‘Realism’ as a Theory of
International Politics
-
rhetorical victory: realism v. idealism?
Is Realism a …
-
…
philosophical approach to international history, e.g., Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian
-
…
normative theory, or a guide to statecraft, e.g., Machiavelli’s The Prince
-
…
empirical theory of international relations, which seeks to explain and predict
behavior, e.g., Waltz’s Theory of
International Politics
Questions Explored
-
Why
is conflict more common in some periods than others?
-
What
are the causes of wars?
-
Why
do states fail to cooperate when both would gain?
-
Are
some states more aggressive than others for internal reasons, or in reaction to
external conditions?
-
When
do states form alliances rather than arm internally?
-
How
dose the distribution of power affect IR?
-
do some power distributions make the international system more war-prone?
Categorizing Realists
Classical Realists (or pre-classical)
-
writings
are considered the basis of modern realism
-
focus
on fear, honor, and prestige
-
Theorists:
Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes
Modern Realists (or classical)
-
relied
on psychology to motivate state action: e.g., ‘will to power’
-
Focus
on states’ interests & military power
-
Theorists:
R. Niebuhr, E. Carr, H. Morgenthau
-
Practitioners:
G. Kennan, H. Kissenger
Neorealists (structural realists)
-
Rejected
psychological motives in primary theorizing
-
Theorizing
based on analogies to micro-economics:
states as firms in markets
-
Seek
to explain patterns of conflict and cooperation over time
-
Not
a theory of foreign policy, but international relations
-
Focus
on distribution of power
-
Theorists:
Waltz, Gilpin, Mearsheimer
“Neo-Classical” Realists
-
explaining
foreign policy, not international relations
-
return
to focus on state’s motives
-
Theorists:
Schweller, Walt, Snyder, Taliaferro
Common Realist Assumptions
International order is anarchic
(self-help)
-
no
legitimate authority exists above
sovereign territorial states
-
not
simply the absence of government (de-centralized enforcement is possible) but absence
of agreement on who or what should rule
States are the primary actors in
international politics (statism)
-
other
actors (individuals, firms, organizations, social networks) are secondary
-
populated
territory gives states special coercive capabilities over other actors
-
“groupness” exception (Gilpin, Walt, Williams)
Primacy of power and security in
political life
-
derive
behaviors and conduct from this assumption
-
other
values jeopardized without security or ability to resist power of others
Uncertainty is pervasive
-
knowledge
about other states is limited
-
what are their intentions?
-
what are their capabilities?
Leading Hypotheses
States pursue power
-
need
coercive power to defend against other states
-
debate
over whether it is an end itself or a means to other ends (e.g., security,
prestige)
Balancing prevails over bandwagoning
-
states
will arm or ally against stronger states to ‘balance’ their power
-
states
that ally or align themselves with the stronger state will ‘fall by the
wayside’
-
one
exception: ‘bandwagoning for profit’ (Schweller)
States pursue relative gains over
absolute gains
-
gain
are assessed comparatively: not how much do you have but how much more do you have compared to others
-
absolute
gains may be sacrificed to achieve relative gains
Conflict prevails over cooperation
-
states
do not maximize material welfare, so opportunities for gains via cooperation
may be forgone
-
cooperation
is a puzzle to be explained
Competing Causal Mechanisms
Predatory States
expansionist states threaten or attack others;
predatory states generate fear for security/survival
-
how are predatory states identified?
Security Dilemma (SD):
efforts by one state to provide security
for itself inadvertently decrease the security of others
-
how to avoid exacerbating the SD?
Power Dynamics
Changes in the distribution and
other features of power alter patterns of conflict and cooperation
-
how is power measured?