Main Ideas: Realism

Question 1

what is realism?

Answer 1

Realism refers to being realistic implying that this theory takes a practical and matter-of-fact approach to international relations with no room for sentiment or idealism

Question 2

key realist ideas about states

Answer 2

States are the key actors in global politics and the most important actors in the global system
States are sovereign
States possess certain characteristics that lead to conflict;
selfishness rationality unitary amoral seek power

Question 3

selfish human nature:

Answer 3

Humans are inherently selfish which lead states to behave selfishly as they are ruled by people
Classical realists in particular believe selfish human nature is the root cause of conflict between states

Question 4

selfish human nature:

Answer 4

Realist thinkers such as Thucydides and Morgenthau Believe humans are fundamentally self-centred people will pursue their own interests above and beyond the interests of others
Therefore states which are ruled by people also seek to promote their own national interests at the expense of other states
There will always be with losers and winners in the international
system

Question 5

selfish human nature:

Answer 5

It’s perfectly reasonable for states to behave selfishly as they are operating in a world where states put their own interests above everyone else’s leading to uncertainty about the intentions of other states

Question 6

selfish human nature:

Answer 6

As with the Prisoners’ Dilemma proposed by Flood and Dresher in the 1950s, states cannot trust other states to act in everyone’s best interest so must behave Selfishly to preserve their own interests and protect themselves
The safest strategy is to expect betrayal and pre-empt such an eventuality by being the 1st to betray
There are no true allies today’s friend could be tomorrow’s enemy
It may seem that cooperating is optimal but states like prisoners do not know each other’s intentions and cannot guarantee corporation so must act selfishly

Question 7

selfish human nature:

Answer 7

Not working together becomes the best strategy but such competition rather than cooperation between states inevitably leads to a clash of interests in which there will always be a winner and a loser this in turn leads to war

Question 8

selfish human nature:

Answer 8

Machiavelli asserted that humans are “malignant iniquitous violent and savage” they are self-seeking are primarily motivated by a quest for power

Question 9

states are rational:

Answer 9

States are rational in that they engage in dispassionate calculations of their interests, much like how individuals are assumed to act according to rational choice theory
Relations with other states including whether to engage in war or make a trade deal are determined by a cost benefit analysis in which the relative costs of an action are weighed against the benefits of taking that action

Question 10

states are rational:

Answer 10

States pursue a policy of course of action if the benefits are higher than the perceived costs
But if the costs outweigh the benefits, a state will not pursue that policy or course of action
Cost benefit analysis - avoid making decisions based on emotion

Question 11

states are unitary actors:

Answer 11

There is no division of opinion within a state as to what constitutes its national interest
they are unitary actors
States act by themselves and for themselves they do not have to consider other states there is no such thing as the international community states are unitary

Question 12

states are unitary actors:

Answer 12

Some realist believe that a states culture and nature of the regime may affect what it believes are its interests
but other realist believe that the interest of states are fixed - it is always in a states interest to increase their power and consequently their security

Question 13

states are amoral:

Answer 13

States do not act according to the concepts of justice rights or religious morality
They only act according to what is in their interests which may sometimes be considered amoral
There is no moral code underpinning state behaviour they simply act as they please
Relations between states are not guided by universal principles

Question 14

states are amoral:

Answer 14

In The Prince Machiavelli argued that rulers of state should be ruthless in pursuing their interests and what matters is achieving these interests, not how they are achieved
Realists such as Randall Schweller have even said that “a just war is one in the national interest”

Question 15

states seek power:

Answer 15

states are motivated by the pursuit of the national interests and power is in every states’ national interest
Derived from Thomas Hobbes’ view about human nature

Question 16

states seek power:

Answer 16

classical realists believe that power is good in itself
while neorealists see power as a means to security because the more powerful a state is, the better able it is to protect itself from other states

Question 17

states seek power:

Answer 17

it is not known how much power guarantees security so states constantlv seek power
in fact, neorealists argue that the safest course of action is for a state to strive to achieve hegemonic status in which it is the dominant power in the world
states’ comparative economic and military power determines their security

Question 18

states seek power:

Answer 18

power is a finite resource, meaning that states must compete with each other for military and economic power which affects the balance of power between states and creates tension
because as one state gains power, other states inevitably lose it - known as the zero-sum game
This constantly shifting balance of power impacts the balance of states on a global level although states naturally seek a balance of power unless this is not in the national interest

Question 19

states seek power:

Answer 19

states tend to be reluctant to attack their more powerful neighbours in attempts to gain power for themselves
but are more willing to attack less powerful states as this is far less risky

Question 20

states seek power:

Answer 20

weaker states are aware of their vulnerability and try to increase their power
usually by increasing the size of their military or acquiring more powerful weapons such as nuclear deterrents

Question 21

states seek power:

Answer 21

this leads to a security dilemma as other states see this as a threat to their own power

Question 22

states seek power:

Answer 22

an imbalance of power creates the potential for conflict but a balance of power can create harmony
states naturally seek such a balance of power to curb the hegemonic ambitions of more powerful states and so avoid the conflict that arises when great powers strive for dominance

Question 23

international anarchy:

Answer 23

international anarchy is the idea that the world system is leaderless, there is no universal soverign or worldwide government

Question 24

international anarchy:

Answer 24

instead, states are the principal actors in international systems and are free to act as they please because there is no higher power dictating what they can and can’t do
there is no higher authority than the state
therefore, states cannot be held accountable for their actions or be punished for infringing the rights and interests of other states

Question 25

international anarchy:

Answer 25

no actor has the authority to control states
therefore it doesn’t make sense to talk about ‘rights’ and ‘justice’ when referring to relations between states
Realists believe that the lack of a higher authority above states gives rise to the potential for conflict between states

Question 26

international anarchy:

Answer 26

the international system is like Hobbes’ state of nature, where states can act with impunity
Hobbes describes the state of nature as “during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe” which involves
“a war of every man against every man”
he believed that in such a system, life is “nasty, brutish and short” because, without government and the rule of law, people give in to their base instincts, which includes acting selfishly
they are able to rape, murder and pillage without restraint, just as states are able to act without restraint in the anarchic international system
in the absence of recognised authority, as in the international system, individuals (like states) are self-governing autonomous actors - there are no rules and nobody is in a position to enforce them, individuals are free to do as they please

Question 27

international anarchy:

Answer 27

some realists believe that it is such international anarchy, which allows states to get away with acting selfishly, that is the real cause of conflict
others argue that selfish human nature causes states to act selfishly and even if the international system was not one of anarchy, states would always act selfishly and consequently cause conflict

Question 28

international anarchy

Answer 28

An analogy frequently used to explain realism and the idea of international anarchy is John Dalton’s billiard ball model
The billiard balls in the game represent nation states the hardshells represent the national sovereignty of individual states
If one ball hits the other they will spread out across the table they will remain separate entities and will not merge

Question 29

inevitability of war:

Answer 29

Realists believe that war and conflict is inevitable for numerous reasons all of which pose a threat to world peace
The security dilemma
Selfish human nature
States desire for power
Zero-sum nature of power
International anarchy (meaning there is no higher power able to prevent war)

Question 30

inevitability of war:

Answer 30

Selfish human nature
in a world where people are selfish and states act accordingly, there is bound to be disagreement and competition for resources, which leads to conflict
states are bound to come into conflict because their selfish interests will clash

Question 31

inevitability of war:

Answer 31

the zero-sum nature of power
if one state gains power, another state must have lost it
power is not infinite, meaning that all states, whether intentionally or not, pose a threat because if they gain power they take it away from someone else

Question 32

inevitability of war:

Answer 32

states desire for power
states do not adhere to moral principles and simply pursue power, which is bound to cause tension between states and lead to misunderstandings and disharmony on an international level

Question 33

inevitability of war:

Answer 33

there is “always the danger of war lurking in the background”, as pointed out by Randall Schweller

Question 34

security dilemma:

Answer 34

The security dilemma is the idea that any actions by state with the intentions of increasing its security such as increasing the size of its military can lead to another state viewing this as a threat and responding to similar measures producing increased tensions that lead to conflict
This happens even if states do not desire it or intentionally provoke tension

Question 35

security dilemma:

Answer 35

A balance of power is really achieved the one exception being during the Cold War 1945 to 91 when the USA and the Soviet union dominated international relations
Most of the time states find themselves in a competitive struggle for power whether culturally economically politically or militarily

Question 36

security dilemma:

Answer 36

Allstate possess some military offensive capability and the temptation is to increase that capability so as to increase their power and security
But this is essentially self-defeating because other states respond by increasing their own military capability which creates an arms race that increases the insecurity of all
World War I is an example of what can happen when there is a security dilemma

Question 37

security dilemma:

Answer 37

The security dilemma led to a refinement of the realist theory
Kenneth Waltz Argued that states become obsessed with security because of international anarchy in which states must look out for themselves but the actions of one state to increase its security decreases another state security with the result being an Arms race
More and more states will gain larger armies more tanks and more nuclear warheads which only makes the world a more dangerous place so states being rational reach the conclusion that gaining more power to increase security is counter-productive as it only increases tension and insecurity
States realise that they must cooperate to avoid such a self-defeating situation leading the international system to be characterised by peace and stability
1962 Cuban missile crisis is an example of states cooperating to escape the security dilemma

