Theory of IR – Flashcards

A term widely used to describe the totality of state actors in global politics. While realists believe that the anarchical character of the system leads to self-help behaviour, both liberals and English school theorists have pointed to the possibility of 'societal' characteristics among states (see 'international society'). In classical English school thinking the term 'international system' refers to patterns of contact between the units (states in the modern period) which may be structured but are not rule-governed.

The world is divided into political territories called nation-states derived from a European conception of political organization that was established in the Treaty of Westphalia that ended the 30 years war in 1648. Thus the "international system" is explicitly Eurocentric.

- Treaties ending the Thirty Years War in Europe in 1648; in international relations represents the beginning of state sovereignty within a territorial space

- A key characteristic or a norm in the international system/society denoting the independent, territorially self-standing and self-determining qualities of states. There are many conceptions of the nature and role of sovereignty in international political life. Realists tend to see sovereignty as an expression of the power and autonomy of states. Postpositivist theorists, such as constructivist and poststructuralist theorists, seek to demonstrate the socially constructed nature of the assumption of sovereign states. Many theorists have also pointed to the erosion of the sovereignty of states in the context of globalization. - The authority of the state, based on recognition by other states and by nonstate actors, to govern matters within its own borders that affect its people, economy, security, and form of government

- Territory - Population - Effective Rule - Recognition

- Equality - Autonomy

Sovereignty Juridical Condition, States are considered equal in the international system

Sovereignty juridical condition, The ability of the state to wield its power independently of the public

- refers to the act of acknowledging others as actors and as particular kinds of actors. States, for example, mutually recognize each other as states, thus constituting each other and themselves as such. They can also recognize each other as different kinds of states, for example, as democratic or autocratic states. Recognition is treated as a socially constructed category and is deemed important by many social constructivist and English school theorists in the construction of identity of actors. -Sovereignty empirical conditions, must be recognized by other states

- Is international relations theory teleological? - A theory is teleological if it holds that there is some sort of final goal or objective toward which actions are directed.

- Anarchy = No Rule, or Absence of Rule, or Absence of Government - "Whereas men within each state are subject to a common government, sovereign states in their mutual relations are not. This anarchy it is possible to regard as the central fact of international relations and the starting point of theorizing about it." (Hedley Bull, 1966) - The traditional structure of world politics in which there is no central authority to set and enforce rules and resolve disputes. There are rules but they are informal and that is why international law, intergovernmental organizations and the international system are described as a 'self-help system" Participation is voluntary not compulsory.

• The unit of analysis of international relations is the international event • An event is an action taken by an actor, directed at a target, that crosses national boundaries. • Actors & Targets: States, groups, organizations, individuals • Actions: Conflict or cooperation, physical or verbal, includes agreements, treaties, demands, attacks, aid, information, purchases, promises, threats, etc. • Events are intentional. That is, the Actor takes an action with the intent of changing something about the target (e.g., it's knowledge, belief, attitude, opinion, behavior, intent, goal, existence, etc.) • The purpose of international relations as a social science is to explain patterns in international events in the context of anarchy.

If the international system level is the focus, then the explanation rests with the anarchic characteristics of that system or with international and regional organizations and their strengths and weaknesses.

If the state-level, or domestic, factors are the focus, then the explanation is derived from characteristics of the state: the type of government, the type of economic system, or interest groups.

If the individual level is the focus, then the personality, perceptions, choices, and activities of individual decision makers and individual participants provide the explanation.

Structural realism is based on five assumptions about the international system: 1. Great powers are the main actors and they operate in an anarchic international system. By anarchy realists do not mean 'chaos' but simply the absence of a centralized authority which can command state actors to follow rules and principles. 2. All states possess offensive military capability - this varies over time. 3. States can never be certain about other states' intentions. A defensive military doctrine espoused by one state can look like offensive threat to another. This zero sum predicament is often referred to as the security dilemma. 4. The main goal of states is survival. 5. States are rational actors operating with imperfect information: they sometimes make serious mistakes.

• The international system is constructed as a set of independent, autonomous actors with competing interests interacting in anarchy • The Realist Syllogism: Interest = survival, - Survival is assured by relative power over opponents. -Thus: Interest = relative power • Interaction results in an uneasy standoff equilibrium (balance of power) characterized by conflict • Benefits are measured in relative terms - i.e., how well you do relative to your peer • Actors are in a "self-help" system in which they can only rely on their own power to ensure survival

The logic of realism is derived from human nature. Humans, by nature, have a desire to survive and they pursue power to ensure survival.

The logic of realism is derived from sovereignty itself. The nature of the nation-state system demands that individual nation-states pursue power in order to survive. Thus the system creates the realist syllogism.

Realists believe that poweris the currency of international politics. It is based on the material capabilities that a state controls. States compete for power and do all they can to shift the balance of power in their favour. Whereas classical realists believed conflict was hardwired into human nature, contemporary structural realists believe it is the architecture of the international system that forces states to pursue power politics.

• The international system is constructed as a set of independent, autonomous actors with competing interests interacting in anarchy • The Liberal Syllogism: - Interests = survival - Survival is assured through order in the system - Thus: Interests = order in the system • Interaction results in an equilibrium of mutual interests that can include cooperative results. • Benefits are measured in absolute terms - i.e., how well you do independent of others' positions • Actors create formal and informal institutional systems to encourage and enable interactions.

Level of analysis: state Primary Actors:States - Autonomous - Interdependent - Rational Interests: Survival through order Mechanisms for maintaining order:Common underlying moral and social norms of cooperation. Primary authors: Kant Locke Hayek Smith

Level of analysis: system Primary Actors:States - Autonomous - Interdependent - Rational Interests:survival through order Mechanisms for maintaining order:Spontaneous order of shared interests managed through international organization Primary authors: Nye Keohane Krasner Ruggie

The logic of liberalism is derived from an ethical/moral desire for peace (order). Order emerges from institutional attempts to ensure peace.

The logic of neoliberalism is derived from the need for peace (order) as a necessary condition for economic survival and security. Order emerges from the interaction of nation-states with similar interests.

• The international system is constructed by the rules, norms, and practices of those that participate in it. • Interests are not predefined, but take on the characteristics of the identities that participants take on. • Thus, whether the system is cooperative or conflictive is a function of the historical identities of the participants • Classes of Rules: Constitutive Rules- Create practices Example- Sovereignty Regulative Rules- control behavior within practices Example- treaties

Realist believe the world is anarchical creating a self-help system which is system in which states can only rely on their own power to ensure survival

• What distinguishes a discipline? 1. Distinctly separate subject matter 2. Generally accepted abstractions, concepts, and theories that explain the phenomena (paradigm) 3. Specialized vocabulary 4. Standardized methodologies 5. Structure for evaluating and communicating ideas

1. Attempts to explain the present by understanding the past 2. Method is primarily formal - depending on legal and formal relationships -Why did Russia leave the Three Emporer's Alliance and Italy join it in 1883? 3. Sources are the formal and legal announcements and instruments of governments (treaties, alliances correspondence, etc) 1900 Paul Reinsch - World Politics - Attempted to describe world society legally and formally as a set of historical relations 1902 J.A. Hobson - Imperialism - Attempted fo explain imperialism as a function of historical need to expand economies and corner markets and resources. 1910 Norman Angell - The Great Illusion - Impassioned plea for the futility of war. Attempted to show that it was not advantageous (econ & socially) to conduct war. 4. The historical phase died out when it was unable to account for World War I - Never had such a conflagration been experienced - and nothing in history could account for it.

1. Arose after WWI in response to the devastation of the "war to end all wars" - of every 5 adult men in Europe were killed or seriously wounded. 2. Offered solutions - in the form of organizational structure to provide for world peace 3. It was "idealist" and "utopian" - As such it was eschatological 4. Proponents came from the various organizations developed to promote world peace. 5. The post World War I history was characterized by optimism in the intellectual world paralleled by increasing authoritarianism in the political world Intellectually: -1919 First Endowed Chair of International Relations at Aberystwyth, University of Wales -New York: Carnegie Endowment for World Peace - London: Chatham House - Royal Institute of International Affairs - New York: Council on Foreign Relations (Foreign Affairs Magazine) - Paris: International Institute for Intellectual Cooperation - Boston: World Peace Foundation - Hague: League of Nations Politically: - 1920 Hitler's 20 Point Plan - 1922 Mussolini in Italy - 1933 Hitler becomes chancellor - 1935 Italian Invasion of Ethiopia - Death knell for the League of Nations - multilateral security ***The "organizations" didn't work - the "utopians" were unable to explain the rise of Fascists***

