Comparative theories

Question 1

What is realism?

Answer 1

States are the most important and authoritative actors in global politics, and their primary goal is to protect their own national interests. The world is anarchical and selfish, with no single authority above states that’s able to impose order.

Question 2

What does Thucydides say?

Answer 2

‘The strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept.’

Question 3

What are the 7 core assumptions of realism?

Answer 3

• States as key actors- interested in states
• Conservative view on human nature- humans are self-interested and morally weak
• States as power/security seeking- rational (self-interested)
• States as rational, unitary and amoral- don’t consider morality
• International anarchy- no overriding authority/ order
• Inevitability of war- can’t avoid war
• Security dilemma- created by inevitability of war

Question 4

What are states like?

Answer 4

States are like billiard balls (realist world view of politics)- states are unitary like billiard ball, have a hard shell of sovereignty, bump against each other

Question 5

What are the 4 types of realism?

Answer 5

Classical realism
Structural realism (defensive)
Offensive realism
Neoclassical realism

Question 6

What is classical and neoclassical realism?

Answer 6

Classical:
-The drive for power and will to dominate are fundamental human traits
-The self-interested behaviour of states is a reflection of human nature
-Machiavelli (1469-1527)- responsible rulers are always trying to seek advantages and defend the interest of their state. Must be ruthless, NOT motivated by Christian ethics. Leaders must know when to be a lion/fox. Leaders should set an empire for protection and bringing resources to your state- legitimate means of gaining security. International relations operates like a Hobbesian state of nature, anything is better than this. Need an organised government.

Neoclassical:
Domestic politics has an influence on foreign policy behaviour. While structural realists assume all states have similar interests, neoclassical realists disagree.
Schweller highlights the differences between states that wish to revise (change) the status quo and those that want to maintain it. Eg. Germany before and after WW2
States also differ in their ability to extract resources from the societies they rule. Corruption, eg. can limit a state’s ability to collect taxation.

Question 7

What are structural (defensive) and offensive realism?

Answer 7

Structural (defensive):
-International relations is a struggle for power, but not because of human nature but because of a lack of authority above states.
-Structures determine action
-International anarchy, domestic hierarchy shows contrast between hierarchical system in state that maintains law and order meanwhile no overarching authority in international system so states can’t rely on each other for protection, must do it themselves so unpredictable behaviour, states are responding to threats and balancing power to maintain security, states forced into a competitive, self-help system where cooperation is difficult and conflict is possible
-In order to understand the international system you need to study the distribution of power (unipolar/bipolar/multipolar)
-Bipolar systems are more stable than multipolar
-Waltz- bipolar more stable than multipolar as more hierarchical (less anarchical)
-Rather than being power maximisers, states are security maximisers
-World government impossible as most powerful states don’t want to give up sovereignty so problem can’t be fixed

Offensive:
-An offshoot of structural
-Mearshimer- Waltz’s realism is ‘defensive’ and the structure of the international system compels states to maximise their relative power not security
-The ideal position (although impossible) is to be the global hegemon (leader) of the world system
-Because hegemony is impossible the world is condemned to perpetual great power competition so states can overreach themselves, eg. US in 1990s, pointless