IP BULLSHIT

Security Dilemma
-neoR idea that war will occur more frequently in int'l anarchy
-arms race
-defensive armaments are seen as offensive, so other states get all pissy and build up their own arms

the 'stag hunt'
-rousseau
-used the story to explain cheating and lack of cooperation in groups
-people could cooperate and get the stag, or cheat, go off on their own and get the rabbit, so he benefits by himself while the group suffers
-realist argument

anarchy (2 senses)
-state of nature vs state of war
-SoN- individual is the actor
-SoW- state is the actor
-SoW is necessitated by increasing VI

Absolute vs Relative gains
-relative gains and losses are much more important than absolute gains
-states look to maximize relative gains, even at the expense of absolute gains

to balance vs to bandwagon
-balance- try to preserve balance of power, smaller states flock to states that havent relative gained
-bandwagon- join the state that's relative gained

bipolar vs mulitpolar
-bipolarity- two superpowers and satellite states that flock one way or the other
-miscalculations are less likely because there are only two of them, less war-prone, even if a few satellites flock one way or the other
-multipolarity- more than two superpowers and more important satellite states
-miscalculations occur more often, as it's harder to keep track of actors, satellites matter more

socialization
-states over time learn what works and doesn't work with respect to security, aggression doesn't work

emulation
-over time, states copy what works from other states

appeasement
-a method of reducing commitments when you're overextended, rather than war
-NAZIS NAZIS NAZIS

"peripheral strategy"
-strategy used by GB to maintain balance of power- five steps
-countering a rising hegemon
1) achieve naval dominance
2) move into a mode of blockade, isolates the rising hegemon
3) fund allies
4) usurp colonies of other states
5) invade extremeties

internal vs external balancing
-internal- jacking up arms supply
-external- allies

buckpassing
-state trying to get a free ride off of other states, hoping someone else will do it

Peace of Westphalia
-1648
-marked the end of the 30 years war
-crystallized theory of separation of church and state
-also crystallized european state system
-three main theories
-non-intervention in internal state affairs
-national sovereignty
-legal equality among states
-come together to create sovereignty

Concert of Europe
-period of time- 1815-1914
-states cooperate with eachother
-3 main features
-balancing declines
-consultation congresses
-3rd party mediators
-4 reasons why
-negative memory of war
-great states were status quo powers
-monarchs were afraid of revolution, so they avoided war
-europe was an isolated state system, so they tended away from war

sovereignty (two faces)
-internal- people recognize that the state is sovereign, there is a final authority (legit monopoly on violence)
-external- other states recognize this legitimacy

Grotian (ideal type)
-model of international society arising from the english school (specifically hedley bull)
-in the presence of anarchy, there are nonetheless forms of society
-soft realist theory, stresses importance of balance where states are self-interested but still have morality and restraint
-states i guess are governed by society and norms

treaty vs contract
-treaty is made by ONLY SOVEREIGNS
-contracts are between just people

diplomacy
-establishment of permanent dialogue between countries
-embassadors and embassies are expressions of this
-diplomatic immunity ties into this

collective security
-the notion that all states work together to ensure int'l peace and security
-breach of peace by an aggressor becomes attack on all
-lookee here, nato
-based on the idea that states surrender their self-interests for the collective state interest
-problems- defection and freeriding (buckpassing)

the law of nations (1758)
-written by Emmerich de Vattel
-his shit was used to show wars can be justified
-'velvet glove over the iron fist'
-iron fist is total control, absolute power
-velvet glove is making shit softer

Emmerich de Vatell
-wrote the shit above

sovereign immunity
-criminal/civil laws do not apply to the agent of action for the sovereign
-for instance, soldiers aren't liable for murder when they kill shit, the country is

diplomatic immunity
-the diplomat isn't governed by the laws of the nation in which he's stationed
-can be deported

extradition
-send them back to the place where they committed the crime

extraterritoriality
-best example: an embassy
-US embassies abroad are considered US soil, with all the applicable protections

UN Security Council
-five permanent veto powers
-us, uk, russia, china, france
-the WWII winners
-ten temporary seats that rotate among the rest of the world
-all resolutions passed here are binding
-this means that the UN is essentially useless
-except gulf war and korean war

ICJ
-international court of justice
-powers severely limited because trials can only occur with consent of both powers

proportionality
-element of the rules of war
-responses to actions of an aggressor must be proportional to their actions

Nuremburg and Tokyo war crimes tribunals
-all tribunals
-element of the 'new order'
-established by US, UK, USSR
-became necessary to enforce international norms and laws
-nuremburg- trial of nazi officers
-tokyo- trial of jap officers

treaty of Rome (1998)
-established international criminal court
-meant to act as a war crimes tribunal
-heavily backed by US under clinton, rescinded under Bush
-clinton established that the ICC was ok ONLY IF the home country doesnt try him first

types of facts
-3 types
1) brute facts
-shit that is objective- mountains
2) subjective facts
3rd type of fact-
-social facts
-fact that exists solely because of intersubjective understanding
-essentially rules

regulative vs constituative rules
-regulative- exist to protect people, to regulate action
-constitutative- create things. baseball doesn't exist except for the rules
-according to constructivists- sovereignty is constitutative

'norms of appropriate behavior'
-beliefs that largely govern how people act
-certain actions are believed to be right while others wrong
-concept is crucial for international law, determines whats right and whats wrong, whats enforceable or not
-another constructivist theory
-norms change over time

'three cultures of anarchy'
-defined by Wendt
-Hobbesian
-Lockean
-Kantian
-Hobbesian- states see eachother as enemies
-Lockean- states see eachother as rivals
-Kantian- states see eachother as friends
-corresponds to level of VI in society

First Iron Law of Polis Republicanism
-smallness
-states have to be of a certain size to self-govern effectively
-leads to military vulnerability
-this means that they essentially have to militarize massively just to survive
-fear of commerce and wealth
-because illiberal, militaristic states are necessary
-fear of socioeconomic stratification

Second Iron Law of Polis Republicanism
-expansion
-when you expand, there's less fear of commerce
-leads to increased wealth
-leads to socioeconomic stratification
-army gets massive
-harder for individual citizens to be soldiers, because you need special training
-leads to specialization, heirarchy
-monarchy! yay!

virtu ex machina
-early modern polities invest in new technology
-technology is more important than just straight military virtue
-allows for states to move away from straight militarism and start on the road to capital

Raw vs channeled balancing
-relates to balance of power in the philadelphian system vs westphalian system
-raw- anarchy- balance however possible (war)
-channeled- negarchy- balance through established methods (i.e. supreme court)

state-system vs state-union
-state-system- westphalian- states fight
-state-union- philadelphian- states work together, cobinding
-cobinding to preserve a republican system

balancing vs co-binding
-balancing- states are restrained by war with other states, non-peaceful mechanisms- more likely in a hierarchy
-cobinding- states are restrained by their alliances with other states- more likely in a republic

republican negarchy
-a method of avoiding both poles of anarchy and hierarchy through mutual restraint
-a structure where neither the state nor the individual have total control

engaged vs recessed sovereign
-if the state is engaged, you have realstate- realist formation
-if the state is recessed, you have constitutional monarchy, where the people are in power, because there are limitations on state action

'overthrow' and 'throwover'
-overthrow- change in internal government (monarchy to democracy)
-throwover- modification in internal government (amend the constitution)

SPIRIT OF THE LAWS (1748)
-written by montesque
-suggests three branches of government
-forms the basis for political liberalism
-republican-democratic government
-necessitates division of powers- legislative, judicial, executive

