International Relations Theories: Realism

Utopian liberalism: - 20s - Focus on international law, international organization, interdependence, cooperation, peace Realism response: - 30s, 40s, 50s - Focus on power politics, security, aggression, conflicts, war Realism become really popular, especially in the US...

Utopian liberalism: - 20s - Focus on international law, international organization, interdependence, cooperation, peace Realism response: - 30s, 40s, 50s - Focus on power politics, security, aggression, conflicts, war Realism become really popular, especially in the US, in the 30s. Main authors of the realist thought: - Hans J. Morgenthau (1904-79), a german refugee who came to the USA during the WW2 and taught at university of Chicago. His book Politics among nations, was for several decade the most influential IR American book. Human nature is the base of IR, and he has a egoistic and aggressive view of humans in IR (he took the examples of Hitler, Mussolini…). This pessimistic view of human nature, used by these dictators, there is also the fact that these dictators has been supported by the population. There is no world government, and the World politics is an international anarchy (where sovereingn state circulate one). This is one of his main theses. It is a struggle for power and survival. The Ligue of nation failed, and he believed that all of this could have been avoided. And they also believe that there is a circular view of history, for them, the peace of 1918 already contained the emergence of the WW2. They don’t appeal to any domestic factors, they don’t focus on this. - Edward Hallett Carr, an English diplomat. He argues that liberals misunderstood the IR. They thought that IR are based on harmony people and states, and he thinks that the contrary (conflicts dominates the world). Some people and some countries have a privileged position, and they will tend to defend their positions. There are also under dogs. He is pessimistic about IR. He labelled liberalist utopia: this approach is more sober and more correct.  Human nature is viewed as negative. This realist thought was mainly dominant. But when the cold war started, realism started to be also the main line of ideas. Realists didn’t speak about international organisation, they only focused on the powers of states. The realist thinking was the dominant thinking among scholars, and the politicians. It actually influences the way people thought and behave. Classical realist thought: - Thucydides: he was the founding father of the IR realist theory. He said that moral reasoning has little effect on relations between states. The inequality is inevitable according to him. He believes that states had limited choices. They are some normative aspects: they should be force, prudence and judgement. He put the realist thought into the mouth of Athens leader, and the other states wanted to be respected by Athens. And he believes that the principle of justice is about adapting to an equal power situation in IR. He believes that weak states must respect the strong states. This philosopher is the first to have this vision on the system. The war between Sparta and Athens is the example the author took. - Machiavelli: he was a renaissance philosopher and he is most known for the prince. This book is also an example of classical realist thought. The main idea is that rulers need to be a Lion, it means that the ruler need to be cruel to pursue national interest, but he also need to be a fox: he need to be smart to prevent the danger. He is a realist because the world for his is a dangerous place. But according to him, the world also present political opportunities, and not only danger. For him, leaders who act with morality (Christian ethics) are foolish: they risk the life of the citizens, in other words the political responsibility is different from moral responsibility. If we read this book, we can see that there is morality towards citizens, but in the international system, there isn’t. - Hobbes: he has also a pessimistic view of human nature: there was a savage state, and this was a state of war (l’homme est un loup pour l’homme). People are creating a state because of fear, because of being afraid of one and other. For him, sovereign state is a perfect creation that can protect people from one and other and from outside threats. Only under the protection of state, men and women have the possibility to be happy and peaceful. A peaceful life is only possible within the state, and not in IR.  The security dilemma: the personal and domestic security through the creation of state goes hand by hand with international insecurity. Classical realism: ideas They have a state centric view of world politics. IR are is only viewed by the through the state. For realists, international institutions are meaningless: they are at the mercy of states, because states are members of these kind of institutions. They also don’t have a budget. The state is rational, state is a united and unitarian actor. They underline similarities: all politics (internal and international), are the expression of human nature (egoistic), so as the nature of state. They underline the role of ethics. They regard history as cyclical. The state is essential for the good life of citizens. International system is also driven by self-interest, but it is more anarchical. International system is anarchical, and there is a little bit of peace within the state. They might be international agreement, but they mustn’t be trusted: they are here not for a long time. There is no obligation between independant states. For realists, state are not equals : the most important states are so called “great powers” (soviet Union, USA…). IR is a struggle for domination for great power. And the weaker power adjusts their actions to the demands of greater powers. States seek national security, state survival and power. There is a distinction between high politics (sovereignty, borders…) and low politics (prosperity, status on international arena; language…). For realists, we must focus on high politics. Balance of power: (military capabilities, miliary alliance) are essential for security but cannot guarantee peace. For classical realists, conflict is the norm, but cooperation is rare, and where there is, it is mutual distrust. If you want peace, prepare for the war. They understand power very narrowly: power is associated with military capacities. Power for them, is linked with military capacity, and a bit economic capacity. For Morgenthau believe that preventive war is acceptable, but at the end of his life, he said that war conducted by USA was not acceptable. Zero sum game: all effort by states to ensure hegemony, make the other state failed (my security would mean the diminution of your security). There cannot be 2 winners. Security dilemma: the increase in security of one, increases the chance of conflicts. The view of the world system: - Unipolar system: example of USA in the 2000s. - Bipolar system: USA ≠ USSR - Multipolar: actual system  the configuration change when there are shift in the balance of power. On the one hand, it stabilizes the power (example of the US in the 2000s), but on the other hand, it stresses the international system. Peace is a temporary thing for realists. Classical realism has normative aspects: power is understood, not only as a fact of political life, but also as a political responsibility. Balance of power is needed to preserve this fragile peace; it is a desirable institution. Realists receive a lot of critics: they didn’t see the end of the Soviet Union. They have a too theoretical thesis. - Obsession with conflict: they don’t explain enough cooperation - Too much place accorded to the state: other actors neglected - Power bounded as military - They give no place of capabilities of states men to change anything - They defined national concept very roughly There was a development of neorealism, emerging in the 1970s. there was a will to produce a more mathematical rigorous capacity of analysis. But they failed. Their ambition was to produce law like assumptions, and statement about IR based on the systemic view of state. They focused on the micro level. At the end, these theories failed to explain why cold war came to an end. Neo-realism founding fathers Kenneth Waltz Theory of International Politics (1979) Focus on the international structure , but does not discard the values of other levels to understand IR Theory as an ideal type, no possibility for prediction and testing, no policy guidelines E.g, studies on unipolarity. For him, theories constituted its own realities to understand important phenomenon. To him, if we applied theories into reality, it will fail, because theories discard many factors. Theories identifies a set of ideal constraint that influence. And theories are not able to make prediction, because the theories discard a lot of factors. For him theory is a simplification. What is also important to say, is that Machiavelli is very prescriptive: it provides policies guidelines to leaders. And neorealist don’t want to provide guidelines. Noe-realism ideas: Their stating point is the realism thought. They operate in a system of international anarchy (no centralized authority). They don’t attribute egoism to state (which is different from the realists). There is a more positive few of human relationship. For them, IR is still characterized by conflict, but what’s different is the structure of IR that forces the state to pursue power: state want power because of the structure of the IR system. There are various states in the anarchical international system, but states aren’t certain about intentions of each other. It’s a so called self aim ??? States can pursue other goals (prosperity…), so state isn’t only bounded by their security and military interest, but those interest are still secondary. Ethics of states craft: responsibility toward population: neo realists don’t believe in that. They focus on the structure of international system. It is called a systemic view. For them, this distribution of power reward some behaviours and punishing some other behaviours. For them, a bipolar world is preferable, and the weaker power will have the tend to create alliance with great power, and this is called Bandwagon. Buck-passing: is the act of attributing to another person or group one's own responsibility. It is often used to refer to a strategy in power politics whereby a state tries to get another state to deter or fight an aggressor state while it remains on the sidelines. Criticism addressed to neo-realism of Waltz: - Inability to explain change: they argue that the bipolar system of the cold war was stable, even with avoiding great power war (end of the bi polar system deemed stable)  - Too big of an abstraction from reality. - Waltz ignores the cultural differences between states: ignore the democratic peace for instance (the fact that democracies don’t make war to each other. Offensive neo-realism of John Mearsheimer For him, there was important conditions, and approximate capacities between USSR and USA. For him, we have to expect next to the end of the USSR, that there will be more violence and a lot of instability. And he makes a controversial point in his essay, writing than the West have an interest maintaining good relation with the Est and at the same time that he has to maintain hegemony? His arguments is that a country will always try to dominate the system, but the planet is too big for global hegemony, and oceans are too big borders and will not allow a state to be the head of the world. For him, all state when to become a regional hegemon (China in Asia, Germany in Europe…). The Great Delusion by Mearsheimer: - Liberal hegemon can lose their power if this hegemon get engaged in international intervention - He receives a lot of critics for this statement Mearsheimer suggested to the NATO to make a deal with Russia. The first critic for this realist view is that realist don’t take into consideration the type of regime of Russia. Classical realism: ideas Zero sum game : If I win, you lose and if you win, I lose. Neo-realism: they don’t explain IR with human nature. Human are conflictual because of the anarchical international system. Morality in a sense where the leader is responsible vis à vis of the population. Neo-realist though is not homogeneous. Offensive neo)-realism VS defensive: the difference; in defensive, scholars claim that it is not advantageous to claim hegemonia, and state prefer to stick to the status quo. For the offensive, Mearsheimer argues that states want hegemonia. Neoclassical realist: a new realism is to narrow. - Highlight the domestic factors - Pays attention to the state leadership in foreign policies - The world is still anarchical but state leaders assess international threat and opportunies, and also assess the behaviour of other states leaders. Schweller : - Underbalancing: a situation where state fail to balance under-domestical threat, but they are constraint by internal dynamics. When you would like to reestablish power balance, but you don’t because you would fail the domestic want. Waltz: - He wants to explain how you can decide if the state is threatening or not. He tries to systematize factors. - He says that what is important is: o Aggressive intentions o Aggregate power o Geographic proximity o Offensive military capabilities: we have to see if a state has offensive or defensive capabilities. - For neoclassical realist, it isn’t sufficient to look at the army, the economic situation, geography… - But how do those factors combine? Strategic realism – Thomas Schelling - Also part of neo-realism in general. - Power and responsibilities are inseparable concepts - When states leaders confront diplomatic issues, they hope to be successful o There is logic and this is rational - His main concept is the concepts of threat: he analysis how leaders deal rationally with dangers of nuclear war for - For him, foreign policy o Not concern with good and right o Makes a distinction with the uses of force and violence and a coercion o For him the threat of damage can be more useful than the actual use of force. o States leaders need to know was the enemy treasures and what scares the enemy. o It is not only about the actual use of force, but the power is also to communicate, dissuade your enemy, and to persuade your enemy that you can use force. And communicate what your enemy should do. o It isn’t just about having superior military capacity, but it is also the capacity to made threat by communication and to strategy. => THIS IS WHAT COERTION IS - According to him, leaders should be aware of the danger, and well aware of opportunities that they faced, and benefits. - When state communicate about inflicting damage, this involve a bargaining relationship (eg USA≠USSR: both of they were able to communicate to each other (mutuality Assured destruction = MAD) - Schelling vs Machiavelli : Schelling don’t talk about ethic in foreign policy.