1. Reaction to the utopians 2. Recognition of the concept of "national interest" A. All Countries have interests - that sometimes come into conflict B. The primary interest is survival C. Power is critical to the outcome of any international interaction D. Politics is Power - thus goal of all states is to increase power. 3. Due to power dist. this phase was dominated by: A. East - West Struggle B. Politics defined by ideology - Capitalism vs Communism 1939 E.H. Carr - The 20 Years Crisis A. Critical of earlier utopian phase B. Utopians: US entered WWII to maintain morality C. Realists: Countries act in their own interests - not for moral reasons D. Carr asked: "why did USA aid Europe vs Germany and not Manchuria vs Japan? 1940 Reinhold Niebuhr - Christianity and Power Politics A. Protestant Theologian B. Humans are tainted by original sin C. This sinfulness stems from the paradox of being free and yet being finite D. Humans aspire to be godlike - and they come into conflict with each other E. Moral behavior is nearly impossible for collectives F. Critical of US foreign policy for failure to recognize the importance of power in pre-WWII world - looking only at morality 1948 Hans Morgenthau - Politics Among Nations A. National Interest = survival B. Survival = power C. Thus, National Interest = Power D. Only after survival has been assured can a country turn to moral issues in its foreign policy E. One country cannot judge another's acts based on morality

1. Ignore ideology 2. Use scientific methods to explain behavior A. Hypotheses B. Test C. Replication 3. Relied heavily on quantitative data and statistical methods 4. Nicholas Onuf called this "Sanitized Realism" 1950s Harold Guetzkow - InterNation Simulation A. Human-Machine Simulation B. Learn how nation behaves via simulating among small groups of decision makers 1960 Rudolf Rummel - Dimensonality of Nations (DON) A. Collect data on 230 attributes of nations B. Look for groupings of nations that have similar attributes and behave similarly 1968 J. David Singer - The Correlates of War A. Gathered data on all wars from 1815-1965 B. Used statistical correlation analysis to find causes of wars.

1. Normal Science 2. Crisis 3. Paradigm Shift 4. Return to normal science

A. paradigm is firmly entrenched B. research attempts to answer questions posed by the paradigm but not yet answered by it. C. research attempts to match facts to theories created by the paradigm D. Research is also used to apply the assumptions of the paradigm to more puzzles, thus expanding its reach.

A. In this process of attempting to match fact to theory and puzzle solving, puzzles are discovered that do not fit the paradigm. These are called anomalies. B. If the anomalies build and persist and challenge the explanatory power of the paradigm, a crisis of the science begins C. Crises are resolved in one of three ways 1. The puzzles are ultimately solved within the paradigm 2. The problem is recognized but attributed to insufficient methodologies 3. A new set of explanations is developed outside the paradigm to challenge the paradigm

A. If the response to anomalies is to create a new set of explanations, more and more scientists recognize the significance of the anomalies and move from the theories of the old paradigm to the new theories and the old paradigm begins to die out. B. Once a critical mass of adherents to the new theories has been achieved, the new theory becomes a new paradigm

A. The new paradigm creates new rules for discovery and new standards for evaluation of knowledge. B. The new theories become entrenched in a new paradigm and a new normal science begins

- SIMPLE DEFINITION: a typical example or pattern of something; a model. - a term associated with Thomas Kuhn's work referring to theoretical schools, or sets of principles, concerning the nature of science, that are accepted as exemplary in any given historical period Paradigms: 1. Determine which research is appropriate and which is not. 2. Provide rules for evaluating knowledge and validating findings discovered in research 3. Determine when a significant fact has been discovered 4. Set the standards by which new scientists are trained, thus further entrenching the paradigm - for example, it is MY job to socialize you into the basic paradigms of political science.

- The "First Great Debate" also known as the "Realist-Idealist Great Debate"was a dispute between idealists and realists which took place in the 1930s and 1940s and which was fundamentally about how to deal with Nazi Germany. Realist scholars emphasized the anarchical nature of international politics and the need for state survival. Idealists emphasized the possibility of international institutions such as the League of Nations. However, some have argued that defining the debate between realism and idealism in terms of a great debate is a misleading caricature and so described the "great debate" as a myth.

