Attachment # 00011335 - litreviewtheorysampleNSEC500.docx
litreviewtheorysampleNSEC500.docx (18.9 KB)
Raw Preview of Attachment:
(refer to the detailed question and attachment below)
Literature ReviewPayoffs and GainsOne of the main barriers to interaction between states in the international system concerns payoffs; who wins and who loses. Realists, such as John Mearsheimer, view the world as a zero-sum game (2006, 75) which is defined as an interaction “where the sum of the payoffs of all players [states in this context] equals zero” (Dixit, Skeath, and Reiley Jr. 2009, 774). Simply put, one state’s gain is another state’s loss. For example, if two states are bidding on the rights to drill for oil in the South China Sea, one wins while the other loses. The same situation occurred when the United States and Russia were recruiting allies during the Cold War; only one state could “win” an ally while the other “lost” it. Realists focus on relative gains, meaning that a state will take note of its individual gain, but also “how well it does against other states” (Mearsheimer 1994, 12). Concerning the latter example, if each state were to gain an ally, Realists would focus not just on the fact that each state gained an ally, but also on how much better off each state was by gaining an ally. For instance, a state that gained China as an ally would almost surely be better off than a state that gains the support of, say, Croatia, which is smaller and militarily weaker. Therefore, because of this focus on relative gains, Realists believe that cooperation is much less likely to occur because a state only concerns itself with how much better it is doing relative to other states, not how much better off all states are.Realists have a very pessimistic way of looking at the interactions between actors, but Liberals, such as Robert Keohane, have a much more positive outlook on cooperation. Liberals do not believe that interactions between states are always zero-sum; rather, interactions can serve to benefit (or hurt) all actors involved in many scenarios (Keohane and Martin 1995, 45). Returning to the drilling example, there may be a scenario where the two states do not possess adequate resources to take advantage of the oil reserve if each acts unilaterally. However, if the states were able to reach an agreement, either bilaterally or with the assistance of an international organization, to share the burdens (e.g. purchasing the rights, infrastructure investment, maintenance, and environmental concerns), each state would see benefits due to each acquiring resources, sharing risks, and increasing its economic standing. When neither state loses, and both are better off than before, the interaction is referred to as a positive-sum game, or simply as a non-zero-sum game (Dixit, Skeath, and Reiley Jr. 2009, 21).Cheating, Verification, and IdentityA common worry in the international system, and one of the main reasons cooperation does not occur more often, is the fear of cheating. Examples of cheating, depending on the international agreement, may include false claims regarding the number, location(s), or capability of arms, hiding/protecting criminals instead of informing authorities, and selling/buying materials which are forbidden to be traded, to name a few. Mearsheimer (1994, 11) asserts that states “aim to maximize their relative power positions over other states” because it results in a higher level of security for the state. Unfortunately, if acting in its own best interest, a state may find it advantageous to cheat, especially if it will not get caught, rather than follow a restrictive agreement. This is precisely what Russia was accused of doing in Ukraine when it sent resources to pro-Russian rebels during the 2014 ceasefire (Pace 2014). Due to the possibility of cheating, many international agreements have clauses to help guide states in eliminating, or at least minimizing, such occurrences. The ability to verify whether another state is complying with an agreement is paramount to sustainable cooperation. But it can be difficult. Using the terms of game theory, Axelrod (2006, 140) defines verification as “knowing with an adequate degree of confidence what move the other player has actually made”. Verification can be carried out in many ways, including onsite inspections and remote monitoring, both of which can be effective methods “to deter cheating…and to build confidence between the parties to an agreement” (Kifleyesus-Matschie 2006, 14-15). First, the three schools differ on how, and to what degree, the “confidence” mentioned above may be influenced. Realists would like verification to take place as often as possible because this would reduce states’ opportunities for cheating. Unfortunately, it would still not eliminate the possibility of cheating altogether. For instance, a state may allow for verification one day, but could quickly reverse course and turn against an unsuspecting rival state a short time later. Realists would suggest that states must remain skeptical because one cannot be sure of “the intentions of other states” (Mearsheimer 1994, 10). Second, liberals and constructivists insist on hard evidence as well, but would also take states’ reputations into account. For example, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) (1992) requires that a “State Party shall permit the Technical Secretariat to conduct the on-site challenge inspection” to assure compliance with the agreement. Each time a state that is party to the CWC is willing to allow an inspection, its reputation for cooperation