Saint Patricks School

INTERNATIONA
L RELATIONS
Franco Fiorani 5th Year

March, 3rd 2016

Activity International Relations I

Student: Franco Fiorani

Teacher: Paola Baroni

Topic: International insecurity and the causes of war and peace

A-Answer the following questions.

1- How can the realist paradigm explain a countrys decision to strike first?

After reading this chapter we can define the realist posture as an egoist and self-centred
theory which is based in international anarchy. In this type of theory, states are the main
actors in where the primary concern of all of them is survival. Thats why one of the
main causes for which a country will strike first is its reputation of attacking its
neighbours, due to the fact that this theory is centred in the possession and application
of power taking any possible threat as credible. To sum up war is mainly caused by:
insatsifaction of the states with the distribution of power, competition of power among
states and since there is no central ruler, there is nothing to prevent the war

2-How does expected utility theory explain a countrys decision to go to war?

The expected utility theory belongs to the state and substate analysis. It is focused on
the rational aspects of decision making. The main actors are the states, who will start
wars when they believe that war has a higher expected utility than peace. So, in order
to avoid a war, states should use policies of deterrence through retaliation. In other
words, they should raise the costs of going to war to make their opponents have a better
alternative. This theory is critized because it doesn't explain the deep root of the causes
of war.

3-What claim about war and free trade is advanced by the liberal paradigm? What
evidence supports or refutes this claim?

In order to avoid conflicts and bring peace to the world the liberal paradigm asserts that
states should be all democratic. They affirm that democracies do not go to war with
each other and in order to maintain peace we have to be centered in a group work
contributing with the relationships between states and avoiding individual ones, like
this, mutual gains will be achieved through cooperation eliminating any reason to be
aggressive. Concerning free trade, the liberal paradigm thinks that this is a very good
idea in order to contribute for the increase of wealth and standard of leaving all around
the world. They see free trade as an opportunity for a peaceful world in where all states
are benefited bringing the same gains without considering their economies or size and
eliminating every existing barrier between poor and rich states.

4-How do economic structuralism explain war?

The first normative position of economic structuralism argues that economic power
should be the motivation for international politics. This posture also remarks the fact
that only states with the same class or status should interact among them and capitalism
is almost impossible to avoid so as to states to expand, making emphasis in the idea that
capitalism and inequality in economic status are the main factors by which problems
arise. For example if free trade is allowed as the liberal paradigm wants to, this will
cause the inevitable exploitation of poor by the rich. While the rich will increase their
investments, poor don't get any better because of the increase of the prices in the
manufactured products. Provoking a tension that will probably lead to huge clashes
between the classes, thats way the main goal of this structure is the destruction of
capitalism replacing it by public industries.

5-Which type of explanation of war do you find most compelling?

In my opinion the best explanation so as to define war is the one advanced by the liberal
paradigm. This posture is the most successful in terms of giving peace to the world. I
think that in order to progress in this life, we all need to cooperate together in a
community in where differences and the objective to be the best one were erased.
Basically, we have to be centered in an equality model in which with the help of free
trade all barriers will be gone, allowing countries to increase their quality of life without
taking into account territory or the size of their economies. In this way aggression in the
world will end because there will be no motives so as to start a war. Finally this theory
will also help to decrease the level of discrimination and isolation of poor countries that
don't have enough resources so as to trade with other ones.

6-What obstacles are there to a definitive explanation of war?

Even though nowadays there is a lot of information concerning war there are still
obstacles to understand its causes. There are conceptual obstacles like the different
ways to define its origin, producing as a result the appearance of three views of the
causes of war. Permissive conditions gives reasons of why war is possible (realist theory).
The underlying causes of war with an idea of general sources of conflict as causes can be
found in many theories of the state and system levels. And finally the decisions to
initiate war as causes, easily seen at the state and individual levels.

By all explanations, the path to war is really difficult, generally because of the
focalisation in one or a few factors. Before the decision of individual leaders other
things have to be taken into account. Furthermore there are many ways to arrive,
meaning that there is no a single cause if not several, concerning for example territory
or national self-determination. We know the waring signs but we cant predict all the
circumstances that will lead to war because this fact is ahead our present-day
understanding.

7-How do arms control agreements seek to overcome the security dilemma?