PERPETUAL PEACE (1793)
-written by immanuel Kant
-based on paine's democratic peace theory
-pure democracy is tyranny
-which is why we have 'republicanism' rather than pure democracy
-democracy with the restraint of a constitution is the way to go

Kant's three articles of perpetual peace
1) republican civic constitution
-democracy does not equal republic
-based off of representation AND separation of power
2) pacific unions are based on amity treaties
3) cosmopolitan hospitality
-you treat foreigners nicely, respect trade law


SHORT ESSAYS

1) int'l anarchy- state of war, no collective government between states, doesn't mean chaos
-unit level- order is the sum of foreign policies (child-like, not complete)
-neoRealist- Waltz- order is a combination of structure and society (not only policies but also governmental structure)

2) hobbes- state of -opinion

OCC CIV NOTES 11/10

Board shit
ARGUMENTS FOR INTOLERANCE
Political-
-dissenters are rebels/traitors
-there needs to be one religion in a state for peace
Ecclesiological
-there is one ideal form of the church to be imitated
-there are variable forms that are legitimate and the magistrate gets to decide
Theological/philosophical
-conversion to the truth saves souls, souls>bodies
-it is not 'pwersecution' to use force to promote truth
-charity requires force/true religion/ those converted will be grateful
church of england vs catholics
-catholics will not tolerate protestants
-catholics are required to obey a foreign ruler (pope)
-catholics hold that faith does not need to be kept with heretics

church of england vs atheists
-atheists do not have adequate motivation to keep promises/oaths, therefore can't be trusted

church of england vs unitarians
-to deny the trinity is blasphemy
?jews, ?muslims
-some argue should be admitted to england and persuaded to convert
-some argue should be executed

arguments for tolerations -LOCKE
-charity requires toleration/christ to be imitated- didn't persecuted
-churches vary/ are volunatry/ no one model/ nothing is more important than eternal salvation
-beliefs/worship don't harm others/ "speculative opinions"
-political society exists to protect rights/property
-force can't convince -works on will not understanding/ counterproductive, creates an aversion to those who use it
-if it could, magistrates would mainly enforce their religion
-trinity is a speculative opinion
-jews should be tolerated as christians are
-? muslims ?catholics
-worship belief are different should be tolerated
-if hold dangerous opinions, obey foreign ruler should not
-atheists should NOT be tolerated, not trustworthy
-the intolerant should not be tolerated

LECTURE. goddamn

he goes over what he covered yesterday again, as well as what's on the board
NOW lets start
France
-very large catholic majority
-huge amounts of religious and civil wars, very very bloody during late 16th century
-after all of these wars, they reluctantly decided to make peace, they were just exhausted
-they didn't change their minds about the other side, they just NEEDED to make peace in order not to keep dying and to establish a stable state
-machiavellian argument
-by late 17th century, france is increasingly building monarchical power, using royal edicts, hugely rich and populous
-substantial standing army
-removed most buffers to massive expansion or royal power
-weakness- protestant worship was tolerated
-louis XIV starts to break down this toleration
-in 1685, he finally uses force, sends dragoons into protestant areas and forces conversion or flee (die)
-~70,000 protestants go into exile
-huge number of them convert, but probably maintain protestant worship in private
-THIS is the context of Locke's treatise on religious toleration
-this is the major reason why the english were so afraid of a catholic monarch

In england, James II fled
-but AFTER he fled, he amassed an army in Ireland, tried to use the army to take back england
-mostly french and irish catholics
netherlands
-huge numbers of protestants flee there, even before the edicts of 1685
-still the most tolerant country in all of europe (jews and muslims even tolerated)
-doesn't officially tolerate catholics, unitarians, or atheists
-large numbers of jews, small numbers of muslims there
-Locke goes into exile there, takes an assumed name, and hides
-netherlands has to fight for their toleration
-why does it limit catholic toleration?
-not because of their religion, but because they support 'dangerous opinions' and hold allegiance to a foreign ruler
-catholics have to obey the pope, are not required to maintain faith with heretics
in france again
-the catholic case against toleration against protestants is almost exactly the same as the anglican case against catholics (minus the pope thing)
protestant dissenters in the netherlands
-you'd think they'd support toleration
-doesn't happen
-they want people to be protestant now. woo
dissenters in england
-mostly again want to establish a state religion
-there are three main groups that argue for toleration
-quakers, baptists, unitarians
-quakers and baptists were pretty much the most reviled people in england
what does locke argue
-in locke's eyes, there are two realms, sacred and secular
-sacred is much more important, but secular cannot affect the sacred realm by force
-church is simply an association of human beings who share a common opinion about faith
-you may leave such an association at any time
-rule by bishops, etc, was NOT right
-politics was a trust, but religion COULDNT be a trust
-magistrate had no concern for the care of souls, because he wasn't so committed by god
-if you believe the wrong things, you're essentially fucked over, but YOU'RE NOT HURTING ANYBODY ELSE, so you can't be persecuted
-if the people weren't persecuted, they wouldn't be seditious
-magistrates CANNOT do things with the sacred realm
-if the magistrate messes up secularly, he can fix it no problem
-if the magistrate messes up in the sacred realm, you're fucked over for eternity
-charity is a duty
-nothing is more important than salvation
-christ tolerated, your goal as a christian is to be like christ!
-locke was basically tolerant of everybody (except muslims, to an extent)
-atheists, however, should NOT be tolerated
-no reason to keep your promises if you don't believe in God
-catholics?
-for their beliefs, for their opinions, for their practices, should be tolerated
-HOWEVER those who are obedient to a foreign ruler, who believe that faith does not need to be kept with heretics, who are intolerant, do NOT need to be tolerated
-basically describing catholics?
-doesn't look like he's looking to name ALL catholics, but only those who practice in the above way
James II vs William and Mary
-James raises a french/irish catholic army
-william has an army of mostly protestant expatriates
-war in ireland is EXTREMELY bloody
-william wins, protestants win
-still celebrated today (orange day parades)
-penal laws established, restricting HEAVILY catholic worship and life

OCC CIV NOTES 11/9

FINAL EXAM DECEMBER 15 FROM 2-5

Notes on board-
1688-91 Revolutions
1688/9 Declaration of rights (Feb 13 1689)

William III + Mary replace James II (1685-8)
-vs "illegal" powres claimed by monarchy
-vs suspening and dispensing powers especially re. catholicism
-vs standing army in time of peace/ taxation without free representation
-FOR free elections/trial by impartial jury + judge, rule f law
-FOR broad religious toleration for orthodox protestants in england

Restoration england- a persecuting society
the justifications alleged for intolerance in restoration england-
-political- dissenters are seditious and treasonous
-ecclesiological- 1) the church had a particular form wihch should be imitated from patristic times
2) the church had no one legitimate form, so the magistrate could determine it
3) theological- use of force prompts consideration and conversion and saves souls- it ISNT 'persecution'



