Session 26, the last blog: International law needs international relations

The chapter International Law, International Relations and Compliance was written by Kal Raustiala and Anne Marie Slaughter who have talked about the literature on compliance in both the disciplines of international relations and international law.

According to the authors, compliance is "a state of conformity or identity between an actor's behaviour and a specified rule" (Raustiala and Slaughter 539). The authors have argued that this topic of compliance has brought the two disciplines together and also that the scholars of international relations were interested in "reviving the study of international law in their discipline" (Raustiala and Slaughter 538) in order to find out how and when does the law matter to state behaviour. Furthermore they have asserted that for "international lawyers eager to use IR theory to address a host of theoretical and practical legal problems, the mechanisms of compliance were equally natural starting point" (Raustiala and Slaughter 538).

However after reading the article, A Compliance Based Theory of International Law, by Andrew Guzman, I have felt that the argument of Raustiala and Slaughter, which is that "compliance literature is a microcosm of the rapprochement between.." (Raustiala and Slaughter) international relations and international law, is not entirely true. The ground reality is that the scholars of international law does require assistance from international relations in theorizing about compliance. As Guzman has noted, they alone cannot explain when and why do "states comply with international law" (Guzman 1). The legal scholars believe that the reason why international law is important is because it affects the behaviour of the states. Unfortunately their theory is flawed because they have relied "heavily on axiomatic claims about national behaviour and" (Guzman 1) lacked "a coherent theory of compliance with international law" (Guzman 1). Due to the absence of the coherent theory, the scholars of international law merely make numerous assumptions rather than explaining why compliance exists. One must not forget that understanding the compliance decision is very crucial in international law and failure to do so can be problematic; Scholars' inability to explain "why states obey international law in some instances and not in others threatens to undermine the very foundations of international law" (Guzman 1). If the legal scholars unable to understand the relation between state actions and international law, then they cannot provide valid suggestions "with respect to international law" (Guzman 1). It is impossible "to improve the functioning of the international legal system" (Guzman 1) and "examine the role of treaties, customary international law or other agreements" (Guzman 1) without devising a compliance theory. It is the discipline of international relations that presents the best theory of compliance and thus which is relevant to the discipline of international law. Unlike the legal scholars, the international relations devise a theory which "explains compliance within a model of rational, self-interested states" (Guzman 2-3). The theory by international relations suggests that the reason why compliance exists is "because states are concerned with both the reputational implications and the direct sanctions of violating the law. The model explains not only why nations comply, but also why and when they violate international law" (Guzman 3). Hence, although the literature of compliance does bring the two disciplines together, in reality it is the discipline of international law which badly needs international relations in theorizing about compliance.


Bibliography

Guzman, Andrew. "A Compliance Based Theory of international law." (2015): 1-76.
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/guzmanComplianceandIL.doc

Link for International Law, International Relations and Compliance by Kal Raustiala and Anne Marie Slaughter: http://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/ebooks/files/C08-0007-Raustiala-compliance.pdf

Session 25: Is Pope Francis the greatest ever mediator of all time?

After having come across the roles and contributions of transnational organizations, presented by Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane, in international relations, Lilach Gilady and Bruce Russett have introduced yet another important player in international relations: the mediators. Their main purpose of writing this article, Peacemaking and Conflict Resolution, was to discuss the literature of peacemaking and the roles played by the mediators in international relations. Now in my view, the jigsaw puzzle of international relations is complete: we have states, ideologies, transnational organizations and now the mediators. The authors have taken a great initiative in shedding light on the literature of mediation because I believe that it is also one important aspect of international relations and just like with transnational relations, I believe that the international relations' scholars have also not given desired attention to the study of mediation.

Different thinkers have different perceptions and understandings about mediation. Gilady and Russett presented, on page 512 on the 2002 Carlsnaes Risse and Simmons' Handbook of IR,  two definitions from other authors to explain mediation. According to Bercovitch and Housten's definition, "process of conflict management, related to but distinct from parties' own efforts, whereby the disputing parties or their representatives seek the assistance, or accept an offer of help from an individual, group, state or organization to change, affect or influence their perceptions or behaviour, without resorting to physical force, or invoking the authority of law" (Bercovitch and Housten 171). On the other hand, the definition presented by Touval and Zartman states that "...mediation is concerned with helping the adversaries communicate, and like conciliation it emphasizes changing the parties' images and attitudes toward one another- but it also performs additional functions. Mediators suggest ideas for a compromise and they negotiate and bargain directly with the adversaries...mediation is basically a political process without advance commitment of the parties to accept the mediators ideas" (Touvel and Zartman 177). The variables for mediation which Gilady and Russett have included in their article are: "the effects and characteristics of mediation strategies, the mediator's minimal required level of leverage and power, the effects of impartiality vs partiality of the mediator, and the effects of asymmetry in the balance of power between adversaries" (Gilady and Russett 513).

This article encouraged me to research about the mediation roles which Pope Francis and Vatican have played, since coming into power. One of the biggest achievements of Pope Francis which I believe was his involvement in bringing the US and Cuba together ( Voice of America) for the first time after fifty years and helping the two countries in improving their relations with each other. Imagine after 50 years the heads of two states decide to let bygones be bygones and shake hands, which was also considered to be a historical handshake. For me honestly, it was a hard pill to swallow because I wasn't expecting this development to come along especially when the Congress was not in the favour of Obama meeting Castro and a week before this historical handshake the Congress also imposed embargoes on Venezuela. The Vatican correspondent of Voice of America, Philip Pullella, has reported that in his article explaining how the Vatican managed to pull off such an achievement: "The Vatican used its position, having very good relations with both countries as a kind of neutral broker. On the one side the Cubans trusted the Vatican because the Vatican had always opposed the US embargo against Cuba, on the other side the Vatican has very good relations with the United States. It has been involved in other similar mediations at a much lower level. So it was a trusted party and that is why things were able to move ahead" (Voice of America).

However, one must not also forget that the Vatican's efforts in bringing Israel and Palestine together didn't bear any fruits at all, despite of been trusted by both countries and their heads being invited to the beautiful gardens of the Vatican along with their religious leaders. The Gaza bombardment carried out by Israeli forces does symbolize the mediating efforts made by the Vatican as useless. Over here I suppose that the argument made by Barbara Walter is valid which is that "biased interveners may sometimes be better positioned to help mitigate commitment problems than impartial ones, especially when they are biased in favour of the weaker party" (Schmidt 4). Perhaps Pope Francis should have been a biased mediator and favoured Palestine which was the weakest of the two.

Bibliography:

Link for Voice of America's report: http://www.voanews.com/content/reu-vatican-mediation-in-us-cuba-relations-applauded/2564401.html

Schmidt, Holger. "Biased for Peace: Commitment Problems, Impartiality, and Success of Third-Party Intervention," Yale University (2008): 1-42.

(the name of the journal is not provided for this previous citation)

session 24: foreign policy or democratic nature?

Ido Oren writes critically about democratic peace thesis. Although Oren does not completely disagrees with it but Oren tries to say that there is something more to this perspective which needs to be considered.This is because we can never be definite about this theory that peace is maintained in the world due to some core values highlighted by democratic peace thesis. His contention is that peaceful character of the states depends on their foreign policy rather than the political system.

The author goes on saying that it is the foreign policy of the country that defines good or bad relations with the country and not its democratic nature. Where the interests of the states match, they can have good relations and  vice versa if we consider the opposite case.

He says that if we match American values with that of the Germany, we can see that both of the states have many values in common while have few differences irrespective of the imperialism in Germany.As per the research by modern age scientists, America was the highest in ranking according to democratic scale and Germany was way behind them. While on the other hand according to scientist of 20th century, "Prussia"(Germany was regarded as one of the successful countries that score high in the scale which measures administration, cohesiveness, responsiveness, constitutional character of the state. What we can conclude from this is that although America and Germany possesses more or less the same values apart from few different values, In America, values that were similar to Germany were eliminated from foreign policies and values that differentiated America from Germany were privileged and highlighted.

Considering the fact that values are subject to change once the interest of countries change, we have sufficient information to believe that democratic peace thesis cannot be applied everywhere in the world. So, It is the theory that developed to justify the causes of war according the perspective of ideology and since ideology is not always the cause of war, this theory cannot be applied universally accepted.

~UZAIR MUJEEB 

  

Session 23: Not sure if it is my last blog

Democratic Peace Theory. The idea of democratic states being more peaceful than autocratic states. Well, that only might be the case. What is the guarantee that Democratic States will live in peace? Yes they are more liberal with power concentrated in the hands of the people rather than individuals. However, one cannot simply assume that if power is in the hands of the people then WAR would not take place. That is not a certainty. Who knows how people will act when given power

T

he argument is that WAR is inevitable. WAR depends on the situation. If a country is waging a war against a democratic nation where people are in power, it would be stupid to claim that the people wouldn't not retaliate. The United States is claimed to be the prime example of a successful democracy. But has it really been successful? WE have seen United States engaging in war despite being a so called democracy. How does one then explain the action of the United States?

Most people argue in favor of the democratic peace theory. I have different beliefs. I think the term democracy is just a tool to make fool out of people where the state still does what is required and necessary at the moment.  Democracies might respect the rights of other states, but when it comes down to survival, we all know what happens.

A Song of Ice and f-IR-e​

Disclaimer: To be read like a cool Lord of the Rings voiceover


This course loves its theories. Over the course of the past few months, we've faced a deluge of theories so vast that all the subjects of Raphael's School of Athens would face a hard time completely unraveling them. IR theory is almost Hydra-like in its complexity and enormity. There are hundreds of subfields and theories and counter-theories and meta-theories so numerous that the 3rd Great Debate was about whether IR theory is even going anywhere or is just coming up with more and more theories.

We started off by learning how international relations came into being at the start of the Neolithic era and blah blah Thucidydyes, Herodotus and Machiavelli etc. which our instructor thinks is hackneyed even though he's the one who taught it to us four times. We moved on to something known as the first great debate. The battle for the very nature of man's existence was on, not in the plains of Middle Earth but rather in comfy tenure-soaked armchairs in and around the East Coast university towns. This epic battle between the forces of good i.e. Liberalism, and the forces of evil (or better yet, the forces that acknowledge evil) i.e. Realism, was a discussion of the nature of man and the international system he was born in. In the wake of Nazi Germany and the atrocities of World War II, the Starks who believed in honour and duty were the idealists. The Lannisters who believed in hard power and the paying of debts were the realists. The Debate resulted in the Idealists losing out and getting severely Red Wedding'd by the likes of Morgenthau et al. Realism became the dominant force in International Relations and as for Idealism...the rains weep o'er his halls, with not a soul to hear.

Next came the battle for methodology. The 'scientific/historical' debate pitched the might of the Old world against the new. The new world of the realists and their Seven Gods comes into conflict with the Old World and its old gods that sought to bring the magic of science into mainstream IR theory. It was a struggle for the very soul of the discipline. Which religion should the realm follow? Should it accept the traditional historical accounts of the realists or those of the red priests that wanted to impose the scientific methodology of the Free Cities like Physics and Chemistry on International Relations? The Red God R'hllor eventually won out and there was a mass public burning of all the historians. For the Cold War was dark, and full of terrors. Science and magic prevailed and there was something of a paradigm shift within IR.

Many new houses arose that challenged the supremacy of the Lannisters and failed. It was from within the old school of realism, however, that the dragons were reborn. Kenneth Waltz flew in from Old Valyria on a massively structured dragon that he called NeoRealism. This dragon breathed fire into realism and gave rise to a new order of power. Offensive and defensive realism came about and more and more houses came and vied for the throne. Transnational political theory was on the rise as the Tyrells became interested in the inner workings of the realm. They got involved and tried to marry their own ideas with those of the Lannister realists. Petyr Baelish became Lord of Harrenhal from being Master of Coin which highlighted the importance of bureaucratic politics and the effect it has on the realm itself.

But something remained amiss. The Starks, long defeated, long dormant, had not forgotten. And they had definitely not forgiven. Stark loyalists rose up with the rallying cry 'The North Remembers' and Constructivism was born. The North returned, it gathered its bannermen and challenged the Lannisters where it hurt. It questioned their legitimacy to rule, saying that their claim to the throne was a complete social construction since their kings were not the true heirs to the realm. It brought forth the importance of ideas and honour and said that every core assumption about the Lannisters was subject to question under a historical context.

The realm, however, was not at peace with the resurgence of the North. Single issue houses like the Dornish and their environmentalism or House Arryn with its feminist ideas became more and more fundamental. In the wake of the third Great debate that resulted in this offshoot of lowborn houses contesting for the throne, Lord Varys questions his little birds whether IR theory is even going somewhere. It is immaterial whether or not it is going somewhere. When you play the Game of Thrones, you either theorize or you die. 

Last Blog:

The first thing I want to say about this course is that the burden of this course was a difficult job to handle. Of course this has been very hectic throughout the semester to write before every class. However, I feel that this was very beneficial for me in the end. This was a much needed skill that I needed to improve on. This gave me ability to critically analyze things before I write and helped in understanding IR more effectively.  I think reading part was fine because this amount of readings is not much, at least for students from social sciences. Lastly this course helped in increasing my general knowledge about International affairs and more importantly it taught how to interpret these affairs.

Now coming towards the theoretical part, the most applicable theory that I found during this course is Realism. The most interesting theory of realism to me is Balance of Power. How the distribution of power play role in international arena is very interesting. Secondly subjectivity of its definition broadens my understanding even more. Apart from that, some portions of other stories were also very fascinating. For example the role of balance of payments and international institutions and how these non-state actors act in the favor of powerful states at times.

The Sessions were very interesting. In LUMS, usually half of the class is sleeping in 8am classes but this class was an exception. And obviously the credit goes to the instructor. I do not know how but sir has been so energetic in class throughout the semester that it was hard for me to divert my mind even when I was sleepy.

Having said that all, I want to confess here that this feels so good to write my last blog of this course.

Session 24: Liberal membership required to join the "Liberal Peace Club"

The article Kant Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs was written by Michael Doyle back in 1983 in which he discuses the idea of democratic peace i.e. wars are not conducted among liberal democracies and they are on cordial terms with each other. On page 213, Doyle explains why this is so. The theory of liberal international assumes that states are allowed to decide against the foreign intervention. "Since morally autonomous citizens hold rights to liberty, the states that democratically represent them have the right to exercise political independence. Mutual respect for these rights then becomes the touchstone of international liberal democracy. When states respect each other's rights, individuals re free to establish private international ties without state interference. Profitable exchanges between merchants and educational exchanges among scholars then create a web of mutual advantages and commitments that bolsters sentiments of public respect" (Doyle 213). According to Doyle, this mutual respect plays a significant role in increasing cooperation between liberal democracies and establishing strong relations among them. All liberal democracies believe in common values and notions. Citizens in such states are made fully aware of the aftermaths of wars and thus are likely to voice against preparations for war. Juraj Draxler has also identified, in his essay Does the democratic peace thesis invalidate the realist view of international politics?, that liberal democracies are willing to participate in international organizations which attempt to resolve worldly conflicts peacefully (Draxler 3).

However there are many scholars who have condemned the implications of Doyle's article, for instance Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder. They have noted that in the short-run, spreading democracy worldwide, in order to bring peace, could prove to be "counter-productive since transforming countries tend to be unstable" (Draxler 4).

