Realism Flashcards
Realism v. realpolitik
realism = theory/description
realpolitik = prescribtion
*Maersheimer is more of the realpolitik
Melian dialogue relevance now
the Melian dialogue can be used to illustrate China, US now: power transition leads to war
Melian dialogue
Athenians give the choice to the Melians between surrender or an ambush/war
Athenians = realist arguments: self-help, power differential, survival
Melians = liberal arguments: justice, neutrality, honour, alliance
spiralled into the Peloponnesian War
Thucydides trap (Allison 2017)
power transition usually leads to war
according to Xi Jinping: suspicion + misunderstanding -> creation of the Thucydides trap
Realism v. Liberalism about the Ukraine conflict
Realist doves: the Ukraine conflict isn’t the main event, we should let it settle, make peace
Liberal hawks: Russia went against all liberal ideas, therefore the conflict must be intervened
Quick history of realism
started as timeless wisdom: ‘‘might makes right’’, it is important to look at power
in many regions the same ideas about the role of power
Europe 16th-18th century: competitive European state-system + realist principles
- Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau
post-WW2 aplication to IR + explaining state behaviour
!mostly an US theory, but there are some EU scholars (Carr, Aron)
realism is an umbrella term
what are the 4 core tennets?
What are the further additions?
4 core tenets:
3 assumptions (Thucydides):
- the state is the main actor,
- the state is a unitary actor,
- the state is a rational actor
*funny: Thucydides didn’t talk about states
Machiavelli’s addition:
- state is mainly concerned with its own security
(survival is the highest interest and duty of the state)
Hobbes additions (self-help)
- states operate in an insecure state of nature
- state of anarchy shapes state behaviour
principle of self-help
states shouldn’t rely on a higher authority, they can only rely on themselves
each state is responsible for its own security and well-being in the international system
classical realism
thinkers
main ideas 5
criticism
EH Carr and Morgenthau
- reaction to WW2 and idealism/utopianism inter-war period
- selfish human nature explains state behaviour
- competition/conflict is inherent
- there is morality, but it’s less imporrtant than power
- struggle for power
problem/criticism: is it always about a struggle for pwer? aren’t there peaceful times where states work together?
structural realism / neorealism
key thinker
main idea
main principles 4
discussion
Waltz
- state behaviour is dependent on the structure of the international system
main principles;
- all units in the system behave similarly
- distributions of power/capacities in the system
- relative power / relative gains: states are shaped by how much power they have relative to the power others have
- mainly security competition
main discussion within structural realism = defensive realism v. offensive realism
the state as unitary actor
states are monogamous actors: one voice talking for one specific state, you only need to listen to what the government says.
you should black box what happens within the state: debates, disagreements)
offensive neorealism
- Maersheimer
States always keep maximizing their power
doubt that the international system can be balanced through creating coalitions
Neoclassical realism
1980s, 1990s, biggest realist school today
partial: criticism of structural realism
- units don’t always act similarly within the same system
- it is hard to understand/build the system and to act in accordance
- role of domestic variables matter (states don’t always act in their best interests)
- conflict between interests and capacities or ideals
goes back to the ideas of Morgenthau: states act to their national security interests if they don’t, that’s bad
merge emphasis to domestic institutions, leadership and political perceptions (classical realism) + systemic view of international affairs (neorealism).
Jack Snyder
Jack Snyder: imperial overstretch and understretch
neoclassical realism
- understretch: powers do less with their powers than they could (e.g. US now)
- overstretch: powers try to gain more power than they have the strength to (don’t act correctly rationally)
both these can’t be explained by looking at the structure, younhave to look at domestic factors
balance of power
reaction/behaviour/mechanism to a change in the distribution of power
- not the distribution of power itself
- often a reaction against move towards unipolarity
- internal and external balancing OR bandwagoning
the US: no clear balancing or coalitions against the US
*there was soft balancing
Internal v. External balancing
Waltz
internal balancing = developing your own internal military capacities (self-help)
external balancing = weak states that don’t have the potential to develop their own military capacities collaborate
bandwagoning
when a state accepts to become a minor ally to the rising power, to be a subordinate
why? can’t trust on allies, is weak internally
bandwagoning happens when a state fails to balance power
soft balancing
economic balancing of power
security dilemma
- Herz
anarchical system
state tries to create safety be developing arsenal -> is seen as threat by other states -> states begin developing their own arsenal -> conflict, arms-race, instability, insecurity
argument that without wanting it, trying to develop more stable conditions in your environment can lead to more instability
while the goal was security, you end up getting into conflict
when a state tries to increase its security, it decreases the security of other states
problem realism
how do you define national interest?
Iraq 2003: scholars argue that the war in Iraq wasn’t in the national interest
realism can’t explain this (it was caused by ideological reasons and non-state actors)
statism
the fundamental trait of states is sovereignty
sovereignty = the legitimacy to use force both internally and externally
rational state
the state knows that the international system is anarchic, that it can’t trust other states and it uses this knowlegde to study/adapt to power distribution
zero-sum principle
in the anarchical system there is only relative power, meaning that ones gain is another states’ loss
anarchy
international affairs take place in a state of anarchy
defensive neorealism
- states pursue power only to the degree that it guarantees their survival
- Some states are secured enough that they don’t want to / need to develop their capacities to feel secure enough in the system
The goal of the state is not to maximalize power, but to ensure security
Waltz
realism and power
power is the main concept in international politics
power is an objective and universal category
preservation of power = status quo
augmentation of power = imperialism
demonstration of power = prestige
power = materialistic
geopolitics
relations between the physical world/nature and politics
main differences classic realism and neorealism
classic realism = human nature is the source for power striving tendencies of states
neorealism = anarchical system makes states powerseeking
realism and IOs
IOs are tools in the hands of powerful states