Neo-Realism - International Relations - PDF

NEO-REALISM Originates with Kenneth Waltz (International Political Theory,1979) and J.Mearsheimer Waltz wrote 'Men, the State and War' in 1959, dividing explanations of war into three categories of analysis: The man (e.g. Hitler) The State (e.g. post-WW1 Germany) The System (e.g. International Time...

NEO-REALISM Originates with Kenneth Waltz (International Political Theory,1979) and J.Mearsheimer Waltz wrote 'Men, the State and War' in 1959, dividing explanations of war into three categories of analysis: The man (e.g. Hitler) The State (e.g. post-WW1 Germany) The System (e.g. International Time System) Lacking according to Waltz are theories concerning the third category of analysis, which he finds with the second book, theory of international politics: I t attempts to provide a scientific explanation of international politics. Takes some elements of Political Realism: independent states living in international anarchy. It does not take up political ethics. Explanatory approach influenced by economic models (the state always seeks to maximise its utility, as individuals do) SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: o States behave in certain recurring and predictable ways. o States have no choice if they want to survive in anarchy (determinism) NEOREALISM= STRUCTURAL REALISM Focus on the STRUCTURE of the international system. DOMESTIC Authorising principle Hierarchical Functional differentiation High Capacity distribution Uneven INTERNATIONAL Anarchist Absent Unequal (distributed.power, changes according to context, the only variable!) The distribution of power is the only thing that varies from one international system to another; all of Waltz's analyses are based on this variable, i.e. how power is distributed. BIPOLAR SYSTEMS More stability for Waltz MULTIPOLAR SYSTEMS More stable for the Neoclassical Realists Cold War Two powers Fewer calculation errors Pre- and post-Cold War More distributed power More balancing possibilities (easier to find allies) Similar power=deterrence No absolute wars (today's enemy is tomorrow's ally) No tendency to embark on 'marginal wars', as in the First World War. Less focus on a single threat OFFENSIVE REALISM: MEARSHEIMER (EGEMONIA USA) waltz was a defensive realist. Every great power always seeks hegemony (global, or if that is not possible, regional). E.g. The US has sought hegemony in the western sphere, since the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, to ensure that no hegemon would grow in Europe and Asia. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) Book 'the tragedy of the great political powers' is a tragedy because it is history repeating itself, the powers will clash for hegemony. REALISM AND NEOREALISM (textbook= realism Waltz) 1. HIRED: a. Centrality of the State b. Anarchic context (constant danger, everyone is left to their own devices, no authority) c. States as actors: i. Rational (objective-sensitive, 'cost-sensitive', economic vision of the state) ii. Autonomous (vis-à-vis society and special interests) iii. Unitary (cohesive actors) 2. PROPOSALS: a. States as defensive actors: in an anarchic context they maximise their security b. Defensive positionalists: focus on relative power (fear of losing positions of power) c. Quest for independence: in order to maximise security, they seek to maintain their autonomy. (Macchiavelli: independent of other states to follow their own strategies) 3. EMPIRICAL APPLICATIONS: a. Balancing (policies of states to counterbalance an emerging power) prevails over bandwagoning (allying with the emerging power): Stephen Walt; equilibrium theory of 'threat' (not power) to explain band: i. Relative power ii. Geography iii. Armaments iv. Intentions b. System stability and polarity = depends on power distribution Kenneth Waltz; bipolar systems are more stable (for classical realists it is the opposite) i. Simpler balance ii. Fewer calculation errors iii. Asymmetrical alliances iv. Less economic interdependence = less friction c. Strong limits to cooperation: i. Cheating problem (deception) no actor can trust others. ii. Problem of relative gains (defensive positioning) iii. Poor functional differentiation (cannot specialise, each state does everything): only possible with economic leadership. 4. CRITICS: a. Unitary actor state? i. Krasner: yes, in spite of 'weak' US domestic structure theories. ii. Ikenberry: yes, IPE case and oil price (national interest) b. Realism does not consider 'Change': (it is a static theory) i. There are theories of change (e.g. Gilpin) ii. The elements of continuity are more relevant c. Realism neglects unit-level variables: (Waltz's structural realism, 3 levels) i. Downing: dependent/independent variable? (Depends on the second level analysis) ii. Posen: Political leaders and 'systemic sensitivity' (Depends on the first level of analysis) d. Realism in the face of the EU and the role of the institutions: i. Weak states: voice opportunity ii. Strong states: hegemony in disguise? (More legitimate perceptions) e. Do states maximise power or security? i. Waltz: defensive positionists to maximise security ii. Mearsheimer: offensive realism based on power maximisation (bandwagoning > balancing) Cooperation? iii. Some states maximise power and others maximise security: why? f. Empirical predictions? i. At most probabilistic: do not overestimate the structure ii. Feaver: not only the causes, but to include the adverse consequences of action? Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) LIBERALISM The configuration of liberalism since the 1970s LIBERALISMS: CLASSICAL LIBERALISM with Locke, Kant, Smith, etc. UTOPIC LIBERALISM 'IDEALISM' with Angell and Wilson INTERDEPENDENCE LIBERALISM with Mitrany and Haas, states begin to cooperate, especially the European states establishing the ECSC, associated with the theory of (neo)functionalism, which serves to explain the cooperation that arises between European states. NEOLIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM with Keohane and Nye with the book 'power and interdependence'. LIBERALISM Common points taken on board by the Liberals: 1. Optimistic view of human nature (as opposed to the anarchy of the realists) 2. Cooperative nature of BRs (war is avoidable) 3. Primary value of well-being and freedoms (security comes second) 4. Confidence in progress (human history is a continuous improvement, not cyclical) A conception antithetical to Realism: 1. Focus on individuals -> liberals have the individual at the centre and not states 2. Rationality individuals -> 'common interests' 3. "Collective interests" -> cooperation policy 4. Modernisation -> democratisation LIBERAL POSITIONS 1. TRADE LIBERALISM (FREE TRADE) Free trade but a pacifying effect on relations between states Intellectual roots: Adam Smith and David Ricardo with the notion of comparative advantage: all nations can benefit from trade. Random logic: • Free trade allows absolute gains for every nation • Wars and conflicts damage free trade (profits and employment) • Citizens of trading states have vested interests in maintaining cooperative relations. 2. LIBERALS SUPPORT DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY Democratic states do not wage war against each other, it does not mean they are peaceful, but they do wage war against non-democratic states. 3. LIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM SUPPORTS THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL NORMS, RULES AND INSTITUTIONS International organisations have important effects on the actions of states, institutions fulfil the function of increasing information, transparency and trust. 4. AT THE SUB-STATE LEVEL, TRANSNATIONALISM COUNTS Trans-national relations matter, liberals in fact follow the 'cobweb model', a network linking states, non-governmental organisations, private economic actors, media, organised crime, etc. 5. COSMOPOLITANISM It is the ability to be open to interactions with groups of other cultures and traditions. It encourages relations between citizens of different countries, political consequences. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) NEO-LIBERALISM (1970s-1980s) or NEO-LIBERALISM Birth comes from two factors: Empirical: interdependence, organisations and cooperative responses of states. Theoretical: US decline?/Hegemonic stability theory? K.Walt, International Policy Theory, 1979 NEOLIBERALS: FOCUS ON 'INSTITUTIONS': distinction between: institutions, regimes and international organisations. REGIMES: "set of principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures around which the expectations of the actors in a given subject area converge" Krasner , stands at a higher level of abstraction than an international organisation, hence the org.int. They come after a regime. E.g. Nuclear non-proliferation regime. TWO APPROACHES: o RATIONALIST INSTITUTIONALISM: He takes from Waltz the idea that actors are rational. o SOCIOLOGICAL INSTITUTIONALISM (to be skipped) RATIONALIST INSTITUTIONALISM DISTINGUISHING FEATURES: Selfish and rational actors: they maximise their own utility I t adopts the same neo-realist assumptions as Waltz: o Centrality of the State (big leap from liberalism to neo-liberalism) o Anarchic environment o State as unitary actor Ma emphasises the existence of common interests: o Possibility of joint gains through cooperation (absolute gains) International institutions/regimes/organisations alter the international context: o They change the strategic environment in which states operate, calculate, decide o They create constraints and opportunities for states that will make cooperation more likely. OBJECTIVES AND RESULTS: Contractualist and functionalist perspective (regimes=intentional creations of states) R.Keohane: regimes reduce obstacles to cooperation: o Transaction costs o Uncertainty o Incentives to violate agreements Stein and Snidal: different regimes x different issue areas: Using game theory o Problems of collaboration (prisoner's dilemma) role of the most challenging regimes. o Coordination problems (battle of the sexes) Less demanding role of the regimes. CRITICISM OF RATIONALIST INSTITUTIONALISM: Relative power Role domestic politics Consequences of regimes ANSWERS Krasner: power and bargaining Putnam: 'two-level game'= national leaders have to negotiate with foreign leaders and public opinion. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) CONSTRUCTIVISM It is very different from realism and liberalism, according to some it is not a theory but a method. It marks the post '89 transition, together with feminism. Methodological (post-positivist) perspective and criticises the hegemony of realist and neo-liberal approaches, opens up the R.I. To different influences. SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM is the theory behind constructivism: International politics must first of all be recognised as a social fact, made up of relationships between actors, and as a social reality it cannot be equated with the method of the natural sciences. For realists and neo-liberals, there is only a universal science, whereas for constructivists, scholars are within the object being studied, so the scientific method cannot be applied. THE EMERGENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVISM End of the Cold War: o Neorealism unable to predict the end of the Cold War and explain what comes next. o Greater focus on the role of ideas (bringing the intangible aspects of R.I. to the centre) Inspiration from other disciplines: o Sociology: Giddens' 'structuralism', there is a two-way relationship between actor and structure o Psychology: shared meanings o Philosophy of Science: post-positivism Ideas, meanings, interpretation and understanding. THE CENTRAL IDEA OF CONSTRUCTIVISM IS THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF REALITY Social reality does not exist independently of the ideas of the individuals who give it life. The social world is an inter-subjective sphere: it acquires meaning through shared meanings. Material elements exist but not in a neutral way: they are infused with meanings that give meaning and direction. Post-positivist approach: political science cannot be objective. There are no 'natural laws' to be discovered. International relations therefore have intangible elements of a social nature. E.g. Atomic bomb in France and North Korea, why is the latter more worrying? One has to look at meanings and not only at scientifically measurable data. CONSTRUCTIVISM It is introduced by Nicholas Onuf: A world of our making, later developed by Alexander Wendt. CENTRAL IDEA: Anarchy exists, but this need not lead to a competitive and conflictual system. Whether this happens or not cannot be known a priori, it depends on the type of interaction that develops between states. Whereas for neorealists, states have predetermined interests (maximising security, interests and identities are exogenous to the interaction). For constructivists, it is the interaction between states that determines their specific identities and thus their specific interests (endogenous to the process of social interaction) Examples: End of the Cold War due to the relationship developed between Reagan and Gorbachev. Birth of the European Union due to the new identity and interests of European countries. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) ALEXANDER WENDT He published an article in 1992 that reads: ANARCHY IS WHAT STATES DO TO US. His main work is Social Theory of International Politics (1999) • Anarchy is the product of social interaction between states. • The anarchy described by the realists is only one possible option. • It is necessary to focus on the discursive interaction between states in order to understand what culture of anarchy has developed: 1. Hobbesian anarchy: States regard each other as enemies. It is the war of all against all. War is endemic because conflict is necessary to survive (until the 17th century) 2. Lockian anarchy: States regard each other as rivals. There are constraints and limitations. The aim is not the total elimination of the opponent, but political goals. Mutual recognition after Westphalia 1648. 3. Kantian anarchy: States see each other as 'friends'. They settle disputes peacefully. They cooperate. This is the condition that developed among Western democracies after 1945. CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH IN OBJECTIVE SYNTHESIS: understanding of the social construction process of international reality. HALF: analysing conceptual factors: Resulting from collective intentionality, the doing of an actor acquires meaning as part of a common doing. Social facts: a reality that exists thanks to an agreement between human beings. FOCUS: process of structuring international reality (constitutive norms vs. regulatory norms) ASSUMED: Actors behave according to the logic of appropriateness and role expectations. THE NEXUS OF NORMS-> IDENTITY -> INTERESTS Norms, shared ideas, expectations influence the identities of actors (states) o The way states pursue interests o The definition of interests themselves. ORIGIN OF INTERESTS Constructivism: interests are 'endogenous' to the process of social interaction o Constitutive rules o Complex learning o Re-elaboration of one's identity o Dynamism (continuous change) NeoR-NeoL: Interests are 'exogenous' to the social interaction process o Rational egoist states: utility maximisation o Static approach (interests never change) o Positivist method (causal power of material factors) o Regulative' norms -> adaptation of rational strategies Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) CONSTRUCTIVISM AND STRUCTURALISM Agent-structure debate: For Waltz, it is the structure that determines the actors' behaviour. Structure for constructivists: The individual can influence the structure, changing it 1) Shared meanings 2) Material Resources 3) Social practices Social institutions carry the DNA of structures, reproducing them over time. Norms are reworked in the process of social interaction. STANDARDS AND CHANGE Where do international standards come from? (Katzenstein) 1) Spontaneous (e.g. multilateralism) 2) Intentionally promoted by an actor (e.g. conditionality) 3) Negotiated (e.g. humanitarian law) 4) Mix of the above. Why do they assert themselves? 1) Carrier capacity. 2) Consistency with the regulatory framework. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected])