GQ: What is a theory? What are theories (in international politics) good for? How can we test them?
A theory is a systematic explanation of observed phenomena that identifies causal relationships and underlying mechanisms. It is more than a description; it seeks to explain why things happen.
In international politics (IR):
Theories help explain patterns in war, peace, diplomacy, trade, and conflict.
GQ: 2) How does a theory differ from a paradigm? How do theories differ from hypotheses?
(hint: Paradigm = broad worldview
Theory = systematic explanation
Hypothesis = specific, testable statement)
Paradigm: A broad framework or worldview that shapes how we think about international politics.
Example: Realism or liberalism are paradigms; they set assumptions about how states behave (power politics vs. cooperation).
Difference from theory: A theory is more specific and testable, while a paradigm is a guiding lens or approach.
Hypothesis: A specific, testable prediction derived from a theory.
Example: Theory = Democracies are more peaceful toward each other.
Hypothesis = “Between 1945 and 2020, democracies have never initiated war against each other.”
GQ: 3) What is a methodology? What are some examples of methodologies we can use to study international politics? How, if at all, might the choice of method vary depending on the level of analysis, as discussed in Session 2?
The systematic approach or procedure used to study a question or test a theory. It defines how we gather and analyze evidence.
Examples in IR:
Qualitative case studies: Detailed examination of one or a few events (e.g., the Rwandan genocide, Cuban Missile Crisis).
Quantitative/statistical analysis: Using large datasets to test correlations (e.g., Polity IV data for democracy levels).
Comparative methods: Comparing multiple cases to identify patterns.
Experimental/simulation methods: Rare in IR, but used in conflict games or modeling scenarios.
4) Drawing upon examples offered in MacMillan’s “Rhyme of History” and/or“Making America Alone Again”, what are the some of the lessons of history that can help us make sense of—and respond to—current challenges in international affairs? Conversely, what are some of the potential dangers of using history to make sense of current events in international affairs?
Making sense of current events:
Historical analogies can highlight patterns, pitfalls, or likely outcomes.
Example: MacMillan’s “Rhyme of History”: Lessons from past great-power wars (e.g., WWI) show that misperception, rigid alliances, and escalation dynamics often repeat.
“Making America Alone Again” emphasizes the consequences of isolationism and the importance of engagement in global institutions.
Potential dangers:
Over-reliance on analogy can lead to misapplied lessons; history never repeats exactly.
Risk of confirmation bias: policymakers may cherry-pick historical examples that justify desired policies.
Contexts differ: technology, norms, and power distributions change over time
5) What, to your mind, are the main methodological lessons we can draw from the Popular Science piece on the hypothesized decline in war?
Critical thinking about evidence: Popular claims about trends (like war decline) require careful examination of data sources and definitions.
Importance of operationalization: How do we define “war,” “battle deaths,” or “conflict”? Measurement matters.
Comparative and longitudinal analysis: Trends should be tested across time and geography, not assumed from anecdotes.
Correlation vs. causation: Even if war seems to decline, careful methodology is needed to understand why (e.g., nuclear deterrence, international institutions, economic interdependence).
In MacMillan’s “Making America Alone Again,” explain alliances through a realist lens and how the current US administration is pivoting away from that
Realist perspective on alliances:
Alliances are temporary arrangements to balance power, not moral obligations.
States form alliances to increase security against threats; they are tools of self-interest.
Realism assumes that alliances can shift quickly if interests change — no permanent loyalties.
US pivot under current administration:
MacMillan argues the current US administration is reducing reliance on traditional alliances (NATO, UN partnerships) and emphasizing “America First.”
This reflects a realist calculation: focus on national interest, minimize commitments abroad, and avoid being drawn into conflicts for allies.
Example: Pressure on NATO allies to increase defense spending; questioning commitments in Asia-Pacific security arrangements.
Explain the British Empire’s “Imperial Overstretch” as discussed in MacMillan’s “Making America Alone Again” and how that relates to a) the current US administration’s ally poolicy and b) Truman’s admin
Imperial Overstretch (MacMillan):
The British Empire maintained global commitments beyond its capacity — economically, militarily, and politically.
Overstretch contributed to vulnerability, decline, and challenges in sustaining power.
a) Current US ally policy:
By pulling back from alliances, the US may be avoiding its own form of overstretch — reducing obligations to free-riding allies and costly overseas deployments.