Arms control tries to make war less likely and less destructive by increasing states
confidence about others states intentions and capabilities. Many states don't have the
desire to expand imperialism but they arm themselves because of the fear of what
would happen if another state attacks first. So, arms control agreements seek to control
the security dilemma to equal the power each state has so they can feel safer. Besides,
they are useful to avoid wars that can began because of misperceptions for example, the
treaty signed by the US and the USSR in 1975 that limited the military exercises because
they could be confused with real attacks. In addition, these agreements also seek to
reduce destructiveness. For instance, in the Genova protocol, gas poison was banned
because they were really harmful to soldiers. In the Ottawa treaty, signed in 1997, land
mines were prohibited because they were inhumane weapons. Long time after wars
were over, they continued killing people.

8-How is collective security intended to preserve peace? What obstacles does it

face?

One of the main reasons by which collective security is intended to preserve peace is
that an attack against one, is an attack against all. This means that they want to
preserve peace between a group of nations that agree in not to attack each other and if
someone attacks they should defend each other from one of the others. A big problem is
that although nations had promised to defend each other, many countries will reject this
law if this one is not of their interest or threats their economical and political
situation. To add, this arrangements between different territories can make things
worst. Because instead of trying to prevent a problem, countries, they will be always
focused in attacking and following the law by using military weapons. Thats why not
always this type of alliances are the best way in order to promote security. In this way
the only thing you are focused in is into continue with war and destruction of the enemy
and with this statement we can conclude with the fact that this is not the way to
preserve peace.

Topic: The use of force

A-Answer the study questions on page 135 of the Booklet.

1-Coercive diplomacy is the use of threat to reach a political goal persuading an other
actor to change its behavior. Deterrence is a way of convincing the enemy or opponent
state that their attack is unwire and it isn't worth, for example, during the cold war both
countries knew that if they attacked each other with nuclear weapons the result will be
devastating thats why they convinced each other to do not attack. The relationship
between these two terms is that in order to threat the opponent, it is necessary to show
superiority, thats why its generally the powerful countries that use these types of tactics
persuading their rivals by convincing them to change their strategies or by threatening
them. In this way, the opponent actor will be forced to reduce the possibilities of an
attack.

2-Von Clausewitz says that War is merely the continuation of policy by other means.
What he wants to express with this phrase is that at the end mostly all the time, policies
do not work so countries are forced to pass to the next step: War. The objective with
a policy is to create a strategy so as to establish decisions in a government, when this
cannot be solved because of disagreements its inevitable for states in order to win to
start a war, which finally will comply the same objectives but for this Clausewitz states
that is necessary the existence of a purpose and that purpose should be achievable
through war and valuable enough to support the cost that a war brings. In conclusion he
expresses how the use and threat of force, were very useful tools in policy.

3-As we know, negotiation can be defined as a friendly way to resolve or reach an

agreement between two or more parties, finding a solution to the problem so as to
please everyone without attacking or threatening in order to obtain something. In the
other hand, threat can be understand as an unfriendly action in which the more
powerful take advantage of the weak giving them any possibility to negotiate. Despite
this huge difference between these two terms, both will need of each other sometime.
Many times negotiations do not work, in that moment states are forced to threat the
other to obtain what they want. The same happens when someone threats someone,
many times this can end in a negotiation in order to avoid the threat. To conclude, both
are different ways to achieve the objective but they will be almost always
complemented.

4-There are two ways in order to avoid an attack of a potential opponent. Although they
are basically the same at the end in terms of utility there results are totally different. To
know which of the tactics is more useful its necessary to analyze the situation, who is
our potential opponent and the technology that we have at the moment. After the
analysis, each country choose the best option. The most common way to provide
security is defense by forcing back an attack, but to do this its necessary to have the
correct means, that consists in having powerful weapons, soldiers and fortifications so as
to be able to protect themselves from these possible attacks. Even if it is a very useful
gambit, many times its extremely expensive to protect these territories or valuable
things, thats way many nations are forced to use the second alternative: deterrence, in
this case countries convince their opponent not to attack, like this they raise the costs
of attack. An example of this can be seen in the Cold War, both, the soviet union and the
United States persuaded each other that if they attacked with their nuclear weapons it
would be the end. In such a way both continued building raising the cost but they never
invaded.

