Diplomacy and Domestic Politics the Logic of Two-Level Game Discussion

Anonymous
timer Asked: Apr 9th, 2019
account_balance_wallet $15

Question Description

Robert D. Putnam. 1988. Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games. International Organization. Vol. 42, No. 3 (Summer, 1988), pp. 427-460. INSTRUCTION FOR BOTH QUESTION, USE YOUR OWN WORDS CRITICAL THINKING ( I AM LOOKING FOR 500 WORDS NICE FORMAT ESSAY, DON NOT FORGET TO FOLLOW UP SHORT ANSWERS BOTH QUESTIONS)

Also available at https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/5154-putnamdi...

1-QUESTION

o Why does Putman argue that it is necessary to look beyond “the mere observation” that domestic and international politics influence each other?

o Follow-up question to the first one: According to Putman, how much are domestic politics and international politics indeed “entangled”? How does he explain this?

o What is ‘game theory’ in foreign policy and international politics?

o What are negotiation “win-sets”, as defined by Putman? What are their components? How are they relevant to negotiators of international agreements?

o Think on how the “misinformation” of negotiators that Putman refers to reflect also the concept of “misconception” in Foreign Policy that Jack Snyder set forth in 1968 (see below).

2-Question: Stephen D. Krasner. 2004. Sharing Sovereignty: New Institutions for Collapsed and Failing States. International Security. Vol. 29, No. 2 (Fall, 2004). pp. 85-120.

o School of thought: Neo-realism. o Check Krasner’s biography. Note that he is a member of the Hoover’s Institution (think tank). o What are “failed States” according to the author?

o What is “conventional sovereignty”? How is this concept challenged by “failed states” in Krasner’s view?

o Why is it important for “strong powers” to ensure the stabilization of failed States in Krasner’s view, aka from a neo-realist perspective?

o How does this justify, in Krasner’s opinion, the interference in the weakest states’ sovereignty? What are the possible options to interfere and protect one’s security from the failure of weak states or the failure of conventional sovereignty?

o What are the characteristics of the following instruments: “transitional administration”; “de facto trusteeships”; and “shared sovereignty”?

Tutor Answer

TheRoyalProfessor
School: UC Berkeley

Attached.

Running head: POLITICS

1

Politics: Questions
Name
Institutional Affiliation

POLITICS

2

Question 1: Why Putnam argues it is necessary to look beyond the mere observation that
domestic and international politics influence each other
The reason for this conclusion is based on the knowledge that domestic political
factors have the ability to affect international political factors in ways that are predictable.
The international system is shaped by the domestic factors that the political system is made
up of, over the years. According to Putnam (1988), the international and domestic political
systems are deeply entangled to a level where there are connections on the effects and the
results that are seen within and outside the two processes. The tangle is often puzzling and
has not been fully analysed as being a reliable source of information. Game theory has been
used in International relations and foreign policy as an explanation for the cooperative
abilities as well as the probabilities of conflict.
On the other hand, when it comes to international politics, Game theory analyses the
decision-making processes and how interactions are merged to account for the decisions and
choices of others. The conflicts and other issues are a direct effect of the decisions made.
Putman defines organisation winsets as the process of overlapping of curves of indifference
with a determination of the policy positions that are covered by the interests of an actor from
those that are not (Ko & Kwak, 2017). This term was derived from game theory. The
components of a win set are mainly defined by size and the level played according to what
the actors or parties are accorded as relevant to their playing field. The misinformation of
negotiators that Putman refers to reflects on the concept of misconception in foreign policy as
set forth by Jack Snyder in 1968 through the entanglement of many international negotiations
and politics. In search for an acceptable negotiation, the seemingly rational move may be
considered undiplomatic by another negotiator in participati...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Top quality work from this guy! I'll be back!

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors