Theories of Global Politics (Realism) Flashcards
What is the realist approach to international politics?
‘realistic’ - hard-headed and devoid of wishful thinking and deluded moralizing. Global politics is about power and self-interest (why it’s often portrayed as a ‘power politics’ model of international politics).
What are realisms 2 core assumptions in its approach to international politics?
- People are selfish and competitive, meaning human nature is egotistical (conservative view of Human Nature).
- State-system operates in a context of international anarchy, in that there is no authority higher than the sovereign state (states are self-interested so do what they want).
What is Egoism?
Concern for one’s own interest or well-being, or selfishness; the belief that one’s own interests are morally superior to those or others.
Describe the Realist view on Human Nature.
- HN is fixed and is ‘nature’ rather than ‘nurture’.
-
Instinct prevails over intellect: humans are driven by non-rational appetites, e.g. aversions, fears, hopes and desires (strongest being the deire to exercise power over others).
- Intellect and reason may guide us in pursuiting appetites, but they don’t define them.
What do classical realists believe about the international system?
They believe it’s a reflection of HN (egoism).
- Humans are self-seeking and egotistical, so conflict amongst them is an unavoidable fact of life.
- So conflict occurs in the international system in pursuit of national-interest.
- Hopes for international cooperation and ‘perpetual peace’ is a utopian delusion.
- So conflict occurs in the international system in pursuit of national-interest.
Summarise the ideas of Machiavelli.
Machiavelli:
- Theory of politics based on negative and fixed view of HN
- “Humans are arrogant, shifting, craft, and above all violent and savage.”
- So political life is inevitably conflicting, encouraging political leaders to rule this way.
- “Humans are arrogant, shifting, craft, and above all violent and savage.”
Summarise the ideas of Hobbes.
Hobbes:
- Pessimistic view of HN.
- Humans are driven by non-rational appetites (strongest being desire to have power over others).
- As no single person/group is powerful enough to dominate society, there’s an ongoing civil war between members of society (state of nature).
- Humans are driven by non-rational appetites (strongest being desire to have power over others).
What is the State of Nature?
A society devoid of political authority and legal checks on the individual (international politics is in this state).
- Life is ‘short, poor, nasty and brutish’.
- Hobbes: escape through the establishment of a sovereign power (the state).
- Although gov’t (leviathan) takes liberties, you’re safe from the state of nature.
What are 3 implications of human nature for international politics?
- No form of world gov’t can be established - international politics conducted in the state of nature.
- R’s theory of international politics is state-centric - states are the most important actors on the world stage as they’re conherent units.
- States reflect human nature (as they’re run by humans) - state egoism means state rivalry. States are self-interested so pursue security, etc at the expense of other states - conflict is inevitable in the international system.
What is Statecraft?
The art of conducting public affairs, or the skills associated with it; statesmanship.
What does Carr mean by his criticism of ‘the 20 years crisis’?
Carr criticised leading figures at Paris Peace Conferecne 1919-20 for allowing ‘wishing’ to prevail over ‘thinking’. By neglecting the importance of power in international politics, they had set the world on an inevitable course to further conflict (WW2 20 years later).
Treaty after WW1 too punitive to Germany and under-estimated their power.
What are Morgenthau’s 6 principles of Realism?
- Politics governed by objective laws which have their root in human nature.
- Key to understanding international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power.
- Forms and nature of state vary in time, place and context but the concept of interest remains consistent (countries interests change, and the means of achieving it will change).
- Universal moral principles don’t guide state behaviour, although this does not rule out an awareness of the moral significance of political action (because there aren’t universal moral principles - different states have different outlooks).
- Moral aspirations are specific to a particular nation.
- Political sphere is autonomous - key question in internaitonal politics is ‘How does policy affect the power of the nation?’
What do they mean by ‘the national interest’?
Foreign policy goals, objectives or policy preferences that supposedly benefit a society as a whole (foreign policy equivalent of the ‘public interest’).
Is national interest an amoral position?
Realism is portrayed as amoral because of its image of humans as lusftul and power seeking, and its insistence that ethcial considerations should be excluded from foreign policy decision-making.
How does this affect their position on war?
Wars should only be fought if vital national interests are at stake (the decision to wgae war being based on cost-benefit analysis of its outcomes in terms of strategic interests).
Such thinking led Morgenthau and other US realists to oppose the Vietnam war. Also, 34 leading US realists scholars publicly opposed the US military build-up against Iraq in 2002.
What criticism did Waltz make of classical realism?
Waltz said international politics could be developed on ‘three levels of analysis - human individual, state and international system’.
It could not explain behaviour at a level above the state (because the international system is not human), which is a limitation of ‘inside-out’ theory’s (theory’s which explain behaviour in terms of the intentions/inclinations of key actors).
What approach did Waltz theory of structural realism take instead?
System theory explains state behaviour in terms of the structure of the international system. As such, it’s an ‘outside-in’ theory (one in which behaviour of actors is explained in terms of ‘the outside’, context or structure in which they operate) of global politics. So, it place an emphasis on the implications of anarchy.
What is System Theory?
An approach to the study that focusses on works of ‘systems’, explaining their operation and development in terms of reciprocal interactions amongst component parts.
For what 3 reasons does the international state of anarchy lead to tension and conflict?
- States are separate, autonomous and formally equal political units: they rely on their own resources to realise their interests (international anarchy results in a system of ‘self-help’).
- Relationships between states are characterized by uncertainty and suspicion: Explained through security dilemma.
- Conflict is encouraged by states’ primary concern being maintaining or improving their position relative to other states; relative gains: states do whatever it takes to benefit them, discouraging cooperation and reduces effectiveness of international organisations.
What does self-help mean?
A state’s reliace on its own capacities and resources, rather than external support, to ensure security and survival.
What does security dilemma mean?
Dilemma that arises from the fact that a build-up of military capacity for defensive reasons by one state is always liable to be interepreted as agg by other states.
What is meant by relative gains?
Position of states in relation to one another, reflected in the distribution of benefits and capabilities between and amongst them.
How do structural realists differ from traditional realists regarding the ‘balance of power’?
- Classical and Neorealists believe conflict can be contained by the balance of power. ✅
- Classical realists treat the balance of power as a product of prudent statecraft, BUT neorealists see it as a consequence of the structural dynamics of the international system, and specifically, of the distribution of power between and among states (good statecraft can lead to a good balance of power situation). ❌
What kind of world is likely to be more stable, and what kind
more unstable and violent?
- Structural realists: associated bipolar systems with stability and reduced likelihood of war, while multipolar systems have been associated with instability and greater likelihood of war.
- This inclined them to view Cold War bipolarity in positive terms, as a ‘long peace’, but to warn about implications of rising multipolarity in post-Cold War era.