5-As we know this term is known in international relations as a method in which states
so as to improve their security, increase their military force. This provoke the necessity
of the other state to make the same thing as protection from possible attacks and here
is where tensions began to appear creating big conflicts that can lead to arm races and
in some cases even wars. Iran before its revolution has had a civilian nuclear program
and there were rumors of possible projects in order to create nuclear weapons. At the
same time, Iran has been accused by the United States of supporting extremist Islamic
movements in the Middle East, and supplying militias in Iraq. Cause of this USA was
forced to use the force in order to stop this possible attacks. "Iran is providing material
support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll
interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the
networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq," Bush said in
2007. Here we can established the security dilemma between these two countries.
6- As we know weapons of mass destruction have a huge importance in the actual world
and the more you have, the more powerful you are. Many countries like China and India
thinks that nuclear weapons should be used not as a first alternative. Generally those
countries consider that the attacks with explosives driven by nuclear energy can cause a
lot of damage to a whole population without culminating the armed force. For example,
in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese army was not defeated and many
innocent people died, Japan decided not to attack and shifted from defense to
deterrence. In the other side, the United States have a different point of view and they
think that nuclear weapons are almost always the solution and they will continue using
them as long as nuclear weapons exists. The abolition of nuclear weapons is an urgent
humanitarian necessity and this has to end someday because so long as any country has
these weapons, others will want them, and the world will be in a catastrophic state.

7-The advance of new technologies is one of the causes why the potential for nuclear
proliferation have increased in recent years. Nowadays, as science has new
developments, countries are improving their weapons towards possible future attacks.
Also weak states are frightened by powerful countries which owns weapons (WMD).
Therefore, powerful states have less chances of being attacked by other states.

8-A prominent realist theorist of international politics, Waltz, has argued that
proliferation of nuclear weapons will likely make the world more safe. These challenges
the conventional wisdom that nuclear proliferation is a threat to international security.
Waltzs argument simply put, is that by making it easier to deter than to wage an attack
successfully, nuclear weapons increase stability. Others disputes this view on several
grounds. first, the argument relies on the assumption that leaders are rational. Second,
it assumes that civilian leaders have effective control over militaries, as weapons spread
to less sable countries. There is also concerns that some governments might be less able
to protect nuclear weapons or materials from possible theft.

9-Terrorism is a method of achieving a goal; it is not a goal by itself. It is the use of

threat and force to reach a political objective. This group of people do not belong to a
state; it is a particular private group of non state people (usually male around 20 years
old) that belongs to a middle high class society. Their aim is rising the cost of conflict by
killing innocent people. They do not care about who they kill, if not by the way they die.
Its difficult to define it because violence that is committed only for monetary gain or for
the sake of killing its generally not define as terrorism. Hence, there is a difference
between terrorism and organized crime or psychopathic violence. Moreover, it isn't
consider terrorism when state kills people in war: but it is consider terrorism when a
private group kills for a public cause (general cause). The target of terrorism is usually
not the immediate victims or even their close relatives, but rather the broader society
and the government, and in the way in which they give the message that they want to
transmit.

D- Oral presentation

You will have to present, orally, a conceptual map that explains the chapter of
International Insecurity and the causes of war and peace.

Date: on December or February (depending when you are back), on the date of final
exams of International Relations.

Topic: International Organizations and transnational actors

A Answer the study questions on page 165 of the Booklet.

1-Both international organization and transnational actors carry their operations

internationally. Also, both of them have the power to influence the states in order to
achieve a goal. Besides this, they have many differences. The main difference is that an
international organization is made up of 2 or more actors in which the members are
states while transnational actors are just companies or groups that act national
boundaries. Also, transnational actors have a country of origin and act on other states
from their original states while in an international organization there isn't a main state
and they usually gather in neutral places. To conclude, transnational actors usually have
an specific goal like earning money, protecting the environment, etc. As regards
international organizations are usually used to coordinate states and they are interested
in issues of mutual interest and they can work as a forum for discussion for international
problems.

2-The role of the United Nations can be evaluated in certain ways. There are four views
that take into account the purposes of the organization, the measures applied and
several factors like the theoretical perspective adopted.

The first one, the UN as a World Government, says that the notion of the UN as a global
state provokes two reactions totally different. One side, thinks that its a very good idea
to have a general government because of the benefits that this produce concerning
security and international problems. Like this they think that anarchy will end and that
promptly we will live in a democratic and global sovereign. The second point view, see
this organism as a totalitarian world government, taking out the possibility of individual
freedom.

To continue, many people considers the UN as irrelevant to international politics

because of the fact that they do not have enough strength or military support so as to
force other actors. And when the global powers agree they do not need help of this
organism.

The third view, the UN as a tool for states, remarks that the UN can be used by states
when they want to achieve any goal. So,when they want to collaborate the UN provides
the collaboration needed, but when states disagree, these disagreements can be voiced
in the UN.

