The Security Dilemma and Levels of Analysis, Slides of Humanities

Download The Security Dilemma and Levels of Analysis and more Slides Humanities in PDF only on Docsity!

Lecture 2:

The Security Dilemma and

Levels of Analysis

Contrasts among Realism,Liberalism and the Identity

Perspective

Strategic Interaction in IR

-^

IR concerns choices made by states^ –

Between war and peace – Between trade and boycotts – Between emitting and restricting greenhouse gases

-^

Usually the advantage or disadvantage of achoice for each state depends not only on whatthat state chooses but also on what other stateschoose

-^

Thus IR is fundamentally about “strategicinteraction,” or how states make choices whenthe consequences depend on choices by otherstates

The Security Dilemma

-^

The fundamental concept used to understandstate choices about war and peace is thesecurity dilemma

-^

States have two choices^ –

They can arm – They can disarm

-^

If they disarm, they have no weapons and warcannot occur

-^

A necessary condition for war is that states havepreviously chosen to arm

Why Arm?

-^

Why states choose to arm: What if one statedisarms when another state arms?

-^

States that disarm when others arm becomevulnerable to conquest^ –

Very old idea:

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

-^

“If you want peace, prepare for war.”

-^

This idea was known to the ancient Romans, as its Latinformulation suggests

-^

Formulated by the fourth or fifth century writer Vegetius as Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

-^

Alguien que desira la paz, prepara para la guerra

.

-^

He was writing during the decline of the Roman empire whenfear of conquest was a particular concern

“Structural Neo-Realism”

•^

So far in the discussion of the security dilemma, stateshave not been assumed to have any preferences^ –

You will sometimes hear that the security dilemma assumes thatstates are “unitary rational actors” with a preference for survival – Such a statement need not be true – States that have not armed may have all disappeared becausethey were conquered by states that did arm

-^

“Structural neo-realism” assumes that only states thatarm can survive in world politics^ –

“Arm” here has a broad definition that we will get to – Selection

as a concept of explanation: states are “selected” for

the behavior of “arming”

Possibility of War

•^

The security dilemma explains how warsare

possible

-^

States only remain unconquered if they arm

-^

Arms create the possibility of war

-^

But arms also allow for the condition of armedstandoff

•^

How can we explain how possibilitybecomes reality, how a war happens?

Preferences in the Security

Dilemma

-^

States may be assumed to prefer only security^ –

You may see the expression “guns or butter” – In some versions of the security dilemma, arms areassumed not to cost anything except the risk of war – The state is assumed to have no other goals such aseconomic welfare

-^

Alternatively states may be assumed to trade offbetween preferences for arming andpreferences for other goals, such as economicgrowth or consumption^ –

In this case “guns or butter” makes sense

“Prisoner’s Dilemma” or PD

-^

For states with preferences of either kind, the security dilemma is aninstance of what game theorists call “prisoner’s dilemma” or PD^ –

Nau tells a story about a district attorney who separately offers a deal toeach of two prisoners who have conspired to commit a crime – The district attorney’s deal is designed to force each prisoner to testifyagainst the other one – While you should read Nau’s story, it is better to think of the interactionas simply PD with no district attorney – World politics features no counterpart to a district attorney who candefine the choices for the states

-^

PD is interesting for IR because if both agents try to achieve theoutcome they prefer, each receives a worse outcome than it couldachieve by a different choice^ –

Thus in world politics, states trying to achieve peace get the possibilityof war

“Ordered” Values

-^

Notice that the values attached by agents A andB to the outcome defined by each strategy pairare in order from “best” to “worse”^ –

For many questions, “how much” an agent likes onestrategy pair better than another doesn’t matter

-^

Since the record often allows us to guess the order but notthe intensity of agents’ liking for a strategy pair, this is a veryuseful feature of strategic interaction as a tool forunderstanding

-^

For other questions, intensity can make a big difference

-^

PD is defined by a distinctive “N-shaped” orderfor A’s valuings – “reverse Z-shaped” order for B

“N-Shape” of PD for Agent A

Choosing in PD

Better for A

Better for B

Worst for A

Best for B

Best for A

Worst for B

Worse for A

Worse for B

Strategy b

1

Strategy b

2

Agent B

Strategy a

1

Strategy a

2

Agent A

If A wants A’s best strategy pair, A cantry choosing a

2;

If B chooses b

, A gets A’s best strategy 1

pair But if B chooses b

, A and B both do 2

worse than if A were to choose a

and B 1

were to choose b

1

But “nice guy” doesn’t work for A either;what if B chooses b

? 2

A is stuck; A must choose a

and B 2

must choose b

2

Why Does PD Matter for World

Politics?

-^

The “security dilemma” looks very much like aPD

-^

The “security dilemma” originally defined the theperspective called “realism”

-^

The perspective called “liberalism” was aresponse to the realist understanding of thesecurity dilemma

-^

The identity perspective is a reaction againstboth realist and liberal understandings of thesecurity dilemma

Liberals vs. Realists

•^

Realists derive their name from their concern with the res

, or “matter,” of world politics, which they see as power

-^

Liberals derive their name from their conviction thatliberty enables individuals (whether individual persons orindividual states) to exercise power without necessarilygoing to war^ –

Realists are like Thomas Hobbes, who argued that only theentrusting of full power to an unconstrained monarch couldprevent the war of all against all – Liberals are like John Locke in arguing that people can beentrusted with the liberty to negotiate a settlement, or “contract,”capable of replacing the war of all against all with peace

Liberals, PD and the Security

Dilemma

-^

How do you get out of the lower right handcorner in PD – from red to green?

-^

PD can be understood as a series ofrepeated choices over time (“iterated PD”)