POLS 051 1st Edition Exam #1 Study GuideYou will choose 10 of 12 identifications to discuss. Each discussion will involve a clear definitionand explanation of the term’s significance. For the best results, I suggest you prepare two paragraphs for each term listed below: one dedicated to the term’s definition, the other to the term’s significance. When relevant include dates and/or examples.PossibleTerms- Compulsive empire- Economic mutual deterrence - Anarchy- IGO- Intergovernmental Organizationso Define: group of Individual States that work together as oneo Members are states and every IGO has a specific goal or mission o Examples:  European Union NATO- Security line United Nations Common Wealth  African Union Eurasian League  NAFTAo Main goal (long term): prevent war and conflict, ways to get there differo Three Schools of Thought: Why IGO?  Federalism: argues main cause of War, States exercising too sovereignty - Too much power- Hard to create IGO that sets limit for sovereignty - Perks, reasons for joining but bound by rules and regulations to limit sovereignty o Functionalism: economic deprivation, lack of economic development causes war  Form IGO to strengthen economy of block of states  Less likely to experience economic conflict o Collective goods problem  Define: everyone has access to goods  Who pays for goods and maintenance? - NPE VPR- all have access  Free rider problem, we know collective goods available  Usually hegemon that suppose international systemo Intergovernmental Associations  Task: to provide venue for dialogue between States Peace keeping (example UN) To promote trade between formal guidelines informal norms  Goal: activities perform trust and confidence between States (diplomatic, peacefully) - NGOo Tasks:  Raise awareness Monitor o Example: Red Cross Amnesty international  Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation  UNICEFFo All private, not State agency, not apart of my government, don’t act on behalf of specific State, non-profit o History: multiple in last decade, increasingly important in International arena No laws or international norms that tavern behaviors of organizations o Types of NGO’S  Non-political  Political- want to influence internal Affairs of States  Multinational corporations (not affiliated with Government)  Expand open offices around the World o ISIS- Terrorist groups  Founded in particular State  Became International - Failed state paradigm - Containment- Melian Dialogue- Concert of Europe: 19th century (1815-1914) o Anti hegemonic system: not allowing for a hegemon to rise o Five members: Britain, Russia, France, Persia/Germany, Austria-Hungary o Why France? Having them involved, keep them in line. Can have limits and rules of all member’s: restrictions, France has new government, prove they are different, have power on their side Interrogate Russia so they have State in System so they support the system (won’t turn against or from opposing views)  Britain = balance Russia = Alliance maker o Why did Concert Collapse?  Went from being regional system to global system  New rising powers: Germany, Italy, U.S, (early 1900’s)  Germany problematic because they want to become most powerful  German Problem (1885 congress of Berlin): chopped up Africa, gave Germany colonies, give state some of what they want (unic agreement)  Appeasement doesn’t work  Alliance between British and Japan: balance of Europe formed alliance with State - Treaty of Westphaliao War concluded with treat of Westphalia (1648)  1. Established existence of Independent Sovereign States  2. Territorial integrity of States: idea that you cannot dismantle State boundaries permanent  Established right of every state to have own permanent military (para military not allowed)- secular state vs. church- Napoleon France: hegemonic France, under Napoleon France became hegemon by conquering vast amounts of Europe. Hegemons have to expand in order to maintain status. Napoleon defeated 1815: lead to concert of Europe - Hans Morgenthau’s Political Realism: 6 Claimso Power politics- state, survival  State only actor that matters, one goal = survival o Tragedy: core of power politics. States only care about power, whenever they act,they think about there own power. Specifically military power (national interest defined in terms of power).  Military power: hard power, force in war to press what needs to get done. Political power: involves influence, image, re-negotiation, ability of state to get another state to do something without military force (realism).o An objective, universal law governs international relations. o Human nature (lust of power) afraid of dying, source of power politics: individuals take mentality into office, states can’t avoid power politics, can’t escape fear of mentality. - Treaties short term according to Realismo Morgenthau’s on treaty obligations: states have right to back out of treaty, when treaty affects survival. Bush argues treaty outdated, did not permit U.S from terrorist groups (logic) o Morgenthau imperial expansion: it’s okay if a states survival is threated, expects awar. Remains key figure of modern realism- Ideological confrontations: Korea, Vietnam, Cuban Missile crisis o Korea divided, war ended with cease fire o Patterned Vietnam: North com, South demo, one factor brought war to end. Anti war movement. Put pressure on government to withdrawo Cuban missile crisis: the most tense period in U.S/Soviet relations also turning point for U.S/soviet o U.S responded by putting missiles in Turkey o Kennedy struck deal to each withdraw missiles o Beginning of a thaw between U.S and Soviet, both agreed on something, thaw took place by building up military, were able to find one area to cooperate. o Signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963 (U.S and Soviet), can only test nuclear weapons underground: no water, on earth or in space. Only permitted readtion did not leak into neighboring states. o Five years later, Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty (1968) Established norm among states with nuclear weapons. Treaty committed to stop spread of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states. U.S arguing Iran does not have right to develop nuclear weapons.  What’s the logic? Remains main institution concerning nuclear weapons ceases controversy for non-nuclear