Global: Comparative Theories Flashcards
realist view of human nature?
more pessimistic view based on conservative ideas of human imperfection (Hobbes)
human nature is self centred and cannot be changed
humans operate in a “zero sum game” (there is only to win or lose, morals are irrelevent)
in a realist world where others cannot be trusted this outlook is rational.
human nature drives the behaviour of states, so these principles also apply to states. (Morgenthau)
liberal view of human nature?
optimistic view, based on liberal ideas of rationality, liberty, egotistical individualism (locke), tolerance (Mill), developmental individualism (Rawls)
humans are self centred, but above all are rational with the capacity for progress and will therefore cooperate or compete depending on circumstances.
humans tend to seek win-win solutions, “enlightened self interest”
in a liberal world where you can trust others, it is rational to cooperate even if gains are not equal.
human nature drives behaviour of states, so these ideas can be applied to states too.
realist view on power?
international state system is anarchic (Hedley Bull) - this inevitably leads to conflict.
in an anarchical state system where others cannot be trusted, it is beneficial for states to maximise their own power in order to feel secure (offensive realism, mearshimer)
defensive realists (waltz) disagree, arguing instead that states need to maximise their security rather than just power. this could be achieved by the deterrent of mutually assured destruction (nuclear weapons)
hard power (force, coercion) is the only way a state can ensure security. soft power unrealiable bc other states cannot be trusted.
liberal view on power?
liberals agree that the international state system is anarchic, however they believe that cooperation within IGOs can bring stability.
liberals are suspicious of those who seek to accumulate power, believing this leads to tyranny. when power is widely distributed between states (multipolarity) the risk of tyranny is reduced because no one state has the power to act alone.
economic interdependence often creates stability, while arms races are expensive and often impoverish states.
soft power should always be the first option to achieve goals (negotiation, treaties, etc). if this fails smart power should be used (SP backed up by HP)
realist view on order, security and the likelihood of conflict?
conflict is inevitable due to self interested human nature that drives state behaviour. conflict is sometimes necessary to defend national interests and acts as a deterrent to other states. therefore every state is a potential threat to other states. IGOs do not have the power to prevent conflicts. eg Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Palestine
best way to avoid conflict is for each state to have well defended borders and internal security. democracy can lead to weakened internal control, allowing other states to infiltrate and exploit divisions, causing conflict.
liberal view on order, security and the likelihood of conflict?
conflict is avoidable due to rational human behaviour that drives state behaviour. great effort is required to reduce and resolve conflict. IGOs provide a rules-based foru, for peaceful conflict resolution; eg Cameroon/Nigeria border dispute resolved, coup prevented in Cote D’Ivoire
complex interdependence reduces likelihood of conflict due to it not being in any of the states’ interests to raise tensions; eg UK staying in EU would maintain peace in Europe
Democracy helps states avoid conflict bc it provides an important check on potential executive tyranny and protects human rights, enhancing internal security
realist view on states and sovereignty?
states remain the primary and most powerful actors in global politics.
soverignty is defined more narrowly; autonomy (state sovereignty) and control (internal sovereignty) are prioritised.
state’s own interests are the absolute priority; maintaining control and autonomy are the only ways of achieving this.
states should be wary of giving up autonomy to IGO’s, however they can be useful as a way to influence other states, and veto powers can protect the national interest.
liberal view on states and sovereignty?
states are improtant actors, but they work within a complex web of interdependence and with other non-state actors such as IGOs and NGOs.
Sovereignty is defined more broadly, as influence generally rather than purely autonomy.
state’s national interests are a priority, but pooling sovereignty can be more advantageous to the national interest that isolationism.
if a state does not fulfil its social contract with its citizens, its sovereignty may be infringed by the international community.
realist view on IGO’s and security?
IGOs can be useful as a means to try to influence other states tp achieve national interest, but they are undesirable if states cannot achieve their self-centred goals within them.
IGOs can be very dangerous if they are given the power to compel state actions against their own interests. the national veto is an important protection against IGO power.
IGOs that do not respect state sovereignty are therefore unstable and likely to fail - eg UK leaving EU due to undermined sovereignty
IGOs do not have the right to prevent a state from maintaining internal security. therefore human rights IGOs are an illegitimate tool used by western states to intervene in the affairs of other states.
liberal view on IGO’s and security?
IGOs are the most authoritative source of international law, creating a rules-based international order and a forum for peaceful conflict resolution. IGOs can help states to deepen economic integration, and provide a means of collective defence against common enemies (eg NATO)
IGOs are therefore beneficial for states who make rational compromises in pursuit of the common good. with commitment by stares to make them work, they can succeed.
rules-based international order established by IGOs helps to protect all citizens by promoting universal human rights and intervening in states that abuse them.
