Realism: Major Actors and Assumptions Based on four key assumptions :

1.States are the principal actors and most important actors. States are the key unit of analysis. The study of IR is the study of relations among these units.

Why? Because only the state, given its claim to sovereignty, possesses the monopoly of legitimate force to resolve conflicts between individuals and groups within its territory and also between itself and other states and international actors. Non-state actors like international organizations (UN), Multi-National Corporations, and transnational actors are acknowledged by realists, but they are of secondary importance. States are the dominant actors. Kenneth Waltz and Robert Gilpin argue that states are the ‘basic actors in the international system’ by arguing that ‘the behavior of other actors is conditioned and delimited by state decisions and state power.

Second Assumption of Realism State is viewed as a unitary actor. For realists a

country faces the outside world as an integrated unit. A common assumption among realists is that political differences within the state are ultimately resolved, namely the government speaks with one voice for the state as a whole.

On any particular issue, realists assume that state as a unitary actor has one policy. Of course there may be exceptions, but realists support the argument that state is an integrated actor. For instance, when a foreign ministry expresses policies different from ministry of defense, action is taken to bring these alternative positions to a common position.

If the issue is not so much important, alternative views can remain, but if it is important, higher authorities will intervene to prevent alternative views.

Second Assumption of Realism States have sufficient autonomy from

their national societies to recognize and pursue the interests of the nation as a whole, not just those of particular powerful groups and they may devise goals and strategies that run counter to the preferences of important parts of society.

Decision-makers respond on behalf of the nation state to the opportunities and dangers engendered by the international system.

Third Assumption of Realism State is a rational actor. States are goal

oriented and their goals are consistent. Also, states are assumed to derive strategies to achieve their goals and they are cost sensitive. States make cost-benefit analysis of every alternative, they evaluate alternatives and select the ones that maximizes their benefits. Thus, states can change their strategies in the face of changes in external constraints and opportunities.

Realists are aware of the limit of this claim: Practically, governmental decision- makers may not have all the information and knowledge they will need for achieving their objectives.

State as a Rational Actor

As states are rational and define their interest in terms of their power, realists assume that all states behave in a standard manner. Based on the rationality assumption, international sistem is composed of states that have the same patterns of behavior.

Fourth Assumption of Realism the context of action: the anarchy States coexist in a context of international

anarchy which refers to the absence of a centralized authority to protect states from one another, each state has to survive on its own. Thus, states are by definition self-help agents.

They assume that within the hierarchy of international relations issues, national security tops the list. For them, military and related political issues dominate world politics.

Balance of power mentality

For realists, the tendency of states to balance against challengers through the formation of defensive alliances is a strong behavioral expectation about the effects of anarchy on states.

All states, according to realists, are then obliged to pursue a balance of power strategy

The History of the European States Illustrates the Balance of Power 18th Century: Principal states were Britain,

France, Austria, Prussia, and Russia which often changed sides to preserve the balance

Napoleonic France (1789-1815) attempted to destroy the European balance and establish French hegemony only to be defeated by a European coalition

The Concert of Europe (1815-1914) maintained peace through flexible and overlapping alliances to ensure a balance of power as a deterrent to war

The Focus on Power

They focus on actual or potential conflict between state actors, and the use of force. They examine how international stability is attained or maintained, how it breaks down, the utility of force as a means to resolve conflicts. Thus, power is a key concept.

The principal aim of states is to gain power

They call military, security or strategic issues as ‘high politics’, whereas economic and social issues are viewed as less important or ‘low politics’. For them, high politics dominate and set the environment for low politics

Realist Description of IR Interstate politics is a permanent bargaining game over the

distribution of power, thus it describes world politics as a state of war, and a struggle for power and is generally pessimistic about the prospects for eliminating conflict and war.

Best description for world politics is a state of war, the constant possibility of war, because the nature of humanity or the structure of international order allows wars to occur.

The outcome of an interstate bargaining is determined by the power of states at their disposal. Control over material resources in world politics lies at the core of realism. For them, material resources determine state behavior.

They define IR as relations between states. Individuals, NGOs, IOs are less important.

Classic Realists The realist worldview was shaped by the

ancient Greek historian Thucydides, Niccolo Machiavelli in the 16th century, Thomas Hobbes in the 17th century.

They focused on national security and state survival and portrayed international politics as power politics: an arena of rivalry, conflict and war between states

Defending the national interest and ensuring the survival of the state repeat themselves permanently

Thucydides (471-400 BC) Greek historian. He is considered as the

founding father of realism. Focused on the competitions and conflicts

between Greek city-states. In Peloponnesian War (431 to 404 BC) , he

analyzes the war between Athens and Sparta in the 5th century BC. He dealt with the nature of war and why it continually recurs. For him, the past was the guide for the future. His work is a study of the struggle for military and political power.

He emphasizes the limited room for manoeuvre available to statesmen.

Thucydides’s Explanation of War Why did war occur between Athens and Sparta? For

him, the reason was the fear associated with a shift in the balance of power. Although fear may lead to war, power and capabilities relative to others determine the outcome.

Sparta was afraid of losing its pre-eminent role in the Hellenic world thus took counter measures to build up its military strength: Balance of power mentality.

When leaders perceive that balance of power is shifting to their disfavour, they try to change the situation due to suspicion, fear, distrust they feel for their rivals.

The Peloponnesian War reshaped the Ancient Greek world. Athens, the strongest city-state in Greece prior to the war's beginning lost its power, while Sparta became the leading power of Greece.