LECTURE
why did the revolutions happen?
-monarchy was becoming very strong in the 1680s
-locke flees to the netherlands in exile
-has to hide in peoples houses, live under an assumed name, only go out at night, because people are sent to hunt him down and execute him
-monarchy has money, controls judges + juries, is basically absolutist
-there were still SOME weaknesses in the monarchy
-many nobles still wanted to have rule of law, rule by parliament
-people were still worried about the king's massive power over the judiciary
-support of tories (huge group) was given to the church AS WELL AS the monarchy
-if the king fought against the church, he loses the support of the tories
-the king also might die
-if he dies, his brother gets the throne, his brother's catholic
-1685- French King Louis XIV forced all of his subjects to convert or go into exile or prison
-this scares people in england, huge check on religious freedom is what they see
-there's another nation across the channel- HOLLAND
-FIERCELY protestant
-the ruler of the netherlands is a kind of limited elected monarchy kind of
-'monarch' of holland was MARRIED to the next in line after James II to the throne
-in 1685, the king dies, James II gets the throne
-if he had supported the church, kept limiting franchise but having a parliament, didn't have children, he would have been OK. he did none of these things
-supported religious toleration, but historians question his motives in doing so
-to support religious toleration, James II is required to suspend the laws that persecute catholics in england
-now catholics can hold office, be employed, INCLUDING the army
-does this not just in england, but also in IRELAND, where the majority of the population was catholic
-remodels the franchise to get rid of Protestant dissenters, basically switches the franchise exactly backwards from the previous king
-cuts out of the franchise the entire protestant anglican base, gives the power to about 6% of the population who are dissenters or catholic
-James has a child. bad plan
-people realize that his kid will be raised catholic, the army's catholic, now catholics are employed, this spells return of catholicism. bad for english people.
-William III looks at this and sees that his wife is next in line to the english throne
-sees that if protestant england falls, protestant Holland will soon fall after
-decides to INVADE ENGLAND
-idiot
-invades in 1688/9, on pretense that some nobles have invited him in and also that the child of James II was not actually his child, so there was a fraudulent heir
-said that he was invading to protect his wife's line to the throne
-james decides to flee.
-idiot
-james might have won, even though he's alienated the vast majority of the population
-english gather in parliament to figure out just what the fuck happened
-lots of works were written and sent in (like Locke's treatises)
-some argue that kings cannot be lawfully deposed, James II's grandchildren will come back to claim their right to the throne
-others argue that a republic is the way to go again
-these were the extreme arguments
-moderate arguments- william and mary now have the throne, we must now obey them, however they got the power
-William Sherlock writes 'Case of Allegiance'- huge huge HUGE circulation (>30,000 copies in an electorate of ~100,000)
-another argument- the king, by fleeing, has abdicated, rule passes to the next in law
-this would be his son, but his son's not legitimate, so mary gets it
-they write up the declaration of rights, present it to the new king, he 'accepts' it
-when he accepts it, he doesn't really agree to it persay, but whatever

Locke
-theorist for armed resistance (ends up being unnecessary)
-people have rights to establish any sort of government they wish (again unnecessary)
-pretty much completely ignored
-his works really come into play in teh american revolution
Religious Intolerance
-restoration england is a society of persecution
-last time in english history where everybody tried to secure religious uniformity by coercive means
-argued for 'holy violence'
-the magistrate needs to make 'pious use of the sword'
-thousands of dissenters imprisoned and killed
-to hold office or earn franchise, you had to take the sacrament
three arguments offered to justify this policy
-first (political)
-other religions were dissenters and seditious, caused bloodshed in the past, so kill them
-for a society to be secure, only one religion could exist
-stable society is necessary
-if people disagree with religion, they will fight, not stable!!
-second (ecclesiological)
-EITHER- the church has a particular form which should be imitated, primitive form of the church
-OR- the church has varied over time, so the MAGISTRATE determines what is best
-third (theological or philosophical)
-inherited essentially from Augustine
-'when the saving gifts of the church were in question, coercive force was a gift'
-coercive discipline was the name of the game
-you should compel people to come into the church, this doing a favor for them
-someone who used force against a religious deviant was to 'save souls'
-Augustine himself converted
-came to realize that he was much better off after conversion
-so the argument is that once people are converted, even by force, they will be glad that you converted them, so use force now
-Augustine's works are CEASELESSLY cited during this time in defense of intolerance
-it's often said that force can't convert people
-Augustine recognizes this, but has an answer
-maybe by using force, you'll read a book you wouldn't have before, or go to church where you wouldn't have before, so it's not the FORCE that converts you, it's the RESULTS
-for Augustine, the use of force was NOT persecution
-persecution was ONLY force against the truth, not against falsehood
-therefore all of the violence being used against people was 'a charitable use of force out of concern of the souls of others'

IP NOTES 11/8

(HOLDOVER FROM LAST LECTURE)
US Policy centers around moving both hierarchy and anarchy towards negarchy, anarchy on the system level and hierarchy on the unit level
-this was especially huge during the cold war
-AFTER the cold war, the US had built up a massive National Security System
-NSS was far, far, far beyond anything ever envisioned before, there was sooo much military power in a 'limited government'
-so after the cold war, the US doesn't move towards cobinding
-this is basically because the US doesn't become hierarchy, but rather maintains its limited government
-essentially, after the cold war the US flip flops roles- from encouraging up-and-coming states to trying to beat them down, because they're competition
neoCons become a large factor in post-cold war decision-making, moves towards old-style european state system
#18 Liberalism (II): Democratic Peace

I Modern Democracy and Peace
Kant's Three Articles
three different articles he wrote
1) republican civic constitution
-a republic is NOT a democracy
-a true democracy is DESPOTIC
2) Pacific Union
-polities that organize themselves in this way will end up with 'amity treaties'
-the amity treaties do NOT constitute authoritative union or government
3) Cosmopolitan Hospitality
-foreigners are treated well
-rights of commerce and trade will be respected
as a system, this isnt really all that different from the realist view
they essentially believe that restraint leads to peace
Democracy as Cause of Peace (4)
1) citizens are gonna bear the costs of war
-war is the 'sport of kings' while the people get killed
2) institutional checks
-executive power is restrained
-wars are made possible because of the secrecy of states and diplomacy
-this is checked by liberal TRANSPARENCY
-with transparency, war goes way way down
3) commerce
-to produce and trade with a country is far superior to conquesting them
4) norms
-democracies are like one another (there is an affinity between democracies)
-with commerce rising, the militaristic tendencies decline significantly
-pacific tendency
Empirical Testing and Five Caveats
are democracies actually tempered this way?
has there been enough time to test the theory adequately?
1) how do you define democracy?
-when you get this kind of definition, you have to discard like 4 or 5 wars just in recent history
2) Great power politics
nobody really cares about small countries, but they're countries, right? not really...
3) geographic
-doesnt matter if two democracies dont go to war if they physically cant
4) timing
-really only post cold war are the times when this shit had been tested
-hasnt really been too much time for democracies to squabble
5) covert intervention
-so when the US overthrows democratically elected regimes, does that count as a war?
Publius Before Kant: Fed-Rep Security before Democratic Peace
federal-republican security ends up being much much more important than kantian democratic peace
republic + federal union yields increase in size yields increase in security
-VI and VIC again?
had it not been for the USA, would there be other democracies in the world?
-look back at 1941-43, when democracies were basically getting shanked one after another, except for the US and just barely Great Britain
-democracies are just GONE without the US, especially in that period
where are these democracies post WWII?
-ALLIED with the US!!
-essentially they exist as an extension of US security- against USSR and china

II Democracies and Non-Democracies
BoP Performance (4)
democracies are a PROBLEM for the balance of power AND for sovereignty
Features of democracies, realists think it's bad, liberals think it's good
1) pacific
-Realists say it invites aggression
-liberals say it avoids security dilemma
2) divided/open debates
-realists say that this leads to SLOW decisionmaking
-liberals say that this leads to BETTER policies, this is the reason that non-democratic states tend to fail, because their policies are just worse
3) democratic norms
-realists say ideology > interests, this is BAD for security (can't have 'sentimental attachments')
-liberals say you make allies this way, and it might just be in your interests anyways
4) limited war decreases
-realists say that conflict is totalized, huge absolute losses
-liberals say that it leads to total victory, as well as reconstruction
Sovereignty vs Intervention (3)
liberal states tend to invade a hell of a lot more than other states, not respecting Westphalian sovereignty
why?
1) Liberal states end up protecting property and assets of their citizens
2) they fight against tyrants
3) co-nationals
-'entangling alliances of unmentable ethnics'
-indians come to US, mobilize a voting block, and india gets nukes. wtf

Subversion and Revolution
liberal states dont tend to overtly fight against states all that much
basically, the US, they say, is the embodiment of an idea, rather than just a state
-this in and of itself is subversive
-promotes 'liberal one-worldism' and the 'end of history'

Nationalist Populism: Diversion Theory
class conflict here, the people (lower class) want to redistribute property
what does the high class do?
-mobilize nationalist sentiment to start a war, keep people occupied
-fun fun fun!

IP NOTES 11/7

#17 Liberalism (I): Republics and Security

I Introduction
Realism, Liberalism, and Republicanism
Realism and Liberalism are both ideas that come from republicanism
Republicanism -> realism
-main ideas
-Anarchy
-balance of power
-society of states
Republicanism -> Liberalism
-main ideas
-defense politics
-commercial peace
-various ideas of unions
Main Questions
Liberalism is an alternative to the hierarchical movement away from anarchy, towards negarchy
-proto-USA is the prime example of a state NOT BOUND by the westphalian model, but by liberal tenets, or something like that

there are differences in kind and differences in degree between polities

II Polis Republicanism
Polis Militarism

Iron Law (I): Smallness
found the lecture! yes!
First "Iron Law"-> polis had to be small, meant military weakness
-tended to depend on various geographic features
-the basic conclusion was that these sort of polities would be rare
-another conclusion- the entire societies would have to be incredibly military-oriented, just to survive (mil virtu)
-fear of commerce
-the polities end up being ILLIBERAL, much less individual rights
-they have to be militaristic and imperialistic just to survive
SOLVING THE SECURITY DILEMMA BREAKS THE FIRST IRON LAW, yields huge polities, etc
Iron Law (II): Expansion
Roman model- security through expansion, also results in the end of political liberty
-as size grows, socioeconomic stratification increases, class conflict increases
-rich get richer, poor get poorer, ends in repression, lack of individual rights, monarchical systems
-expansion gives much much more power to the armies, ends in monarchy
-iron law 2 fucks you over as well

III Early Modern Republicanism
Venice, Holland, Britain are all ANOMALIES
-they have 'virtu ex machina
-having capital and technology means that you DONT NEED TO MILITARIZE YOUR PEOPLE, can focus on commerce, etc
-commerce goes way way up, allows for much much more liberalism
-wealth gets translated into military capability, permits military 'virtu' WITHOUT the associated costs of popular military virtu
Maritime Whiggery
he skipped it?
Constitutionalism and Representation
originally, sizes of polities were limited by the boundaries of direct representation
-once representation was developed, much larger polities are now possible
Enlightenment Repulicanism
Montesque, publius
Kant and Smith are two other scholars of excellence of enlightenment republicanism

IV The Philadelphian System
Four Security Threats
fourfold security threat
Internal and External Hierarchy and Anarchy
Internal- H= Despotism A= Civil War
External- H= Empire A= War

Republican Negarchy
Negarchy- MUTUAL RESTRAINT
-alternative to BOTH anarchy and hierarchy
-characteristics of republics and states unions- NEGARCHIC
Extended Popular Sovereign
Sovereignty- the Ultimate undivided source of legitimate authority
authority- exercise of legitimate power
westphalian sovereignty- autonomy of polity
problem- sovereignty is spread out over the American polity
-solution- DELEGATE SOVEREIGNTY, but make sure that there's no usurpation
-you delegate sovereignty to different organs in such a manner so that they don't coalesce into despotism
-this is essentially checks and balances
-power restraints!!
-ultimate restraint- right of revolt
Cobinding and States Union
how the hell do we get cobinding from the thirteen different states?
why leave anarchy?
-the founders believed that if they stayed in an anarchic system of 13 states, conflict would lead to hierarchy
-the thirteen republics would eventually cease to be republics
-huge problem here
-essentially they replicated their internal republican workings on a larger scale
-they created a 'states union'- negarchy
-this is opposed to a 'state system' in europe, anarchy
Arms Control
founders were EXTREMELY CAREFUL to retain a republican system of arms control
who controls the arms ultimately controls the polity
-they wanted to keep the standing army as small and powerless as possible
-warmaking was another outlet for arms control, left in the hands of the elected legislature
-militia- states armies
-ARMED PEOPLE was the final, biggest check on forced hierarchy
Domesticated Balance of Power
the balance of power here is muffled, rather than thrown away altogether

V Phil in Westphalian
Hiding, Balancing, and Co-binding
essentially, the US is insufficiently socialized, not enough internal hierarchy

Geopolitics of H, B, and CoB
security evaluation
Hierarchy- H (NO) B (YES) CoB (NO)
Republicanism - H(YES) B (NO) CoB (YES)

Logic of US Foreign Policy
the US is essentially forced out of isolationism
-no more hiding allowed anymore
-'make the world safe for democracy'
-they try to transmute anarchy to negarchy AND hierarchy to negarchy
-system-level anarchy goes to negarchy
-unit-level hierarchy goes to negarchy
again, why do we do this?
-we value our limited government constitutionalism, and if we stay in anarchy or the way things are, we LOSE OUR OWN DEMOCRACY
-we're forced towards hierarchy

CoB and Relative Absolute Gains
as violence interdependence increases, absolute losses become VERY HIGH
-IE total war
answer- COBINDING and MUTUAL RESTRAINT (negarchy YAY!)

Raamin Mostaghimi
November 7, 2006
Occ Civ Section 8

SUMMARY FOR JOHN LOCKE'S SECOND TREATISE ON GOVERNMENT

Locke in his second treatise moves away from directly answering his contemporaries (read: Filmer's Patriarcha) to expounding more on his ideals of how a government should be run and why it is established in the first place. Interestingly (perhaps considering Locke's background and pride in his nobility), Locke's ideals result in something approaching popular sovereignty and rule by will of the people. This may just be the best case of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' that I've seen in a while, because while Locke most likely sets out only to protect his own power from the government by assuring limited powers of monarchy and limiting rule by fiat, he ends up giving huge powers to the rest of society as well as a simple matter of philosophical consistency (it's much much easier to generalize and say 'all people have the right to revolt' than it is to say 'group x but not group y has the right to revolt' because then you have to individually justify each decision you make). Locke's idea that resistance is a RIGHT rather than a DUTY, and reserved to ALL people ALL the time, rather than select few in moments of extraordinary need is really something revolutionary at the time, and even today for that matter. The idea that the people of America, for instance, should have the right to just up and say 'we don't like the government, let's have a new one' is something that I at least find a bit troubling, an idea that may lead to great preservation of individual liberties but makes for terrible consistency in governance. Another revolutionary aspect of his thought was the idea that all men are born in a state of equality, rather than some noble and some non-noble, etc. I find this interesting, once again especially coming from such a proud member of the gentry.

