IAFF

Order, Structure and Process in International Politics

The Liberal Leviathan Ikenberry
 Minimalist, Pluralist and Solidarist conceptions of order
 Global Norms
o Factors that affect compliance
 Norm characteristics
 Anarchy and Hierarchy
 Liberal Hegemony
Conceptions of Order
 Minimalist conception
o Logic of government based on power, “realism”, occasional coincidences of
interests that allow collaboration/alliance-but do not last
o We are in a realm of competitive states, need power
o Competitive self-interest states competing for security
o Thin notion of governance
 Pluralists
o goal=preservation of “society of sovereign states”
 result of end of thirty years war treaty of Westphalia that recognized
sovereignty
o territorial integrity respected
o strong norm of non-interference (Westphalian System)
o diplomatic recognition
o accommodation through recognizing territory and sovereignty
o sanctity of state as a unit
o society as states
o thicker notion of governance
o Some overlap with liberalism (commitment to liberal ideals of free market,
democracy etc.)
o Putin’s interference in Syria upheld by Westphalian principles because they
were invited in, US was not invited so we violated it-more explained by
solidarist thinking
 Solidarist
o Broad consensus on core principles among state and non-state actors on
governance of global society
o Ideas and individuals matter (idealist view)
o Freely accept legitimacy of process
o Sovereignty NOT absolute
 o Thickest conception of government
o Humanitarian concerns-responsibility to fellow humans not “states”
 Many human rights activists fall into this category
 Effects behavior in humanitarian intervention during wars, UN etc.
o Responsibility to protect fellow humans
o Sovereignty not absolute because have the obligation to intervene to help
with humanitarian concerns ex: Sudan, Syria etc.
o Ideas shape behavior, the way we think about things has an impact
o Maps well onto constructivist perspective
o Most extreme/thickest case: world government
 A lot of tension between the different conceptions
o Sovereignty vs responsibility to protect
o Spectrum of “thinner” to “thicker” versions of order

Global Norms and Factors that affect Compliance

 Norms may strengthen or weaken overtime
o Ex: Ikenberry said commitment to liberal hegemony is weakening currently,
apartheid,
o Environmental concerns strengthening
 Vary in level of specificity
o Ex: human rights,
o Some enshrined in institutions and are enforced ex: WTO
o Some broad: GA resolutions
 Vary in degree to which they bind political actors
o Ex: UNHRC has some awful political states in terms of human rights acts
 Filtered through domestic institutions and actors
o How do they implement them and bind them
o US champion political rights, USSR economic and social rights in terms of
human rights
 May be rejected or reinterpreted
o ISIS strong rejection of liberal norms
 Crises can alter perceptions of legitimacy
o Ex: 2008 financial crisis led to questioning of strength and endurance of
liberal economic power and the US’s economic power
 Three types of actors:
o Global Governors, those directly involved in processes of global
governance=Norm Providers
 Not necessarily states, but orgs can also be them
o Free Riders-accept norms but did not participate in establishing norms
 Ex: Japan and Germany after the war, benefited from post-war order,
did not establish or contribute to it, but accept the norm
o Norm Takers- parties excluded from process completely
 Ex: former colonies, gained independence after the post-war order
had already been established
 Do not accept legitimacy of the world order
 Ex: China, accept free trade part, but not really anything else
 Most likely to challenge hegemonic norms when:
 Conflict between global and local norms
 Global norms disadvantageous
 They believe they have power to challenge legitimacy of global
norms
Norm Characteristics
 Forces for behavior consistent with global norms:
o Involuntary Coercion (Minimalist conception)
 Imperial state’s approach, take your resources for themselves,
exploitation
 Enforcement process can be seen as illegitimate, reinforcing
perceptions of bias in global normative order
 Mechanisms include:
o Economic/political sanctions, military force, market
forces, peer pressure and public shaming
 Ex: Greek debt crisis, EU forced harsh austerity measures
 NGOs like HRW and Greenpeace use public shaming
o Incentivizing/Sanctioning institutions (Pluralist conception)
 Use institutions to monitor and check actors
o Consensual Persuasion (Solidarist conception)
 End of slavery
 Emphasis on ideas and discourse, right thing to do
 Better compliance when norms seen as both substantively and procedurally
legitimate
 Symmetrical application of norms seen as more legitimate
o US more Liberal Leviathan not imperial because applied rules they promoted
to themselves as well
 Global norms can serve as:
o Focal points for debate
o Benchmarks for behavior
o Devices for signaling identity
 Ex: developing nations having ministries of science because that’s
what modern states do, even if they do not have that sector
 o Means to bolster or undercut legitimacy of state action
 Norms used as a standard to judge other countries by
 When Sadam Hussein invaded Kuwait, there was widespread
condemnation because he violated territorial integrity and
sovereignty
Anarchy and Hierarchy
 Anarchy
o NOT chaos
o Permissive condition for war
o IS a lack of world government
o Foundational concept in IR
 especially Minimalist conception
 states have no higher authority to report to,
 creates challenge in IR as to how to create order
o Hobbes’ state of nature
 Life nasty brutish short
 Use leviathan to provide order-give up freedom for security
o Fundamental issue of IR, how solve issues when states are sovereign and no
one can make them comply
 Hierarchy
o Form of order
o Post-WWII American-led hierarchical order with liberal characteristics
(Ikenberry)
 Relatively open system, easy to join
o Empire (not the same)
 Because not exclusive
 But hierarchical because built on unequal power relationships that
existed after the war
 Global norms of post-war liberal Hierarchy:
o Commitment to multilateral institutions
 UN was established in acknowledgement that a united front was
needed against shared problems
o Rules based system
 State is not above the law
 Hegemon obligated to follow the laws
 US does breach international laws from time to time, but not
often
o Open system
 Easy to join, difficult to overturn
o After 1989 western views became the norm
  Power shifts and polarity:
o Cold war- bipolar world
o Post 1989- unipolar
o Where are we moving toward? Multipolar? Bipolar? Medieval?
 Rising powers like china, and rising regional blocs as well that
challenge the order
Liberal Hegemony
 Foundations of post-war shifting
o Particularly the case of rising powerhouses and non-state actors like ISIS
 Westphalian system under stress
 Unipolarity-unbalanced
o Leads to question, what type of system is more stable?
 Erosion of sovereignty norm
 “Liberal Leviathan”
o Liberal hegemony will remain intact as there is a demand for liberal
leviathan
 To overcome Hobbes’ state of nature
 Others let America take the wheel
o Certain degree of buy in in this system
 Open markets, security guarantees, post-war aid, democratic institutions
o US provides public goods in exchange for buy in
 Undergirded by highly unequal power
o Mechanisms to create order:
 Command (minimalist)
 Characterized by powerful state that maintains order ex:
empires
 Balance (pluralist)
 Order emerges from power stalemate
 No one state dominates the system
 Have several great powers, with some disparities but not so
bad that there is one dominant state
 Consent (Solidarist)
 Order organized around agreed upon rules and institutions ex:
British and us liberal orders
o Never mutually exclusive, always in tension
 Both command and consent based logic in post-war American led
order, even though it is predominantly one of consent
o Shapes of order:
 Flat (Wilson)
 Hierarchical
  Lumpy (regionalism)
 Foundation of post-war order= realism/minimalism
o Plus
 Acceptance of Westphalian system
 Frameworks to manage great power relations (pluralism)
 Leaders in minimalist and pluralist orders have pushed toward solidarist orders
o Benefits US, West and “some of the rest”
 Uneasy tension between all three types of order
 Us-Imperialist minimalist? Or liberal pluralist?
 Democratic peace- solidarist?
Discussion 1

 30 years’ war in Europe ended with Peace of Westphalia 1648, marked

decentralization of the empire
o Origin of modern nation-state in Europe
o Principles of Sovereignty
 Rulers of state have supreme authority
 Mechanism of protection
o non-interference emerged
 No matter how big or small, no right to interfere in another state
 How weaker states are able to have security and avoid existential
crises
 Westphalian system
o System where nations respect other’s sovereignty
o Foundation of today’s international order
o Emerged in Europe, spread throughout world
 Anarchy
o International system is anarchic
 System with independent states but with no world government above
them
 Highest sovereign power is the state
 No world government to adjudicate
 United Nations does not have full binding authority over
member states
o Consent based group
o Absence of an overarching authority above the state level
 Does not mean chaos
 There is order under anarchy
 Through international organizations-un, WTO, World Bank
etc.
 Extended cooperation between states
o Anarchic cooperation replaced system of conquest
 Perspectives:
 o Minimalism
 Founded on power
 More power means you can do more
 Powerful do what they can, weak do what they must to survive
 Not a very ordered system
 People say trade is still based on who has more power, ex: more
powerful state will choose conditions of trade
o Pluralism
 Goes back to idea of Westphalian system
 Most important founding principle of international system is that it
consists of plurality of sovereign states who respect each other’s
sovereignty
 About protection and preservation of Westphalian sovereignty
 order based on maintenance of sovereignty
o Solidarist
 Protection of human rights most important aspect of international
system
 Can disregard sovereignty to protect people
 Care of people above sovereignty
 Community of states solve problems together and solve issues
collectively

How do Hegemons create order?

 Historical Trends
 Distribution of capabilities and polarity
 Breaking open the “black box”
 Liberal Hegemony

Historical Trends

 The Mercantilist Era

o European powers dominated beginning in the 1500s
o Characterized by power struggles between European states
o Sought to ensure own political and military power
 Wanted access to markets and resources
o Mercantilism: the use of military power to enrich imperial governments
 Key mechanisms: state monopolies and control on colonial trade
 Economically closed system
 Trade was almost exclusively within European territories-not really
trading with one another
 Once Mercantilism began to open up following Britain’s opening up in
the mid-1800s, leads to fierce economic growth
o European powers fought over wealth, power and influence
 o The Thirty Year’s War (1618-1648) =Peace of Westphalia, sealed decline of
Spain
 First major ordering moment
 States begin to consolidate and have defined borders
o Peace of Westphalia
 Effects:
 Stabilized Borders
 Helped resolve religious conflicts
 Beginning of modern system of states
 Established sovereignty
o Modern state system created
o Sovereignty
 The expectation that states have supreme legal and political authority
within their borders
 The defining principle from the treaty of Westphalia
 Mutual recognition of sovereignty
 Start of diplomacy
 Territorial integrity
 Basis of modern state system
 Fight for Hegemony
o 1660s
 British surpass Dutch in trade and maritime power
o Anglo-French rivalry
 Seven years’ war, French revolution
 Ends with defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815
 Fight to see who would take over the hegemony