The main weakness of democratic peace notion is, according to the report published by Cambridge University, that although it is understandable that liberal democracies are on cordial terms with each other, one must note that every state in the international community cannot claim to be a liberal democracy. The reason why the modern conflict exists and has increased is because of the struggle between liberal states and their illiberal counterparts. Liberal democracies enjoy healthy relations with each other because they are similar, not because they are democratic (Cambridge University 2). The report published by Cambridge University has asserted that the "ideologies that cause liberal democracies to be at peace with each other are the same ideas which inspire idealistic wars with illiberal nations and attract aggression from seemingly non democratic states" (Cambridge University 3). Moreover it has also been noted that the theory of democratic peace has been used as justification for invading Iraq in 2003 as President Bush is believed to have stated that "great faith held in democracies to promote perpetual peace in the Middle East" (Cambridge University 3). Forcing a particular state, which is surrounded by autocratic societies, to democratize has increased the threat of war and not the possibility of securing peace.

Last but not the least, the liberal democracy is increasingly viewed as western ideology. Instead of promoting "enlightened principles to the global economy, the tension between normative values has threatened social cohesion with supranational entities" (Cambridge University 3), for instance the US which never stops intervening in sovereignty of other states and it is also "viewed as a symbol of oppression" (Cambridge University 3).







Links:

For "Can Liberal Democracy guarantee Perpetual Peace?", published by Cambridge University  http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/hr/ppd/files/gdp-teach&learn_SPSessay-2.pdf.

For "Does the democratic peace thesis invalidate the realist view of international politics?" by Juraj Draxler: blog.sme.sk/blog/968/185062/DRAXLER-BA.doc

Session 24: America-cracy

Ido Oren in his piece The Subjectivity of the Democratic Peace puts forth the argument that the democratic peace theory might not be so value free. This theory proposed almost seems to be proposed by the Americans for the Americans to make everyone into an American. If you don’t fit into the mould of America or what it means to be the United States of America, you’re not democratic. Is history repeating itself? The stress on the spread of democracies because has an imperialistic tinge to it. 

American cultural and social imperialism is self evident with the increase in food chains like McDonalds all over the world as well as the hegemony it has over media and films. (Hollywood) If you’re not like-America; you’re inferior, barbaric and need to be liberated by the US of A. Rings a bell, doesn’t it? What I particularly appreciated about Ido Oren is how he used historical accounts like that of Germany to show how America’s perception of the state transformed according to what it’s interests were at a particular time. Woodrow Wilson had first declared Germany the epitome of what a state should be however as soon as Germany diverged slightly from the “American” ideals. It was branded as an evil nation.

 As Ido Oren concluded “The American view of a democratic or non-democratic identity of [a state]...will continue to depend on peaceful of their foreign policy more than their peaceful policies will depend on their democratic identity.” For Ido Oren, the American policy of democratization does not have “solid historical foundations.” But if the narrative is manipulated well I’m sure these historical foundations will solidify themselves.

Session 24: Subjectivity of the Democratic Peace

Odo Oren in his article “the subjectivity of the Democratic peace” argues that democracies around the world tend to remain peaceful among them is not correct concept. He talks about three biases which are attached to this democratic peace.

First of all he says that democracy prevailing in American has become a benchmark against which all other polities are rated. Secondly he argues that prevailing democratic system in America has changed over last two century. The founding fathers of America favored republicanism because in this way voices of normal public can be heard without any favoritism. Lastly he emphasizes that outcomes of democratic peace is flawed in its basic nature. It took ‘regime type’ as an independent variable. The assumption about indigeneity of this variable is not right. I found all of his critics so interesting and applicable here. Ido Oren points out that Germany having one of the greatest political systems is ranked lower than America on democratic scale because America has become norm and all other polities ranked as compared to United States of America.

In the end, I am totally agreed with the author’s point of view that the claim that democratic states are more peaceful is not right. It is in fact, the idea of peace shaped by the one in power and adapted by those countries which has the same ideological approach. Hence it is about the constructed prevailing idea and not about democracy. Perhaps because of this idea, they reflects peaceful relationships among themselves.

Session 24: Subjectivity of democratic peace theory

      Ido Oren in 'Subjectivity of Democratic Piece' describes how political ideas or political preferences of  a dominant world power are regarded as more suitable for the governance of world as a whole. Writer says it does not matter whether a particular form of government is better or worse then the other, rather thing that hold significance is which form of government is dominant.
   
      Democracies peace claim is not about democracies as per se, rather it is about countries that are America like or of our 'kind'. It was like spreading American's views about a particular type of government.

         Democratic character of foreign countries (other than America) depends on the peacefulness of their foreign relations which in turn depends on their foreign policies towards United States. Thus, when tensions between America and Germany begin to erupt, Germany was claimed as an autocratic state. America's democratic values and norms it associated with its democracy were in part shaped by its conflict with Germany. American discourse takes anti-German approach and the specifically political scientists who goes against it risked their jobs and professional reputation. Thus, a democratic trend was set and America as a world power, set it as a necessity for its friendship.

Started from the bottom now we're here

As a senior at LUMS, this is the time of the year for me when the 'last' of everything related to undergraduate starts. Among other lasts, there is the last PDC meal, last table tennis match, last day in the hostel, last class, last exam and last blog.

For this blog, I could give a summary of all that we have done in this class. But I don't want to do that. What I want to write about instead is a little something which I learnt during my time at LUMS. 

I transferred to LUMS from IoBM, which is a university in Karachi. At IoBM, I enrolled in Media Studies. Ours was the first batch of media studies and since our curriculum wasn't entirely developed, we were given a scheduled list of classes which we had to enroll in. 

By and by, I realized that IoBM was not providing me with the highest quality of education and hence, I joined LUMS in pursuit of greener pastures. 