QUESTIONS
1) How did Locke reconcile his beliefs of equality with his noble status?

2) Did Locke really 'sell out' when he wrote the Carolina constitution, or was that actually consistent with his writings?

OCC CIV NOTES 11/3

Read Locke's Second Treatise for section

Regime in England may have been a failure essentially because it was a military coup, and remained military for some time
Cromwell's people who he put in charge were essentially his military friends, who were very unpopular with the population
-walked into areas around the country and started ruling
-abolished things like xmas and carnival
-very very unpopular

Cromwell's regime was AGAIN resisted by the republicans
-Cromwell's regime was essentially tyrannical, almost more so than the monarchy
-the single most prominent effect of the regicide was a huge support for royalism
-people started comparing life under the royalty to life under Cromwell, realized that Cromwell just sucks
As soon as Cromwell dies in 1660 (or within 2 years), EVERYTHING is put back into place
-royalty, bishops, other religious and secular hierarchy, carnival culture all reestablished
-they ended up giving even more power to the king
-in the years after the execution of the king, people start to say that the king gets his power directly from God, king is accountable to nobody else
-essentially James VI and I's views

Sir Robert Filmer wrote Patriarcha, ended up being the key text supporting monarchical superiority
-filmer says that king's power is from god alone, and to god alone is he accountable
-patriarchal power is also royal (father over his family)
-if this is so, then Adam (first man) is the king of all men, as he's the father of all men
-Adam is Father, King, and Lord
-all kings are simply descendants of Adam
-Adam was Monarch of the whole world, people only owned things by his grace
-Eve was Adam's subject ('He shall rule over thee')
-Monarchy was the first government on earth
-monarchy MUST BE ABSOLUTE
-no such thing as tyranny, no such thing as just resistance
-parliament only exists by the grace of the monarchy
-monarchy existed before parliament, therefore it was better
-everybody born after Adam (everybody) was born a slave, but for his grace
-Adam owned all property as king, therefore all contemporary kings owned all the property in the land
-basically, you own things at his pleasure, and he can take shit from you whenever
-'a son, a subject, a slave are but one. there is no such thing as tyranny'
-even more radical than James VI and I

Locke's First and Second treatise were written in response to filmer
-first treatise is a direct response
-2nd is less direct, but a response nonetheless
-there are 3 central contentions by locke
-the right of resistance to tyranny is reserved to the people at all times
-more liberal than some who believed that only certain people could resist
-the possibility of resistance is straightforward a RIGHT, not a DUTY
-huge difference there from others, who believed that it was the 'duty' to have a godly society
-right of resistance is treated as a possession of each and every individual
-humans were originally free, transferred sovereignty to governments AT THEIR PLEASURE, can resist at any point at all
predecessors of Locke
-buchanan
-john mayor
-jacque almach (sp?)

we read locke now as an exponent of classical liberalism
-we should know what liberalism is.... yay IP
-limited govt
-avoidance of arbitrary power
-sanctity of private property
-responsibilities of individuals for their own fates
-humans are born in a state of perfect freedom, a state of equality
-is totally AGAINST arbitrary power
-also has the big three- life, property, pursuit of happiness
-jefferson loved this guy

locke wrote this in a period with MAJOR censorship
-people would be hanged, drawn, and quartered for other censored materials
-for making similar arguments, other writers were actually executed
-locke had to flee to the netherlands to save himself from execution
-wrote anonymously

who was locke?
-he was a gentleman, and extremely proud of it
-absentee land owner, lived for most of his life off of the rent
-he was a speechwriter and political analyst at one point
-would advise an Earl on his reading, what he should read to be educated, etc
-argued that the problem of the poor in society was simply because of the lack of discipline and manners
-did this while he served on the board of trade during the 1690s
-argued that the poor were just pretending to be unable to work, would put them in labor camps on the ports or throw them in jail
-children should be whipped if begging outside their parish, women incarcerated and forced into labor for the same offense
-thing is, these sorts of things were so common in the day that he was actually reducing the number of such punishments
-except that he removes age restrictions on corporal punishment, is the first to advocate wholesale incarceration of the poor and elderly
-his entire philosophy is based on manual labor rather than education
-lets go back to the 1660s, before he wrote his treatises
-he aided in the drafting of the carolina colony
-was explicit in restricting the democracy in the colony
-established a hereditary monarchical society, with a parliament made of landowners
-provided for 'leet men' (haha), essentially serfs bound to the land
-believed that it was a bad thing for men who were poor to write laws that would affect the rich, or even themselves
-established that slaveowners could dictate their slaves religions
-was a stockholder in the royal africa company (brought slaves back and forth)
-locke in even his treatises was that slavery was OK in the case that the person had participated in an 'unjust war'
-did NOT support hereditary slavery

so how did Locke become a supporter of resistance?
-1678-81 -> there was a huge debate in parliament over whether to exclude the brothers of the king from succession
-why? because the king's brother was catholic, and the parliament believed that the protestants would be executed by him
-king refused
-parliament AND the people (led by the whigs) kept demanding to exclude him
-the Whigs started to debate over what the powers of the king were, Whigs wanted to limit it, Tories wanted to expand it
-King decides to try and rule by himself, without parliament (because they were just getting annoying)
-Charles II (the king at the time) actually had the money to rule without parliament, so it might actually work!
-but this isnt all the king wants
-wants to get rid of his opponents, also ensure that he could call a parliament that would be favorable to him
-did this by just not letting his opponents vote
-changed also the method of appointment of juries to be more favorable to him
-essentially just buttfucks the republican system
-essentially, the king is able to decide who he wants to try and execute, and can do so
-attempts to try and execute the earl of chaffsbury
-initially the jury was pro-Earl, didnt let him get tried and/or executed
-the king just changed the juries again
-locke in the 2nd treatise essentially demands rule by LAW, not by FIAT
-first argument made was that men join political society to 'punish with a fair determination of law'
-read the second treatise
-people could resist if they feared that tyranny could be imposed
-called what the king was doing to the Earl 'perverted law'
-at the center of his concerns was the power of the king to execute the king's opponents
-essentially, locke wasn't his huge liberal idealist, he just doesnt want to get killed
-he has a vested interest in the social hierarchy
-the real reason he has for opposing absolute monarchy is essentially because the king is trying to execute his patron, and will probably kill him well
-'the threat of execution tends to concentrate the mind wonderfully'
-to make the case, he generalizes
-argues for large numbers of non-specific rights
-'life, liberty, and property'
-there are ways to defend these rights, as well as others
-still believes that servants, slaves can exist
-argues that labor creates a large amount of value, but should not necessarily be rewarded with the full value
-work isnt for the laborer
-the function of government is to protect property
-preserves massive inequality in property and wealth
-if you fail to work the land, we can come and take it
-justification for taking the lands of indians
-does locke give the right to resist when gov't is NOT tyrannical?
-not really, no
-does locke guarantee the right to franchise?
-again, nope
-locke's arguments are those of resistance to, not participation in government
-argues that men should rule because they are 'abler and stronger'
-believed that if you talked about natural rights, you'd have to find ways to strip women and children of rights

OCC CIV NOTES 11/2

reasons for the revolution
-no taxation without representation
-NOT about questioning sovereignty
-DID NOT question hierarchies of gender, wealth, etc
-new model army essentially forces the english hand with regards to democracy
-this forms the idea of natural rights