Distribution of Capabilities and Polarity

 Anarchy
o Poses a lot of questions
 How do you get sovereign states to cooperate? Since there is no world
power
 Distribution of capabilities=bedrock of world order
o Who has the strongest military? Strongest economy? How is it organized?
Are great powers equal? Multipolar? Unipolar? Bipolar? (Cold War)
 Indicates who has power
o Understand the polarity of the world
 Ikenberry says in unipolar moment under challenge currently
 Historical trends
o Realist conception of a pole:
 A state possess an unusually large share of resources or capabilities
o Historically: 17th century-mid 20th century
 International state system was multipolar
  Even if Britain was supreme, other powers had a lot of power
ex: France
o Congress of Vienna 1815
 Concert of Europe
 Multipolar
 Great Power restraint and accommodation
 Integrated French
 Despite their defeat
 Recognized French legitimate security interests
 Established diplomatic process for resolution of disputes
 The system became institutionalized, developed channels to
formally recognize each other and dispute settlement channels
to keep concert of Europe together
 Helped manage great power rivalry
o The Hundred Year’s peace: “the golden era”
 Period of peace for major world powers
 1815-1914
 Greater links among economies and governments
 Increased aggregate world growth and productivity
 Relations less belligerent
 Sources of cooperation:
 Convergence of interests
o When you engage with another great power in
economics, in your interests to not fight them
 British Hegemony and predominance
o Pax Britannica
o Other world powers still had a say and helped support
the British empire because felt they benefited from the
system due to overlapping interests
o “Ordering Moments”
 Westphalia 1648
 Sovereignty
 Territorial integrity
 Non-intervention
 Vienna 1815 (concert of Europe)
 Integrate vanquished (treat defeated with respect)
 Acknowledge legitimate national interests
 Establish diplomatic channels to resolve disputes
 Institutionalized interaction of states
 Versailles 1919
 Victor’s Peace
 Harsh reparations
 Punitive terms to the vanquished
 Neglected legitimate German security concerns
 o 100% punishment
 Led to insane inflation, famine, economic failure
etc. potentially to the rise of Hitler as well
 In contrast with congress of Vienna
 Post WWII
 Most complex of the four
 Treaty of Versailles hadn’t really created an ordering moment
because there wasn’t a definitive new hegemon, no order
established, war not really over
o Economic nationalism grew
o Great depression
o Fascism, socialism, Japanese imperialism all rose
 Created the ordering moment that failed to be created after
WWI
 Negotiation by victors: Germany, japan excluded
o British, Americans and Russians, and kind of
French,=main participants in creating order
 Victors partitioned Europe
 US undertook German and Japanese domestic reconstruction
(liberal democracies)
o Integrated them into the post-war order
o Recreated the nations in their own image
o Done with the Marshall Plan
 More similar to Vienna because integrated defeated into world
order
 Connected France and Germany through coal and steel
community, created mutual dependence
o US thought the military industrial complex was fueled
by coal and steel, and if you made France and Germany
mutually dependent then neither could overtake the
resources and develop their military more than they
should
o Done to bind Germany’s hands
 Created multi-lateral institutions-NATO
o More thickly organized than just having diplomatic
channels
o UN
o IMF
o World Bank
o Done to try and reconnect the world
 Learning and adaptation over time
o Policies changed over time with talking with allies and
the institutions
o More dynamism
  Strategic restraint and accommodation
o Conclusion of multi-state wars
o Opportunities to reshape order
o Mid 1950s-1991: Bipolarity
 World aligned into 2 poles
 USSR and US
o Each had hugely preponderate military capabilities over
everyone else in the world
o MAD
 Eastern bloc vs West
 Decolonized nations chose a pole
 “Non-aligned movement“ led by India
 Didn’t want to get caught up in bipolar rivalry and be able to
play both sides to extract resources
o 1991-now=Unipolarity
 Historically unique
 Liberal democracies bound by complex and institutionalized
forms of cooperation
o Seen with development of multilateral institutions,
terms of NATO
o Do not have power to do whatever they want, bind
themselves to rules that constrain their own behavior
 The hegemon (US) is supplying public goods (security) to other
nations (japan and Germany right after WWII)
o Allowed these nations to not worry about defense and
develop their economies so that they would be strong to
help contain communism
 Balancing can’t explain it
 No one is balancing the US, no huge challenger
 System emerged as consensus based allies that support the US
as the main power
 Not a “command” based system
 Based largely on consent and the multilateral organizations
that had been established after WWII
o Even china consented and benefited
 Supported by substantial consent

Breaking open the “black box”

 Look into the nations, economic factors, domestic policy, social problems,
institutions etc.
o Important to understand liberal hegemony and liberal leviathan and their
values
 US stands for democracy, capitalism, economic interdependence etc.
  Animated foreign policy-recreate countries in their own image
(Germany, japan, Middle East etc.)
 Need to do this in order to understand the uniqueness of this moment
 Look at Domestic sources of liberal hegemony
o Needed to understand multilateral institutions

Discussion 2:

“Liberal Hegemony”

 Hegemon=when a country establishes dominance over either a region (regional

hegemon), or world
o Who is at the top of the hierarchy
o Based primarily on power
o US=World Hegemon today
 “Liberal Leviathan”
 Based on Hobbes’ state of nature-life is nasty, brutish and
short, when people are without government they have full
sovereignty and duty to themselves-leads to fighting and
selfish acts because driven for desire for survival
 People give up part of sovereignty over themselves to higher
authority in exchange for protection
o Extends to the level of nations, US provides public goods
to other nations who give up some part of their
sovereignty and authority to the system led by the US
 How did the US become the liberal leviathan?
o WWII and Cold War are critical moments
o WWII
 After WWII the US emerged as the most powerful state as European
nations had been ravaged by the war
 The US established the Marshall Plan
 Significant because US able to show how strong they were
 Also created a system in which the US provided security to
other nations
o Germany, and Japan brought into this system
 US able to display leadership through Marshall Plan and also support
of establishment of UN
 US sets up liberal world order
 Created liberal international and multi-lateral Institutions
o United Nations
 International institution/organization
o IMF
o World Bank
o NATO
o WTO etc.
  Most world discussions today take place within these
institutions
 Open and consent based
o Benefits to joining, if you don’t join you don’t get those
benefits
o However there are some aspects of command based
ordering because of the hierarchical nature of the
system that powerful nations use to bully other states
 Ex: Libya, Iraq etc.
 Collective Problem Solving
o Ex: Climate change discussion
o States come together to make decisions to help
everyone
o Institutions sponsor problem solving forums
 Mostly Democratic community
 Rule-Based
o Rules apply to everyone, including those who have
established the rules through the institutions
 Legitimizes the power of the hegemon and feeds
the consent
o Most important characteristic that distinguishes the
liberal world order from an empire
 Open markets/ Free Trade
o Cold War
 Two spheres of power-bipolar world USSR vs US, after became
unipolar under US
 Helped consolidate the system of liberal hegemony
 When the USSR disbanded, opened liberal membership under the US
to everyone, became an outward system expands its reach
 Liberal Hegemony in Crisis?
o Problems
 Legitimacy
 “War on terror”/Iraq
o Violated the rules established by the US through
international institutions
 UN did not authorize NATO/US to go into Iraq
but Bush did it anyways
o Violated other nations’ sovereignty
o US acted like an empire because acted on their own and
didn’t legitimize their intervention
o Put current order under crisis because US no longer
seen as benevolent sponsor of the system but rather as
a bully who plays by their own rules
 Economic Crisis
  Rise of China
 Will China destroy the system?
 Or challenge the system with its allies?
 Or has china’s liberalization and benefit from the international
institutions it is apart mean that they will strengthen the
institutions?
o Some argue that by brining china into the institution
has checked their power

Power Transition Theory

 Neorealism and the Causes of War

 War and Change
 Hegemonic Wars
 Compare and Contrast

Neorealism and Causes of War

 Kenneth Waltz: focused on fundamental condition of anarchy in his work

o Looked at how to get nations to cooperate under anarchy
o Comparative foreign relations
o Theorized international system as a whole-what about it shapes state
behavior
 Anarchy
 States responsible for own security under anarchy
 States are different with different capabilities, but all states have to
perform same function of providing security-socialized into the
system
 Wanted to explain cause of war
 Said it was anarchy and the security dilemma because in
anarchy there was nothing preventing war from breaking out
o Collective action is difficult among units but relatively easy within them
o States as focal points for provision of private and collective goods in general
and for security in particular
 States are the main actors for Waltz
o Polarity: Does it Matter?
 Waltz said yes
 Peace is fragile in anarchy
 Historically, states balance against each other and restrain each other
from gaining too much power ex: Napoleonic wars, WWI, WWII
o Multipolarity destabilizing
 Most destabilizing situation
 Waltz infers this by looking at WWI
 There were a number of great powers, entangling alliances,
rigid strategies
  More unsure of alliances, more variables
 Dangers diffuse, responsibilities unclear
o Bipolarity more stable
 Waltz writing during Cold War-era of bipolarity
 US and USSR basically equal in terms of military capability
 Less dependent on allies because so much stronger than them
 More flexibility and certainty-know who your enemy is
 Minimal economic interdependence
 Less potential for friction because not entangled with each other
 Nuclear weapons helped the stability and peace because MAD
 Nuclear deterrence made great power war less likely,
increased peace
o War occurs because there is nothing to stop it
o Anarchy is a permissive condition

War and Change

 Gilpin: Theory of Hegemonic War

o Wants to explain how we change from one hegemon to another
o Looks historically at power transitions
o Argues that changing in distribution of capabilities can be destabilizing
o Hegemonic wars cause fundamental realignment of the system
o Looks at individual states, and inside the state at institutions and values
 Never static because gain/lose capabilities
o Very influenced by Thucydides-considered to be first realist
 Peloponnesian War
 Rise of Athens at the expense of Sparta
o Sparta was autocratic regime, agriculture power
o Athens was democratic, trading power with sea access
 Analyzed war as clash of old power and rising power
 Argued that behavior of the states was determined by their
strategic interaction
o Gilpin took away from Thucydides that hegemonic war was a distinct type of
war
 Main protagonist does not usually win
 Ex: Athens and Sparta lost, Persia won
 Realigns hierarchy of power and relations between states
 A typical war comes from escalation and uncertainty and need for
protection
o 3 Propositions of Hegemonic War
 Scale of the War
 Objectives at Stake
 The Means to achieve them
o Caused by broad changes in political, strategic and economic affairs
o System=relations among states
  Gilpin does not see it as anarchy
 Says world characterized by order derived from hierarchy
o Hegemonic war=system wide
 The victor remolds the vanquished in their own image
 Ex: WWII the US with Germany and Japan
 Usually reflect political, economic and ideological struggles
 Means for waging warfare virtually unlimited
 Thesis vs Antithesis-dialectic, synthesis=victor
 Sparta vs Athens, Persia=victor
o Hierarchy of power helps create stability
 Says bipolar most unstable
 Ex: Athens +Sparta, England +France etc.
o Differential growth of power in the state system undermines the status quo
and leads to hegemonic war between he rising and declining power
o Structure is a necessary but not sufficient cause of war
 Have to look inside the state and see what’s at stake for the cause of
war
o Hegemonic Wars transform structure
 Hierarchy remains, but different person at top
o Dialectic process of change
o Fundamental disequilibrium between underlying distribution of power and
the status quo
 Creates tension between status quo, the institutions and rising powers
chafing under the rules who want more power and influence
 Argues that distribution of capabilities is incompatible with hierarchy
of prestige or division of territory, international economy
 No predictions about consequences of hegemonic war- ex: Persia in
Peloponnesian war,
 But can identify it after the fact because of the fundamental
realignment
 Examples of hegemonic wars:
o Thirty Year’s War (1618-1648)
 Hapsburg(Catholicism, feudalism) vs Autonomous Nation States
(Protestantism, commercial capitalism)
 Treaty of Westphalia-sovereignty and non-intervention
 Established foreign policy, institutionalized diplomatic channels
 Balance of Power
o Napoleonic Wars (1789-1815)
 Occurred after French Revolution where idea of national mass army
and nationalism arose
 Treaty of Vienna 1815
 France lost territories it had gained
 Established equilibrium and balance of power that lasted until
German unification (1871)
o World War I
 Central Powers (Germany, Ottoman, Austria-Hungary) vs Allies
(France, Russia, Britain)
 Treaty of Versailles 1919
 Ottoman and Austro-Hungary collapsed
 Many new nation states
 Punitive toward Germany
 League of Nations
o Agreed to outlaw war
 Didn’t really resolve hierarchy question
o US was getting stronger but didn’t want to lead the
world at that point, more insular, isolationist
 Results of WWI challenged by Germany, Italy and Japan as they rose
as fascist powers
o World War II
 End of war 1945- new equilibrium established by the victors, USSR
and US
 For Gilpin, world not bipolar, US was the hegemon because
USSR didn’t have a lot of technological innovation, non-
dynamic economy, not wealthy
 Gilpin said USSR was third world country with nuclear
weapons
o When USSR collapsed, the impact was mostly within the
USSR itself, not much of an international systematic
impact

