International System

Part I: History Redux A century ago, almost to date (11 February 1918), US President Woodrow Wilson enthroned the peoples’ right of self-determination as a paramount principle of international legitimation and warned: “‘Self-determination’ is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril.” Robert Lansing, Wilson’s Secretary of State, lamented, “The phrase is simply loaded with dynamite… What a calamity that the phrase was ever uttered! What misery it will cause!” Please answer the following three (3) questions (20 points each). 1. Why did Wilson turn to self-determination at this stage of the war? What were the key implications, then and ever since? (Approximately 500 words). 2. Choose three of the six major IR schools (Realism, Liberalism, Constructivism, Marxism, English School, Post-Structuralism), and explain how each would enter the debate between Wilson or Lansing. What is your personal take – in retrospect, who was right? (Approximately 500 words). 3. A century after Wilson’s declaration, the US President asks you, his key advisor on foreign affairs, to come up with another principle to lead this world, ethically and practically, in the next century. What would it be, and why? (Approximately 500 words). Part II: Contemporary Issues with Theoretical Insight Answer two (2) of the following four questions. Each makes for 20 points. Your answers should be approximately 500 words each. In each of your answers, please draw from at least two different IR approaches (e.g., Realism, Liberalism, Constructivism, English School, Marxism, Post-Structuralism, etc.). 1. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran and the P5+1 was agreed upon in Vienna on 14 July 2015. As we know from this past year’s developments, US President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to alter or abolish the JCPOA to the advantage of the United States and its allies. Given that the JCPOA is a multilateral agreement and enjoys a fair degree of international support—both from states and institutions, is it feasible that Trump could single-handedly abrogate it? If so, what are some potential international consequences for the United States? 2. With the end of the Cold War and continual technological advancement, new forms of international power and influence have risen to prominence, including, but not limited to, soft power and cyber warfare. In addition, new types of actors have come to the fore, such as multinational corporations, terrorist organizations, and NGOs/IGOs. Consequently, many IR scholars have been themselves, “what constitutes a great power in the 21st century”? Below, please provide your own answer to this question. You should consider which forces are most influential in today’s international community, and consider whether the “traditional”, i.e., military based, great power could continue to exert influence in the contemporary age as it did in the past. 3. John Mearsheimer famously argued in 2014 that the rise of China as a great power would not be peaceful and could witness an “intense security standoff” or war with the United States. Now let us turn to Russia. Imagine that you are an analyst in the state department/foreign ministry of a country of your choice. You are asked to write a report analyzing whether the hypothetical rise of Russia to a great power status (i.e., similar to that of the USSR following World War II) would trigger a war (either limited, regional war or a world war—the choice is yours) or whether Russia’s hypothetical rise would be peaceful. In your conclusion, briefly outline your country’s stance in the scenario that you describe. 4. You are a high-ranking governmental advisor in a state which has experienced a massive influx of refugees in the past several years. Your government is currently deliberating whether to allow them to remain and potentially receive permanent residence/citizenship or whether to expel a large number of them to either their country of origin or a third country. You are asked to draft a recommendation of which course your government should take. In your answer, consider potential domestic consequences (i.e., on your own country’s population and politics) as well as potential international consequences of your government’s actions.