IP NOTES 10/25

VII BoP 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
4) 1861-1865
-possibly most significant juncture
-you can see that the state system doesn't really work too well
-if the south had won, there would most likely have been a whole bunch more wars as they fight over the west
-it was a 'Civil War'
-not really insurgencies, not guerilla warfare, but actually two sovereign states fighting with uniformed peeps, etc
-why did the North win?
-the north was just more powerful
-more industrial power, etc
-Railroads (developed ~1850), without which the union army would have fallen so quickly it wouldnt have even been funny
-north's railroads were hugely developed, while south's were much less so
-leadership was stronger in the North
-Lincoln just rocked. kicked some serious ass
-1862 was the most productive year of Congress for a loooong time
-the British didn't intervene
-if they had, the one side woulda rocked
-free labor vs slavery was the debate raging in Britain
-they believed that extinguishing slavery was more important than keeping naval hegemony in britain's hands

5) absence of balancing
-there weren't really any other powers to compete with the US formation
-Indians weren't a real competitor, because they were decimated by disease, plagued by disunity, and couldn't keep up with the American's pace of expansion
-There actually were independent states in America- Texas and California
-they made the decision to join the union
-Asians could have been a viable competitor on the west coast
-nice natural barrier (rocky mountains), tendency to wander, etc
-the building of a railroad to california tended to stop this
Domesticated BoP
1)fed-states Militia
2)representation

#14 BoP: Concert and Collective Security
I Evolution: Concert
the Concert of Europe- time when europe is really peaceful
1815-1854 and 1871-1914
Features (3)
1) active balancing was kept to a minimum, it just kinda died down for a while
2) consultation is on the rise, lots of random congresses held to see what other people think
3) Conflict resolution actually happened (mediation, not war)
-arbitration was actually used. woah.
Explanation (4)
1) memory of war is a huge deterrent
2) powers are satisfied with the status quo, no more wars of expansion are really needed
3) anti-revolutionary period
-monarchs were starting to see that war became a threat to them
-war -> revolution -> overthrowal of monarchs
4) Europe is effectively isolated as a subsystem
-it's isolated enough so that wars don't start on the periphery
Breakdown (2)
reasons for the breakdown of the concert of europe
liberalism vs monarchy
uneven growth of the periphery means that europe can't sustain subsystem isolation, so war breaks out

II Evolution: Breakdown
Industrialism
Industrial revolution leads to breakdown of old European order
-IR changes the 'strong' VI to 'intense' VI
-this forces change
Nationalism
There was no longer a europe-wide elite (no more real aristocracy)
-the NATION becomes the dominant form
Ideology
Ideology becomes a controlling factor in state policy, now you get communism v capitalism, etc
Unification of Germany
now that Germany is actually unified, there's a big problem
-before Germany unites, there's this huge no-man's land in the center of germany that acts as a buffer
-now there's the largest nation state sitting there.... problem for BoP!

III Evolution: Globalization
Distinct System
Europe was at first basically the entire system
Subsystem Dominant
Then it became just a part of the system, but the US and Russia are expanding hugely
-europe is still dominant
-example: 1812
-British burn DC to the ground, French burn Moscow to the ground
-europeans declining, though
Subsystem Dominated
US, Russia own europe
-europe essentially becomes the proxy of the 'flanking powers'
-the fragmentation of Europe becomes a liability
-it's no longer a viable option, because the VI has intensified
-they also get dominated by outside, unified powers
-now, the Europeans are essentially working out how to unify themselves
2 ways to unify
-empire
-3rd Reich
-confederacy/union
-EU?

IV Alternative: Collective Security (CS)
Critics of BoP (4)
essentially, the theories move from realist to liberalist
1) war is way too violent now
-too much killing!!
2) small states are getting raped! not cool!
-poland is the classic example
3) nationality gets violated
4) there's a class basis to the system still
-trading with a region > conquering a region
-the bourguoise > feudal power
Agenda of Reform (3)
1) AC + disarmament
2) international law + courts
3) CS league of nations/UN
Logic of CS (2)
CS agreement- agreement of ALL to protect ANY from aggression of ANY
problem- defection
-the nations might just pussy out when push comes to shove
UN as CS System
to what degree is the UN a CS agreement?
-there are still 5 great powers with vetoes on the security council
-this means that the UN does NOTHING if any of the vetoes doesn't want to
-this SIGNIFICANTLY diminishes the power of the UN as a CS
-small states need patronage of huge states
there are some significant successes of the UN
-Korea (1950) (only really works because Russia didn't show up that day
-Iraq War 1- everybody loved eachother after the cold war so yaaay
the UN was DESIGNED not to work too well... needs exceptional circumstances