Contrast: Britain tried to defend far-flung colonies; the US is choosing selective engagement rather than universal guarantees.
b) Truman administration:
Post-WWII US consciously avoided imperial overstretch, but maintained global commitments through NATO and the Marshall Plan.
Truman prioritized alliances and containment, using institutions and forward presence to stabilize key regions — unlike the current pivot away from collective security.
Give examples of countries facing the security dilemma because of the US’s actions and what they are doing to balance that
South Korea
Security dilemma:
Relies on the US nuclear umbrella to deter North Korea.
If the US appears hesitant or ambiguous about extending nuclear protection, South Korea may feel vulnerable.
Responses:
Missile and nuclear development: Pursuing advanced conventional missiles; discussions about potential indigenous nuclear options (though officially restrained under the Non-Proliferation Treaty).
China
US trade restrictions, military presence in the South China Sea, and arms sales to Taiwan → China builds up military capabilities (navy modernization, missile development).
Russia
NATO expansion and US missile defense initiatives → Russia strengthens military posture in Ukraine and its Western borders.
Give realist parallels between the current political climate and the Great War (militarism & patron/client relationships)
Militarism:
Pre-WWI Europe: arms race and high military spending → tension and readiness for war.
Today: Increased US-China naval competition, NATO expansion, modernization of nuclear forces.
Patron-client / alliance networks:
WWI: Complex alliance networks (Triple Entente, Triple Alliance) created entanglements.
Today: US alliances in Asia (Japan, South Korea, Australia) and Europe (NATO) create obligations that influence strategic calculations.
States outside these networks respond defensively (China, Russia), echoing balancing behavior that contributed to 1914 escalation.
Give liberal parallels between the current political climate and the Great War
Parallels with WWI:
Pre-WWI Europe had growing economic interdependence through trade and finance, but insufficient institutions to manage disputes peacefully.
Modern parallels:
Today, globalization and economic ties (trade between US, EU, China) mirror pre-WWI economic interdependence.
International institutions (UN, WTO, NATO) exist to mediate disputes — unlike pre-WWI Europe, suggesting liberal mechanisms are stronger now.
Liberal concern: weakening of these institutions, retreat from multilateralism (e.g., US “America First”) risks undermining peaceful dispute resolution.
Give constructivist parallels between the current political climate and the Great War
Constructivism emphasizes ideas, norms, identities, and perceptions in shaping state behavior.
Parallels with WWI:
Nationalist identities, honor, and prestige drove states to mobilize and fight in 1914.
Modern parallels:
Rising nationalism and identity politics (e.g., populism in Europe and the US, “make America great again”) create perception-driven tensions.
Rival states’ narratives and historical grievances (e.g., Russia’s view of NATO expansion, China’s historical claims in the South China Sea) shape security perceptions.
Constructivists would argue that misperceptions, social norms of prestige, and threat narratives matter as much as material power in driving conflict.
Give Van Evera’s Criteria for a Quality Theory
Logical Consistency – Clear causal logic without internal contradictions.
Plausibility – Explanations should make sense given known facts about the world.
Parsimony – Simple, minimal assumptions; avoids unnecessary complexity.
Fecundity – Generates new hypotheses and predictions.
in “Is War Really In Decline” what’s Pinker’s argument?
Steven Pinker argues that war and violence have declined over history, especially since 1945.
Reasons for decline include:
Spread of democracy (democratic peace theory).
Growth of international trade and economic interdependence.
Rise of international institutions (UN, ICC) and norms against violence.
Humanitarian values and internalized social norms that reduce interpersonal and inter-state violence.
Pinker presents statistical evidence on battle deaths and violent conflicts to support the claim.
✅ Key idea: Human society is becoming less violent over time, due to institutions, norms, and interconnectedness.
in “Is War Really In Decline” what’s Braumoller’s argument?
While large-scale wars among major powers may have declined, smaller conflicts, asymmetric wars, and intrastate wars remain common.
Declines in war deaths may be due to changes in reporting, definitions, or population size, not a true reduction in conflict risk.
Focusing on trends can obscure structural risks (e.g., nuclear proliferation, terrorism, regional instability).
Essentially, war has changed, not necessarily declined.
✅ Key idea: Measures of war decline can be misleading, and ongoing security threats mean the world is still conflict-prone.