Ireton says
-property is a necessary thing
-the poor have rights, but not as many as the rich
-fuck you, poor
-all males need not have equal rights

Rainsborough says
-why does property exist?
-comes from unjust feudalism
-you NEED universal male suffrage

oops wikiracing

Revolution
-Army had been fighting the civil war for years
-army was filled with veterans of horrible early modern war
-army's pissed off at the king
-debate over regicide now
-john milton becomes the premier defender of regicide
-they also argue that his blood needs to be spilled to keep the land and people from suffering further
-they argue that if you do not punish in the name of God those who deserve it, God will punish you
-Milton writes the tenure of kings and magistrates
-tyrants are beasts and need to be taken out of power
-the people can legally and morally resist and dethrone a king

3 big challenges to the revolution

1) 1649-1650 sees the emergence of a group in england which calls themselves the 'true levelers'
-or the 'diggers'
-they take over the common land with the purpose of creating a communist haven
-they linked communism to christianity
-god required communism, in their view
-all should be equal, because all are equal in the eyes of god
-they argued against property, but didnt forcibly take any away
-believed that heaven and hell didnt exist, they were fictions made by the rich to subjugate the poor
-the real heaven should be love and brotherhood on earth
-they just get slaughtered, because they're pacifists

2) Quakers enjoy much more support
-didn't advocate for communism
-they believe that things could belong to people
-they argued that the holy spirit worked equally in all, men and women alike
-they didnt respect such social niceties as removing your hat when you meet a superior, or calling them 'sir' or 'ma'am'
-there are female preachers among quakers as well
-most quakers spent much time in prison

3) Republicanism
-most of the power went to oliver cromwell
-people started getting pissed
-there's a huge upswelling of republicanism after the regicide
-pissed at cromwell, who they see as a king or tyrant
-lots of texts published that happened to be circulated through the americas

CON LAW NOTES 11/1

Slaughterhouse cases- 1873
-essentially blocked enforcement of the 14th amendment for ~75 years
-READ THEM
there are descriptions of two cases in the supplement which we should read to understand standing to sue
-1st case- involves Daimler-Chrysler (Daimler-Chrysler vs Cuno (page 10))
-ohio offered a tax credit to Daimler-Chrysler to expand operations in ohio
-question- Who has standing to sue?
-a bunch of taxpayers got together and sued, arguing that it posed a burden on the taxpayers
-it was decided that the taxpayers didnt have the requisite interest to bring the case
-2nd case involves gerrymandering
-challenge to Tom Delay's effort to gerrymander texas to score a bunch of seats
-again, who has standing to sue? god only knows

Political Questions Doctrine
-there are some times when the supreme court need not to decide a case, and there has to be some rationale for doing so
-seeds of this doctrine in Marbury v Madison
-Luther v Borden is a good example of this case. for some reason
-happened in Rhode Island, was pretty much like a small civil war, with an insurgency and a competing government
-insurgency sued with the question of whether the Rhode Island charter violated the guaranteeing of a republican form of government clause in the constitution
-supreme court ruled that this was non-justiciable

Child Labor amendment- proposed because the senate wanted control over child labor
-question in a case with this amendment:
-does the lieutenant governor have the right to cast a tie-breaking vote in a ratification tie?
-court pussied out again

prior to 1842, congressional representatives could be elected 'at large'
-at that point, the court ruled something like 'one man one vote'

aaannnnnnnnndd i stopped taking notes.

IP NOTES 11/1

Side Category: International Law
Criminal Law
extradition is another nice concept that works in international law
-bilateral treaties are another
-usually you send people back for "political crimes"
-"extraordinary rendition"- when you go and essentially kidnap someone
Merchant Law
more like economic law here, not really political
something like contracts that are enforceable in the courts of both countries
Regime Law
different from all of the above
-it's extremely uneven, in some ways really powerful, some ways very weak
-the WTO, for instance, is EXTREMELY powerful
-but many environmental laws and organizations are pretty damn weak
Universal Declarations
random normative statements, especially from the UN
not really carrying any power to strong states
#14 Constructivism

I Constructivism: General
-Atomism
atomism- individuals are the unit actors
taken at least mostly from economics, micro especially
-Instrumentalism and Materialism
instrumentalism- behavior is a MEANS to an end
materialism- emphasis on power and wealth
-Identities and Interests Exogenous
ideas/identities, common understanding, norms SHAPE interests
constructivists dont take preferences as given, they try to explain them
constructivist idea is that the three things above are SOCIAL

Sociological Alternative
social- shit. look above

Types of Facts
-Brute Facts
-basically contextual shit. things that are OBJECTIVE
-mountain ranges are here, there is water here, etc
-Subjective Facts
-a fact which exists at the level of perceptions or misperceptions
-Social Facts
-a fact which exists solely because of inner subjective understandings
-constructivists want to say that sovereignty is an social fact
-Norms and Norm change
-people in politics believe that certain things are right and wrong
-problem is that NORMS CHANGE with time
-example, decline of colonialism
-norms are rules of appropriate behavior
-Types of Rules
-2 types
-regulative rules
-example- traffic laws
-they're good because they're necessary for safety, etc
-constitutive rules
-example- games
-football, for instance, means nothing at all without the rules
Wendt's System-Level Constructivism
Return to Idealism
-Realism v Idealism
-idealism- world politics SHOULD be this way- this is essentially bullshit
-wendt talks about realist Idealism
-he's saying that things can be real without being realist
-Normative Idealism vs realist Idealism
-normative idealism- good and bad
-realist idealism- not really sure

Three Cultures of Anarchy
Hobbesean- states are enemies
Lockean- states are rivals
Kantian- states are friends

you measure these according to the degree of institution. for some reason
the kantian idea is that if states are friends, it doesnt matter what the degree of institution is
neorealist belief- IR is essentially Lockean with a core of Kantian beliefs between certain states

IP NOTES 10/31

#14 International Society

I International Society
English School and "Grotian Model"
English school- Henry Bull ("The Anarchical Society")
states are like billiard balls with tenuous cobwebs between them
there are three other real categories of theories
Hobbesian- System of States- Entirely self-interest
Grotian- Society - self-interest + morality
Kantian- World Society- morality trumps self interest

Hobbesian- constant war
grotian- there is war, yes, but also periods of peace
kantian- perpetual peace
Presuppositions (3)
1) Must be a balance of power
-when a balance of power breaks down, the societal approach does not operate
2) Responsible great powers
-the great powers take responsibility for the ordering of the system
3) the presence of common civilization
-basically that western-style governance is predominant
II Sovereignty
Two Faces
Westphalian ideal (1648)
1) the inside face
-within the polity, there is some form of final authority
2) the outside face (more important)
-there is a relation of mutually recognized autonomy

Exclusivity, Equality, and Non-Intervention
1) states are exclusive
-there is a difference between a TREATY and a CONTRACT
-only SOVEREIGNS make treaties
2) all sovereigns are equal as sovereigns
-this doesn't mean that they all have the same power, but all are recognized equally
3) when states recognize eachother as autonomous, they say that they won't intervene in eachother's internal affairs
From European to Global
first non-european state to claim sovereignty was the US
-this was because the US and other smaller countries wanted recognition as sovereigns, to keep the europeans out
post WWII there was a huge outbreak of claiming sovereignty
-the UN is an example of this- a club of sovereigns
III Role in World Politics
Positive consequences (2)
1) conflicts are limited
-civil wars do not so readily become international wars
-nice containment principle here
2) constraint on power
-weak states make HUGE gains by claiming sovereignty
Negative Consequences (2)
1) state apparatus becomes privileged
-big issue- internal oppression
-everything becomes an internal matter
-one of the main features of international liberalism- cut down sovereignty
-whenever peoples are oppressed, it is the responsibility of the free peoples of the world to fight for them
2) impedes collective action
Modifying Sovereignty (2)
1) add responsibilities to sovereignty, make sure the countries know that they have to do certain things to remain sovereign
2) UN intervention
-in the wake of the cold war, the UN became very active

