Term
|
Definition
-hypotheses or explanations that emphasize one of three causes (power, institutions, or ideas) of world events over the others; three principal perspectives: realist, liberal, identity and then critical theory sometimes
-help us decide what the primary cause of an event is |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the direction, or, "level," from which different causes of international change emerge; the location from which causes of events originate. Four types identified here: systemic, foreign policy, domestic, individual |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| perspectives or simplified characterizations of theories that identify the most important aspects, not all of the intricacies and variations. Ideal types single out primary perspectives and levels of analysis. The various perspectives and levels of analysis we discuss in this book are not exclusive of one another. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-a struggle for power is the primary cause of what happens in international affairs
-a perspective that sees the world largely in terms of a struggle for power in which strong actors, especially states, seek to dominate weak ones and weak actors resist strong ones to preserve their interests and independence.
-from this perspective, there is no overarching or universal center of power in the world that is recognized by all actors as legitimate
-levels of analysis: human nature at the individual level; aggressive states at the domestic level; international institutions at the systemic
-this perspective may have certain advantages in situations of greater threat; may exaggerate threat |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-interdependence and institutions exert the primary influence on world events
-a perspective that emphasizes relationships and negotiations among actors in international affairs, as well as how groups interact, communicate, and transact exchanges with one another, such as trade; liberal perspectives tend to focus on the role of institutions in solving international conflicts
-levels of analysis: a leader's role at the individual level; government institutions at the domestic level; international institutions at the systemic level
-may be better at finding ways to cooperate; may underestimate the risks of cooperation |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-asserts that ideas are more important than power or institutions in shaping international outcomes
-a perspective that emphasizes the importance of ideas that define the identities of actors and that motivate the use of power and negotiations by these actors
-levels of analysis: shared or conflicting ideas at the systemic level; country's culture or political ideology at the domestic level; leaders' ideas at the individual level
-may be best at distinguishing between potential allies and enemies |
|
|
Term
| individual level of analysis |
|
Definition
| a level at which individuals or small groups of individuals make decisions and cause events using power, institutions or ideas |
|
|
Term
| domestic level of analysis |
|
Definition
| a level that focuses on domestic features of a country as a whole, such as capitalist economic system or nationalist ideology, from which the causes of a realist, liberal, or identity perspective come |
|
|
Term
| systemic level of analysis |
|
Definition
| a level that identifies causes that come from the positioning and interaction of states in the international system |
|
|
Term
| critical theory perspective |
|
Definition
| a perspective that questions whether events can be explained apart from historical circumstances and focuses instead on social and political change that unfolds within history; it offers broad critiques of international relations and generally advocates radical solutions such as revolution |
|
|
Term
| foreign policy level of analysis |
|
Definition
| a level between the systemic process and domestic levels where foreign policy officials actually make decisions |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the formal rules of reason (rationalist) or appropriateness (constructivist) for testing perspectives against facts |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-methods that assume that causal factors can be disaggregated and described objectively, explaining one event by a second event occuring in sequence
-ex. sunlight-> photosynthesis ->carbohydrate production-> fuel of plant growth |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-methods that pay more attention to the way that meaning is formed discursively (through language) and that sees events as mutually causing or constituting one another rather than causing one another sequentially
-ex. slave/master relationship; one does not exist without the other, they define each other
-these methods offer plausible, rather than predictive, explanations |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| one fact or event causing another |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| one fact or event occurring with another fact or event |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a method of examining events in detail to identify cause and effect |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a method of testing claims for causality by inverting the causal claim. The counterfactual of the claim "event A caused event B" is to ask, "if event A had not happened, would event B have happened?" |
|
|
Term
| weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) |
|
Definition
| weapons that can kill large numbers of humans and/or cause great damage to fabricated and natural structures and to the biosphere in general; they include nuclear, biological, chemical, and, increasingly, radiological weapons |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the broader assessment of what makes sense after accumulating as many facts and testing as many perspectives as possible |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-standards of good conduct for human behavior
-three broad views: relativism, universalism, pragmatism |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a position that holds that truth and morality are relative to each individual or culture and that one should "live and let live". |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a position that holds that truth and morality are universal; one cannot adjust moral behavior to circumstances without sliding down the slippery slope to relativism |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-the idea that morality is proportionate to what is possible and that one should do what one can to uphold proper standards under present and potential future circumstances but that one should not be dogmatic
-Will an intervention create disproportionate consequences that actually reduce world solidarity, and will an intervention set a standard that encourages repeated future interventions?
-pragmatism does not abandon a notion of universal morality but opposes its application at all times in all places. It is willing to compromise, even though compromise risks slipping into relativism. Indeed for pragmatists, the greatest moral good is compromise. |
|
|