What are some realist considerations for the question if war is in decline?
Focus on material power and structure
Realists look at distribution of power, balance-of-power dynamics, and military capabilities.
Decline in war deaths doesn’t necessarily mean decline in war potential.
Security dilemmas persist
Even if interstate wars are rare, rising powers may provoke balancing behavior (arms buildups, alliances).
Example: US-China tensions, NATO-Russia dynamics.
Multipolarity vs. unipolarity
Realists note that periods of unipolarity (post-Cold War US dominance) may reduce major war temporarily, but structural factors could trigger conflict again.
Caution on measurement
Statistical declines in battle deaths may mask latent threats, proxy wars, or civil conflicts.
What are some liberal considerations for the question if war is in decline?
Institutions, norms, and interdependence
Liberals highlight the role of international institutions (UN, WTO, ICC) in mediating disputes and constraining violence.
Economic interdependence reduces incentives for war — trade and globalization tie states together.
Spread of democracy may reduce war among democracies (Democratic Peace Theory).
Conflict is managed differently
Declines in traditional interstate wars may reflect increased reliance on diplomacy, sanctions, and peacekeeping, rather than permanent peace.
Focus on cooperation and integration
Liberal perspective sees the decline in major wars as a success of international cooperation and norms.
What are some constructivist considerations for the question if war is in decline?
Ideas, norms, and identities shape conflict
Declines in war deaths could be due to changing social norms against mass violence, such as human rights awareness.
Perceptions and legitimacy
Even if war seems less frequent, perceptions of threat, honor, or prestige can still drive conflict.
Example: Nationalist rhetoric or ideological polarization can escalate tensions even without immediate war.
Role of social construction
What counts as “war” can change — e.g., cyberattacks, economic coercion, and terrorism may not be counted in traditional statistics.
Explain Walt’s “realism redux” model of world politics in 2016
- Walt’s Model 1: “Realism redux”
(cycles à pessimism)
Model 1: “Realism Redux”
Core idea: International politics is dominated by cycles of power, competition, and conflict.
Key assumptions:
States are self-interested and security-seeking.
Power imbalances, alliances, and rising/falling powers create recurring cycles of tension.
History tends to repeat itself, with periods of optimism followed by crises.
Outlook: Pessimistic — conflict, great-power rivalry, and war are unavoidable.
Example: Rise of China triggering US strategic balancing, similar to pre-WWI Germany-Britain dynamics.
- Walt’s Model 2: “Liberal resilience”
(march of history is upward and progressive à optimism) - Walt’s Model 3: “Radical uncertainty”
(context dependency à ?)
Explain Walt’s “liberal resilience” model of world politics in 2016
- Walt’s Model 2: “Liberal resilience”
(march of history is upward and progressive à optimism)
Model 2: “Liberal Resilience”
Core idea: Human history is moving in a progressive, upward trajectory, guided by institutions, democracy, and norms.
Key assumptions:
Cooperation is possible and durable through democratic governance, trade, and international organizations.
War between major powers has declined (post-1945) due to norms and interdependence.
Outlook: Optimistic — gradual progress reduces the likelihood of major wars.
Example: The European Union as a lasting framework that prevents conflict among historically antagonistic states.
Explain Walt’s “radical uncertainty” (constructivist) model of world politics in 2016
- Walt’s Model 3: “Radical uncertainty”
(context dependency à ?)
3) Model 3: “Radical Uncertainty”
Core idea: World politics is highly context-dependent and unpredictable.
Key assumptions:
Structural theories (realism or liberalism) cannot fully explain outcomes.
Events may be path-dependent, contingent on accidents, decisions, or unique circumstances.
Focus is on risk management, scenario planning, and flexibility rather than prediction.
Outlook: Neither fully optimistic nor pessimistic — uncertain.
Example: Unexpected crises like the Arab Spring, COVID-19, or rapid technological shifts that reshape international order.
Globalization and its discontents
– Is interdependence necessarily a guarantor of peace? (differing paradigms)
Liberal Perspective: Interdependence Promotes Peace
Theory: Economic interdependence increases the cost of war, making states less likely to fight:
Trade creates mutual benefits that could be destroyed by conflict.
Institutions (WTO, IMF, regional organizations) help mediate disputes.
Democracies in particular may avoid war with trading partners.