Constructing the American System

 Original vision: ad hoc implementation

 System building
 An American-led democratic order

Original Vision: ad hoc implementation

 Freedom of speech, religious, economic opportunity, and freedom from fear, informs
the American order
o Reflected in domestic features of the hegemon
 Milieu-oriented vs positional grand strategy
o Sought to make international environment congenial to US long term goals,
and long term security
 Built on partnerships with allies
 Multi-lateral Institutions
 Trade
 Democracy
 Lessons from the 1930s
 o Economic nationalism is a bad idea, when you turn economy inwards leads to
internal political issues ex: fascism
 Want economic integration
o The Great Depression
 Showed that all nations were vulnerable to open markets, when
markets are too open then all countries are vulnerable to shock
 Need to provide for social safety acts ex: New Deal
 Want economic liberalism, but need to save a bit of economic autonomy because too
much openness is dangerous
o Imbedded liberalism-not pure free market
 Commitment to reintegrating the world, institutions, promote
exchange and trade while preserving some economic autonomy for
domestic protection
 American Capabilities 1945
o 2/3 world’s gold reserves
o ¾ invested capital
o ½ shipping vessels
o ½ manufacturing capacity
o GNP 3x that of USSR and 5x of UK
 Vision of a leaderless security committee
o Security based on cooperation and consent to build peace
o Multilateral transparent organizations to build trust and prosperity for allies
 Committed to prosperity
 “Family Circle” of states to manage openness and stability
o Everyone can join
o Thought the Security council would help lead peace
 But rise of USSR prevented that

System Building 1944-1951

 USSR does not retreat into pre-war borders

 Europe and Japan and had been economically devastated
 US began to link economics and security
 Post-war security project became aimed at USSR
 Iron curtain Speech
 Linking poverty and security
o Hungry might turn to communism because they always promise peace
 President Truman 1947 gave aid to Greece and Turkey during their civil wars in fear
that they would turn to communism (in Greece KKE party)
o Truman Doctrine
 Greeks felt that our aid and movement to restore monarchy was
nonconsensual
 Supported a lot of dictators in cold war
 Marshall Plan April 1948
 o We did offer it to USSR, but they refused it
o Response to Britain and France’s request for help
o Promoted economic peace and European integration
 Especially France and Germany to prevent war there
 Multilateral Institutions:
o UNSC and the GA
o Bretton Woods (World Bank, IMF)
o General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs
o To foster recovery and promote economic integration

American-led-open-democratic order

 Promoted self-determination and decolonization

 Committed to social security state safety nets
 Cold War paralyzed UNSC
o US thought UNSC would lead the security community but the USSR made that
impossible
 NATO 1949: an attack on one is an attack on all
o Lord Ismay=first general, said NATOs purpose was to keep the Russians out,
Americans in and Germans down
o Bound allies with security guarantees which gave freedom to develop
economies
 US-led economic system
o Open economies to get world interconnected
 Allowed Europeans to discriminate against US goods in order to build
their own industries
o Backed by the dollar, backed by gold
 US domestic market became engine of growth
 Idea of “the west” used as powerful building block to construct community and
identity
o Transatlantic solidarity
o Argued connected by web of shared values and commitment to democracy
 Mature liberal democracies do not go to war with each other
 The “idea” of the West
 A community of Shared Values
 Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948
o Promotion of normative visions
o Effort to promote sense of community based on trust and shared values

Discussion 3

War and Change

 Hegemonic War
 Sources of Stability
  Balance of Power
 Systematic Change

Schools of Thought/Lenses

 Realism (Gilpin, Waltz)

o Concerned with distribution of power, says fundamental principal to
understand international relations
 Liberalism
o World is in anarchy but they are able to cooperate through multi-lateral
institutions-main focus is institutions
 Constructivism
o Martha Finnemore (GW professor, one of founders of school of thought)
o Want to understand ideas and shared values, identities, norms of states,

Perspectives of Order

 Minimalism
o Based on power, powerful states can do what they want because there is no
one to stop them
o Minimal level of governance, anarchy
o Thin notion of governance
 Solidarism
o Helping people over respecting sovereignty
o Value human rights over sovereignty
o States should not be left alone to do what they want
o Thick notion of governance
 Pluralism
o Values sovereignty
 But intervention can be justified
o View international system as plurality of states
o Mid-thick notion of governance

Sources of Stability

 Occurs after hegemonic war, Gilpin defines it as:

o System wide conflict
 Every great power and most minor powers participate in the war
o Total War
 What is at stake is the nature and governance of the international
order
 Political, economic and ideological
 Characterized by employment of unlimited means
 Accompanied by religious, political and social upheaval
 Systemic crisis
 o World War
 Not confined regionally
 Geographic scope expands until it engulfs the entire system
o Examples
 WWII
 Napoleonic Wars
 Thirty Year’s War

State of Equilibrium

 No demand for systemic change

Change in Equilibrium

 Occurs when benefits of undertaking systematic change outweighs the costs for the
rising state
 Preemptive war-when hegemon feels threatened by rising state as they are in
decline, will eventually be equal, decides to fight while they are still stronger
o Total war of elimination to preserve hierarchy

The US and the Middle East

 Post WWII goals:

o Sanctity of Israel
 Originally important morally, in terms of having a buffer with Egypt
and the protection of a former British colony, now our relationship
with them complicates greater relations with the middle east as a
whole
o Access to Oil
 Major influence on our policy in the middle east
 Only got involved in Syria after northeast region with oil was
attacked by ISIS and economic interests was under threat
 Close to Saudi Arabia because of the dependence of oil
 Use oil as justification for many actions in the Middle East,
some say that is why we went into Iraq
o Anti-Communism
 Armed Mujahedeen against Soviets in Afghanistan, they turned into
the Taliban
 Optimism of the Clinton Years
o Thought we could have peace talks, a solution for arab-israeli conflict seemed
hopeful
 Complicated Relationship
 Liberal Leviathan?
 Iraq
 o Bush wanted to invade Iraq even before 9/11 but wanted to promote
democratic peace and make countries over in image of US, felt would be
greeted as liberators if they overthrew Sadaam Hussein who was a
dangerous actor in the region
o He also wanted to finish what his father had started because Iraq violated
national sovereignty
o After 9/11 used that as justification to develop concrete plans against Iraq
o Made public statements about Sadaam Hussein having WMDs
o Never got UN approval to go into Iraq
o Passed reso in UN to have inspectors to check on WMDs in Iraq, they found
none
o March 17, 2003 gave Sadaam Hussein the ultimatum that he had 48 hours to
leave or they’d be attacked
o Did ground invasion in Iraq, from the north as Us-Kurd invasion and then
invaded from Kuwait as well
 Arab Spring
o Begins Dec 2010 when a Tunisian fruit vendor set himself on fire
o Originally thought this was the mark of new renaissance for the Middle East,
hope that it would be good
o Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Syria
 All resigned, Gaddafi killed, Syria ongoing
 Also peaceful protests in morocco
o (Insert graphics from pp)
 Syria
o 1970s-1990s agricultural policies promoted production of staple crops
leading to an increase in number of groundwater wells and used inefficient
irrigation methods
o 1988-1993, 1998-2000, 2005-2010 Major Droughts-major factor in
contributing to uprising
o Since 2007 agriculture prices have doubled
o March 2011 uprising begin
o Starting in 2005, major increase in IDPs from Iraqi refugees and farmers who
could no longer live on their farm
o Now Iraq and northern Syria are controlled by ISIS
o Kurds have also expanded their influence in Syria near Aleppo, Minbej and
Hassekeh

Power and Order in the International System

 Three Views on power and order

 New dark ages

 David loves Goliath
 Continued Liberal Hegemony
  The World According to Kissinger

New Dark Ages

 What if the US declines and no one rises

 Niall Ferguson: “A-polarity”
o Highlights structural weaknesses of the US
 Dependence on Foreign capital
 Reduced troop levels-military stretched very thin
 Attention Deficit
 Lack of consensus over long term nation building processes ex:
Afghanistan, Iraq
 Tend to leave after conflict ex: Somalia, Afghanistan. No long
term strategies
o Demographic trends in Europe
 If they don’t open to immigration, will have a very large elderly
population
o A Chinese bubble economy?
 Tension between communism rule but trying to release capitalist
market force at the same time
 Housing bubble
 Widespread corruption in China
 Excessive dependence on exports
o Fragmented Islam
 Not just Sunni vs. Shia
 Within both there are revolutionary and peaceful sects
o 1920s there was a power vacuum, very a-polar after US refused the League of
Nations, also in Europe after Hapsburg collapsed
o 9th and 10th century, absence of strong secular politics no strong institutions
so religious institutions were the strongest
 Long distance military raids but groups like the Vikings
 No real hierarchy
o Globalization of organized crime right now reminiscent of crime in middle
ages
o Viktor Bout-leader of world’s largest arms trade
o Global spread of disease, Ebola, Zika etc.

