Week 1 :
Lecture 1 :
Conceptualising violence :
Johan Galtung (1969) provides a compelling way to think about violence
and peace
2 types of violence:
- Direct violence: behaviors carried out by a clearly identifiable agent
with the intent to inflict bodily harm (shooting, assault etc).
o There is a perpetrator: a clear agent.
o Role of intention
- Structural violence: Violence as present when humans
systematically cannot fulfill their physical and metal potential.
Violence does not require intent and does not require a clear agent
o Can be psychological, it can be threat
o E.g., Tuberculosis: if people can die from it despite a cure
being available, but they cannot access it: structural violence.
If there is no cure: no violence
o Cycling death due to poor infrastructures: structural violence
Political violence occurs in wartime (conflicts where there is 1000+ battle-
related deaths in a given year) and in times of “peace” (e.g., electoral
violence, ethnic riots).
Conceptualising peace:
Johan Galtung’s (1969) – writing during the cold war, time with negative
peace- but still under threat of a negative war – typology of peace:
- Negative peace: the absence of direct violence
- Positive peace: A self-sustaining condition that protects the human
security of a population.
o Physical security, but also mental peace
o No exclusion from thriving
Armed conflict by time, 1946-2020
,Frequency of inter-state and intra-state war.
After WWII, so missing a bit
Although, rise of civil wars in 1990s and skewed notably by Syria
Non-state conflict, 1989-2020
Between 2 non-state groups
Spiked in the recent years due to IS actions
Where is violence happening?
2020: temporal variation.
No region is immune to violence.
What do we mean by ‘paradigms’?
The idea of paradigms comes from Thomas Kuhn (1962)
Paradigms or theoretical frameworks are lenses through which we see the
world
They contain assumptions about:
- The most important actors, as well as their behaviors and
motivations.
o Theories about why actors behave the way they do: identify
conditions that lead to war
o And how do war and peace prevail
- What leads to war and violence?
- What allows for peace and security?
Realism:
Actors: The state is the principal actor of international politics
Nature of the state:
- The state is a unitary and rational actor seeking to maximize their
own interests
- Particularly: National security is a first order preference (i.e. it
trumps all).
o Because national security is the main force of power on
actors, the rest that happens within does not really matter.
o Acts around its own interest especially around national
security
Understanding of Conflict/order:
, - The international system is characterized by anarchy, which means
that security is not guaranteed.
o Kenneth Waltz (1954): “all states must constantly be ready
either to counter force with force or to pay the cost of
weakness”
- The only way states can defend themselves is by having power
(generally defined as material capabilities): central concern to
realism, because it is key to security.
- The likelihood of war is shaped by the distribution of power in the
international system
o Debates regarding the importance of the international system.
Liberalism
Actors: State and non-state actors are important.
- E.g. Transnational advocacy networks (Margaret Keck and Kathryn
Sikkink 1998)
Nature of the State: State preferences are an aggregate of preferences of
a wide range of state and societal actors – composite of different
organization (army, bureaucracy …)
- Preferences not necessarily opposing
- National security not always the most important consideration
- What’s happening within the state is the upmost important.
Understanding of conflict/order
- Conflict is not inevitable; cooperation and mutual gains are possible
- Order is possible through
1- Economic interdependence and free trade: we can achieve
peace and prosperity because there is an incentive to not
go to war for both parties.
2- International institutions: increases cooperation because
reduces cost of cooperation
3- Democratic institutions: democratic peace theory – the
world would be a better place if every country was a
democracy
Constructivism:
Actors: actors and the interests that drive them are socially constructed
Assumptions about agent behavior: Political action is shaped by identities
and interests. Who the actor is shapes what they view as appropriate
action Conflict and peace are therefore shaped by the content of identities
and interests, which is why norms are so important to social
constructivism.
Actors and their actions are socially constructed
Identity: how an actor sees himself determines the goals he would have
and the actions he undertakes.
If states see themselves as moral actors: special actions they would
undertake to align with that view
Norms is a special part of socialist constructivist
How would realists explain the Russian state’s decision to invade Ukraine?
, - Idea of balancing
- Not about the people, but about the state and national security
- Deterrence: even though Ukraine did not have the hand on the
nuclear weapons, there is still a scare and makes the state
vulnerable.
How would liberalists explain Russian state’s decision to invade Ukraine?
- The Russian leader is responsible
- Democracies don’t go to war with each other: and Russia is
authoritarian.
- Economic interdependence changed the risk calculus for the state,
counter to liberal theories.
- Domestic voices have less of an impact: state insulated from that.
Look at how the government is structured. What segment of society
and leadership are empowered by that?
How would constructivist explain the Russian state’s decision to invade
Ukraine?
- Importance of ideas and values
- Particular conception of Russia and what is the nation, its
boundaries etc: what constitutes Russia.
Lecture 2:
Instrumentalism
Elites – elites trust and elites behavior – as the primary explanatory
variable for the presence/absence of conflict
If Elites they think they will gain from violence, they might influence for it.
Assumptions of instrumentalism
- Elites seek to maximize political power and other material gains and
will foment violence to meet their interests.
Institutionalism
Institutionalism is an approach seeks to understand how political struggles
are mediated by institutional setting in which they take place.
Certain ways of which we approach institutions can stimulate violence or
facilitate cooperation.
Within countries, make sure that everyone has a voice (e.g., Canada with
language difference).
Institutions also determine the capacity of governments to retain certain
groups, maintain order etc …
Constructivism from comparative politics
Scholars that look at inter-group conflicts or ethnic conflicts, religious
conflicts, also subscribe to the idea that groups are socially constructed.
Groups act in a unitary way.
Constructivists will see that violence emerges out of the fact that violence
is socially constructed. Reunify the group boundaries: “who belongs in the
ethnic group or not”.
Groups as socially constructed, and groups are not unitary actors.
Violence as a means of delineating and asserting group boundaries
Lecture 1 :
Conceptualising violence :
Johan Galtung (1969) provides a compelling way to think about violence
and peace
2 types of violence:
- Direct violence: behaviors carried out by a clearly identifiable agent
with the intent to inflict bodily harm (shooting, assault etc).
o There is a perpetrator: a clear agent.
o Role of intention
- Structural violence: Violence as present when humans
systematically cannot fulfill their physical and metal potential.
Violence does not require intent and does not require a clear agent
o Can be psychological, it can be threat
o E.g., Tuberculosis: if people can die from it despite a cure
being available, but they cannot access it: structural violence.
If there is no cure: no violence
o Cycling death due to poor infrastructures: structural violence
Political violence occurs in wartime (conflicts where there is 1000+ battle-
related deaths in a given year) and in times of “peace” (e.g., electoral
violence, ethnic riots).
Conceptualising peace:
Johan Galtung’s (1969) – writing during the cold war, time with negative
peace- but still under threat of a negative war – typology of peace:
- Negative peace: the absence of direct violence
- Positive peace: A self-sustaining condition that protects the human
security of a population.
o Physical security, but also mental peace
o No exclusion from thriving
Armed conflict by time, 1946-2020
,Frequency of inter-state and intra-state war.
After WWII, so missing a bit
Although, rise of civil wars in 1990s and skewed notably by Syria
Non-state conflict, 1989-2020
Between 2 non-state groups
Spiked in the recent years due to IS actions
Where is violence happening?
2020: temporal variation.
No region is immune to violence.
What do we mean by ‘paradigms’?
The idea of paradigms comes from Thomas Kuhn (1962)
Paradigms or theoretical frameworks are lenses through which we see the
world
They contain assumptions about:
- The most important actors, as well as their behaviors and
motivations.
o Theories about why actors behave the way they do: identify
conditions that lead to war
o And how do war and peace prevail
- What leads to war and violence?
- What allows for peace and security?
