IR theory Flashcards
Classical realism arguments
System is characterized by conflict. Human history oscillates but doesn’t evolve. International regimes and institutions exist only to serve the interests of the dominant power. Basic foundations of theory have existed for millenia though not codified into theoretical framework until end of World War II.
Neorealism arguments
System is characterized by conflict but likelihood of conflict is dependent on the polarity of the system. States will choose to either bandwagon or balance. Relative power is important…one state’s gain implicitly means another state’s loss of security. Developed in the Cold War as bipolar world order created new systems in which bandwagoning and balancing became important. Theorists were increasingly concerned with balance of power as a means of mitigating conflict. (Hegemonic stability theory and bipolar stability were two competing ideas.)
Institutionalism arguments
Increasing interdependence between states reduces likelihood of conflict due to anarchy-mitigating effects of international institutions. States are not monolithic black boxes but their internal structure matters. Relationships between elites from different countries has an impact on international relations. Human history evolves. Future of international system will be more secure due to increasing dominance of international regimes. Developed toward end of Cold War as dominance of international institutions increased. Popular ideas include Democratic Peace Theory and commercial trade theory which both posit that conflict can be mitigated by either the spread of democracy or liberal trade capitalism.
Constructivism arguments
Norms and patterns of behavior can have an impact on state behavior but do so not through regimes (a la liberalism) but through state identities. Rejects the assumption that state priorities are exogenous (both liberalism and realism assume that international actors are rational, as defined by a desire for power, security, or welfare). Rather, identities are created through interaction in a state of anarchy. Social acts are defined as signalling process between actors in which identities are created.
Theory of theory classical arguments
From the Latin thealimi –> to observe, to look at. Classical understanding of theory is that we must deep dive into our subjects. We must study everything about them in order to describe them. The challenge of this conception of theory as applied to IR is that it is extremely complicated. Theorists must be adept at using history, anecdotal evidence, and facts to support their theory.
Theory of theory modern arguments
An explanation of how different variables interact. Don’t need hands-on with reality…in fact, abstract theories should be further away. Abstract theory is more narrow than Classical in that it focuses on a bunch of variables. It is both more concrete (real variables i.e. discussing impact of armored units) and more abstract (general application i.e. no case studies / countries). The greater the abstraction, the greater the power of the theory.
Both Theory of Theory modern and classical arguments
Both versions share some similarities, including: 3 levels of analysis (individual, state, system), 4 types of goals (describe, explain, predict, and prescribe), anarchic overarching system.
Classical Realism Assumptions
- State is the primary actor 2. International system is anarchic 3. States maximize power
Neorealism Assumptions
- State is the primary actor 2. International system is anarchic 3. States maximize security
Liberalism: Institutionalism assumptions
- International system is anarchic 2. States are not the only actors (international institutions, regimes, etc.). Internal structure of states matter. 3. Repeated interaction leads to regimes (norms, institutions) that can enable Pareto Optimal outcomes and mitigate conflict
Constructivism Assumptions
- International system is anarchic. 2. Identities shape behavior.
Theory of theory: Classical assumptions
the act of observing reality
Theory of theory: Modern assumptions
abstract model of reality
Doing Evil in Order to Do Good contributions
Called on princes (leaders) to recognize the objective law of International system and behave accordingly. Basically a criticism of leaders who attempt to follow moral principles. It is their responsibility to maintain their state, an endeavor that requires amoral calculations. For example, it is better to be feared than loved since men are naturally ungrateful but dread punishment. SUPPORTS ASSUMPTION 2: STATES ARE MAIN ACTORS
The State of Nature and the State of War contributions
Humans are basically equal and conflict is a natural symptom of this equality for some things are desired by both but can’t be enjoyed by both. As such, a state of nature in which there is no overarching government is characterized by war. Hobbes doesn’t use war to mean battles between armies or actual fighting (though these can occur) but rather the disposition toward conflict and no assurance of anything else. SUPPORTS ASSUMPTION 3: ANARCHY
The Melian Dialogue contributions
Melians are an example of a state that doesn’t get the reality of the international system. They attempted to appeal to the Athenians’ sense of morality and were crushed. Example of the assumptions of the international system in which the strong prey on the weak. SUPPORTS ASSUMPTION 1: STATES SHOULD MAXIMIZE POWER
Theory of International Politics contributions
Believes that classical realism is a good start but needs to be more scientific. Applies economic ideas to international relations theory. Most important of these applications is the transmutation of the market into the system. Believes that states are the main actors but act based on where they are in the system, not on who they are. Waltz is concerned with getting an abstract theory that can be broadly applicable. As such, he doesn’t focus on case studies and focuses on the system so theorists don’t have to look at n actors with n nuances. State behavior is changed by the system: objectives, motivations, and interests are modified by the system. The system socializes the states to make them all the same.
