“Peace Theories” and “How to be a Good Wing”

“Peace Theories” and “How to be a
Good Wing”
-Nick’s rambling about stuff
Training Session 25 Apr 2014
NATO/Serbia (2005)
India/Pakistan (Kashmir 1998)
Israel/Lebanon (2006)
Georgia/Russia (2008)
Statistically speaking seemed to
work pretty well!
Democratic Peace Theory
Democracies almost never fight with each other – lack
of any real wars between real democracies in 20th C
-Normative Reasons
-Structural Reasons
Argue that promoting democracy
has broader benefits to protecting
the security of existing democratic
(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.
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
India/Pakistan Nuclear Standoff
Golden Arches Peace Theory
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
Statistically speaking seemed to
work pretty well!
NATO/Serbia (2005)
India/Pakistan (Kashmir 1998)
Israel/Lebanon (2006)
Georgia/Russia (2008)
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
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
• ''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
• Think about the debate as it happens
• If you don’t, 30-90 seconds will likely not
be enough to come up with a call
7. Metrics: Up For Grabs, and Not
• 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 persuadedotherwise 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