Realism:
Actors: The state is the principal actor of international politics
Nature of the state:
- The state is a unitary and rational actor seeking to maximize their
own interests
- Particularly: National security is a first order preference (i.e. it
trumps all).
o Because national security is the main force of power on
actors, the rest that happens within does not really matter.
o Acts around its own interest especially around national
security
Understanding of Conflict/order:
, - The international system is characterized by anarchy, which means
that security is not guaranteed.
o Kenneth Waltz (1954): “all states must constantly be ready
either to counter force with force or to pay the cost of
weakness”
- The only way states can defend themselves is by having power
(generally defined as material capabilities): central concern to
realism, because it is key to security.
- The likelihood of war is shaped by the distribution of power in the
international system
o Debates regarding the importance of the international system.
Liberalism
Actors: State and non-state actors are important.
- E.g. Transnational advocacy networks (Margaret Keck and Kathryn
Sikkink 1998)
Nature of the State: State preferences are an aggregate of preferences of
a wide range of state and societal actors – composite of different
organization (army, bureaucracy …)
- Preferences not necessarily opposing
- National security not always the most important consideration
- What’s happening within the state is the upmost important.
Understanding of conflict/order
- Conflict is not inevitable; cooperation and mutual gains are possible
- Order is possible through
1- Economic interdependence and free trade: we can achieve
peace and prosperity because there is an incentive to not
go to war for both parties.
2- International institutions: increases cooperation because
reduces cost of cooperation
3- Democratic institutions: democratic peace theory – the
world would be a better place if every country was a
democracy
Constructivism:
Actors: actors and the interests that drive them are socially constructed
Assumptions about agent behavior: Political action is shaped by identities
and interests. Who the actor is shapes what they view as appropriate
action Conflict and peace are therefore shaped by the content of identities
and interests, which is why norms are so important to social
constructivism.
Actors and their actions are socially constructed
Identity: how an actor sees himself determines the goals he would have
and the actions he undertakes.
If states see themselves as moral actors: special actions they would
undertake to align with that view
Norms is a special part of socialist constructivist
How would realists explain the Russian state’s decision to invade Ukraine?
, - Idea of balancing
- Not about the people, but about the state and national security
- Deterrence: even though Ukraine did not have the hand on the
nuclear weapons, there is still a scare and makes the state
vulnerable.
How would liberalists explain Russian state’s decision to invade Ukraine?
- The Russian leader is responsible
- Democracies don’t go to war with each other: and Russia is
authoritarian.
- Economic interdependence changed the risk calculus for the state,
counter to liberal theories.
- Domestic voices have less of an impact: state insulated from that.
Look at how the government is structured. What segment of society
and leadership are empowered by that?
How would constructivist explain the Russian state’s decision to invade
Ukraine?
- Importance of ideas and values
- Particular conception of Russia and what is the nation, its
boundaries etc: what constitutes Russia.
Lecture 2:
Instrumentalism
Elites – elites trust and elites behavior – as the primary explanatory
variable for the presence/absence of conflict
If Elites they think they will gain from violence, they might influence for it.
Assumptions of instrumentalism
- Elites seek to maximize political power and other material gains and
will foment violence to meet their interests.
Institutionalism
Institutionalism is an approach seeks to understand how political struggles
are mediated by institutional setting in which they take place.
Certain ways of which we approach institutions can stimulate violence or
facilitate cooperation.
Within countries, make sure that everyone has a voice (e.g., Canada with
language difference).
Institutions also determine the capacity of governments to retain certain
groups, maintain order etc …
Constructivism from comparative politics
Scholars that look at inter-group conflicts or ethnic conflicts, religious
conflicts, also subscribe to the idea that groups are socially constructed.
Groups act in a unitary way.
Constructivists will see that violence emerges out of the fact that violence
is socially constructed. Reunify the group boundaries: “who belongs in the
ethnic group or not”.
Groups as socially constructed, and groups are not unitary actors.
Violence as a means of delineating and asserting group boundaries