- The "Second Great Debate" was a dispute between "scientific IR" scholars who sought to refine scientific methods of inquiry in international relations theory and those who insisted on a more historicist/interpretative approach to international relations theory. The debate is termed "realists versus behaviourists" or "traditionalism versus scientism".

- Sometimes the inter-paradigm debate is considered to be a great debate and is therefore referred to as the "Third Great Debate". The inter-paradigm debate was a debate between liberalism, realism and radical international relations theories. The debate has also been described as being between realism, institutionalism and structuralism

- Dissatisfaction with the 'interparadigm debate' has lead to the so-called fourth debate between the rationalist and reflectivist approaches, which disagree on epistemological and methodological grounds over how best to gain access to the social world. - The "Fourth Great Debate" was a debate between positivist theories and post-positivist theories of international relations. Confusingly, it is often described in literature as "The Third Great Debate" by those who reject the description of the inter-paradigm debate as a Great Debate. This debate is concerned with the underlying epistemology of international relations scholarship and is also described as a debate between "rationalists" and "reflectivists". The debate was started by Robert Keohane in an International Studies Association debate in 1988 and can be considered an epistemological debate, about how we can know 'things' rather than an ontological one, that is to say a debate about what we can claim to know.

Systemic analyses of the ethical, moral, and political principles, that either governs or ought to govern the organization or conduct of global politics. The belief that theories should be concerned with what ought to be, rather than diagnosing what is.

-Attempts to explain or understand how international relations are -A general statement describing & explaining causes or effects of a class of phenomena, the way the world actually is, the more common type of theory

Defensive realists argue that unrelenting expansion is imprudent - conquest is often costly and troublesome. For this reason defensive realists, such as Kenneth Waltz, argue that states should seek an 'appropriate amount of power' (1989: 40).

Offensive realists argue that states should always be looking for opportunities to gain more power, with the ultimate prize being hegemony.

- A dominant state that has a preponderance of power; often establishes and enforces the rules and norms in the international system

-a class of moral decision making according to which some acts are wrong in themselves, regardless of their consequences. One of the most famous deontological arguments was out forward by Immanuel Kanta. A. Acts are judged right or wrong according to moral standards - deon is Greek root for duty - e.g., torture is bad regardless of the utility of the information obtained B. Morals and means must both be good C. Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) - ok to perform an action even if it generates foreseeable harm as long as the harm is not intended • Justification for collateral damage in warfare • Foreseeable harm cannot accomplish a goal - such as collateral damage undermining the morale of the populace

- An ethical perspective from which all individuals have equal moral standing, and obligations and allegiances are defined with reference to the universal category of humankind. While cosmopolitans are united in their advancement of normative commitments that cross state boundaries, they disagree on the institutional arrangement which is best suited to promoting cosmopolitan values. Cosmopolitanism is usually placed in opposition to 'communitarianism' within normative IR theory. - Idea that all people belong to a common community defined by shared morality A. Political cosmopolitanism advocates for the elimination of state borders with aim of achieving a world government B. Ethical cosmopolitanism champions a global sphere of equal moral standing - friends, citizens, family are not given greater significance - may accept state borders, but membership in state does not create class of outsiders - citizens of the world.

- A class of moral decision-making according to which the right thing to do is understood in terms of its likely consequences. Utilitarianism is one prominent type of consequentialist position. The everyday phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" neatly captures the dangers of not thinking about politics in consequentialist terms. Consequentialism is generally placed in opposition to deontology. A. "... That we make choices according to the state of affairs that will result from our actions. Even the unintended consequences of our actions have to be taken into account." B. Moral judgment relies on weighing the projected benefits that an action will produce against the possible harms

- An ethical perspective that sees obligations and allegiances to be defined with reference to distinct and discrete political communities, rather than with reference to the universal category of humankind (as is the case with cosmopolitanism). Within normative IR theory, communitarianism is usually placed in opposition to 'cosmopolitanism'. Many realists have adopted (often implicitly) a communitarian position, defending the ethical primacy of the state as the definer of valid moral and political rules. - Emphasis of the connection between the individual and the community a. Criticizes cosmopolitanism for suggesting that we can dismiss our associations b. These associations (culture, religion, nationality) are morally defining - they give moral agency

- A branch of philosophy that seeks to theorize how we gain knowledge about the world.One of the most influential theories of knowledge in modern philosophy has been empiricism, which has emphasized the centrality of empirical observation in obtaining and justifying knowledge (see 'empiricism'). - The branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowing

- A branch of philosophy that studies the nature of being and existence. In IR all theorists make assumptions about the kinds of objects they conceive to exist in and to shape international politics. While many realists tend to argue that states are the key ontological units in international politics, constructivists, feminists, and marxists, for example, emphasize "social ontologies" where the emphasis is on examining the social interaction and social relations between states or other actors. -The science of being; the branch of metaphysics that investigates the nature of being and of the first principles or categories involved.