The last one, the UN as a source of norms, establishes that although they cannot be
everywhere and do not solve always the problems they have to face, this organism and
other organization set a global unanimity, in which we are all supposed to agree.

3-Recently, there had been some problems with the UN organization and operation. Many
countries do not agree with the system of permanent seats on the security council and
are upset with their bureaucracy for being corrupt and wasteful demanding reform of
the secretariat. After these problems the secretary said that they no what they have to
do and to stop sending declarations because what is needed is action to achieve the
promises already made. She proposed many alternatives like restructuring the security
council having 6 permanent members and 2 rotating members but this will create
problems seeing who will get the additional seats and will make weaker the power of
the other 5 that were there before. Another existing problem concerning the secretary
proposals is the transformation of the UN Human Rights Commission. Because if they
change the rules for selecting the members for the Human Rights Commission, the ones
who knows that the goal is to reject them they will not agree with this idea.

4-The key organs of the European Union are:

-The executive organ which is in charge of the economic decisions over the EU
controlled by the European commission. It consists of a gabinet and for each
commission all members have to decide for the good of all countries and not only for
their own state.
-The judicial organ represented by the European court of justice, is in charge of defining
what a law means by this decision and if its applicable or not for a certain cause. Also
they have to contribute in keeping peace and solve conflicts through these laws.

-The legislative organ: which is in charge of creating laws and regulations that affect
every member. This branch also contains the European Parliament and the council.
The parliament, in which representatives are elected by citizens and the government
cant influence. In the other side, the council chooses a representative for each state
and it shows the government.

5-Why are other regions seeking to emulate the EU model and what barriers do they
face?

5-Many regions became more enthusiastic with the success of the European Union. There
are many theories by which states formed IGOs and to explain why do they work through
them. They create them because they wanted them in order to solve problems less
expensively than without them. Neoliberal institutionalism focuses on general dilemmas
like security or environmental problems. In order to do this, states have to face several
difficulties. They need to coordinate their activities and monitor others so as to see if
commitments are being respect. States who wanted to avoid nuclear development decided
to create the international atomic energy agency to help other states regulating this source
of energy. With the environmental problems, they established a panel to collect scientific
analysis or climate change. Without these organizations, governments would not be able to
implement these solutions to carry all these problems by their own means

6-We can found many firms in several countries allowing international politics to react.
Many times they shift products between them to avoid the policies imposed in some
cases by the government. There are two general views, the are some people that have a
negative thought saying that this do not allow governments to promote higher social
standards and others perceives that this will force states to adapt their policies to the
TNCs plans. However there is a complexity at the moment of moving the resources.
Things like cash and investment in stocks are easily displaced, contrary to factories
which are impossible to move. When a company invest in immobile goods these produces
problems between the different traders because the power moves from the company to
the host governments. For example, in recent years several companies had invested in
energy infrastructure and they were forced to sell their investments for less than they
worth. TNCs tries to use the governments as sales people. This is generally centered in
transnational companies that are situated only in one country but sell around the world
like United States or European Unions aircraft companies, where they use foreign policy
to help sell their companies aircraft. There is a huge problem with this cause because
the restrictions of TNCs in states are finishing with the government authority provoking a
loss in its importance. To conclude, states had been working with the united nations to
create a source of policy, a global compact to regulate the TNCs principles.

7-Transnational advocacy networks are NGOs that are not concern with changing any
policy but whose main goal is to lobby in order to achieve a change in international
politics that beneficiaries transnational actors having also activities in different
countries . Generally these types of organizations are neutral and most of the time they
are interested in providing humanitarian assistance. These networks usually have
contacts and lobbyists around the globe that influence the governments to pass a certain
law for example or stop a regulation that may affect their clients. Many times they are
used to have some conflicts with the government when there is a distribution of goods
and with who is receiving that help. At the same time, governments are supposed to
trust in NGOs in times of extreme need.

8- The importance of international organizations and transnational actors in recent years

combined with the process of globalization gave the opportunity to argue about the end
of the westhphalian system. There are three components that help us to establish this
argument. First, the free movement of goods, ideas, finance and people across boarders
means that territorially bounded entities are inherently weaker than mobile ones.
Second, supranational organizations are being given more and more of the
responsibilities that were formerly reserved for states. Third, TANs can coordinate
lobbying activities across countries and in many cases accomplish tasks that states are
not capable to do.