David Loves Goliath

 Weaker actors in the system are happy

 Mandelbaum
 Why is no one balancing against US power?
o Everyone has a say in the order, can participate in it
 US has created unique version of Hegemony
o Especially because of issue of voice
  US provides public goods, everyone benefits
o US navy helps to patrol shipping lands
o Surveillance on nuclear proliferation
o Supplies world’s currency, dollar is the strongest…allows commerce
investment and trade to flow freely
o Consumer of last resort
o US-Saudi relations helps supplies oil to the world-promotes industrialization
 US would rather have partners/allies
 Everyone complains but no one is eager to have the US step down or retreat
o Would rather have US available to create stability
 Fragmented political system
o Gives access points and voice for foreigners in US political system
 Anti-Americanism a useful political tool
o Easy way to mobilize home parties against US and get support
o Reflection of the mistakes the US has made, ex: Latin American and Middle
East installing dictators, getting involved etc.
 US extends security to help secure others
 Supports open trade to life other nations out of poverty
 Order we have today is a negotiated order, not command because others have a
voice, agrees with liberal leviathan sentiment

Continued Liberal Hegemony

 Ikenberry
 Who commands and who benefits?
 US a producer of world order
 Distinctively open and rule-based
 Public goods/rules/voice to other nations within the order
 Military pacts and security
 Alliances and cooperative security
 Relations more web0like than strict domination
 Consent, balance and coercion are all present
 Ongoing tensions between two objectives:
o Unilateral use of force against enemies
 Fear of terrorism
 Can violate/undermine the rule of law
o Upholding the rules of the system
 Hegemony cannot long rest on military might alone, must have buy in
o Excessive use of force discredits power
 More concerned about detached US than a US engaged in global war

World according to Kissinger

 Emphasizes pragmatism, balance, sovereignty

  Emblematic of supporting Westphalian order at all costs
 Sees a world of disorder
o “Chaos threatens side by side with unprecedented interdependence”
 Need a new world order than accommodates Russia, china and Islam
 Sorrows of Empire link Chalmers Johnson

Discussion 4

How do hegemons address potential challengers to the system? (Gilpin)

 Reduce costs
o Abandon commitments
o Rapprochement
 Bringing smaller allies into sphere of influence
 Can cause weaker state to grow and become an issue
 Smaller states’ problems may cause them to get involved
 Issue with Russia and Serbia WWI
o Expand territory
 Roman and British Empires
 To less costly frontiers
 Try to avoid fighting enemy
 More resources, land, taxes etc.
 Can be expensive to hold territory that is difficulty to expand
 Can lead to overextension
 Roman Empire, Ottoman empire
o Engage in preemptive war (term according to Gilpin)
 Eliminates reason for increasing costs
 Peloponnesian War
o Retrenchment
 Cutting down expenses
 Withdraw from expensive commitments
 Can show weakness, lose prestige (reputation)
 Signals to other potential challengers that hegemon is
becoming weaker
 First sign of hegemonic decline
 Generally empires did not like this option to reduce costs because
showed decline and led to rising powers attacking
 Increase resources
o Raise taxes
 French Revolution, rose taxes to meet the challenge of the British
 Were taxed so monarchy could fight war
 Poor taxed more
 Raising taxes led to popular uprising
 Unpopular response
 Legitimate taxes are less likely to be resisted
 o Innovation
 Social rejuvenation
 Ex: China
o Enhanced efficiency of production
 French Revolution
o Nationalism
 Strong sense of group identity developed around
concept of a nation
o Human resources
 Create cause for people to fight for
 People more willing to fight out of principle not
just for payment, so get more to fight
o Inflationary policies
 Raise prices
 Manipulate trade rules
o Require tribute from other states
 Athens

Hudson and the Middle East

 Most of the US post WWII goals relate to middle east

o Holy trinity of interests
 Oil, Israel, Communism
 Supporting Israel led to tension to achieve other two goals
o Arab states failed to collect and act against US
relationship with Israel
 Shows how US is a different kind of liberal hegemon
 How does the US as a liberal leviathan/hegemon establish order in the system?
o Seen particularly in the Middle East
 Command vs Consent in the Middle East
o Command (use power/force to establish order and achieve goals)
 Iraq 1990
 Iraq 2003
o Consent (done collectively with multi-lateral institutions)
 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait and the US got involved it was authorized
by UN and supported by NATO
 Camp David Accords
 Peace between Egypt and Israel
 Oslo Accords 1994
 PLO and Israel, self-determination for Palestinians
 Tried to establish peace
 Wanted to integrate Israel into broader middle east especially
economically
o Similar to what US did with France and Germany after
WWII, economic integration leads to interdependence
  OPEC 1974
 Multilateral diplomacy to secure access to oil

Discussion 5

 Sign up for discussion leader, chose a reading, by 5pm Thursday before post three
questions for discussion, you will then lead class

US foreign Policy in the Middle East

 After WWII Liberal World order emerged with US on top

 Hudson: role of US 1940-1996
o US able to achieve hegemony in the middle east during this time because
Arabs unable to collect against them and USSR fell, and protected Israel
 Preserved holy trinity of interests: Sanctity of Israel, Anti-Communism
and Oil
 US developed some alliances and strong security economic ties to the Middle East
 o Alliances in the Middle East are different through because of different
ideologies
 Alliances in middle east not as much based on norms as US alliances
with other nations like in Europe are
o GCC
 Saudi Arabia and Sunni allies in the region becoming stronger
o Can lead to issue of the US becoming allied with factional Islamic states,
sunni-shia issue could strengthen, especially with Iran
 US strong allies in middle east: Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey
o US invested in Saudi Arabia because of oil
o Turkey and Saudi Arabia are stable, have strong economies and militaries,
both are Sunni coalitions
 Iran is Shia
 Support the Assad regime, Hezbollah, Huti Rebels in Yemen, Hamas
 Assad and Hezbollah have bad relations with Israel and many
others in Middle East
 Turkey and Saudi Arabia represent strength of Sunni camp, strategic allies to stop
Iran and their clients in the Middle East
 Saudi Arabia sponsors Palestinian Authority, US has good relations with them as
well-see them as peace partner in the region
o Iran sponsors Hamas as the opposition to the PA
 Iraq is a complicated case for the US, pulled in many directions, have both strong
Sunni and Shia parts and overtime US alliance has shifted
 GCC, US heavily involved in
o Helps facilitate US gain allies through consent
 US role in Syria
o Preserve legitimacy vs follow through on protective role of the hegemon
o A level of expectation to gain legitimacy by stepping in to protect allies in
region from ISIS
 Iraq 2003
o Unilateral
 Not authorized by UN/international community
o Goal:
 WMD- but they weren’t there… so Invasion
 Overthrow Saddam Hussein to establish democracy
 Minimalist/realist motives
 Syria 2016
o Multilateral
 Support for intervention from international community, consensus
that something needs to be done-division over final goal
o Goal:
 Humanitarian intervention
 Becomes issue of norms and values
 Solidarist/constructivist motives
  US has supported dictators in Middle East in order to maintain control… US security
ties in middle east topple values ex: Saudi Arabia monarchy and women’s rights
issues
 Hierarchy of Interests
o Strategic Ties (economy and security)= priority
o Normative interests (human rights and democracy)
o Sometimes normative interests are prioritized and are protected by pursuing
strategic ties to influence change
o Realism/Minimalism-characterizes this hierarchy and would explain Iraq
and Saudi Arabia
 Focus on power, and how power differentials in system shape
outcomes
o US intervention in Syria would more be constructivism/solidarist, same with
Germany and immigrants

A Post-Westphalian Order?

Westphalian Order

Challenges to Westphalia

Elements of a post-Westphalian or patchwork Westphalian order

Westphalian Order

 Balance
 Sovereignty
 Territorial Integrity
 Diplomacy-“Orderly State Craft
 Westphalia according to Kissinger:
o Secular
o Geopolitical
o Balance=Strategic Political and Military power
o Downplays economic factors (like waltz)
o State-centric worldview
o On a spectrum between command and balance
o Binary balance
o Quest: secure equilibrium

Challenges to “Westphalia”

 How to build legitimacy in a post-colonial world?

 “Liberal Leviathan?” ‘That we totally defeated our enemies and then brought them
back to the community of nations. I would like to think only America would have
done this”-Kissinger
  Kissinger: “Westphalia dealt with methods of allocating and preserving power; it
gave no answer to the problem of how to generate legitimacy”
 Reasons for contemporary challenges?
o 1917: post-colonial carve-up of Middle East
o 1953: Shah Reza Pahlavi installed
o 1954: Somoza installed in Guatemala
o 1950s: Korean War
o 1960-70s Vietnam
o 1973: Pinochet
o 1980s: Contras, Nicaragua
o 1990s: Iraq
o 2000s… Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya/Yemen/Somalia etc.
 What about the vulnerable? The norm takers?
 How to make logic of Westphalia sufficiently attractive to china, India and Islamic
community?
o For governments to choose mutual respect (independent of internal policies)
and cooperation in the pursuit of mutual benefit)
 How will power and belief be balanced in a middle east where Israel has no real
inclination to achieve a just and balanced settlement?
 How can Sunni and Shia be balanced?
 Kurds never got a Westphalia state
 Can china be balanced with Japanese rearming?
 Kissinger overlooks vertical nature of Westphalian order built on hegemonic claims
and structure
o Ignores nukes, climate change, the poor, international law, the un,
corruption, resource plunder, ecological decay and water scarcity

Elements of a post-Westphalian or patchwork westphalian order (Traub)

o State sovereignty eroding but still invoked ex: Syria

o Territorial integrity, under challenge by trans-boundary issues (pandemics,
climate change, global finance and human security)
o Stresses of globalization on Westphalian order ex: global financial crisis
o Rise of non-secular authority, especially in middle easy
o Rise of so-called “failed states”
o Kissinger argues that American retreat would be disastrous and needs to
manage the transition
o Return of geo-politics, south china sea, Ukraine and Crimea, northeast Asia,
cyber wars, resource competition, negotiation of trade deals
o Dynamic instabilities of global capitalism
 2008 crisis, analysts say that the elements present then are still here
and the instability is still present
o Deep forces of social change
o Moral bankruptcy of a foreign policy, cynicism about human rights
Failed States and Civil War, and Humanitarian Governance

 Failed States
 The Demographics of Civil War
 Humanitarian Governance

Failed States

 Fragile State Index released every year by Fund for Peace

 Sudan, South Sudan, CAR, Somalia at the highest risk
 Most of the states are concentrated in central Africa, southeast Asia and the Balkans
 Elliot Ross: index helps rationalize oversea interventions to American public and is
not actually a reflection of reality
 What is a failed state?
o Threat to US national security?
 Some of them are, ex: CAR does not pose any danger to the US, but
turmoil in Iraq and Syria could
o Ungoverned spaces?
 Some are absolutely governed ex: Zimbabwe with Mugabe
o Mainly a threat to their own people?
 Negative effects mostly on citizens within country not national
security
o The West’s fault?
 For the most part no
o Destined to fail?
 Success stories in Liberia, Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone-managed to come
back from brink and save themselves, so no not destined to fail
o Do we have a moral obligation to help?
 Solidarist notion: yes because the obligation is to fellow humans who
need help
 Kissinger: no, none of our business unless a national security threat
because needs to respect sovereignty
o Do we need a policy?
 Sometimes, case by case, can’t have a blanket policy
o Intentional states: states in which people living under horrific conditions as a
cause of the leader ex: Syria, Burma, Sudan
 Leader of Sudan made it policy to go after Christians and other
minorities because wants to promote Islam and have access to oil
 Assad supports bombings in areas in order to maintain power and
depopulate certain areas
o Do states want to be helped?
 Intentional states don’t usually
o Ghani and Lockhart: Failed states need to be connected to global markets to
unleash their potential
 o Traub says you have to look at Politics and Power, not a simple matter of
economics and efficiency
 No panacea

