Scribd
Upload
28 views16 pages

Lecture 2 - Realism

Uploaded by

Sohaib Shahid
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
28 views16 pages

Lecture 2 - Realism

Uploaded by

Sohaib Shahid
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 16

Realism

International Relations I
Module 1: Theories of International Relations

John H.S. Åberg


[email protected]
Background

 Realism is normally viewed as the most dominant perspective,

 According to conventional wisdom, Realism….


…came out victorious after the “First Great Debate”
…belongs to an Ancient tradition of timeless wisdom
personified by thinkers such as, Thucydides, Machiavelli,
Hobbes, etc.

 Realism has a certain commonsensical knowledge


where concepts like power, survival, etc., seem
adequate and reasonable

 Realism is also a typical “object of attack” or “strawman”


Philosophical underpinnings

 Pessimistic account of human nature

 Skeptical of the ability of human reason to


transcend war and conflict

 A world of scarce resources, zero sum logic,


relative gains, and competition for positional
goods
Philosophical underpinnings

 The group is the core unit of political analysis

“The building blocks and ultimate units of social and political life are
not the individuals of liberal thought nor the classes of Marxism
(although in certain circumstances ‘class’ may in fact be the basis of
group solidarity). Realism, as I interpret it, holds that the foundation of
political life is what Ralf Dahrendorf has called ‘conflict groups.’ This is
another way of saying that in a world of scarce resources and conflict
over the distribution of those resources, human beings confront one
another ultimately as members of groups, and not as isolated
individuals. Homo sapiens is a tribal species, and loyalty to the tribe for
most of us ranks above all loyalties other than that of the family. In the
modern world, we have given the name ‘nation-state’ to these
competing tribes and the name ‘nationalism’ to this form of loyalty.”
- Robert G. Gilpin, “The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism,” International
Organization 38, no. 02 (1984): 290.
The 3 S’s – Statism, Survival, Self-help

 Statism: the state is the core actor in the analysis of


international relations

 Survival: the first priority of state leaders is to ensure


survival by pursuing power, a prerogative in a hostile,
anarchic world where distrust and insecurity is rampant
and no pan-national authority will come to your rescue

 Self-help: due to anarchy the only one a state can turn


to is itself – amass power and ensure survival
Security Dilemma

 Anarchy and the accumulation of


power to ensure survival give rise to
the security dilemma:

“Striving to attain security from attack, [states]


are driven to acquire more and more power in
order to escape the power of others. This, in
turn, renders the others more insecure and
compels them to prepare for the worst. Since
none can ever feel entirely secure in such a
world of competing units, power competition
ensues, and the vicious circle of security and
power accumulation is on”
- John Herz
The security dilemma results in a permanent condition of
tension and power conflicts among states
The International System

 According to the structural realist understanding, the


international system consist of three core components
1. Anarchy
2. Interacting units without functional differentiation – states
3. International distribution of power

 A "positional picture" that describes a system "in terms of the


placement of units rather than in terms of their qualities."
(Waltz, 1979: 99)
The International System
 Several propositions follow (see Adams 2013):
1. Self-help
- Internal survival (avoid revolution, collapse, etc.)
- External survival (avoid conquest)
2. Capabilities enables offensive action, anarchy is the permissive
cause although motives may be “endlessly varied”
3. Great powers are tempted to attack weaker states – “the
imperialism of great powers”
4. Insecurity leads to concerns with relative gains
- Concerns with relative gains produce security dilemmas
- Concerns with relative gains make cooperation difficult
Power as capabilities

 Realists define power in terms of capabilities


 A state’s rank depends on how it scores on the following five capabilities:
• ”The economic, military, and other capabilities of nations cannot be
sectored and separately weighed. States are not placed in the top rank
because they excel in one way or another. Their rank depends on how
they score on all of the following items: size of population and territory,
resource endowment, economic capability, military strength, political
stability and competence” - Waltz 1979: 131.

 So again, we have:
• Economic wealth
• Military strength
• Size of population and territory
• Resource endowment
• Political stability and competence
Power is relative and relational

 Power is relative – how much power one has is relative to the


power of other states in the system.
- Calculations should not only be about one's own capabilities, but
calculations of other actors in the system
- This further connects to relative decline, where a state might grow in
absolute terms, but is declining in relative terms
 Power is relational – power is used relationally over another actor
- So actor A has power over B, because actor A influences or controls
actor B to do something it would otherwise not do, through
persuasion or coercion
 Power is zero-sum – more for me, means less for you
Polarity
Multipolarity Bipolarity Unipolarity
Balance of power

 The conventional definition of balance of power is that when a state’s


survival is threatened, it should join forces with other states and form
alliances to counteract the threat and hence preserve their autonomy.
 This is essentially a mechanism that works to establish an equilibrium of
power so that no state or coalition of state can dominate the state
system.
 For structural realists, balance of
power will form irrespective of state
leaders intentions
 Classical realists emphasize leaders
and diplomats crucial role in the process
Balance of power

 External balancing – alliances and coalition-building


 Internal balancing – build-up of internal capabilities

 Balancing or bandwagoning?
Theoretical assumptions

 Mearsheimer’s (2001) five offensive realist assumptions:


1. The international system is anarchic;
2. Great powers always possess some offensive military
capability;
3. States can never be certain about other states’ intentions;
4. Survival is the primary goal of great powers;
5. Great powers are rational actors.

 This leads Mearsheimer (2001) to further specify that:


1. Great powers fear each other;
2. Great powers can only rely on themselves for their security;
3. Best strategy to ensure survival is power-maximization
Many Realisms

• Classical realism
 Human nature – individual, state-level

• Structural realism
• Defensive realism
vs
• Offensive realism
 Structure – system-level

• Neoclassical realism
 Multi-level, multi-casual
References
• Adams, Karen Ruth. “Structural Realism: The Imperialism of Great Power.” In
Making Sense of International Relations Theory, edited by Jennifer Sterling-
Folker, 21–46. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2013.

• Dunne, Tim, and Brian C. Schmidt. “Realism.” In The Globalization of World


Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, edited by John Baylis, Steve
Smith, and Patricia Owens, 6th ed., 99–112. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2014.

• Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: Norton,
2001.

• Morgenthau, Hans J. Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and
Peace. 5th ed. New York: Knopf A. Knopf, 1973.

• Waltz, Kenneth Neal. Theory of International Politics. Reading: Addison-Wesley


Pub. Co., 1979.

You might also like