So here are some pointers for the discussion on Tuesday.
Starting with the Christopher Layne piece ( Chapter 4)
1) Is terrorism a form of balancing? Going back to the introduction, one can identify that Layne is responding to the challenge thrown by the editors that in absence of hard balancing (the conventional form of balancing as per the balance of power theorists) one should look at more nuanced forms of balancing behaviour - soft balancing and asymmetrical balancing. Layne is concerned here with the latter and he makes certain arguments delineating why or why not the phenomena of terrorism be compared with balancing behaviour. Enumeration of these arguments would be a good way to start the presentation.
2) Can the war on terrorism bring American hegemony to its knees? This is the second major issue Layne is concerned with. Layne is making a clever point: Terrorism, specially the 9-11 incident, rather than weakening US directly, has actually made its hegemonic impulses more pronounced and there is where the seeds of a global balance of power may be identified. Try to explore this idea a little further.
3) He then basically takes the fight to those who argue that for one or the other reason, American hegemony has been beneficial to global peace and security. Concomitantly, such arguments also explain why states have come to embrace American hegemony rather than create countervailing coalitions against it. Engage with these arguments in a organised way, specially those of balance of threat theory, public goods, self-constrains on exercise of hegemonic power, soft power etc.
4) He claims that under the conditions of hegemony, threat and power (two important variables which drive balances of power) are the same. This is an important point (remember Layne is coming from a particular vantage point: a particular school of realist thinking). Do you agree? Is he convincing? Why or why not?
5) He agrees that short-term balancing of US is just not possible but he is hopeful that in long-term, balancing of US power will occur. However, he also makes a number of arguments regarding balancing behaviour during the times of transition (decline of American hegemony and rise of the rest). First, he explains why weak powers will challenge the hegemon even under great asymmetry in capabilities. Second, he enumerate the strategies which they will use to challenge the hegemon. Discuss these.
6) Why does he think that coalitions against terror are not indicative of the unwillingness on the part of other states to balance US hegemony? It is a important point.
7) Lastly, in the conclusion, he is also referring to a rather unconventional source of hegemonic decline; something akin to internal balancing when it comes states balancing each other. A brief discussion on the same would be bring a fitting end to the presentation.
More on chapter 5 and 11 later.
Starting with the Christopher Layne piece ( Chapter 4)
1) Is terrorism a form of balancing? Going back to the introduction, one can identify that Layne is responding to the challenge thrown by the editors that in absence of hard balancing (the conventional form of balancing as per the balance of power theorists) one should look at more nuanced forms of balancing behaviour - soft balancing and asymmetrical balancing. Layne is concerned here with the latter and he makes certain arguments delineating why or why not the phenomena of terrorism be compared with balancing behaviour. Enumeration of these arguments would be a good way to start the presentation.
2) Can the war on terrorism bring American hegemony to its knees? This is the second major issue Layne is concerned with. Layne is making a clever point: Terrorism, specially the 9-11 incident, rather than weakening US directly, has actually made its hegemonic impulses more pronounced and there is where the seeds of a global balance of power may be identified. Try to explore this idea a little further.
3) He then basically takes the fight to those who argue that for one or the other reason, American hegemony has been beneficial to global peace and security. Concomitantly, such arguments also explain why states have come to embrace American hegemony rather than create countervailing coalitions against it. Engage with these arguments in a organised way, specially those of balance of threat theory, public goods, self-constrains on exercise of hegemonic power, soft power etc.
4) He claims that under the conditions of hegemony, threat and power (two important variables which drive balances of power) are the same. This is an important point (remember Layne is coming from a particular vantage point: a particular school of realist thinking). Do you agree? Is he convincing? Why or why not?
5) He agrees that short-term balancing of US is just not possible but he is hopeful that in long-term, balancing of US power will occur. However, he also makes a number of arguments regarding balancing behaviour during the times of transition (decline of American hegemony and rise of the rest). First, he explains why weak powers will challenge the hegemon even under great asymmetry in capabilities. Second, he enumerate the strategies which they will use to challenge the hegemon. Discuss these.
6) Why does he think that coalitions against terror are not indicative of the unwillingness on the part of other states to balance US hegemony? It is a important point.
7) Lastly, in the conclusion, he is also referring to a rather unconventional source of hegemonic decline; something akin to internal balancing when it comes states balancing each other. A brief discussion on the same would be bring a fitting end to the presentation.
More on chapter 5 and 11 later.
No comments:
Post a Comment