- Methodological schools of thoughts debate how we best gain evidence about the nature of the natural and the social world. Different theoretical approaches in the social sciences have contrasting understandings of the validity and hierarchy of social science methods. Key methodological avenues in the social sciences include quantitative, qualitative, discursive, and historical methods. -The science of method; A. Branch of logic dealing with the logical principles underlying the organization of the various special sciences, and the conduct of scientific inquiry; B. Educ., a branch of pedagogics concerned with analysis and evaluation of subject matter and methods of teaching.

- Is theory based on the verification principle. That is, we know what we know if we can verify it. Realism & Neorealism Liberalism & Neorealism

- Is theory based on shared understanding or meaning. We know what we know because we have a common understanding of its meaning Constructivism

- Is theory about social phenomena based on discovering the underlying social forces that have created them. We know what we know because we have revealed the social and political history of the phenomena. Reflectivist Theory Critical Theory Marxist Theory

A. Thomas Hobbes was a political philosopher of the mid 1600's. He is best known for his work Leviathan, which was largely a secular justification for an absolutist ruler. B. In very oversimplified terms, his basic argument was: - Humans are fundamentally equal in capability and they have the same self interests and hopes - Out of this equality of capability, interests, and hopes arises a competition for goods and resources that Hobbes characterizes as a war of all against all. This is often referred to as the "state of nature." - Thus, in order to secure access to their own products and safety, humans create government to provide protection of property rights and self. C. Many scholars of international relations have used Hobbes' version of the state of nature to describe the anarchy of the international system. (see in particular Kenneth Oye, Robert Keohane, Helen Milner, and Stephen Krasner).

- In "The Twenty Years Crisis" (1939), Carr examined the previous two decades of IR. He criticized the "utopianism" of idealists who failed to realize that IR is characterized by incessant struggle between "have" and "have not" nations. Carr argued against the idea that a "harmony of interests" between nations will render power politics obsolete. He later became a Marxist.

- Hans Morgenthau (1904-80), whose textbook, "Politics among Nations", became the realist bible following World War II, argued that international politics is a struggle for power that can be explained at three levels of analysis: 1. The flawed individual in the state of nature struggles for self-preservation. 2. The autonomous and unitary state is constantly involved in power struggles, balancing power with power and preserving the national interest. 3. Because the international system is anarchic—there is no higher power to put the competition to an end—the struggle is continuous.

-key concept of classical realism and Hans Morgenthau - The logic of realism is derived from human nature. Humans, by nature, have a desire to survive and they pursue power to ensure survival.

1. Political relationships are governed by rules deeply rooted in human nature 2. Political leaders act in terms of interest defined as power 3. Interest defined as power is not easily determined - but survival constitutes the minimum goal of foreign policy and the core national interest 4. Universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in their abstract formation - but must be filtered through concrete circumstances of time and place 5. The moral aspirations of a nation cannot be identified with universal moral rules - only by placing politics within the framework of interest = power can we judge other nations 6. Politics is autonomous and separate from economics, law, etc. Difference is in terms of interests a Political realist: interest = power b Economist: interest = wealth c Lawyer interest = conformity with legal rules d Moralist interest = conformity with moral principles

- In the Melian dialogue, part of his history of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides relates a debate over Athens' threat to invade neutral Melos to demonstrate strength. The Melians present an idealistic appeal to justice, while Athens' argument is starkly realist: relations between states turn on power, not morality. Thucydides seems take a centrist position. - Four of the essential assumptions of realism are found in Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War. 1. The state is the principal actor in war and politics in general. 2. The state is assumed to be a unitary actor: once a decision is made to go to war or capitulate, the state speaks and acts with one voice. 3. Decision makers acting in the name of the state are assumed to be rational actors. Rational decision making leads to the advance of the national interest. 4. A state's need to protect itself from enemies both foreign and domestic. A state augments its security by building up its economic prowess and forming alliances with other states.

