Week 2 Readings Realism Flashcards
Realism’s Assumptions
Core assumptions: 1) Anarchy exists 2) States are the principle actors, their individual characteristics mean little, States are rational and self-interested (Billiard Ball) 3) Survival is paramount, power is the currency with which states increase security 4) Calculations about power drive state thinking and behavior
Morgenthau
“Traditonal (Classical) Realist, ““evil born in men””, Two roots of conflict 1) The struggle for resources and scarcity 2) The desire for power or ““animus dominandi””
- States are extensions of human behavior and thus desire for power is inherent to them too w/ Animus Dominandi
- Wrote the 6 principles of political realism
- Views power as an end in itself for states – rational statesmen constantly strive to get more power.
- States can’t afford to prioritize morals over national interest/pursuit of power “
Classical Realism (human nature realism)
Human nature drives the struggle for power between states: People want power > States are driven by people > States want power
- Power is an end in its self for humans
Structural/Neo Realism
views competition and conflict as enduring features of the international system and sees limited potential for cooperation. Neorealists argue that the anarchic nature of the international system forces states to prioritize their own survival and security, leading them to engage in power politics.
difference with realism: Realism focuses on the general role of power and self-interest in international relations, while neorealism specifically emphasizes the systemic structure of the international system and how it forces states to compete for power.
“Anarchy, the structure of the international system, drives the struggle for power between states.
Waltz says: Neorealism contends that international politics can be understood only if the effects of structure are added to the unit-level explanations of traditional realism.
Prof V: In structural realism we organize ourself into states which results in security dilemma.
- the structure of states doesn’t matter as much as the fact that they operate in an anarchic system with no higher authority–results in them trying to be as powerful as possible so you’d be in a curcumstance where other states won’t be able to hurt you.
- Walz is a proponent of it
- realism emphasizes the role of power and competition among states, while neorealism highlights the importance of the international system structure in shaping state behavior.”
Offensive Realism
1) The anarchaic structure causes states to seek power to maximize survival. 2) States seek to gain as much power as possible with hegemony as the ultimate goal
Defensive Realism
“1) The anarchaic structure causes states to seek power to maximize survival. 2) States seek to gain just enough power to have an edge, concentrating on maintaing a balance of power.
Defensive realism posits that states primarily seek security rather than power maximization in the anarchic international system, and that the most effective way to ensure security is through moderate policies and balancing against potential threats.
defensive realism emphasizes the importance of security and cooperation, while offensive realism highlights the pursuit of power and competition.”
Security Dilemma
“Wherein measures that enhance one state’s security typically diminish that of others
- according to Jervis, the reason why conflict isn’t worse is that states are less vulnerable from one another than individuals in nature”
What are the key tenets of realism?
1) Centrality of Power 2) Reoccurance of competition and conflict
prisoners dilemma
a game theory thought experiment that illustrates a situation where individuals must choose between their own benefit or the benefit of the group. If they choose to cooperate they gain, if they are betrayed they loose, and if they betray the other player they gain to
The Theory of Hegemonic War
suggests that major international conflicts, including hegemonic wars, arise from broad shifts in political, strategic, and economic power among states. It posits that these transitions create instability and increase the likelihood of war as a rising power challenges the dominance of an existing hegemon.
Walt
”- Believes theories are an essential tool of state craft
- believes policy makers pay little attention to theory but should pay more
- many policy debates ultimately rest on competing theoretical visions, and false/flawed theories can lead to foreign policy desasers
- says whats needed is a concious effort to alter prevailing norms of academic IR discipline (at present it doesn’t encourage striving for policy relevance)
(W1 paper: the relationship between theory and policy in int. relations) “
Mearsheimer
”- Says bipolarity is the most stable
- (from class lecture) Changes in the system (challengers/revisionist state) can lead to war, status quo state should prepare, which can result in security dilemma that leads to war
- offensive realist “
What are the important differences among versions of realism (especially between offensive and defensive realism)?
“*Offensive Realism: States seek to maximize power and pursue hegemony to ensure security in an anarchic world, making conflict more likely.
–power maximiation: states are driven to maximize power and seek to achieve hegemony because in an anarchic system there is no limit to the potential threats a state may face and only by becoming the most powerful can they be safe.
–High Probability of Conflict: Offensive realists tend to see a greater likelihood of conflict in international relations. Cooperation is highly fragile and difficult to sustain. States are constantly looking for opportunities to exploit eachother for relative gain.
– will frequently engage in buck passing to burden containing threatening states to others rather than taking on the cost
–Mearsheimer is scholar associated with offensive realism
*Defensive Realism: States prioritize security over power, aiming to maintain their position through moderate policies, making cooperation possible but often challenging due to the security dilemma.
–Security Maximization: Defensive realists argue that states are primarily driven by a desire to maximize their security, not necessarily their power. States will pursue moderate and defensive policies to maintain their position in the int system rather than seeking expansion of influence
–Cooperation as Possible: While acknowledging the challenges of the security dilemma, defensive realists believe that cooperation between states is possible, though often difficult, to achieve.
–
”
What is the security dilemma? Can it be overcome?
“Wherein measures that enhance one state’s security typically diminish that of others
- according to Jervis, the reason why conflict isn’t worse is that states are less vulnerable from one another than individuals in nature
Authors not different ways to overcome a security Dilemma:
- Waltz says nuclear weapons has changed the security dilemma
–”“[nukes] dissuade states from going to war much more surely than conventional weapons do.””
- Jervis says when you hold a defensive advantage with purely defensive weapons that do not provide the capability to attack, the SD becomes less accute. This however is not a fix all as another power can still grow their offensive capability + the lines between offensive and defensive weapontry can be blurred.
– Jervis also notes that Defen- sible borders, large size, and protection against sudden attack not only aid the state, but facilitate cooperation that can benefit all states.”
What are the limitations of realism in explaining international affairs?
“*oversimplification of state motivatio: Realism’s emphasis on states as unitary, rational actors driven primarily by security or power maximization can obscure the multifaceted nature of state behavior. no domestic politics/ideology/culture/individuals can significantly influence foreign policy decisions
* Difficulty in Predicting Specific Outcomes: Realism excels at explaining general patterns of behavior, such as the recurrence of war, but struggles to predict specific events or the timing of conflict
* Underestimation of International Cooperation: While acknowledging the challenges of cooperation in an anarchic system, realism can underestimate the potential for states to overcome the security dilemma and forge lasting partnerships
*Limited Explanatory Power in Certain Historical Periods: Realism’s emphasis on power politics and military competition can struggle to account for periods of relative peace or instances where states prioritize other goals, such as economic prosperity or ideological expansion (cold war w/ economic integration and rise of non state actors)
*Static View of International Change: Realism, with its focus on the enduring constraints of anarchy, can struggle to explain transformative shifts in the international system or the emergence of new actors and norms”
Realism in anarchy charted
