IP NOTES 10/24

II Balancing Failures
Collective Action
when you get more people together, you can't coordinate as well-
-it's harder to get 20 people to agree with you than it is 3
you also have the problem of freeriding, people just ride on the coattails of others

Buckpassing
problem with balance of power as well
-good example, WWII when britain, US, USSR just basically let the smaller states fight the war and lose

Barriers to Emulation
generally, if something's good, people will copy it
there are barriers, however
-french revolution was great for the french people, with mass popular armies
-other states didn't adopt this system, because they would have had to reorganize == bad for them (they thought)
-Japan doesn't industrialize for a long while, but when it does it goes insane
-china, however, is too set in its tradition to really reorganize for a long while

Enduring Rivalries and Ideologies
states just hate each other. thats pretty much it
-also works with ideologies (communism vs capitalism)
this means that when an external threat comes into the picture, they're slow to balance the threat

Shifting System Borders
oops. missed this one

III Origins
Universal Monarchy vs Republic
universal monarchy failed in europe (European Anomaly)
europe became a REPUBLIC- not as we know it, though
-a plural system with some restraints
-lots of different countries fucking with eachother
Features- Material
1) division - physical division, topographic
2) rough equality- there were at least a few orders which were roughly equal in power
3) mixture- land and sea power mixed

Features- Societal
1) alliances- alliances formed to keep a hegemon from popping up
2) sovereignty- the key notion was that there was EQUALITY among sovereigns
3) there is a constitution of sorts, it's not a stark anarchy.
-constitution = the great settlements (westphalia, etc)

IV OPERATION: Counter-Hegemonic Alliances (6)
1) Charles V
2) Phillip II
3) Louis XIV
4) Napoleon
5) William II
6) Hitler

there were the guys who tried to be hegemons, got owned

V Britain as Balancer
Tradition view
britain has been the one with the great coalitions in the past

NeoR Criticism
not possible for there to be a hegemonic balancer
-if there's a power in the system that can be a balancer, then it'd become a hegemon itself

Insular vs Seapower
Seapower- YOU CANT CONQUER TERRITORY
-this makes them an extremely potent balancer, but bad hegemon

Peripheral Strategy (5)
the british actually did sustain the "republic of europe"
here's how
1) naval power up up up
-the naval power of britain just rapes the shit out of any hegemonic aspirer
2) naval power allows for massive blockades of any aspirers, dominate commerce
3) fund allies
-they can just pay people off to fight your wars for you
4) steal colonies
-hahaha shank the rest of europe
5) invade extremities
-they'd just invade random tiny random outlying territories with small numbers of troops, chip away at the aspirers

VI Settlements (5)
1)peace of WESTPHALIA (1648)
-crystallizes european state system to be the dominant political order
-separates religious and material orders (for the FIRST TIME)
2) treaty of Utrecht (1713)
-some king was gonna unite the kingdoms of Spain and France through marriage (would have been the unchecked hegemon)
-british fought a war to ensure that this didnt happen
-they explicitly mention that it's to maintain the balance of power
3) Vienna (1815)
-interesting because they bring France back into power, don't exclude it from the world scene
-ended the quarter century of war of french rev. and napoleon
4) Versailles (1919)
-establishes a "League of Nations" (interestingly progressive here)
-very regressive as well- huge reparations demanded of Germany
-this is a PROBLEM
-germans establish the Weimar Republic (one of the most liberal democracies in europe)
-didnt end up working BECAUSE of the treaty of Versailles and rising nationalism
-HITLER
5) Yalta/Potsdam (1945)
-ends WWII
-makes the world essentially bipolar
-the settlement essentially splits Europe in two, half going to Soviet Union, other half to US
-US starts the Marshall Plan, rebuilds Europe, etc
-soviet union goes yaayyyy communism

VII Balance of Power in North America
United States vs State System
the regions in america are potentially nation-states after the European model
-there are sufficient cultural differences that they could have been national
-they're large enough that they could have been militarily powerful
5 Historical Junctures
1)1754-1763
-7 years war in Europe, we call it the French and Indian war
-Britain beats out France
-up until then, all of the nations of europe have colonies in America, but now Britain gets French colonies
-now North America is British, basically
2)1776-1783
-why do 13 states break away? and not ALL north america?
-only ~4 million people total in the 13 colonies
-the US is able to ally itself with France, allows them to beat out Britain
-why only the 13 states? didnt answer...
3) 1781-1789
-the 13 states were sovereign up until 1789
-they banded around because they were scared of European power
-this also happened because the dominant strata of society was LAWYERS, not monarchs, so no random wars, but deliberation
-the borders were fixed by people in London, so they were semi-fixed
-in an anarchic system, the small states would have been gobbled up, so they become the main movers and shakers in the formation of govt