Presentation on theme: "“Peace Theories” and “How to be a Good Wing” -Nick’s rambling about stuff Training Session 25 Apr 2014."— Presentation transcript:
“Peace Theories” and “How to be a Good Wing” -Nick’s rambling about stuff Training Session 25 Apr 2014
Statistically speaking seemed to work pretty well! Fails: NATO/Serbia (2005) India/Pakistan (Kashmir 1998) Israel/Lebanon (2006) Georgia/Russia (2008) PEACE THEORIES IN IR
Democratic Peace Theory Democracies almost never fight with each other – lack of any real wars between real democracies in 20 th C -Normative Reasons -Structural Reasons Argue that promoting democracy has broader benefits to protecting the security of existing democratic nations (democratic crusade) 1)Other explanations; e.g. political similarity 2)Just a matter of time 3)Promoting democracy can backfire – increase conflict
Explaining the correlation Structural accounts attribute the democratic peace to the institutional constraints within democracies which limit leaders’ actions and power (liberal institutions). Normative theory locates the causes of the democratic peace within the ideas and norms held by democracies – democracies practice compromise with each other since they recognise other liberal states as the legitimate expressions of their citizens’ views (liberal ideology).
Explaining the correlation (cont.) Liberal economic theorists: laissez-faire capitalism contains an inherent tendency towards rationalism. Since modern industrial war is economically irrational, liberal capitalist states will be pacifistic in their relations with one another. Constructivist theory: democracies don’t fight each other out of considerations of IDENTITY. The belief in democratic peace theory implies that to gain recognition for being a liberal democracy means you need to avoid fighting other liberal democracies, as that is what liberal democracies are supposed to do.
Criticisms 1.What about US covert action to overthrow elected governments? (Allende in Chile; Arbenz in Guatemala and Ortega in Nicaragua) 2.What about where there is ‘peace’ but not democracy? (communist peace?) 3.State-centrism limits our understanding of wider processes of historical change such as capitalism and imperialism. 4.Too soon to judge? 5.If all states were liberal democracies wouldn’t war reappear? 6.Realists: Dangerous to stop worrying about relative gains.
Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention “No two countries that are both part of a major global supply chain, like Dell’s, will ever fight a war against each other as long as they are both part of the same global supply chain.” Nations are unwilling to risk the employment generated by globalization, and don’t fight. Use to argue why economic ties are a positive; e.g. in sanctions debates Examples: India/Pakistan Nuclear Standoff Taiwan/China ?
Golden Arches Peace Theory Statistically speaking seemed to work pretty well! Fails: NATO/Serbia (2005) India/Pakistan (Kashmir 1998) Israel/Lebanon (2006) Georgia/Russia (2008) No two countries with McDonalds in them will go to war -Level of Economic Development; Middle Class to support McDonald’s Network -Symbol of economic interdependence
HOW TO BE A GOOD* WING *useful Part II: Judgetasticness
1. Say Words Be active in the discussion A wing that doesn’t talk much is a wing that doesn’t get anything above average in feedback, and is just a bit of a dead weight during the adjudication
2. Don’t Say Too Many Words, But Also Not Too Few Bla bla bla bla look at me wasting your 15 minutes.
3. Say Specific Words ''We thought that second opposition really brought the case home for us, so they won the debate.'' ''First proposition talked about rights, but I really didn't find it persuasive.'' ''First opposition had some interesting things to say, but the analysis didn't get better until second opposition.''
4. Judge the Debate that Happened ''Proposition never talked about rights in this debate.'' ''It took until the summation speaker until we heard anything about rights.'' ''I really wouldn't have propped it like that.''
5. Learn How To Penalise Discounting versus penalising –Poor time allocation, e.g. rebuttal until 6’ –Rebuttal v. Substantive –Not accepting POIs –Unclear Mech –New arguments from Opp Whip
6. Don’t Be A Passive Observer During The Debate Falling asleep is for top half teams, not judges Think about the debate as it happens If you don’t, seconds will likely not be enough to come up with a call
7. Metrics: Up For Grabs, and Not Pre-Set You should listen to teams' arguments about what our aims and principles should be, and evaluate the claims of harms or benefits in that context. “War is never legitimate” vs. “War is legitimate in this specific case, because reasons” - no clear better or worse option
8. Be Stubborn, But Also Don’t Be “While achieving a consensus is ideal, it is not an ideal that is to be placed above justice” (Berlin WUDC Briefing) “Change your mind if you are persuaded- otherwise cling to what you believe to be right. The honours that a debating round dispenses belong to those who have earned them. They are not yours to give away in shabby compromises.” (ibid)
9. Taking Notes 1. Generic: Black/Blue 2. Criticisms: Red/Pink 3. POIs: Green 4. [during adj] Highlighting key points: Purple Why use colours? It’s pretty. Also it makes reading your notes easier.