When I joined LUMS, I came with the goal of majoring in Economics. However, in my freshmen year I enrolled in the course called 'Introduction to Western Political Philosophy' and it intrigued me to such an extent that I decided to opt for  a major in Politics and Economics instead. 

In my sophomore year, however, through pure chance (and ROs wonderful inefficiency) I got enrolled in the course 'Introduction to Cultural Anthropology' by Sadaf Ahmed. I got hooked. However, since I enjoyed politics and economics as well, I decided not to switch my major but instead I opted for a minor in Anthropology and Sociology. 

What I would strongly advice all the freshmen, sophomores and even juniors to do, is to not limit themselves to predetermined courses and an already set major. Sure, I realize that sometimes students know exactly what they want to pursue and that's great. However, I would strongly encourage everyone- those who are sure or unsure about their preference- to not restrict their academic experience to a single subject. The best thing about coming to a university like LUMS is that it allows you a substantial amount of choice and diversity as far as courses are concerned. Take it from someone like me, who was force enrolled in all her courses at IoBM; these range of courses which LUMS offers is one of the best things about this institution, Taking courses from different disciplines not only allows one to make a more informed choice about their major but also widens their perspective. 

I've taken math, management, history, law, economics (duh), political science (duh), english, anthropology and computer science courses at LUMS. Enrolling myself in all these courses helped me realize the subjects that I'm truly passionate about. And at the same time, it enriched my LUMS experience. 

So that's the piece of (unsolicited, lol) advise I would give to all the students who have yet to graduate. 

As far as this course is concerned, I would just say that I'm so glad that on that last day of enrollment Theory of IR was the only open POL course left. 

Thank you Sir Nausherwan for such a brilliant semester : )

Last Blog

So what can an Accounting and Finance major take away from this course? Apparently a lot. The reading and writing part of this course seemed like a huge burden at the start but I can honestly say that that has started to change (in the good way obviously). These skills are a must to have for any student and I certainly am very thankful to have improved on them during this semester

.

This course has been the first Political Science course that I have taken and I enjoyed every bit of it. For someone like me who enjoys reading up on current affairs, this course has been very useful and interesting. Reading up on current and international affairs now and analyzing them from the different International Relations perspective has certainly broadened my thinking.

Some of the highlights of the course would be understanding the Bureaucratic Politics Model from the class activity that we had or the guest lecture from Ishtiaq Ahmed in the previous class. These kind of sessions made the course even more interesting.

So on to the course itself. I need to confess, I thoroughly enjoyed reading through Realism and I feel that it is the most appropriate way of understanding many of the international relation scenarios around us. Not that, I didn't like the other theories. Some more than others. But getting a taste of so many theories in this course allowed me to compare the pros and cons of each of them.

This course has certainly invoked my interest in International Relations and I plan on taking more such courses in the coming semesters.

Why We Shouldn't Judge a Country By Its GDP

Michael Green, Why We Shouldn't Judge a Country By Its GDP, Ted, 4-22-15
http://ideas.ted.com/why-we-shouldnt-judge-a-country-by-its-gdp/

KU professor shot dead in Karachi

Imtiaz Ali and Mohammad Raza, KU professor shot dead in Karachi, 4-29-15, Dawn
http://www.dawn.com/news/1178894/ku-professor-shot-dead-in-karachi

Session 24 – Subjectivity of Democratic Peace

In “The Subjectivity of the ‘Democratic’ Peace,” Ido Oren argues that democracy today is compared against the benchmark of American politics which is considered the best democracy and the best system of governance.

However the democracy that is prevalent in America today is not like the one which it has employed in the past. Its principles have changed overtime. In fact the founding fathers of the United States were not even in favor of this democracy as they considered that this would lead to the tyranny of the majority. They favored republicanism as it ensured that the voices of all people were heard. The route which American democracy took was influenced a great deal by the relations of the US with foreign countries

The case in point being Germany which although had a superior system of politics to US in the early years of the twentieth century was stamped as an autocratic state and scored low on the democratic scale because relations between US and Germany soured  as both took on an increasingly large role in world politics. This led to the US differentiating itself from Germany and the technique used was to portray Germany as undemocratic. However the author brings to light, the point of view of the American president, Woodrow Wilson and the father of Political Science in America, John Burgess and how they regarded Germany to have a far superior system of politics than many of its rivals in that era.

Since history is written by the victor and the dominant ideas of anytime are usually the ones which favor the one in power, the claim that democracies do not fight one another is one such dominant idea in today’s world. Maybe if the outcome of the Second World War had been different, this idea may not have been as strong.

Last Blog

This class has introduced us to a plethora of ideas and theories that have really helped me put a lot of things in perspective and look at History from a more critical lens. Looking back, I feel that from all the theories that we have touched upon, Realism is still my favorite because it helps understand the world in an extremely critical way. When applying Realism to the events that have happened in the trajectory of History, the fact that states want to maximize their power and want to ensure survival is apt in explaining why some countries have such aggressive behavior and devote a large sum of money in building their military. The principle of Social Darwinism applies to the state system that is in a constant state on anarchy, and each state wants to outdo the other and become regional or global hegemons. This understanding of the world is interesting because it can be applied to most of the conflicts that have happened, especially the Great Wars that took place in the twentieth Century.