Demographics of Civil War, Cinconetta et Al

 Correlation of Youth Bulge to civil war

o If over 40% of your pop is in the youth bulge, stress factor
 Urbanization stress factor
 Resource Scarcity, stress factor
 HIV/AIDS
 Yemen-once considered a US “success story”
o Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula- AQAP born in Yemen, once considered
most dangerous al Qaeda spin off
o Had 53% youth population
o 5.3% urban growth- very high
o 0.08 crop lands available per person (only Maldives, Palestine and
Bangladesh worse)
o 186 cubic meters per person of water, water scarcity (lowest)
o Bottom of lists for demographics
o Divisional tensions as well
 Libyan Civil War
o Youth Bulge
o ISIS now in coastal areas of Libya
 Syrian Civil War
o ISIS
o Rebels
o Demographic stress factors
 Economic Factors
o The resource curse?
 States that are dependent on natural resources for economic
prosperity are more prone to civil wars
 Especially true for nations with oil and gas
 Outside states interested in your resources
 When you are flush in resources, no reason to diversify and can pay
off people
 Russia
 Yemen
 Dependent on oil and natural gas
 Outsiders interested-strategic concern
 Libya
 Oil fields, gas pipelines
 Adds to instability
 Strategic interests internationally and domestically
  Feeds conflict
 Syria
 Petroleum refining, gas and oil pipelines
 US didn’t get involved until oil interests compromised
o Ethnicity over rated
 Conception of ancient hatreds present blown up as a stress factor
o Economic conditions paramount
o Resource curse is a problem
o Paul Collier:
 Transition to democracy = dangerous and unstable
 New democracies especially prone to conflict
 Recent experiences of war increases changes of another
 Afghanistan, Iraq
 Resource curse, risk factor but not determinant
 Botswana, rich in natural resources but well governed,
resources not used as cudgel to oppress some part of the
population (as it is in places like Sudan)
 Motivations for rebellion less important than what makes it feasible-
need military and financial capabilities, civil wars can only occur if a
rebel organization can build and maintain an army
o Nathan brown: Promises of Arab spring dissolved into chaos, military
leadership etc.
o Mix of ethnic majority alongside ethnic minority =unstable… Rwanda, Balkan
Wars

Humanitarian Governance

 Michael Barnett, Critical Theory

o Critical theorists do not take things at face value, always pulling back curtain
to see what’s going on behind the scenes
o Pull back appearances to see what their true motives are
o Concept infused with solidarism, cosmopolitan outlook, moral progress
o Our “better angels” at work
o How does this bump up against Kissinger’s world view?
 Kissinger is interested in westphalian system’s sanctity, humanitarian
governance violates it because always involves intervention in
another state (whether or not you are invited in)
 Sovereignty invoked sometimes, but often eroded
o Institutions can mitigate the effects of anarchy and distributions of power
 Ex: UN gives voice to countries that otherwise would not
o “global governance of humanity”= a good thing
 Constructivists, English school, liberals
 Love good norms
o Non-state actors, NGOs, may not save the world, but “many neglected
populations owe their lives to them”
 o What is “global project” all about?
 Be sure to focus on these alternative conceptions as we focus on
specific cases going forward

Somalia

 Humanitarian governance?
 The UN track record
 Responsibility to protect

Humanitarian governance?

 Big spike in interest of humanitarian governance after end of cold war

 New initiatives lots of UN activity-un commission on responsibility to protect
 Can states embrace a larger purpose than mere self-interest?
 Hope for Brave new days head where states work together to increase quality of life
for fellow humans
 “the world is still a nasty place… but humanitarian governance is humanizing the
world” (Barnett)
o Opens up for human security
 Humanitarian governance: “the administration of human collectives in the name of a
higher moral principle that sees the preservation of life and the alleviation of
suffering as the highest value of action” (Fassin)
 Solidarist notion of governance
 Humanitarianism: the quest to create a better world?
 Idealism flourishing after end of cold war caused interest in humanitarian
government
o Money that was used to fight USSR can now be used to do something positive
and constructive for the rest of the world
 Does the west shape and define humanitarian governance? Does the west know
best?
o Who decides who gets to benefit from humanitarian governance?
o What kind of services will be offered?
 Restrictive definition: “Impartial, neutral and independent provision of relief to
victims of conflict and natural disasters” (Barnett)
o Those with narrower, clearer mandates similar to this: ICRC and MSF
 Apolitical-don’t engage in politics
 “Any activity that is intended to relieve suffering, stop preventable harm, save lives
at risk, and improve the welfare of vulnerable populations” (Barnett)
o More intrusive conception, perhaps more morally defensible, but
automatically becomes political by deciding who the vulnerable population is
 End of cold war-expansion of humanitarian governance
 State sovereignty under challenge when rulers mistreat citizens
o Tension of pluralism and solidarism
o Westphalian principle of sovereignty clashes with responsibility to protect
 o If you subscribe to solidarism and R2P, then you are bound to violate
Westphalia
 Technology/communication/media can create support for humanitarian
intervention
o CNN Effect
 Raises people’s attention to unbelievable suffering
 Syria, Libya etc.
 Know instantly what’s happening, creates political pressure to do
something
 Paternalism “experts know best”
o Our duty to help those who can’t help themselves
 Should humanitarian governors be accountable to donors? Recipients of assistance?
Governments?
 “victim” conception
o Use of terms denies their agency
 Power to frame a situation as an humanitarian emergency
o Ex: Libya
o Some things get framed as emergency, others are ignored
 Once declared it shapes who requires care and who is the proper rescuer
 The study of international affairs requires a consideration of ethics (Barnett)

The United Nations’ Track record

 Minimalists see un as fig leaf for pure power

o Great powers will do whatever they want to do, with weak façade of
legitimacy
 Others see it as more than that, that it has more of a real impact has broader
purpose
o UN follows charter not state interests (Schmidt/Beardsley)
 Permanent members of the SC
 Quantitative analysis 1945-2002 over broad range of un intervention
activities
 Un follows the charter more than the flag, more consent than balance
 Charter: legitimate guardian of international peace and security

Responsibility to protect

 Unacceptable assault on sovereignty?

o Putin/Assad in Syria
 A Moral duty?
 Balancing act values in tension
o Morality and Justice
 What’s the right thing to do?
o Law
 Need invitation to intervene legally, against R2P
 o Order
 Kissinger, great power balancing more stable
o Politics
 Preferences of different actors, there will be winners and losers
 Who decides what a violation is?
o US always vilified by Amnesty because of Death Penalty
 1990s humanitarian intervention norm: “The right to intervene”
o Before thought of something that wasn’t a right because violates non-
interference, sovereignty and territorial integrity
 Somalia/R2P
o First test of what is done in an emergency
o US pres: George HW Bush, felt Somalia was humanitarian crisis that the US
had to get involved in
o US got approval from UNSC, from other states, buy in
 Liberal leviathan
 Provided military support to protect food aid to those experiencing
famine which was engineered by Mohammed Farah Aideed and his
followers
o No Somali government to talk with
 Civil war Christians vs war lords
o US led peacekeeping mission, announced December 4, 1992
o The “CNN Effect”- people saw what was happening and saw need for support
o October 1993, US army rangers and delta force were ambushed by Somali
men women and children, armed with automatic weapons and rocket-
propelled grenades
o Famine, civil war and escalating hostilities between US/UN peacekeeping
forces and Aideed and his supporters who were disrupting humanitarian
efforts
o 90 minute operation lasted 17 hours-Black Hawk Down
 US military increasingly attacked by aided
 Originally mission very narrow-just get food go to those who were
starving
 Military got wind of meeting that was being held in Mogadishu where
Aideed would be with his top attendant
 Shifted to political, strategic mission to captured Aideed and
his lieutenants
 Expanded mandate
 Thought in 90 minutes they could surround building and captured
Aideed
 Lasted 17 hours
 Black hawk helicopter shot down by grenade
 UN peacekeeping left in 1995 after a $2bn mission, still lacked a
functioning government
 Aideed killed in 1996
  Somalia is a failed state
o 2011 Al-Shabab was pushed out by African union forces, weak but pro-west
government installed
o September 2015 al-shabby captured two southwestern towns

Responsibility to Protect

 Inconsistent application by international community

 Protecting communities and individuals from internal violence
o Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia, Syria
 Are sovereignty and human security incompatible?
 Should sovereignty be respected at all costs?
 Should human rights trump sovereignty?
 State Sovereignty+non-intervention
o If a state cannot or will not exercise its sovereign duty to protect its
vulnerable populations, intervention to save civilians in danger trumps
sovereignty and non-intervention yields international R2P
 “Need to limit and codify the costliest and thorniest toll in international relations-
forcible action against a sovereign state” (Tanguay)
 A Bundle of Norms
 A legal doctrine (only Security council can authorize)
 Many constructivists hope that R2P will become an overarching norm in
international politics
 Realists remain skeptical and dismissive
 “The principle of state sovereignty is no longer absolute, but paradoxically, it
remains sacrosanct.” (Tanguay)

Humanitarian intervention: Rwanda and Darfur

 The UN SC
 Rwanda
 Darfur

Rwanda

“Somalia Syndrome?”

 May 1994: one month after the killing begins

 US presidential determination or Directive PDD25
o Responsibility to protect fairly new
o Humanitarian intervention post-cold war trend
o Set out rigid criteria for humanitarian intervention:
 “strong identifiable national interest”
 “clear exit strategy”
 o Crystalized growing resistance to humanitarian interventions
o Resistance widespread within us military, the administration and on capitol
hill
o Made it virtually impossible to launch the us military into this kind of venture
again
o Crystallization of widespread resistance
 United Nations
o Restricted its interpretation of Chapter 6 on peacekeeping
o Parties must agree to intervention
 In Rwanda they didn’t
o Must be a cease-fire
 None in Rwanda
o If fighting breaks out the UN will do nothing to stop it

Darfur

 2003: fur people finally rose up against years of harassment and marginalization by
the Arab Muslim leadership and its proxies
o Sought infrastructure, proceeds from oil wealth and political power sharing
 Sudan made up of many different ethnic and religious groups, but Arab Muslims rule
the country, control the oil and keep the profits for themselves
 Government of Sudan organized and supplied Janjaweed militia, dispatched to
Darfur to kill the fur people
 Genocide: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the crime of genocide:
signed by all members of the UN General Assembly in 1948
 July 2008 UNSC unanimous resolution
 Joint UN/AU peacekeeping forced UNAMID
 Authorized 26,000 soldiers, a year later less than 10,000 deployed
o Similar to Rwanda where people are dying but the political will isn’t there, no
appetite for humanitarian intervention
 UNAMID
o Trying to keep a peace that didn’t exist
o Sudan doesn’t want them there
o Violence and location makes it difficult to operate

South Sudan

 Civil war ended 2005

 South Sudan wanted their own country
 Peace deal, would have autonomy for 6 years and then hold a referendum to secede
 Wanted income from oil wealth shared, wanted control of resources
 UNSC 2005 established United Nations Mission in the Sudan to support peace for 6
years before the referendum and that the government would follow the peace deal
o Were supposed to facilitate return of IDPs and refugees, help those in mining
sector, promote human rights and provide humanitarian aid
  1955 independent from Britain
o Wanted self-determination/minority rights
st
 1 civil war: 1955-1972
 2nd: 1993-2005
 Referendum passed 99% want independence
o Violence persists
o UN peacekeepers killed summer 20913