IV Diplomacy
Origins

Features (2)
permanent conversation between states
diplomatic immunity
V International Law
Elements of Law
Americans aren't bound by Russian law, or vice versa
1) code of rules have to be present (YES)
2) court, some judges must be present (KINDA)
3) must be some element of enforcement (GOD NO)

From Grotius to Vattel
idea of a "ius gentium"
-there are certain types of behavior that everybody can agree on as unjust
"Law of Nations" (1758)
-talked about states

Treaties, Neutrality, & Laws of War
idea that treaties may change, but states don't
-treaties are binding, but not necessarily permanent
neutrality- when two states are at war, a third state can declare itself neutral and not be bothered
Laws of War
-proportionality
-war is not to affect civilians
-noncombatants are safe
-after WWII, we get things like the Geneva Conventions to ensure this
International Court of Justice
the Hague ~1900
ICJ
there is a neutral arbitrator
Sovereign Immunity
criminal AND civil immunity from suit
cause you're a sovereign
Genocide and War Crimes
Nuremburg + Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal
Bosnia, the people are tried as well
Milosevic was turned over to the Hague where he actually stood trial
International Criminal Court
The US is basically leading the international opposition to the ICC
Clinton signed the treaty in his last hours of the presidency
-bush UNSIGNED it
we're pissed about this because it takes away from our sovereignty
US gets the ability to try its own citizens FIRST, THEN if they're not tried the ICC can try them

CON LAW NOTES 10/30

Standing to sue! the sexiest topic ever!

three questions to answer when you're deciding a case
-jurisdiction- are we allowed to decide the case?
-standing to sue- is the plaintiff allowed to bring the case?
-Justiciability- is it a good idea to decide this case?

standing to sue really only came into play pretty recently
-origins were political
-fostered by some of the more liberal justices of the 1930s (brandeis, frankfurter)
-they were trying to protect the New Deal from the court, by making sure people didnt have the standing to bring cases
-nowadays, the doctrine is more used by the conservatives
-has roots in Article 3 AND is prudential
-basically, the doctrines are incoherent and contradictory

there's one case that encapsulates all of these questions. yay
-the Lujane case? lujan? fuck.
-involved several ardent environmentalists
-suing to force the secretary of state to force environmental rules onto other countries which they wanted to visit
-essentially, the secretary of state had no jurisdiction to force rules onto other countries
-scalia writes up a nice doctrine for standing to sue
-1) must have suffered an injury in fact, not a pretend one. must be real, but not necessarily physical
-2) must show a causal connection between the injury and the conduct or law complained of (must be traceable to the actions sued for)
-3) the injury must be redressable (assuming that the first two tests are met, this is the question of whether the supreme court or the party sued can do anything about it)
-4) oops. maybe three

another interesting case- US vs SCRAP
-SCRAP= students challenging regulatory something procedures
-scrap became an unincorporated organization
-they sued the interstate commerce commission to suspend a temporary surcharge on freight rails
-their alleged injury was that a general rate increase causes an increase in the use of raw materials, causes more junk and trash in the parks, which they use
-wtf.
-court accepts this. for some reason
-they say that there's an 'attenuated line of causation'

right now, the Rehnquist and Roberts courts are pretty hostile using standing to sue
-cause they're more conservative
-the warren court was more liberal, opened up the courts more. interesting, no?

original cases that were nice and defined standing to sue:
-Frothingham v. Melon
-Massachucetts v. Melon
-Melon was the secretary of the treasury
-mrs. frothingham was a citizen of mass.
-sued the sec. of the treasury under the maternity act of 1921, trying to stop the money from being spent
-the maternity act was money spent by congress given to states that would be used to reduce infant mortality
-she argued that this was a power reserved by the state, NOT given to the federal government
-also argued that it was unconstitutional because it would increase her tax burden, taking her property without due process (5th amendment)
-unanimous rejection of Mrs. Frothingham's case because of lack of jurisdiction
-first, Frothingham had too minute an interest to permit her to sue on 5th amendment grounds, and if these cases were allowed, everybody would challenge everything
-BTW, for personal knowledge, if you want to sue for something like this, you have to actually be harmed first (so you have to actually pay the tax before you can sue against it)
-2nd, she showed NO SIGN of personal injury. supreme court cannot decide cases in the abstract

in 1965, congress passed a bill known as the secondary school education act
-first major funding bill for secondary schools in the US by the federal govt
-this was mostly in the form of block grants
-in order to pass the bill, the supporters had to agree to an amendment that said that the bill would not only fund public schools, but also private and parochial schools
-back in that time, nearly every single private school was catholic
-lyndon johnson signed the bill, assuming that the courts would just strike down the religious school part of the bill
-this led to the case: Flast v Cohen
-cohen was basically the secretary of education
-flast was a plaintiff
-the court rules that Frothingham was not an absolute barrier to a taxpayer suit
-the warren court rules that a taxpayer could bring a lawsuit, under specific circumstances
-for instance, if he brought a constitutional question
-Flast met the tests, Frothingham didn't
standing to sue, however, has still been relatively scaled back

OCC CIV NOTES 10/27

English Civil Wars 1642-6, 1648
1645 New Model Army/ Debates over sovereignty, natural (native) rights
Execution of Charles I 1649/Declaration of Republic/Abolition of House of Lords
Abolition of Church of England's Monopoly on religion/Growth of Protestant sects/Including presbyterians, congregationists, quakers, baptists
Collapse of press censorship/debates over all hierarchies-social, religious, political, gender