Keeping Realism in mind, another theory that was interesting is Social Constructivism. It is important to keep in mind that ideas are pivotal in understanding the world around us. At the end of the day states, and we as humans, follow some sort of ideology. The ideology might differ, whether it is culture, religion or ethnicity, but this ideology unites people and provides a sense of belonging. It is important to remember how important an idea is. As Robbin William states in the Dead Poets Society: "words and ideas can change the world." It was the idea of Lebensraum and the Master Aryan race that was sensationalized in Hitler's Germany that contributed significantly to the agitation in the global arena and contributed to the outbreak of the Second World War. It was the Communist ideology that struck fear in the capitalist camp and caused an ideological War between USSR and USSR. Ideas play a mammoth role in the shaping of History and the way that the world can be understood.

Kant's Perpetual Peace Theory really stood out (maybe because we just did it) and helped understand how many political institutions are made. The American Government is based on Kant's idea of separation of powers and how a federation is the best because there is more representation of the people and because of that the views of the citizens is more prominent. This will lead to them perhaps ensuring that war does not take place because war is not seen as economically and socially feasible concept. It is these things that will perhaps bring some form of peace in the world..

We critically engaged with the texts that were provided to us and perhaps one of the good things about the class was the fact that we were made to write blogs. This helped us look at the readings very critically and analyze and apply them to the world around us. This is a good method because it skips over the part where you need to rote learn theoretical concepts, and makes us pragmatically apply them. This helped to understand the material covered in class better.

Another interesting aspect of the class was the fact that we had in class assignments such as presentations. Here, even if we did not read or understand the assigned text, it was an excellent chance to help gauge the different concepts of the reading. One class that particularly stood out was when were divided into groups and act out the Bureaucratic Political Model. Not only did it help in understanding a very complex model, it was very interactive and a lot of fun. Perhaps one of the most memorable classes and the complex decision making process is one that will be hard to forget.

One suggestion to the course would be if we had a reading based on propaganda and the part that it plays in International Relations. If we look at Germany, Goebbels the Propaganda Minister is a dynamic and cunning personality that made the entire nation idealize Hitler and the Great Germany while showcasing the other states as evil and popularizing certain caricatures of the people from the different states of the world. An example would be that of the Jews as fat, greedy and backstabbers. Looking at propaganda from a more academic perspective would have been particularly interesting.

All in all, this class has taught me a lot. It has strengthened certain concepts that I did not understand completely, and has taught me ideas that I can use later on in my life. The practical application of the reading through the blogs has made my writing quite analytic and has improved my writing style drastically. A class that has surely solidified by concepts and being a Political Science major and wanting to pursue my masters in International Relations, this course has taught me a lot that will be very helpful in life. 

Perpetual peace

Emmanuel Kant was a profound influence in the field of political science and his work has subsequently been of great value to the study of IR. Kant aims to propose a way towards achieving global peace for all nations, and therefore proposes a structure that is bound by democratic ideals.

Kant put forward the idea of political talks being the best form of conflict resolution, instead of a decision being reached with physical face-offs. Decision making, he argues, should be split within the state according the democratic structures so as to hinder power flowing towards a select few people and decisions being formed in collaboration. Such a state, it is argued, will provide a world that is free of bloodshed and gory consequences because decision making will be in the hands of a larger population sample, and so the common man would look to deflect any occurrence of war that would lead to tangible losses.

While Kant's supposition is rather idealistic in nature and perhaps practically unusable in the current world frame work, we must realize that his theories are based on assumptions, like most theories in the political realm. Not all countries can be democratic, and not all democracies can have a symmetrical power shaping mechanism. Kant's work is however interesting, because it provides a new flavor to realism, and gives us another route to reaching peace with pragmatism.  

Session 23: Kant's Perpetual Peace

Kant’s idea of Perpetual Peace has had a tremendous impact on liberal thought. Looking back at the course Theory of International Relations, there has been a tendency to focus on war. The causes and consequences of war have been sucked dry. The concept of peace on the other hand has a lot to offer. Kant unlike the realists we have met with isn’t “pessimistic enough to believe that a perpetual peace is an unrealizable dream...nor is he optimist enough to fancy that it is an ideal which could be easily realized if men would turn their hearts to one another.” The tendency to put Kant in the confines of idealism can be easily dismantled by the very fact that although he proposes a normative rather than utopian idea and realizes the difficulty in achieving his proposed idea.

The fundamental ideas behind the democratic peace theory can be found in the Perpetual Peace. For Kant peace cannot be maintained between two independent states. This might be problematic for us to see. However, he believes that any peace treaties between independent states are subject to state interests. If interests change, the treaties don’t hold. “ Only One way in which between independent nations can be prevented; and that is by the nations ceasing to the independence.”(Professor Ritchie) This does not mean Kant favored autocratic rule, for him perpetual peace could be a reality if there was a “republican federation of free states.” He advocated the need for laws of nations something that can be seen in institutional liberalism today. Although Kant’s theory may be slightly impractical but it does provide optimism. 

Session 23 - The World is not a better place

According to Kant a world consisting of democracies would be the one with low probability of war. He bases his argument on the point that the general public has a say in running the state as opposed to the autocratic states that have the power concentrated in the hands of a single ruler. Kant here assumes that general public detest war and would try its best to not get involved in one, whereas if a single person gains a lot of power he could become ambitious and, blinded by his ambitions, would be more likely to go to war.