LOOK AT SUDAN SLIDES ONLINE ADD INFO

 Dinka and Neur people fighting amongst each other in South Sudan, righting over
political power and natural resources

Questions and challenges

 Selective hypocrisy of western countries: went into Kosovo no problem but would
not go into Rwanda
o Dallaire: Kosovo intervention because white and seen as European security,
Rwanda was black and viewed as tribal violence-history repeating itself
 Humanitarian intervention threatens to undermine multilateral diplomacy
 Intervention justified when addressing abuses banned by UN treaties: definitions
politicized
 Power to name: “war Crimes” “crimes against humanity” “acts of genocide” “ethnic
cleansing”—who decides?
 Lessons of 1990s:
o Lasting humanitarian requires peacemaking not just peacekeeping
o Must transform underlying conditions causing unrest
o Is there a political will to do this?
 Do we want to engage in nation building-costly, hard, difficult
o How to protect individuals in failed states without violating legal national
sovereignty

Discussion 6

 R2P a norm not a law, and is a declaratory guiding principle

 Use Matthews and 2005 report on R2P to define it
o Guiding principle, emerged in 1990s, 2005 report-adoption by UNSC
 “quest for pax Africana”
o Know P5, and their characteristics
o Discussed how to make peacekeeping successful
 Interests of sc must be aligned
 Must give diplomatic and security support
 Parties must be willing to cooperate
 Important that regional neighbors are cooperative
o Shape policy of P5
  Domestic, regional and external factors
 All need to be aligned for peace to be successful
o P5 must powerful in situations where peacekeeping important because have
money, power, resources
o Need to bolster regional support too, but P5 more important
o What is the motivation of the P5 in Africa?
 External
 Domestic
 Regional
 Stanton
o Rwandan genocide could’ve been prevented
o US knew about the murders and did not intervene
o Goes through 8 signs of genocide
 Classification (classifying races/classes)
 Symbolism (identity cards)
 dehumanization
 Organization
 Polarization
 Preparation
 Extermination
 Denial
o Refusal by state dept. and SC to use the word genocide, called a civil war
instead
o Counter claim: Kupperman said ¾ of people in Rwanda would’ve been killed
even if the US had intervened
o Early warning signs but lack of political will to intervene
o Some viewed Rwandan lives as not as worth saving as other white live such
as in Kosovo

Tanguay R2P:

 Means that to be sovereign it is their responsibility to protect citizens under their

jurisdiction
 If you don’t honor that, you lose freedom to sovereignty and intervention are
justified-you violated the notion of sovereignty
o Redefines sovereignty
 So sovereignty is not absolute

ADD OTHER LIBYA NOTES FROM PHONE

Importance of the Big Picture

 What is the big picture?

o Adebajo: about great power politics in the continent , and them using
multilateral institutions for intervention, keeping French power in region,
 interest in minerals (uranium) etc, not about helping Africans help
themselves
 Change over time?
o Is it just a continuation of French colonial power in Africa with allied
support? Or is there a fundamental difference of engaging humanitarian
intervention? Have we extended our grounds for humanitarian intervention?
(But Rwanda…)
 Historical dynamics?
 Multi-level contemporary dynamics?
o Look at international context, to what extent are great powers interested in
meaning-what do they want? But also look at regional and domestic
dynamics?
o Adebajo argues for greater regional capacity in Africa, which he says the
great powers are actually harming
 Rwandans cause troubles in the eastern Congo
 Selfish interests of great powers may drive policies of humanitarian intervention in
Africa… France especially- Rwanda, Libya etc

GET NOTES OFF POWERPOINT ICC

ICC

 The Case of Laurent Gbagbo, Ivory Coast

o Convicted on all counts of crime against humanity on 3/21/16
 Dominic ongwen victim and perpetrator
 Bemba
o Fmr vp of DRC
o Active in liberation movement
o Allegedly criminally responsible as military commander for crimes against
humanity and war crimes
o Appeared before ICC in November 2013, still being held there
 Sudan and Libya
o Cases brought at request of UNSC because countries not members of ICC
o Darfur
 Five cases including one against president of Sudan Omar Al Bashier
 Charged with 5 counts of crimes against humanity-murder,
extermination, forcible transfer, torture and rape
 And 2 counts of war crimes, intentionally directing attacks on
civilians and pillaging
 Three counts of genocide
 Of the 5 only 1 is in ICC custody
 September 2015 ICC requests that south Africa detain bashir while
there for meeting, but before they could do anything he flew back to
Sudan
o Libya
  Feb 2011 UNSC decided to refer the situation in Libya to ICC
prosecutor
 Warrants issues to arrest Gadhafi’s son Saif and Abdullah Al-Senussi
 Crimes against humanity-murder and persecution committed through
state apparatus and security forces between February 15-28 2011
 ICC also investigating Palestine (Israel’s actions), Georgia and Kenya
 Courts role in anarchy?
 Constructivist potential?
 Rationalist assessment?
 Who is more likely to commit

Test:

 Solidarism
 Pluralism
 Minimalism
 How like ICC and humanitarian interventions fit or don’t fit certain perspectives
 Un peacekeeping
 ICC
 Humanitarian intervention
 Genocides
o Maybe focus on studying Rwanda and weave that into the essay
o Bring in a couple readings on it
 4 essays to choose 1 from, 6 ids-chose 4
 Really know peacekeeping missions
o What are there?
o How has it evolved?
o What role do they have, have they become important?
o Are they successful based on ones we’ve studied?
 ICC
o Why is it a thing?
o How did it come about? And why?
o Is it successful?
o Know a couple cases
o Problematic aspects?
o Should the US join the ICC? What impact would that have? Would it effect
power/legitimacy on the court? What about on US foreign policy? Would it
change how the world views the us?
o Rome statute, what it is and when it was signed
o Why do states join? Is it problematic for states to sign onto Rome statute?
(like if they’ve had human rights abuses in the past) What incentives are
there to join?
o Access successes of the court-bring in a case or two
 o Will the court deter genocide and crimes against humanity? Will it affect
behavior of heads of states in world to restrain them?
 What is R2P?
o How did it emerge?
o Notion of humanitarian governance-how does that fit into the different
perceptions of governance-solidarist, pluralist, minimalist
 Every discussion needs to draw in relevance of topic and how the notions of
governance and sovereignty relate!
 Demographic causes of war-how do they make outbreak of war more likely? Ex:
youth bulge-why does that make you more susceptible to having a conflict?
(Cincotti-look at 5 reasons)
 Refugee crises, immigrants, integration, what implications and problems arise?
Effect on policy and security? Look into major state actors-how do states deal with
refugee problem? What are different responses? Do the norms of states effect
policy? What about non-governmental actors- ngos, UN? (HRW, UNHCR etc)
especially role of UNHCR in refugee crisis

ICC

 Should the US join?

o Yes
 Legitimacy in the international community, accountability (important
because in liberal world order that is consent based signing onto
institutions like ICC shows you will abide by the rules of the system,
and attracts cooperation from other players)
 Legitimize the court, can increase funding for court, pressure allies to
join etc
 Might affect us foreign policy-increase caution with action, make them
more likely to investigate past actions lest the court does-
accountability
o No
 Could create concerns of existence for the court because if us
investigated or ally investigated could lead to defunding of the court
 And if us tries to make this happen, could delegitimize us
 US is able to investigate own crimes
 By joining court the US would have to adjust their domestic laws and
policies to fit the court
 The court is ineffective
 Concern that the court is an attack on sovereignty , viewed as insult to
us’s own judicial system
 How to get case to court
o General prosecutor can launch case where they think there’s enough
evidence
o UNSC can refer case to the court (ex: Sudan)
o Principle of Complementary
  The state itself is unable or unwilling to investigate the issue in
question credibly

Part Three: Problems without Passports

 Who governs the globe?

 Post-war order: How and why did it change?
 Problems without passports

Who governs the globe?

 Introduction, changes in the 1980s and 1990s

o Global problems
 Financial crisis, disease, hunger, environmental problems
 Cant be solved by one country alone
 How to manage these problems?
o New actors
o New processes
o No one governs alone
 Fundamental factor of global governance, founded on anarchy-how do you achieve
cooperation when there’s no world government?
  1980s and 1990s
o Rapid economic globalization
o Starting with Reagan and thatcher in particular, rapid privatization and
economic deregulation
 Both big believers in markets over governments, promoted economic
liberalization-loosen control on regulations, free flow of goods and
capital
 Increases power of private actors
o Information technology revolution
 Move billions of dollars with touch of button
 Wireless communication, computing etc
 Compressed space and time in an important way, makes the world
seem smaller
 Lowered cost of collective action- can use digitial technology to
organize for political action
o End of Cold War
 Lead to new optimism about potential for new governance and
cooperation to solve global problems
 Seen increasing amount of stalemates in multilateral insitutions, like the WTO,
climate talks (until this past December), lots of inaction, no longer center of global
governance action
o Multilateral institutions were modelled after power distribution and
capabilities of WWII, things have changed a lot and don’t comfortably fit
rising powers and their interests
 Seen new actors, internet activists etc
 Increase in private/public partnership strengths ex: gates foundation, Clinton
foundation etc
 More activity below multilateral level, ex: transatlantic partnership- negotiated in
secret between powers
o Cant stand still want things to happen, so work outside of multilateral level
 Private standards setting, ex: forest standards
 Private governance, certification programs that are voluntary but bolster
reputation, ex: Kimberly certification of diamonds, dolphin safe tuna etc