increases. According to Liberals and Constructivists this would increase confidence in the ability and intention of the willing participant to carry out the actions it had agreed to.Third, constructivists argue that states build identities/reputations not only by following the rules of international agreements, but also by abiding by social norms (Abbott and Snidal 1998, 26; Grant and Keohane 2005, 36, Table 2; O’Neill, Balsiger, VanDeveer 2004, 151; Slaughter 2011, 3-5). In turn, they create the norms and conventions of international agreements. Wendt (1992, 411) disagrees with the Realist notion that states cannot be trusted, because states want to “avoid the expected costs of breaking commitments made to others”. Most states will eschew cheating, adopt acceptable norms and values, and allow verification of expected actions, so as “to minimize uncertainty and anxiety” in the international system (Wendt 1992, 411). For instance, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty required the inventory and inspection, and later the elimination, of several hundred nuclear weapons in the Soviet Union and the United States (Kimball and Collina 2014). The treaty serves as a good example of two states spending decades abiding by agreements, altering behavior, and allowing verification so as to decrease security threats at all levels of analysis. As a result, new norms are created over time.Cooperation on International Security States cooperate on a multitude of important matters, but none is more important than security. Cooperation on international security comes in many forms with defense pacts, collective defense agreements, and arms control treaties being only a few of the many options. It is assumed that one of the “most basic motive[s]” (Mearsheimer 1994, 10) of a state is survival. Therefore, if a state can increase its chances of survival by forgoing unilateral action and instead cooperating with others, it is more apt to participate in international security. Indeed, although the possibility of defection is always present, it can be mitigated by repeated interactions. Since cooperation is rarely a one-off occurrence, but rather a series of iterated interactions, states are more apt to overlook short-term costs and gains, while instead focusing on larger long-term benefits (Wendt 1992, 416, Note 81; Fearon 1998, 296-299).The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is one of the best and most enduring examples of states cooperating in an attempt to ensure international security. NATO was created after World War II largely to keep the Soviet Union from overrunning the weakened forces in Europe and spreading its communist ideology (Hansen 2011, 172-173). According to Article Five of the North Atlantic Treaty “an armed attack against one or more of [the parties] shall be considered an attack against them all [and] if such an attack occurs” each party will assist “as it deems necessary”. This requirement is worthy of note to Liberals and Constructivists because states are willing to abide by it despite its potential restrictions on state autonomy (Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff Jr. 2001, 538-539). It was very unlikely in 1949 that Western European states would need to assist the United States militarily, but the United States took a huge risk in its commitment to defend Western Europe in the face of Soviet ‘aggression’ (Scott 2011, 57). The United States took this risk because it saw that such a move was beneficial to its own interests in a variety of ways. First, the United States feared the spread of communism, and saw the NATO agreement as an incentive for other states to cooperate and work against its spread. Second, the United States had a huge incentive to keep Western Europe safe after investing US$13 billion to assist its allies in rebuilding after the war (George C. Marshall Foundation 2015). Finally, during the late 1940s, technologies such as Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) and drones that are capable of traveling the distances now possible were not available. Therefore, armed forces had to be able to launch attacks from a much closer area. The NATO agreement provided the opportunity for the United States to base its military forces nearer to Russian territory than it otherwise would have been able to. The United States knew that it was a huge risk to largely take responsibility for the protection of Western Europe. However, the payoffs: stopping the spread of communism, protecting its investment, and having military bases from which to project its conventional (and later nuclear) power, provided ample incentives to undertake such a burden. Currently there are questions as to whether the U.S. should stay in NATO, but Mearsheimer (2010, 389) points out that “the United States not only protects NATO countries from each other, it protects them from serious threats that might come from outside of NATO”. This is a perfect example of the United States providing stability by reducing the number of overall threats in the international system. It serves the dual purpose of providing enough safety to other states so as to better stabilize the international system, while also reducing the opportunities for threats against the United States to emerge.Theory on cooperation (no matter liberal, realist, or constructivist) shows us that there are a few important variables to explain when states cooperate: time, experience (or iterated games), state power, state objectives and goals, threats, perceived gains, cost, and resources.
Literature Review Assignment

