out as the dominant global power. If anything, I would say that we are our biggest threat. The decisions our government and leadership make on how the US moves forward plays a huge role in our legitimacy and hegemony. That is what will truly effect whether we stay on top or not, because other factors or countries can then fill up that void that the US leaves behind. A common underlying thread present in all four cases presented was the role or impact our economy plays in these threats. The state of our economy fuels many of the issues that feed into these threats or stem from them. With financial insecurity and uncertainty comes unrest among the populace. This could exacerbate the internal collapse that was brought up. People seeking jobs and concerned about their future welfare are...

           The largest threat to the US depends on how you define threat. It also depends on how you define our current situation as a hegemonic power. Does a threat to the US mean that we lose influence or that our country completely implodes? Does the US need hegemonic power to stay relevant, or would a lessening of responsibilities as the "world police" lead us to a more prosperous future in the long run? I believe the greatest threat to the current status of the US is a loss of sovereignty that will ultimately benefit us.             The European Union went through a transformation decades ago much like I envision the US needing to succumb to. Great powers like Germany, the UK and France realized that they needed a stronger network to keep themselves relevant and guard their interests. The US could be close to this same deferral of sovereignty in order to combat stronger interests on the international stage. Our current pr...

            I wonder if perhaps the largest threat to the US might have been born from the very companies that have added to its greatness over the last 3 decades. It seems that, as far as influence is concerned, big tech companies (Amazon, Facebook, Google) hold all the cards. The balance of powers argument looks at states, but should it also look at organizations as a threat to stability? Companies that have a higher net worth than small countries start to look particularly threatening.             When a company has the ability to collect more data than the government, there arises an issue of security. These large companies have more information on the citizens, not just of the US, but all over the world than our government would care to admit. Indeed, our government is almost beholden to these companies when it comes to the information sphere. This sets up a model where these corporations are in a position of power over t...

There are several theories that attempt to explain the rise and fall of great powers. In reviewing the theories it appears that no single theory can account for every situation that has occurred in international politics at least the way in which these theories are currently elucidated. This is especially true concerning the balance of power hypothesis, which claims that international stability is created when there is an equilibrium among state actors, especially concerning militarily capability. However, findings show that hegemonic stability may ensue in a multi-state system. While the balance of power theory may account for some of the outcomes in world politics, to some extent, the theory loses credibility through its inability to account for variations between states and the rise and fall of great powers. The balance of power theory certainly does not hold true in the case of the United States. In my view, the US is the current hegemon and thus, we are living in a unipolar w...

In this week's lecture, Dr. Jackson mentions theories that explain the rise and fall of Great Powers. I think all the theories play a role in past, current and future international relations. It is only the idea of the human project, which I rely on less, but in the face of global crisis such as global warming, and the war on terror it might not be as improbable as I believe it to be. In any case, when we consider the world as it is today there is strong evidence to support that power transitions, hegemonic stability, and constitutional moments have all contributed to the current way in which the global arena operates. Power transitions theory explains much of our world history and why hegemonic powers have fallen giving rise to great powers. It explains China’s success over Japan and the U.S.’s over the former Soviet Union, etc. When I think about power transitions the first thing to come to mind is natural. The balancing of powers is simply an instinctive process in the worl...

            Will versus might are strong words when debating the end state of humanity and our interaction there within. Should we lean to what "might" happen, then it feels as though we are haphazardly guessing at the future of our world. On the other hand, saying what "will" happen makes us seem like we have actual power and that we aren't just agents in a much larger cosmos of chance and interactions. Much like debating the future of the international realm, I believe trying to pinpoint where we will end up and how we end up there is folly when sometimes we cannot even figure out which foot to step off with.             Debating the balance of powers theory seems like a dreary way to spend the day when ultimately, someone always seems to be in control. Likewise, debating the future of the United States seems to suggest that we deserve a place in the future. No country, government, institution or person is guaranteed their n...

As I reflect on the material presented in this class, I think about the various methods of thinking about the international world. International relations is a complex system to attempt to explain. Humans are desperate to define it and assign rules to it in order to be able to predict it. The power of prediction enables humans the ability to manipulate the system. However, the myriad of different schools of thought in the international system make this effort difficult. I personally believe that a loose set of rules apply in the international system. This class helped me to define this system that makes the most sense to what I see happening in international relations. I found myself aligning with the constructivist ideology. This ideology appealed to me because it took into account ideas in the international system. While Realism and Liberalism assume a set of predefined attributes about human nature based on anarchy, constructivism states that human nature is defined by precedent. ...

            In our last module we discussed the possibility of a global public sphere. Our conclusions, while varied and ironically, inconclusive, did agree on one point. We do not currently exist in a such a system. If we do not now, how would we as humankind reach that end? Our readings for this module and basic logic offer two possible answers. Option one, a single hegemonic power rises, gradually taking over the control of all other territory, through means physical, economic, or digital. Option two, something vaguely along the lines of the United Nations arises as governing body for the world. Whether that governance is entirely equal is something for socialist thinkers to argue over.             The rise of a single, hegemonic power is a favorite topic in today’s sociopolitical circles. It is easy to imagine similar conversations occurring, though perhaps at a lower volume in both senses of th...

Reflecting back on this class, I have learned a lot about what school of thought I fall into, what I think of the international system and its varied actors, and my opinions on numerous topics regarding international relations. Though I don't think I came to any concrete and definite answer on whether I am a realist, liberal or constructivist, I do have a better understanding of what I lean towards depending on the topic at hand. This class has given me the foundational knowledge to be able to critically think about several concepts like fundamental change, ideas v. interests, global public sphere, and how these can all affect the international system. The most interesting topic to me was fundamental change. I have yet to come up with a conclusive view on whether fundamental change of the international system is possible. Over the course of this class, I have argued for the realist perspective that it is not possible. However, there have been some points made in class that I agre...

Corporations help create domestic and global economic prosperity. However, when they grow extremely rich they can become powerful which may threaten sovereign actors’ authority, both on a national and international level. Additionally, through hefty donations their lobbying capability allows them to manipulate politicians and the political process undermining democratic processes and devaluing the voice of the people.  In order to prevent corporations from interfering with the democratic processes there needs to be an overarching system that monitors what corporations do and how they do it. To a certain extent room and flexibility may help corporations better compete against one another. Capitalist societies like the United States believe that less regulations on corporations means more incentive to be innovative. And while that may be true to some extent, there are also many abuses these companies commit in order to maximize their profits. Without strict gui...