Examples:
US-EU relations: high trade and investment links reduce incentives for armed conflict.
East Asia: China, Japan, and South Korea have strong trade ties that constrain large-scale wars.
✅ Key liberal claim: Interdependence is a mechanism for peace.
Critical / Realist Perspective: Interdependence ≠ Guaranteed Peace
Realist critique: Interdependence does not eliminate conflict, because:
Security dilemmas persist despite trade links.
States may still fight if they perceive existential threats or power shifts.
Economic ties can be weaponized (sanctions, trade wars) or fail under crisis conditions.
Examples:
Pre-WWI Europe: high economic integration but still led to war.
US-China: heavy trade dependence exists, but tensions over Taiwan, the South China Sea, and technological dominance remain.
what are Temptations of the client state?
a concept often discussed in realist international relations, particularly in the context of hegemon–ally relationships. It refers to the behaviors and incentives that a weaker allied state (the client) faces when it relies on a stronger patron (hegemon) for security.
The temptations are the ways the client state may take advantage of the patron’s protection or act in ways that are riskier than it would be on its own.
Overreach or adventurism
Feeling protected, the client may pursue aggressive policies or territorial ambitions that it couldn’t attempt alone.
Example: South Vietnam during the Vietnam War relied on US protection to challenge North Vietnam.
Free-riding / shirking
Relying on the patron for defense, the client may underinvest in its own military or contribute less to collective defense.
Example: Some NATO allies relying heavily on US defense spending instead of meeting the 2% GDP target.
Provocation without full accountability
Clients may take risky actions that could provoke an adversary, assuming the patron will intervene.
Example: Smaller states in the Middle East taking military or political risks under US protection.
Patrons face a dilemma: they want to provide protection to maintain alliances but risk being dragged into conflicts because the client acts recklessly.
what is sectarianism?
Sectarianism refers to a form of social or political division and conflict based on religious, ethnic, or ideological identity, often within a larger society or state. It usually involves strong loyalty to one subgroup (a “sect”) and hostility, distrust, or discrimination toward others.
Identity-based loyalty
People prioritize allegiance to their sect (religious, ethnic, or ideological group) over the broader society or state.
Us vs. Them mentality
Sectarianism emphasizes boundaries between groups and often fosters conflict, segregation, or exclusion.
Political and social consequences
Can lead to civil wars, political instability, or discrimination.
Often exploited by leaders to mobilize support or consolidate power.
Examples
Middle East: Sunni vs. Shia tensions in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.
South Asia: Hindu-Muslim tensions in India/Pakistan.
Europe: Protestant-Catholic divisions in Northern Ireland (The Troubles).
what are positive vs normative theories?
1) Positive Theories
Definition: Explain what is, what happens, or why events occur in the real world.
Focus: Empirical observation and causality.
Goal: Predict or explain outcomes without making value judgments.
Language: Uses statements that can be tested and falsified.
Examples in IR:
Realist theory: “States act primarily in pursuit of power and security.”
Democratic Peace Theory: “Democracies rarely go to war with each other.”
✅ Key point: Descriptive and testable — it’s about explaining reality, not judging it.
2) Normative Theories
Definition: Prescribe what should be, what is morally desirable, or how actors ought to behave.
Focus: Values, ethics, and ideals.
Goal: Guide policy or moral evaluation, rather than predict behavior.
Language: Uses evaluative or prescriptive statements, not always testable.
Examples in IR:
Liberal internationalism: “States should cooperate through institutions to promote global peace.”
Cosmopolitan ethics: “Human rights should guide foreign policy decisions.”
✅ Key point: Prescriptive and value-laden — it’s about what is right or desirable, not just what occurs.
-
session 1: Intro3
-
session 2: Levels Of Analysis31
-
session 3: Theory + Methodology26
-
session 4: Anarchy, Power, Polarity36
-
session 5: Regimes, Institutions, Interdependence44
-
session 6: Ideas, Identities, Norms70
-
session 7: The Human Factor—Individuals, Cognition, Psychology and Biology38
-
session 8: Causes of War and the Functions of Force I45
-
session 11: additional approaches to IR22
-
session 12: intl pol econ I110
-
session 13/14: intl pol econ 2 & 3 + globalization68
-
session 20: nuclear weapons & proliferation34
-
session 21: non-state actors & asymmetric influence27
-
midterm 2: most important concepts25