Literature Review Assignment

Question # 00632751 Posted By: wolfthunderkick2 Updated on: 01/01/2018 11:27 PM Due on: 01/02/2018
Subject General Questions Topic General Academic Questions Tutorials:
Question
Dot Image

Hi, attached is a research proposal for a topic titled:" Strategies to Counter Terrorism". Please use it to build on the below assignment. Need a Literature Review paper for the same topic.


Literature Review Assignment

The Literature Review assignment is the second in a series of sequenced assignments that will help you engage in academic writing. The purpose of this assignment is to provide you experience with designing a literature review that supports the research proposal you submitted in the previous weeks.

Literature reviews are designed to: 1) give your readers an overview of sources you have explored while researching a particular topic or idea and 2) demonstrate how your research fits into the larger field of study, in this case, intelligence. 3) (and probably most importantly) give your reader and idea of how you will USE the other researchers in your own unique research. Remember, the lit review is NOT the answer to the research quiesiton AND you CANNOT reuse the information from the lit review in the data section. 4) define the variables that you will use in the data section using the literature from other scholars.

Unlike annotated bibliographies, which are lists of references arranged alphabetically that include the bibliographic citation and a paragraph summary and critique for each source, literature reviews can be incorporated into a research paper or manuscript. You may quote or paraphrase from the sources, and all references to sources should include in-text citations with a reference list at the end of the document. (Note: Do not confuse the two and turn in an annotated bibliography! This will result in a grade letter penalty!)

American Military University uses the Turabian/Chicago Manual of Style citation and reference styles. For questions on proper citation, consult Kate L. Turabian's Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, 7th Edition. You can also consult online resources such as the Purdue Online Writing Lab's section on Chicago Style available at: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/717/1/, the Chicago Manual of Style Online Quick Guide, available at: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html, or the Turabian Quick Guide available at: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/books/turabian/turabian_citationguide.html.

Remember to choose a variety of articles that relate to your subject, even if they do not directly answer your research question. You may find articles that loosely relate to the topic, rather than articles that you find using an exact keyword search. At first, you may need to cast a wide net when searching for sources. Your literature review should have between 8 and 10 or more sources.

For example: If your research question focuses on recent trends in the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for collection, you may be able to find some articles that address this specific question. You may also find literature regarding ISR dynamic tasking of UAV assets or the use of UAV's from aircraft carrier platforms.

Remember to select the most relevant information from the articles as it pertains to your subject and your purpose; it does not not have to be the most current information. If the literature is helpful to you, use it. This is not a current events paper. We are not reviewing what's going on in order to inform our readers as if we are writing a lengthy magazine article. Remember, the purpose of the literature review is to demonstrate how your research question fits into a larger field of study.

Remember to critically examine the articles. Look at methodology, statistics, results, theoretical framework, the author's purpose, etc. Include controversies when they appear in the articles.

For example: You should look for the strengths and weaknesses of how the author conducted the study. You can also decide whether or not the study is generalizable to other settings or whether the findings relate only to the specific setting of the study. Ask yourself why the author conducted the study and what he/she hoped to gain from the study. Look for inconsistencies in the results, as well. BUT do NOT write an annotated bibliography.

Remember to crganize your information in the way that makes most sense. Some literature reviews may begin with a definition or general overview of the topic. Others may focus on another aspect of your topic. Look for themes in the literature or organize by types of study.

For example: Group case studies together, especially if all the case studies have related findings, research questions, or other similarities. But remember that this is not your data. Your data MUST be distinct from the data that you use in the lit review. You CANNOT double dip; do not derive a hypothesis from the same data that you then test it in.

Please Check to see that you have done more than simply summarize your sources. Your literature review should include a critical assessment of those sources. For more information, see #4 above or read the Writing a Literature Review website at Empire State College, available at http://www.esc.edu/esconline/across_esc/library.nsf/3cc42a422514347a8525671d0049f395/46c31e3773d8747b852570ad00700699?OpenDocument for questions to think about when reading sources and sample papers.

Please also be sure to develop questions for further research. Again, you are not simply regurgitating information, but you are assessing and leading your reader to questions of your own, questions and ideas that haven't been explored yet or haven't been addressed in detail by the literature in the field.

Your paper should be typed (12 point font), 8 to 10 pages, double spaced and include a title page. Be sure to proof read carefully, as graduate students are expected to submit papers free of spelling and grammar errors. NOTE: The title page and bibliography are not counted in the page count total.

Dot Image
Attachments
Research_Proposal.doc (46 KB)
litreviewtheorysampleNSEC500.docx (18.9 KB)
Tutorials for this Question
  1. neil2103
    Tutorial # 00631652 Posted By: neil2103 Posted on: 01/01/2018 11:41 PM
    Puchased By: 3
    Tutorial Preview
    The solution of Literature Review Assignment...
      Get the Solution
    Attachments
    Strategies_to_Counter_Terrorism.docx (26.52 KB)
Whatsapp Lisa