Question 38

security dilemma
CASE STUDY: 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis

Answer 38

1962 Cuban missile crisis is an example of states cooperating to escape the security dilemma

Question 39

security dilemma
CASE STUDY: 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis

Answer 39

The 1962 Cuban missile crisis brought the USA and Soviet union to the brink of nuclear war
And American spy plane flying over Cuba captured images showing that the Soviet union had been deploying nuclear missiles in Cuba despite privately and publicly insuring that they had not

Question 40

security dilemma
CASE STUDY: 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis

Answer 40

US President Kennedy imposed a naval blockade on the island to prevent a deployment of further missiles and after 13 days of stalemate, the Soviet Union backed down
Russia agreed to withdraw its missiles and in return the US agreed that it would not invade Cuba and would reduce the number of nuclear missiles it had stationed in Italy and Turkey

Question 41

security dilemma
CASE STUDY: 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis

Answer 41

The US president and the Soviet Premier realised that nuclear war would lead to the states mutual destruction so agreed to cooperate instead so as to avoid such a disaster
A hotline was established to create a direct line of communication between the White House and the Kremlin to prevent a crisis like this from happening again
In 1963 the partial test ban treaty was agreed which banned the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere and in the 1970s the
US and Soviet union signed 2 strategic arms limitations treaties

Question 42

security dilemma
CASE STUDY: 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis

Answer 42

Since then the two countries have continued to cooperate over the size of their nuclear arsenals
For example signing the strategic arms reduction treaties in 1991 and 2010 resulting in an 80% reduction in the number of nuclear warheads

Question 43

security dilemma:

Answer 43

Some realists accept that the security dilemma can lead to instances of cooperation between states but are pessimistic about institutionalised and permanent forms of cooperation like the UN and EU
Selfish interests and the desire for power will lead to conflict as states will always use these international organisations to further their own national interests
these interests inevitably clash with the interests of other states and make effective cooperation difficult, if not impossible
the many failures of UN peacekeeping and the use of the veto in the UNSC can be seen as evidence of this

Question 44

security dilemma:

Answer 44

although whenever international organisations are able to promote effective cooperation, there is usually a dominant power that can force this cooperation
arguably, NATO has been a successful mutual defence body because it is dominated by the USA and the EU has managed to develop a high level of integration because it is essentially led by
Germany and France

Question 45

security dilemma:

Answer 45

even so, realist believe that all alliances and institutions are doomed to fail because allies cannot be trusted as every state acts selfishly and should expect betrayal
EXAMPLE = Hitler breaking the Nazi-Soviet nonaggression pact of
1939 by invading Russia in 1941

Question 46

even so, realist believe that all alliances and institutions are doomed to fail because allies cannot be trusted as every state acts selfishly and should expect betrayal
EXAMPLE = Hitler breaking the Nazi-Soviet nonaggression pact of
1939 by invading Russia in 1941

Answer 46

realist such as John Mearsheimer see no escape from the security dilemma because no state knows how much power it needs to gain true security
so the most rational policy is to dominate and become the global hegemon
this struggle for hegemony is inescapable and war therefore becomes inevitable

Question 47

EXAMPLES OF REALISM: The Melian Dialogue

Answer 47

the Melian Dialogue is a passage found in Book V of the History is the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides
it describes a meeting in 416 BCE between representatives of Athens and Melos
the Melians were on friendly terms with Sparta, who were the enemies of Athens in the Peloponnesian War, but had themselves remained neutral during the war

Question 48

EXAMPLES OF REALISM: The Melian Dialogue

Answer 48

Athens wanted Melos to become part of the Athenian Empire because…
• “it is necessary…. to rule wherever one can”
• Melos poses a threat to Athenian sea routes and this threat had to be removed
• allowing Melos to remind neutral would make Athens look weak and encourage other members of its empire to rebel
• it would be in everyone’s interest for Melos to comply and avoid further bloodshed
• Sparta would not come to the aid of Melos and if Melos did not comply, Athens vowed it would be destroyed

Question 49

EXAMPLES OF REALISM: The Melian Dialogue

Answer 49

but the Melians refused to join because they believed that…
• Athens was being aggressive and unfair
• Athens may be stronger but this did not mean that Melos would simply be defeated
• Melos was standing up for what was right so the Gods would protect them
• if Athens defeated Melos, other states in the Athens’ Empire would rise up against it
• Sparta would come to the aid of Melos

Question 50

EXAMPLES OF REALISM: The Melian Dialogue

Answer 50

shows that states are motivated by the selfish pursuit of power and act amorally
Athens did not care about whether its actions were right or wrong its only concern was to remove Melos as a threat to its shipping lanes and secure more power for itself to beat its rival Sparta
it was willing to do anything to achieve this