Global Govenors

 “authorities who exercise power across borders for purposes of affecting policy”
o Definition allows for both state and non-state, public and private actors that
traditional IR doesn’t recognize
 Can be NGOs, (HRW, Amnesty Int. etc, major role in global governance ex:
establishing ICC), Civil Society Campaing, Transnational Advocacy Coalition, Judges,
Courts, Business Firms, Hybrid Networks, Banks etc
 Engage in (function of Global Govenors)
o Agenda Setting
  Ex: Amnesty Internaitonal seting agenda for an ICC where people can
be held accountable for violating human rights
 Way issues get framed influence action greatly
 NGOs really important for framing and advocacy
o Negotiations
 Use them to try and address the problem
 Banks negotiated a lot with governments after financial crisis
o Decision Making
 If invited into room
o Implementation
 Customs and Borders, TSA, Humanitarian relief agencies-some
manage refugee camps involved in implementation
o Monitoring
 NGOs play big role-naming and shaming, call governments out for
violating human rights or laws (ex: Amnesty International, HRW)
o Enforcement
 Customs and Border Control,
 Enforce policies
 Types of authority
o Institutional Authority
 Derive authority by being part of an organization
o Delegated Authority
 See a lot more in 1980s and 1990s with economic liberalization,
duties of government transferred to private sector ex: Prison
administration to private companies to implement policies
 Can be delegated to firm, international organization (ex: WHO to
develop guidelines on a disease)
o Expertise Based
 Authority because Expert
 Members of global panel on climate change seen as experts on issue
o Principle Authority
 Comes from thinking that can be human rights based authority, or
represent religious organization, doesn’t have to be religious
o Competence
 Track record of getting things done
 No governor governs alone
o All global problems require buy in and cooperation of multiple actors
o Sometimes relationships between governors are complementary, each has
similar goals and brings what they have to offer, or to fill governance gaps
o Sometimes governors may compete, if they have overlapping jurisdictions-
can lead to competition for resources
o Examples when delegated authority is doomed to fail ex: IMF has been
charged with implementation of MDGs (on poverty) but IMF doesn’t know
about poverty, experts on austerity…doomed to fail. Economists but not
focused on poverty
 o Actors at periphery institutions might have fewer resources but can still try
and make a difference
 Governors and Governed
o Accountability and Legitimacy
o Keep powerful in check, keep public informed
o Want independence of action so you can be effective, but want accountability
o Transparency is useful but not efficient always for accountability
o To whom should they be accountable to?
 To donors? States? People you’re helping?
 Ex: IMF accountable to Banks, donors, states implementing austerity
policies but not to those people who are the governed and facing the
cuts
 Who should participate in these decisions? Regulators? The
regulated? Both?
 But cant always know who is affected ex: Intellectual property
protection patents, no one was thinking about HIV/AIDS, when
epidemic hit no one could afford the drugs and died
uneccesarily …no one saw patents as a public helath issue just
a trade issue, now seen as both
o Legitmacy
 Input legitimacy
 Did you have seat at table? Chance to have voice heard?
 Output legitimacy
 Even if shut out of talks, is the policy itself legitimate?
 Process of legitimization
 Non-static nature of global governance
 Some things can begin as legitimate but become illegitimate or
vice versa due to changing times ex: TRIPS

Global Monetary Policy

 Impossible trinity: Monetary Autonomy, International Free Flow of Capital, Fixed

Exchange rate (Mundell-flemming)
o China: Monetary Autonomy, Fixed
o US: Monetary autonomy, Free flow of capital
o EU: Fixed exchanged rate and international free flow of capital
o Can only have two
 Cohen: Leaderless diffusion
o Sharp contrast to US superiority through brettonwood after WWII
o Helps to explain
 the rise of the Euro-diffusion of monetary power, US is not only
predominate monetary power
 Global imbalances (surplus/deficit powers) China/US-both dependent
on eachother, monetary mutually assured destruction
o Financial Globilization
 o Leadership has been dispersed, not relocated
 No one leader has emerged in this spaced
 There is a power shift but no one main power in monetary system
o Given a choice, states would rather that others make sacrifices
o Adjustment=a fact of life, but who pays?
 Different trade offs for every decision
 Winners and losers
 Who pays adjustment cost?
 Have to figure out how to deal with the losers
o “the shift in the balance of power between states and scoeital acotrs has
unquestionably undermined the foundcation of the traditional westphalian
model”-Cohen
 Money was territorial and run by the state after WWII, had capital
control over money supply and flow
o “A wider latitude is afforded actors for strategic menuvers that may be made
at the expense of others.”-Cohen
 How it is now
 leaderless diffusion: Strategic advantage for some, but not all
 Ex: Panama Papers

Financial Crises

 1970s-1980s Oil Crisis and Petro-Dollars

 Competition between NY and London
 1997 Asian Financial Crisis
 2008 Financial Crisis
 1970s-1980s Oil Criss and Petrodollars
o Petrodollars- the money earned by OPEC countries after they jacked up the
price of oil in the 1970s (oil embargo 1973 against US to punish support for
israel) (Iran-Iraq war other shcok to the system)
 Those dependent on oil went into debt just to keep things running
 OPEC put money into interntional commercial banks to get better
return on it
 Banks flooded with money
 Latin America went deep into debt
 Gearing up industrialization-so have to borrow money to cover
costs of that because OPEC price hike was too much
 Banks greedy, not using due diligence with lending and so
lending money that was not going to be able to pay back
 Debt crisis led to public rescue
 Mexico first to say can’t service debt and can’t pay it back
o Set off panic alarms within banks that they would never
get the money back
 International commercial banks stopped loaning money and
demanding payment
  Developed countries gave loans and contributions to IMF, WB
and Paris Bank to have them rescue the developing countries
with stringent conditions
o Have to raise taxes, cut spending, cut public spending
(ed, health, infrastructure), adopt austerity measures,
cut subsidies, open markets
 Debt crisis gave Washington the ability to remake these
economies in their own image, liberalize their economy-made
Latin America a better place for US investment and trade
 IMF gave conditionality to each of the debtors, developed a
debt rescheduling plans which then went back to banks…US
pressuring debtors and influencing banks
 1980s a lost decade for Latin America, no economic growth,
industrialization stalled
 Competition between New York and London
o During 1960s US corperations began to invest in foreign countries, engaged
in increasing direct foreign investment-de facto outflow of dollars –tension
on territorial money question
 Bankers followed the corperations abroad and began to establish
themselves overseas
 Corperations began to borrow dollars abroad-in London
o London banks began to offer loans and credit in dollar denominated
(Eurodollars) in Europe
 Financial globalization
o Makes it so US doesn’t know how much money they have
o NY and London competing for firms’ business in dollar denominated credit
o In London dollar based market emerged, private market could expand dollar
spending and effected dollar price-led to dollar speculation(no one believed
the dollar was worth in gold what they said it was)…offshore capital markets
totally unregulated by US
o British permitted growth of dollar markets to rejuvenate London
o Oversupply of dollars, no one believed could be backed by gold…1971 Nixon
took away gold standard
o Wash of Eurodollars, caused short term capital flows swamping banks and
governments
o As private firms enjoyed the financial gain, the more they pressured home
governments to deregulate the financial sector
o Regan and Thatcher both strong believers in free market economy, very
receptive to deregulation lobbies
o Firms and banks engaged in regulatory arbitrage
o 1999 US repealed the Glass-Steagall act, which removed firewall between
commercial and investment banking
 The act had come about after great depression
 Now regular bankers could play the global game with people’s money
  Led to saving/loan crisis in 70s and 80s
 Direct result of lobbying by bankers who wanted to make a lot
of money on global stage by betting against currency and other
things
 Made people’s money more risky
 Top 5 changes in Banking in last 20 years
o Technological change
o Growth of markets
o End of banking
o Emergence of new players, especially asia and explosion of illicit change
o Shift toward bank self regulation (result of Reagan-thatcher policies)
 1997 Asian Financial Crisis
o Asian markets booming
o Rapid entranced into global markets
o Korea, Thailand, seen as huge success stories, had spectactular growth
o Currency speculators led by George Sorros, compared what they said their
currency was worth didn’t line up with financial fundamentals
 Went after Thailand
 The baht had grown exponentially
 Made them give money in their dollars
 lost all their foreign reserves
 because people looked where sorros was placing his bets, so
they left with him because he negated thailand’s legitimacy
o Financiers went after many different east Asian nations, causing similar
issues to that of Thailand
 Led to widespread currency collapse against the USD
 Thailand, korea, Indonesia, phillipines, Malaysia, Taiwan
Singapore
o Mostly Thailand, Indonesia and Korea
o Countries had to adopt austerity measures
o US used this opportunity to break into Asian markets for investment and
liberalization, wanted asia to adopt Washington consensus policies which
they had yet to do
 Began to encourage investor confidence in the Asian markets, which
did lead to liberalization
o Riots in Korea over austerity measures because certain social things taken
down and some markets forced open to investment
o Asian markets learned to horde international exchange to protect from
foreign trends
o In Indonesia, financial crisis led to ousting of president who was seen as
corrupt
o Oatley pointed out: the financial network is hierarchical, and when crisis
happen on the periphery (like this) does not affect global banking sector
o Effects of crisis, immediate, sharp and devastating
 o Governments causes of instability and speculation in markets are of
irresponsible speculation and credibility is jeopardized, liberalization gets
gov out of the way and can help
o Brider: legitimacy argument: welfare of people in east Asia, those on verge of
middle class thrown back into poverty, lost generation in terms of education,
also argues that if you keep adopting super market orientated policies
without state intervention and help to people effected by financial issues can
lead to political backlash and back to economic nationalism that led to
imperialism and fascism (global Keynesian concern)
 2008 Financial Crisis
o Crisis happened at center of network hierarchy in the US, not on the
periphery
o Only when the crisis happens at center will it effect global markets… and it
did
o Basel I vs Basel II 2007
 Agtreements telling banks how much liquidity and assets they need to
be giving out loans
 But shifted to self regulation so no benchmarks, lax regulation
o Opacity and new instruments that hedgefunds were investing in
o Markets didn’t even know value of collateralized debt things but were still
selling them
o Market became disarticulated from the real economy because goods did not
have real economic value
o Era of easy money
o Stock market bubble, housing bubble, underestimated risk in financial
markets, federal budget deficits, predatory lending, excessive leverage in
financial institutions, low national saving All contributed to the crash
o Would put millions of mortgages into single assets, evne though they knew it
was problematic
o US engaged in a government bailouts
 Banks stopped lending to each other
 Brought economy to standstill
 Led to surplus spending
 Against free market principles but felt banks needed the confidence to
get economy up and running again
 TARP
o By 2010, a lot of the money has been paid back- $135 out of $205 bn has
been repaid
 Post-Crisis Trends
o Regulatory Reforms in the US
 Volker rule

Discussion Section

 Group presentation
 o 1. Problem: who what when how
o 2. Global governors and the governed-discuss the actors involved, how they
interacted, how was making the norms and developing the resolution, what
about sovereignty? : States, individuals, international organizations etc.- who
had the greatest impact?
 Anarchy Revisited
o Global trade/economy?
 Is it anarchical?
 Not really, WTO, IMF, system of hierarchy, EU, National
Governments, Multi-national corporations
 International Regimes made of:
o Institutions: norms, rules/organizations
 Ex: Washington Consensus, Keynesian Economics, Trade agreements,
reciprocity,
 IMF:
o Established under Bretton woods agreement after WWII
o Established to revitalize the global economy following the devastation of the
war
o Stabilizing and monitoring financial markets
o Tries to make sure currencies are stable so that states can have trade
interactions with each other that are no harmful
o Regulatory authority that is stabilizing to the international community
 WTO
o Fosters cooperation by protecting interests of least powerful and most
powerful states
o Open world economy, open markets
 No protectionism, (tarrifs, import quotas etc)
o Reciprocity
 Can file complaints with WTO if a country feels another violated
reciprocity
 Establishes guarantee that if you cheat a member of organization, all
members with turn against you and harm your economy
 Keohane: we have found ways as states through international institutions to
mitigate anarchy and avoid war
 Global governors of finance: States, institutions (IMF, WTO, World Bank), (IMF in
particular controls how states conduct economic affairs through incentives of
loans), Private actors (bankers, investors, multi-national corporations)