Politics Among Nations contributions
Basically provides an overview of the three main assumptions of classical realism by drawing upon historical authors. There is no progress in history, just technological change. Human desire for survival by domination will never change. The tendency to dominate for survival characterizes all human behavior and is justified as exogenous either through the religious concept of original sin or imperfect reason.
Bipolarity, Multipolarity, and the Future contributions
Competition is always constant and intense. A race to the bottom is a degenerative process. Tears down bi and multipolarity, arguing that bi-multipolarity is the most stable. “Race to the bottom” means that any tit is met with a corresponding tat until we all blow up. Competition between the two superpowers is so intense that superiority in one area is impossible. Crisis is a normative factor. Preponderant states become so powerful that minor shifts in balance of power are nonthreatening. Bi-polar realm moderated by two hegemonic poles moderated by multipolar realm.
Multipolar Power Systems contributions
Argue that multipolar system are more stable (defined as the probability that no state will dominate, each will maintain its integrity, and there will be an absence of war). Stability is created by the rise of interaction (more interaction = more dyadic relationships = variety of interests and potential conflicts = cross-pressures against large-scale conflcit) and attention allocation (as number of relationships increases, resources for attending to each decreases and arms races are less threatening because each state isn’t sure the threat is against them specifically). These guys believe that multipolar systems are more stable but impermanent.
Bandwagoning for Profit contributions
Argues that bandwagoning is more prevalent in International System than other neorealists would choose to believe. Defines 3 types of responses to threats: jackal bandwagoning (bandwagon for rewards / security by weak states), wave-of-the-future bandwagoning (weak states bandwagon if they believe doing so will align them with a new world order), balancing (strong states balance in order to maintain the status quo).
The Anarchical Society contributions
Argues that notion of international order is impossible theoretical concept but states operate in international society in which rules and norms, even if not codified, persist. Fundamentally argues that viewing reality through structure of international society is limiting because there are nuances in group and individual behavior that go unnoticed.
Systems in Crisis contributions
Power Cycle Theory: similar to hegemonic stability theory but not diadic (roughly 5 meaningful actors in system). State power is roughly bell-shaped with ‘critical points’ of inflection. State’s estimation of capabilities is drawn from tangent line from critical point. At early stages, states under-estimate their capabilities and at mid stages, states over-estimate. Critical points represent uncertainty as states realize they’ve been over/under-estimating capabilities. In addition, transparency decreases at inflection points. Multiple states going through critical points at the same time increases the likelihood of conflict.
War and Change in World Politics contributions
Hegemonic stability theory: presence of a hegemon mitigates the effects of anarchy since the hegemon produces global public goods. These goods decrease the likelihood of conflict by decreasing uncertainty through regulation. Act as approximation of global government. System is fundamentally diadic (only meaningful actors are hegemon and challenger). Conflict becomes more likely as hegemon faces decreasing marginal returns on global public goods. Challenger covets the hegemon’s ‘prestige’ (basically ability to impose will through pre-existing legitimacy instead of raw force) and conflict arises as hegemon and challenger’s cost-benefit analyses shift.