- In 1868, Queen Isabella II of Spain was deposed. Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, a German state, was next in line to the succession of Spain - Napoleon III, emperor of France, did not want a newly united Germany on one border and Spain led by a German prince on another border. - France declared war on the German Confederacy on July 19, 1870 - France, the most powerful state in Europe was defeated in six weeks, due primarily to bungling by the French general command. The German army laid siege to Paris, which surrendered on January 28, 1871. - Although France surrendered, it was not fully defeated. France remained the most powerful state in Europe (on paper) and now they were angry. -Otto von Bismarck, the Chancellor of Germany (like a prime minister) knew he had two major problems: 1. He was struggling to unify nearly 30 formerly independent German states into one nation-state. 2. France was angry and powerful and looking for any revenge or advantage against the newly unified Germany. - While Germany was powerful, Bismarck knew Germany might not survive an extended fight with France. Not having enough power itself, Bismarck engineered a series of fluid alliances to ensure Germany's survival.

- A dominant idea within realist and English school traditions of thought. For most classical realists, the balance of power was something that was contrived (i.e. actors had to cooperate to maintain the balance) whereas for neorealists the balance of power is akin to a natural equilibrium. For neorealists, states within the international system will automatically balance against any dominant state power. In English school thought, the balance of power is an 'institution' which requires not only cooperation but a shared belief that a balance of power is crucial if international order is to be achieved. - Any system in which actors (e.g. states) enjoy relatively equal power, such that no single state or coalition of states is able to dominate other actors in the system

- Where a threatened state accepts the burden of deterring an adversary and commits substantial resources to achieving that goal. The threatened state can mobilize its own resources or join with other threatened states to form a balancing coalition.

- When a weaker states join a stronger or dominant alliance in the context of the balance of power in the international system.

Defensive Realism - Waltz 1. It is unwise for states to try to maximize power 2. The system will punish them if they get too much power 3. The pursuit of hegemony is especially dangerous

-The whole is understood by knowing the attributes and interactions of its parts -Reductionist theories explain international outcomes through elements and combinations of elements located at national or subnational levels. The international system, if conceived of at all, is taken to be merely an outcome. A A reductionist theory is a theory about the behavior of parts. B Once the theory that explains the behavior of the parts is fashioned, no further effort is required. C From attributes one cannot predict outcomes if outcomes depend on the situations of the actors as well as on their attributes.

- The paradox that occurs when a state seeks to improve its own security resulting in the decreased security of other states. Providing assurances to the contrary is not effective, realists argue, given the lack of trust between actors in a self-help world.At the heart of the security dilemma is the idea that security is a relative concept: all actors cannot have more of it.

realists believe states attempt to maximize their relative power vis-a-vis other states

Liberals generally believe states seek to maximize absolute economic and security gains

Research program is a theory that is progressive meaning that when an event comes up we can use it. It can also be degenerative meaning that it can not be used to describe relative events and become replaced by a new theory

-Kant accepted Hobbes account of relations between nations but he thought that war could be overcome by republican constitutions, commercial exchange, and a system of international law. -He believed that peace was the state of nature due to common self interests - not war -A "pacific federalism" would be needed to sustain peaceB -Key liberal assumptions in Kant's framework 1. rational individuals 2. faith in the progress of social life 3. belief that people can cooperate Three elements of Kant's pacific federation would strengthen 1. desire of individuals to be free would expand democracy 2. which leads to expanded trade and 3. international organization and international law to facilitate these processes

-Three elements of Kant's pacific federation would strengthen 1. desire of individuals to be free would expand democracy 2. which leads to expanded trade and 3. international organization and international law to facilitate these processes

These three factors lead to peace 1. democracy 2. economic interdependence 3. international organizations Relationships: As democracy increases, membership in international organization increases As democracy increases, economic interdependence increases As democracy increases, peace increases As international organizations increase, democracies increase As international organizations increase, economic interdependence increases As international organizations increase, peace increases As economic interdependence increases, democracy increases As economic interdependence increases, membership in international organization increases As economic interdependence increases, peace increases As peace increases, democracy increases As peace increases, membership in international organizations increases As peace increases, economic interdependence increases