Here are a couple of points that I would like to raise. First one of them is that no democracy can be a democracy hundred percent. A true democracy would have its power distributed hundred percent over the entire population where each and every individual would have a say in running the country. But, generally when people vote they give their power to the person that they choose to make decisions on their behalf. As a result the power then again gets concentrated among a small percentage of the population and they end up becoming the rulers of that state. This becomes a major problem in the countries where democracies are not fully developed yet as the say of the average person does not account for much. In this case, it again depends on how that small ‘elite’ of population sees war and war can happen if they think there is a need for war.

The second point is that it would not matter whether the state is a democracy or an autocracy when its survival is at stake. They would go to war if they feel an existential threat from any other state. They could even go to war if they think they need more resources to cater to the needs of their general population. They would go to war for any reason they think would help them survive in this world. The structure of power may in some way affect the occurrence of war but a complete world peace is not a possibility in my opinion.  

  

Session 23: Shortfalls of liberalism

Doyle, in his article Kant:liberal legacies, and foreign affairs discusses the liberalism's definition of freedom. He talks about three forms of freedom which includes positive freedom, negative freedom and representative government. Negative freedom refers to freedom a specific impediment whereas Positive freedoms refers to the ability to use one's negative freedom while representative talks about preserving the two freedoms. From a domestic viewpoint, liberalism varies in the differences on the importance given to either positive or negative freedoms.

He further emphasizes upon the possibility of  liberal but also takes into account the realists counter arguments that might criticize his argument. In the past liberals have failed to give concrete arguments regarding the viability of peace for liberal states. Although they do explain how liberal states can be more specific bur are unable to explain why these states would still go to war against non liberal ones. He explains the liberal norms in this regard and argues why citizens won't vote for war as the had to bear its cost.

Kant's liberal peace is based upon three factors: The states must be republics, gradual establishment of peace through a pacific union and agreement of all states to respect the cosmopolitan treatment regarding the treatment of foreigners.

Liberal hence, has failed in explaining relations with other states and have adopted, as realist will argue, a phenomenon of wishful thinking which is not able to accept the grim realities of power politics .

Session 23: Perpetual Peace

In this reading, Kant proposed a peace program to be implemented by governments. Kant's essay in some ways resembles democratic peace theory. This is a theory which states that liberal democracies don't go to war with one another. Kant speaks of republic states, which he says have representative governments, in which the legislature is separated from the executive. Kant puts forward necessary means to any peace, and he argues that notions can be brought into federation with one another without the loss of sovereignty.

As Kant mentioned, liberal democracies are less prone to go to war because they prefer to solve issues by negotiations instead of having an armed conflict. Democracies possess greater public wealth, and therefore avoid war to preserve infrastructure and resources. Other then that in a democracy, public has most of the power and they try to avoid war as much as possible.

For the perpetual peace Kant talks about, he presents his scheme necessary for that peace; its first part comprises 'preliminary articles for perpetual peace among states', which would reduce warfare even among states that are not republics yet. His second part, the 'definitive articles' for perpetual peace requires avoidance of provocation and the permanent institution of a federation of republic governments, whose citizens always have the right to hospitality from foreign governments but not the right to dominate other states.

Some political scientists argue that Kant's theory is wrong and republics and democracies do go to war. However I believe that if there were true democracies, there would be less chances of war. We can not say that there won't be war because human beings have free will, they remain free to choose what is right and wrong and it depends on them whether they want to wage war against other states or not. But it is possible according to Kant's theory to achieve peace in the world. 

session 23: Perpetual Peace, an Idealistic perspective

                Immanuel Kant was a German Philosopher who focused on how the structural development of human minds. For that he considers the role of human experience an important factor. The concept of perpetual peace proposed by Immanuel Kant is an attempt to define a peace state of world. His views are somewhat aligned with the Democratic Peace theory in a way that both talk theory talk about the idea that democratic states are more peaceful. Kant admires republican states in which executives of states should be separated from legislature. His point here is human being learns from their experience and they have seen the consequences of war in the past. This makes humans less prone to war and hence executives of republican states act accordingly.

             Among his proposed key principles on which states should comply, I found one very infeasible. I found his claim “Standing armies shall be abolished in course of time” very idealistic. Realist’s critic to this idea that it is an overestimation of morality embedded in human nature because true intensions of states are can never be so visible and hence this is a difficult choice to make for states. Furthermore, I believe there is an assumption in Kant’s theory of perpetual peace that all states should conform all key principles of his theory, only in that case his claim could be effective, which is after all not possible. Today we are living in a world where warfare is evolved as an irresistible concept. If we could go back to the world which had not experienced great wars, then the adaptation of Kant’s theory could arguably possible. I am sure, if Kant’s ideas would be different if he had opportunity to experience contemporary norms and issues in international politics.

Session 23 - Peace?

Immanuel Kant in his essay "perpetual peace" gives us a roadmap on how peace can be achieved while differentiating what people thought was peace but not actually was. The beliefs of Kant can be said to be the principles of the liberalist ideology.

A very interestng aspect of his article was the preliminary articles which are basic thoughts that a state needs to have in order for there to be peace. The first preliminary article is how if there is a current declaration of peace, but if the state has a plan to go back to war in the future, this cannot be considered as peace. The second article is how no state should be forced or bribed to do anything that it might not want to do of free will.