in 1640, england had a hereditary monarchy, with a small group of hereditary nobles (60-150), and ~15,000 gentlemen
-population was ~5 million
-had a significant middling group as well (yoman farmers, etc)
-vast majority of the population was dirt poor
-since the poor had nothing at all, not even food for themselves, they could never make any money
-once you have enough food to have even a tiny bit of surplus, you can sell it during famine, and make big bucks
-this means the middle and upper classes can actually profit off of famine
-enclosure starts up around this time as well
-much more efficient than communal farming
-even though the middle class is gaining economic power (by selling food in famine), it's not gaining any political power
-england had a bicameral system, house of lords (hereditary) and house of commons (elected)
-house of commons had very limited franchise- you need a certain amount of property, a certain amount of status in the town/city, etc
English monarchy was extremely powerful
-king had the power to enforce law, appoint people, remove them, etc
-however, he LACKED a certain amount of power
-kings lack the power to tax, this must come from the parliament
-as a consequence of this, the monarchy was constantly short of money
-king also doesn't have the power to appoint the juries in a court, even if the judge is
-king tries all sorts of things to raise money, cause he really really needs it
-one such practice was forced loans- you loan me money or i throw you in jail
-misdirection also employed (give me money to build ships! gets money, builds banquet halls)
There is another religious divide
-even though the official church is protestant, large parts of culture were still catholic, presbyterian, etc
-Puritans believe that the church of england is corrupt, needs reform
-some peace out to go to america
-some stay in england, try to reform the church
-they see that the church promotes a carnivalesque, idle, and poor lifestyle
-they can't reform, because the king (head of the church) won't reform
-king won't reform because he himself is idle, etc
-they HUGELY oppose the king
-when the King has to call a parliament (he's forced by angry scots), its a bad thing...
-sends anglican bishops to scotland, they have to be armed in the pulpits to stay alive
-calls parliament, concedes to every single one of the political demands, none of the religious ones, also wants to have a standing army
-parliament refuses the army, calls up its own army
-civil war starts!
-parliament creates the 'new model army' during the first civil war (1642-6)
-new model army- opens up the ranks to non-nobles, extremely religiously radical, is a NATIONAL army, not a regional army
-parliament is RETARDED... doesn't PAY THE ARMY...
-HE SAID 'YE GODS!!!!' YE GODS!!!!
-army gets angry. starts killing shit
-parliament sees this. makes ANOTHER mistake. starts to disband the army WITHOUT PAYING IT
-the LEVELERS are another big group, explains the civil war
-they're huge proponents of natural or native rights
-the people elect 'agents' to defend their view of what they've been fighting for.
-1647 a document is published with the agreement of the agents and people
-essentially is a proposal for a written constitution based on natural rights
-believed that the people in general should have franchise, not just the wealthy
-believed that the representative assembly (house of commons) should have supreme authority
-believed that the law should apply equally to all subjects, and they also have the entitlement to dissent from government policy (including religious worship)
-the Putney Debates are held to talk about this shit
-the leveler send representatives
-the rank and file officers of the army send reps
-the noble officers send reps
-BUT!!! if we're all gonna be equal, what happens to individual property?
-cromwell and the other nobles argue that if the commoners are enfranchised, then they'd surely take away property, take away property rights
-levelers (rainsborough) argue for total male democracy
-argues 'why should we respect property since it comes from tyranny anyways?' (norman conquest of 1066 gave most landowners their lands)
-debate breaks up after rainsborough calls a general assembly of the army
-at that moment, the king escapes from custody, another civil war starts
-in this civil war, solidarity is more important than ideological squabbles
-there are a few mutinies, but cromwell brutally suppresses them
-there's another year of civil war. good stuff

OCC CIV NOTES 10/26

King James VI and King James I are the SAME PERSON
-scottish king first, became king of england. good stuff
-wrote a work in defense of monarchy...?

we're talking about the resistance period... huh?
lots of violence going on... protestants against catholics, protestants against protestants
-both prot. and cath. just hate the jews
-lots of religious wars between states and groups
-30 years war is a nice example of this
vast majority of protestants require obedience to secular authority
-huge evidence for this is in Romans 13
-Calvin took Romans 13 as justification for the idea that all authority was from God and to be obeyed
-this means that rulers really really liked protestantism
there was, however, a major upspringing of resistance theories, the idea that there is 'just resistance' against unjust rulers who violate personal rights

John Knox- scottish theorist who believed that society was 'godly'
-any non-godly society must be overthrown by the people- it's their duty
those in power didnt quite accept this, because that means that everybody could rebel at any point
-they argue that there are different strata of society who could revolt at different points
-nobles were the ones who could rebel, not the people
-they believed that an unjust king was better than an anarchy

George Buchanan
-wrote a work in defense of the rebellion in scotland
-society was a construct of human beings, SECULAR in nature, not religious
-society was for the people's temporal benefits
-if a government became tyrannical, the people had the right to take its powers away
-this is essentially popular sovereignty

force is legitimate for Lutherans
-this idea is applied to politics
-they take this to mean that resistance is legitimate in the face of injustice
-rulers were appointed for the people, and if they didnt serve the people, then buh-bye

John Mair (or Major) was one of the major sources of the arguments that resistance was legitimate

King James VI of Scotland became King of England (James I) after Queen Elizabeth died without heir, james was the closest relative
-James I was a self-styled "philosopher king"
-wrote a bunch of books to prove this
-wrote one in defense of witch hunting, killed lots of witches
-wrote another one in defense of monarchy
-very aware of possible assassins, etc
-argued that a king to his people was like a father to his children and a head to its body
-as a head you ruled as best possible
-the head can cut off any other members of the body, but the body cannot survive without the head
-as a father you ruled with caring, as a father rules a family
-included the power to punish physically
-could even execute ones own family members
-resisting a father is only done by one animal in the animal kingdom- the viper
-if you rebel, you're a snake and a devil
-we kill you now. gg n00b.
-this means that the King was free from the fear of rebellion
-GOD is the only judge of whether a ruler has ruled well or poorly
-this judgment does NOT lie in the hands of the people
-in the 16th century, james built himself a palace. with a banquet house... who cares?
-okie dokie here comes the slide show and i dont care about it

King Charles I executed on 30 January 1649
-executed for being a tyrant
-for 'treason' against his people
-interestingly, for royalists, the king was a god-appointed office
-the killing of a king was DEICIDE
after Charles I was executed, england declared itself a Republic (1649-1660)
-royalty was abolished
-bishops were abolished
-the anglican church was essentially shat upon
-whole hosts of protestant sects sprung up during the republican period in england

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

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

Raamin Mostaghimi
10/23/06
Occ Civ Section 8

Fontenelle's Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds

Fontenelle's Conversations was, I thought, one of the most interesting works we've read all semester. Fontenelle does something which isn't really strange right now in modern scientific thinking, but must have been incredible in his time- apply the principle of mediocrity. Science is the only place where I've seen this done, but it makes sense that it would be applicable in philosophy as well. The idea of this principle is that no single human (or, by extension, humanity) is unique in its position- so if you're in a field and you happen upon a daisy on your first downward glance, the rational thing to assume is that the field is filled with daisies, not that you've found the only daisy in the entire field just by happenstance.
This same principle applies to life, according to Fontenelle, which is incredibly interesting. He does make some concessions to religion in one of the opening conversations, but aside from determining simply that the inhabitants of other worlds are not men (and so need not be sons of Adam), he basically sets the role of religion to one side- with one notable exception (which I'll talk about a bit later). Here's the huge thing- he assumes that humans aren't unique! To my knowledge, this has never really been done before. There was a reason that the geocentric model of the universe prevailed up until Galileo, Brahe, and Copernicus- because Men believed that they were unique in the universe, and thus special. What Fontenelle is suggesting is that humans are just one of millions of groups of intelligent life, one of millions of groups who build cities and live and die and admire the stars- and this had never been done before. But what makes this even more shocking is that he still acknowledges the existence of God while he does so.
And here's where I come back to Fontenelle's acknowledgment of God. He constantly brings up that each planet was made "by Nature." For Jupiter, there were four moons "made" to compensate its inhabitants for its long night (p.55), and this sort of language continues throughout the text. To me, this means that Fontenelle takes mediocrity one step farther than it had been taken before. Not only is he saying that humans aren't alone in the universe, he's saying that God put other creatures there as well. This is a hard deduction to make at the time- another leading Catholic scholar and philosopher came to the conclusion that extraterrestrials could not exist, because if they did they wouldn't be men, and if they weren't men (sons of Adam), then they would require salvation (because God is merciful). If they required salvation, they would need an 'alien Jesus Christ,' and this would violate the uniqueness of Christ, something that just couldn't be done. So you see, Fontenelle was a bit of a revolutionary.

Questions:

Did Fontenelle really intend to challenge humanity's uniqueness the way he did?

What sort of beliefs did Fontenelle have on the necessity of salvation of the aliens he had posited?