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