Regulatory Reforms in the US

 Dodd-Frank (July 2010)

o establish independent consumer financial protection bureau
o Created a systemic regulator to advise federal reserve bank
o Established curbs on excessive risk taking ex: Volker rule
 o Curbs on derivatives
o Gives gov more authority to deal with failing banks-resolution authority
o Does not address “too big to fail problem”
 After Asian Financial crisis
o Nations decided they didn’t want to be vulnerable to currency speculation,
decided to save an excessive amount of money
 Lead to imbalances in world economy
o Excessive surplus: Asian countries
 Must stimulate domestic demand so that purchasing increases
 Promote domestic spending/lower interest rates-again, to promote
domestic spending
 Currency appreciation
 Chinese still have fixed currency rate, government interferes to
adjust rate, US accuses them of setting rate low to make goods
artificially cheap
o Excessive deficit: US, EU
 Reduce domestic demand and stimulate exports
 Promote domestic savings and raise interest rates
 Raise taxes and cut spending (austerity)
 Currency devaluation

Eurozone Crisis

The European Experiment

 US encouraged European integration for politics and international security

o Also wanted Europe to recover quickly and develop liberal political and
economic policies
o After WWII USSR was a threat, so had vested interest in creating liberal allies
in Europe
 Marshall plan
o One condition was based on European cooperation in order to receive the aid
 Main focus was knitting together France and Germany because two biggest powers
with wars in the past, thought integration would promote peace- began with coal
and steel agreement
 Political and international security mission with economic component
 Model different from US capitalism
o Model was devoted to catching up after infrastructure had been destroyed in
war
o Coordinated capitalism
o Banks were patient, had long terms for loans to help with recovery
o Developed larger social safety net, social insurance…high taxes
o Economic interdependence main feature
 1979 European Monetary System
o Pegged all member states to the Deutschemark (because strongest currency)
  Basically trade monetary autonomy for security
 Started to connect everyone
 1986 Single Market Act
o Cross border capitalism unleashed, controls abolished between countries,
allowed for free flow of capital
 European Monetary Union
o Traded monetary autonomy for stability, larger version of EMS
o Developed the Euro
 1990 German Reunification
o Germany expanded land mass and population by 50%
o Made France nervous because of historical trends of power
 France then pushed for tighter integration
 Crafted a deal: Developed the Euro
 Germany wanted oversight, so made European Central Bank
centered in Frankfurt and set up liked the Bundesbank
 ECB mandate: Price Stability, very anti-inflation because of obscene inflation
Germany faced in the interwar period, very conservative monetary policy, keep
spending and income in balance
 Gave up monetary autonomy for fixed echange rate and international free flow of
capital

Monetary Union: Two Views

 Economic
o Dominant view derived from optimal currency area theory
 To be welfare enhancing
 Countries must not be subjected to divergent economic trends that
they cannot adjust to
 Euro supposed to bind nations in economic policies for
stability and to avoid divergent economic trends
 Countries must have flexibility in labor and good markets, including
labor mobility
 Why they adopted policies to allow free movement of labor
within the EU
o If one country loses competiveness it cannot devalue its currency, loses
autonomy
 Leads to internal devaluation (can’t cut currency), cutting of wages
and prices
o Asymmetric Shocks (China flooding market with cheap imports) may be
managed with a budgetary union (ex: as US has with their national budget
where they can move money around to different regions)
 In EU each country still has own budgets so cannot manage shocks
with budgetary union
o US- debt is mutualized in US treasury bills, can help hard hit states- Europe
has no equivalent to shift resources
 o Dominant view is that Europe lacked the proper conditions for a welfare
enhancing optimal currency area
 Political
o Economic view is incomplete- political institutions and conditions
paramount
o Tweaking economic problems will not fix all the issues
o Single currencies are never the product of debates of optimal economic
solutions=political battles over centralizing power
o Focus on power struggles and dynamics that exist behind these debates
o US greenback a product of the civil war in 1863 gave feds exclusive currency,
needed a war to get over struggle of debating over such intense
centralization
o Eurozone Crisis- a case of “monetary governance without government”
 Incomplete political development of the union
 Austerity: raise taxes cut spending
 Cut wages “internal devaluation” to promote exports
 Increase monitoring
 Establish banking union, EU level supervisor of national banks
 Germany committement to austerity has challenged EU solidarity
o Some think need to be less harsh in order to keep EU together
 Should rich northern states bail out “profligate” southern ones?
o Moral Hazard- rewarding them for reckless behavior? Should it be done?
 Might need to to keep EU afloat, but austerity meausres would punish
while they are helped
 North vs South is the wrong debate
 Shocks to the system
o German reunification- led to increased anxiety in region especially from
France
o Financial liberalization- increased volatility in the system
o Rise of China-outcompeting Europe in many areas of export and trade
 Shared collective purpose obscured by intergovernmental negotiation body
 Fears of moral hazard and financial contagion trumping euro ideals

Climate Change

Climate Change: The Problem

 Glacial melt, carbon burning, desertification, drought etc.

 Consequences: projected temperature increases- about 6 degrees Fahrenheit,
hurricanes, droughts, rising sea levels, acidification
 Strategic issues
o Scarcity of food and water
o Loss of habitat
o Spread of infectious disease (ex: dengue in Florida now)
 o Catastrophic weather events
o Energy insecurity (nuclear issues, scramble for newly exposed ocean tracts,
china creating islands etc)
o Security concerns about arctic navigation
 Human consequences:
o Planet will exist, we wont
o Social impact- over 1 billion refugees displaced from climate change:
drought, epidemics, food destruction supply, islands submerged etc
o Stern Review (2006): said usual path will lead to costs of 5-20% gross world
product
o Cost of reducing emissions: 1-2% gross world product
 Tradgedy of the Commons:
o ex: Virginia Ave:congested, Email:spam, Oceans: overfishing, Atmosphere:
carbon emissions
o Aristotle: The which is common to the greatest number has the least care
bestowed upon it
o Many people make choices and some costs of those choices goes to others
 Externality: the effect of a choice on anouts ider who has no say in the decision
o Ex: drive car, benefits you cause you can go where you want, but imposes
cost of using gas and polluting
 What do do?
o Can have people pay cost of negative externalities
 Carbon tax
o Market based approach
 Cap and Trade system
 Set a cap on total emissions can be released into the atmosphere
 Each business gets certain limit on what they can emit
o If stay under, can get allowances for it
o If go over, can pay clean business for rest of their
allowance
 What to do?
o Distributive issues difficult, who is responsible? Who should be paying? Who
is responsible? Who is best able to adapt? Who should provide resources to
address the problem? How should they be provided?
 China and US top 2 carbon emitters
o US-China Climate Accord Nov 11 2014
 Joint plan to curb carbon emissions, first Chinese committement to
stop emissions growth
 Pledged 20% green energy by 2030
 Victor’s rational choice approach to institutions: managaing or codifying existing
interests
o Consistent with plurarlist conception of international politics
  Foot and Walter’s constructivist approach to institutions: not a management
approach, focused on institutions ability to transform interests, need to change the
norm,
o Consistent with solidarist conception of international policitcs
 World Climate Summit, Paris, France 2015
o Nov. 2014 climate cooperation between US and China paved way for this
o Agreement has to be ratified by 55 nations to go into effect

Public Health

 Challenges
o Problem without a passport
o Ex: Ebola, H1N1, SARS, Zika
o Globalization and the spread of obesity, diabetes and lung cancer
o States and international organizations alone are not up to the task
o Westphalian model is not up to the task of dealing with problems without
passports (includes terrorist organizations as well, and climate change)
o Lack of global health leadership, and increasingly fragmented governance in
this space, many more actors in the space
 WHO is weak, lacks resources
o Need to coordinate multiple players-many new global governors
o Lack of resources and priority setting (70% of US global health budget goes
to HIV/AIDS projects, much of development funding goes to Israel because
strategic even if other places probably need it more)
o Neglect of basic survival needs and health system strengthening, not doing
enough to ensure access to clean water, reduction in child/maternal
mortality and morbidity rates
o Basic needs and infrastructure versus post-hoc reaction to each disease
episode
 Not doing enough to prevent or react early
o Need for accountability, transparency, monitoring and enforcement
o Lack of material resources, institutional competencies
 Framing
o Normative piece, how we construct a problem
o Very contentious piece of political discourse because determines who has to
adjust, creates a particular pathway of response
o What is the nature of challenge? Who is responsible to address it? What is the
appropriate response?
o Different framings of issue of influenza
 Pluralism: pandemic influenza as a security threat
 Territorial response, border control, surveillance
 Westphalian approach
 State response
 Solidarism: influenza as a development issue
  Shared humanity: broad rights and responsibilities
 Upstream causes of disease (levels of poverty, access to clean
water, adequate sewage disposal etc)
 Provision of adi and public health capacity building
 NGO, public-private partnership response
o Framing types of health:
 Human rights (access to medicines, right to health) (reflects more a
solidarist approach)
 Economics (competitiveness, choice, efficiency)
 Security (human security, national security, international security,
global health security)
 Development (modernization, dependency, trickle down economics,
gold standard for health?)
 Evidence-based medicine (leans toward drug based solutions rather
than pre-emption)
o Governance
 Post-Westphalian context
 New actors
 Broader conceptualization of problems
 “Open source anarchy”
 So many acotrs, no longer just centralized hierarchy for global
governance-many players involved, many different
frameworks and ways to attack the problem
 All leads to fragmented governance
 “Old school anarchy”-state focused
 Governance shaped by state and non state actors
 PPPs, Philanthropists, Celebrities, PhRMA, NGOs, IOs
 No longer a top down system, activity from bottom and throughout-
open source anarchy
 Unstructured plurality- very fluid and dynamic, doesn’t look like post
WWII order
 Leads to under provision in global health
o Funding for tropical diseased, non-communicable and
other neglected diseases
 MDGs focused only on communicable diseases, even though
NCD will cause more deaths
 Over provision?
o HIV/AIDS- too much infrastructure to one thing
 Countries overwhelmed by an over response of
people trying to help- didn’t have capacity to
absorb it
 More people die of malaria than AIDS
 Global public health “source code” has expanded through successive
framings
  States, hr, development, security, climate change, trade,
economics, property rights, innovation etc.
 Major normative change, hardware yet to follow, no
infrastructure to address new framing

Legitimacy

 Law as legitimator?
o The problem of legitimacy arises precisely because of the unstable and
problematic relationship between law and morality on one side and law and
power on the other- Hurrell, 2005
 Issues of pluralism and solidarism on other hand
 Relationship is unstable
 Back and forth between the competing conceptions
o If we know what should be done to protect our society against terrorism or
to save distant strangers from murder or oppression, why should we allow a
legalist or formalist concern with rules and institutions to get in the way-
Hurrell 2005
o The stagnation of interntional law
o Pluralist conception: thin state consensus
 Every negotiates treaty and signs, less attention paid attention to
various players that might be effected
o Solidarist: thick stakeholder consensus- Pauwelyn et al
 While increase of players can create chaos, but is positive cause mor
of the governened have a greater say-buy in from the grassroots up,
more unwieldy maybe but better model
o Todays threats derive not from state strength, military power, and
geopolitical ambition but rather state weakness and absence of political
legitimacy-Hurrell
o Embrace international law and institutions?
o Reshape insitutions with a harder hegemonic edge?
o Return to power and hierarchy-with greater decentralization and devolution
and closer relations with 2nd tier and regional powers (return to more post
WWII order)
o Review sessions Monday may 2 1-3 elliot 112 or Tuesday 12-2 elliott 12-2