Question 51

EXAMPLES OF REALISM: The Melian Dialogue

Answer 51

so Athens immediately attacked Melos and Sparta did not come to the aid of Melos
every man was killed, women and children became slaves and Athens took control of the island

Question 52

EXAMPLES OF REALISM: The Iraq War

Answer 52

the conflict between the USA and its allies against Iraq in 2003
the USA accused Iraq of possessing weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) that it might use against the West
it also accused Iraq of helping Islamic terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda which had carried out the 9/11 attacks on the USA in 2001
the USA and its allies invaded Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein’s government

Question 53

EXAMPLES OF REALISM: The Iraq War

Answer 53

realists argue that the real reasons for the war were….
• unfinished business from the first Bush administration
• power and security
• national interest

Question 54

EXAMPLES OF REALISM: The Iraq War

Answer 54

Unfinished business from the first Bush administration
Iraq had invaded the small oil producing state of Kuwait in 1991
the USA led a mission to remove the Iraqi army from Kuwait but failed to gain UN support for an invasion of Iraq and the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime
the 2003 Iraq war provided the opportunity to achieve this

Question 55

EXAMPLES OF REALISM: The Iraq War

Answer 55

Power and security
the 911 attacks had shaken the American public badly and the Iraq war was intended to send a clear message to America’s enemies that they would Not tolerate states giving aid or support to terrorist groups seeking to attack the USA

Question 56

EXAMPLES OF REALISM: The Iraq War

Answer 56

National interest
In an attempt to give the Iraqi invasion legitimacy Bush claimed that there was evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that could be launched at the west within 45 minutes
These claims were found to be based on unreliable intelligence suggesting that the US was prepared to go to any lengths to promote its national interest, even go ahead with an invasion based on unrealisable and invalid evidence

Question 57

G

Answer 57

States are the most important actors in global politics
The authority of IGOs such as the EU and the UN should be limited
In this respect global politics is an anarchical society since nation states retain the exclusive right to act in whatever way they wish
Nationstates may decide to work through and with other non-State actors but they do not abandon their sovereign right to advance their own self interest

Question 58

h

Answer 58

States act rationally and usually prioritise defending their own national interest
Usually this means that a states primary motivation is to defend its national security against perceived threats
Allstates ultimately try to find ways of increasing the power and influence within the global political order
The natural state of the world order is for states to compete with each other, making the most of their power therefore states are often in conflict with each other

Question 59

h

Answer 59

Since nationstates exist in an state of global anarchy, this creates a security dilemma because they can only rely upon themselves for their own protection
States therefore live in a self-help system in which they must build up their own security apparatus through military power and alliances

Question 60

consequences of international anarchy:

Answer 60

According to realists international anarchy leads to the following…
GOs like The EU and the UN will be limited in their impact and effectiveness because states determine the success or failure of these international efforts
States have created GOs and the GOs ultimately serve state interests
When they no longer do this they collapse such as the league of Nations or States leave as seen in the U.K.’s decision to leave the EU and South Africa’s decision to withdraw from the ICC

Question 61

consequences of international anarchy:

Answer 61

States will also want to prevent IGOs from making decisions that are not in their national interest
This is often most clearly seen in the veto power is that the 5 UN
Security Council panel members wield, which frequently prevents coordinated action on matters ranging from the Israel and Palestine conflict to the Syrian Civil War

Question 62

consequences of international anarchy:

Answer 62

Unlike national law rules and global politics known as international law do not always apply
In an article world system no international body can force states to sign up to international law
Customary international law which in theory applies to states regardless of whether or not they have signed and ratified the law does exist for abuses of humanitarian law
For example the Geneva convention is a customary international law and applies to all states but the decision to enforce the law is ultimately the political decision of international bodies such as the
UN or individual especially powerful states

Question 63

consequences of international anarchy:

Answer 63

International courts may be ignored or may not have decisive powers to investigate at all
The International criminal Court has limited powers to hold state to account for the most serious crimes against humanity
in reality states that have not fully agree to the ICCs founding Rome
Statute are able to escape justice as there is no authoritative global force to bring states and those responsible for international crimes before the court
The ECHR experiences similar difficulties

Question 64

society of states:

Answer 64

Given that global politics lacks a single commanding authority and world government Hedley Ball suggested that the world order was built on a society of states
Within this otherwise orderless society states attempts to create the best and safest order they can
They form IGOs which sometimes solve problems but other times do not and attempt to make international laws which are sometimes observed sometimes not
EXAMPLE = the ICC and African leaders