The third principle is that the existing armies should eventually be abolished in time. This is because if states have armies, then the other states will fear that there is a threat of attack which will mean that even they would want to keep an army. Thus there can be no peace with standing armies. The fourth principle is that there should be no national debt due to foreign actions. The fifth principle is that foreign states should not try to interfere in others states governmental and constitution matters. And lastly when states that are at war use tactics such as spying or breaking agreements, this makes future trust unlikely this making peace impossible.

The thing is that while these points are very logical and might lead to peace, there is high chance that none of these will happen. For example in regards to the third point, it has very little chance of actually happening in today's world. This is because in today's world, the topic of 'Muslim terrorist's extremely widespread, which means that the states will want to defend themselves against these terrorists and so will never reduce or abolish their army. Additionally who can force a hegemonic state to follow these principles for peace because they will never to so in the name of self defense.

'World Peace Kant be acheived'

According to Immanuel Kant’s democratic peace theory, world peace is an achievable ideal provided that states follow a democratic structure. Kant puts forward a host of arguments to support his stance including some that are very difficult to imagine in today’s world.

The author considers negotiations as the preferred form of handling conflicts for democracies since a democratic state recognizes the futility of armed confrontation. He is also of the view that democracies would operate in their purest forms, with divisions of power to mitigate the likelihood of a few individuals controlling decision making. In fact in this ideal world the citizens of the state have the power to influence decisions regarding war and will seek to prevent it since they are opposed to the needless bloodshed that the phenomenon brings about.

 Before writing off Kant’s work as far too idealistic to be applicable in the modern world, it might be wise to remember that all theories are based on assumptions. The reason Kant’s assumptions seem unrealistic is not due to the current structuring of the world order, rather it is because his suppositions fail even in the conditions of an ideal world. Perpetual peace would equal an everlasting sense of contentment within human beings and while no realist analysis of human nature as inherently selfish should be taken as binding, it still makes for a far fetched assumption. The reality is that even if states recognize that war is not in their best interests, there are elements within these states that will invariably be keen on upsetting the status quo. Unfortunately democracy cannot be used interchangeably with equality, especially considering that the  system works best in smaller polities. How does a state with more than a billion citizens such as India achieve equality?

Perhaps most importantly would states and their citizens be willing to suffer if they lacked scarce resources such as water for example? How could balance of power be achieved among democracies when the simple geographical truth is that resources are not equally distributed and apportioned among states? The answers to such questions regrettably cannot be found in the Democratic Peace theory.

Session 23- It's always about war

Immanuel Kant in his work titled ‘Perpetual Peace’ puts forth the idea of the democratic peace theory. This theory essentially states that democratic governments are reluctant to engage into wars. This is because since real democracies a reflection of the public’s voices, then they are not likely to engage in armed conflict because the public of a nation does not want to go to war. Moreover, even if they do engage in a conflict then they have to accept the blame for the destruction and losses which tarnishes their reputation and makes them unpopular. Furthermore, in a true democracy statesmen are accountable to the voters hence it is expected of them to resolve a dispute in a diplomatic manner rather than using force and indulging in armed conflicts. Lastly, it is also believed that democratic states have a stronger developed economy which would be destroyed because of war. Therefore, in order to engage in trade, preserve their own wealth and infrastructure democracies tend to stay away from wars.  Hence Kant was of the view that if all nations were republics wars could be prevented because there would be no aggressors.

However, Kant's theory constructs binaries. He presents only two options in terms of either a state can be a democracy or not. He does not take into account that there can be other forms of rule as well. Moreover, his theory sounds optimistic, but the actual practicality of his theory cannot be judged for sure because democracies in their true form don’t exist. There is always an element or two that makes the system undemocratic. For example, we like to believe that our system is democratic. However, this is merely an illusion because we do not even get to directly choose the leaders in power.

Nonetheless, Kant does provide us with a useful alternative perspective through which we can view the international system. It also poses a challenge to Realism as Realism rests on the believe that war is inevitable due to the selfish nature of human beings. However, Kant suggests that under certain circumstances war can be avoided.

Session 23: Democratic Peace Illusion?

The Democratic Peace Theory and the concept of perpetual peace proposed by Doyle and Kant respectively, are an idealistic notion in a non-idealistic world. The view of liberalism that they share and place the foundation stone of peace upon, does not exist. Kant and Doyle argue that representative regimes are less likely to go to war than regimes which follow a more authoritative track. This seems to make sense as regimes in hope of a reelection are far less likely to go against the will of their voters. But does this idea hold?

Sebastian Rosato argues that the definition of democracy maybe be analyzed and interpreted in different ways when it comes to conflict between two states. Hence when protecting its own interest a state may refuse to accept the degree of liberalism practiced by another state, or reject its “representativeness” altogether. The case of Germany before the First World War, for example. Germany was recognized as a democratic state in the 19^th century but at the onset of the war its relations with the United States and the United Kingdom deteriorated. Subsequently it was labelled as an autocratic state right before and during the war. Moreover, there have been multiple occasions upon which democratic states have gone on and fought wars with other democratic states. However, to their convenience, advocates of the democratic peace theory have either labelled the involved regimes as “not really democratic” or “not real wars”.

Although the idea of a ‘perpetual peace’ is one that the world would love to see implemented, it will never happen. Being a realist, I think that it is impossible to prevent a conflict of interest between the many states that inhabit the realm of international politics. Though these conflicts maybe solved through negotiations and diplomacy, the probable use of violence cannot be neglected.