Melian Dialogue The Melian Dialogue is an account of the

confrontation between the people of Melos, a colony of Sparta, and the Athenians in 416-415 B.C.

The Athenians wanted to conquer the island to impose a greater threat over the Spartans.

Before doing any harm to the island, Athenians sent representatives to the Melos island to negotiate the Melian surrender to Athens.

Melian Dialogue The Melians appealed to the strong

Athens for the principle of justice and demanded that they should be respected as an independent state.

Athenians replied that: “The standard of justice depends on the equality of power”. “Justice is not about equal treatment, it is about knowing your place. The strong do what they can, and the weak accept what they have to”.

Melian Dialogue Athenians stated that: “you will save

yourselves from disaster if you surrender us”.

Melians: “We want to remain neutral, we can be friends instead of enemies”.

Athenians: “It is not your hostility that hurt us. If we were on friendly terms with you, our subjects would regard that as a sign of weakness of us, but your hatred is evidence of our power”. “by conquering you we shall increase not only the size but the security of our empire.

Melian Dialogue Melians:”We will establish an alliance with the

Spartans. It is their own self-interest to protect us. We are of the same race and share the same feelings”.

Athenians: “Do not trust Spartans, where danger is concerned, Spartans are not venturesome”.

The Melians refused to surrender to the Athenians because of their strong sense of independence. They also did not want to be regarded as cowards for surrendering so easily. The Melians argued that an invasion will alarm the other neutral Greek states, who will become hostile to Athens for fear of being invaded themselves.

Melian Dialogue Melians:”We are not prepared to give up in a

short moment the liberty which our city has enjoyed from its foundation for 700 years”.

After this response, the Athenians occupied Melos and killed the men and enslaved the women and children.

The irony of the Melian Dialogue: "The Athenians look at the present and can see nothing will save Melos. They are right. The Melians look to the future. They are right too. Athens is also destroyed. The decline of Athens reflects the justification of the Melians.

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) He wrote about power, balance of power,

formation of alliances, causes of conflicts. His primary focus was on national security.

Survival of the state is crucial. The main responsibility of the rulers is always to defend the interests of the state and ensure its survival.

Power (Lion) and deception (Fox) are two essential means for the conduct of foreign policy. If necessary, a ruler must be ruthless and deceptive while defending self-interest.

His famous work “The Prince” deals with how to gain, maintain and expand power.

Suggestions of Machiavelli World is a dangerous place, and also full of

opportunities. One should take necessary measures against dangers.

If states want to enrich themselves, they should exploit opportunities. One should calculate rationally his interests and power against those of rival groups.

A responsible ruler should not follow Christian ethics such as be peaceful, avoid war, share your wealth... If states follow these values, they will disappear in the end.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679): He had a pessimistic view of human nature. He

emphasizes the necessity of having a powerful, centralized political authority.

Human beings lived in a condition of war ‘every one against every one’.

He tried to show in order to escape from this situation, he suggested placing all power to a sovereign state or Leviathan (a state authority or supreme ruler) that would maintain order and end anarchy. Without order, no economic development, art, knowledge…

Hobbes and Security Dilemma Achievement of personal security and domestic security

through the creation of a state leads to international insecurity that is rooted in the anarcy of the state system: security dilemma

No escape from the security dilemma as there is no possibility of forming a world government. He argues that there is no higher authority over states to impose order. The international system is a condition of anarchy. States claim to be sovereign with a right to be independent and autonomous with respect to each other. Without a leviathan, distrust, conflict and war are inevitable: no permanent peace between states

Due to the survival concerns in anarchy, states are expected to act in balance of power logic.

Hobbes and Morality Due to the anarchy assumption, there is

no fixed idea of good or bad. For realism, might is right.

Law or morality does not apply beyond nation’s boundaries.

Hobbes asserts that without a superior authority to legislate codes of conduct, no morality or justice can exist. ‘where there is no common power, no law; where no law, no justice.

Hans Morgenthau Hans Morgenthau was one of the leading

twentieth-century figures in the study of international politics. Hans Morgenthau is considered one of the "founding fathers" of realist approach.

For him, humanbeings are evil by nature. They are born to pursue power and enjoy the benefits of power.

The final political space within which security is ensured is the independent state. Beyond the state, security is impossible.

The lust for power brings people into conflict with each other.

For Moregnthau, politics is a struggle for power.

Morgenthau’s Principles of Realism In “Politics Among Nations”, Morgenthau

presents the fundamental principles of his conception of realism, which will be referred to as classical realism.

1. Politics "is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature which is selfish, self-interested. For him, the laws of politics are grounded in human nature. As the essence of the human nature never changes, the essence of the international system does not change, either.

Morgenthau’s Principles of Realism 2. Politics is an autonomous sphere of action,

and cannot be reduced to economics as Marxists do or to morality as liberals do.

3. Morality for the public sphere is different than the morality of the private sphere. A political leader does not have the same freedom to do the right thing that a privatize citizen has.The ruler has the responsibility of ensuring security and welfare.

4. As individuals are self-interested, international

politics is a arena of conflicting state interests

Relation between power and national interest For Morgenthau, IR is a discipline which is based

on the concepts of national interest and power.

Interests of states should be defined in terms of their power. Statesmen should determine and defend their interests in accordance with the power they have.

For Morgenthau, politics is a skill of harmonizing endless needs (interests) and scarce resources (power)

Realists think within the framework of the national interest defined in terms of power.

Basic Concept of Realism:Power No consensus even among realists how to

define it. