Mearsheimer, Gilpin On Great Power Politics And War And Change Flashcards
Mearsheimer vs waltz
Both actually share most basic assumptions about international politics
States as actors (esp great powers)
Anarchical structure of the international system as key driving force
States principal aim is security in such a potentially hostile environment
But they differ on what is inferred about the rationale of states (great powers)
Waltz
States’ drive for power (security) had its limits
May reach a level that satisfies their security needs, excessive power hunger does backfire
Status quo oriented (defensive positionalists
Mearsheimer
States are compelled to accumulate more and more power ( relative to others) - to strive for hegemony
Power hunger is practically insatiable
Except for hegemons, there is no status quo power, all are revisionist powers ( offensive positionalists)
Based on an analysis of historical cases from 18th century to today, Mearsheimer concludes that great powers are compelled to seek hegemony (being able t dominate others and to fend off their claims for domination)
This is the only way to be secure from other states invading: ideal situation: global hegemony
However this is unattainable (distances, oceans as barriers)
what is attainable : regional hegemony
From a position of regional hegemony, a great power usually attempts to prevent some other regional hegemon to arise (preventing the emergence of a peer competitor which could then try to challenge and intervene in the great power’s regional zone of domination)
What causes all of this, is again the insatiable search for power for security purposes given the anarchical structure of the international system
Anarchy: fear, states seeks to mitigate this fear by maximizing their share of world power
The tragedy according to mearsheimer
The situation, which no one consciously designed or intended, is genuinely tragic. Great powers that have no reasons to fight each other - that are merely concerned with their survival - nevertheless have little choice but to pursue power and to seek to dominate other states in the system.
Mearsheimer : offensive realism
Offensive realists believe that status quo powers are rarely found in world politics, because the international system creates powerful incentives for states to look for opportunities to gain power at the expense of rivals.. ( hence, all great powers are) primed for offense.
Whereas waltzian neorealism is primarily a theory about how defensively oriented states behave in response to structural constraints
Mearsheimer’s account stipulates that great power rivalry is an endemic feature of world politics, that all great powers are compelled to engage potentiometer and actual competitors offensively
Leading to a more pessimistic perspective of international politics: there have been conflicts, are conflicts, will be conflicts.. (And balances of power even increase the likelihood of them)
Mearsheimer on theory
It should be apparent from this discussion that offensive realism is mainly a descriptive theory. It explains how great powers have behaved in the past and how they are likely to behave in the future. But it is also a prescriptive theory, states should behave according to the dictates of offensive realism, because it outlines the best way to survive on a dangerous world.
Gilpin on war and change
Vs waltz (with Mearsheimer ) interest in change, not stability, vs both : not just about security
States, against the background of the international system, look for opportunities to chance the power distribution whenever projected benefits outweigh the costs
Cyclical nature of international politics: a state rises to become hegemon, maintains its dominant position for a while, then inevitably declines (challenged by a hegemonic successor)
Inevitability of decline due to
Over time, a hegemon has to invest more and more to obtain less and less (ultimately leading to imperial overstretch)
Over time, a hegemon will consume too much, invest too little
Technological advantages (upon which a successful hegemonic challenge was once built) cannot last indefinitely
When the factual distribution of power does not coincide anymore with patterns of political domination (hegemon in decline, some competitor on the horizon) war is likely to occur - could be initiated by both sides
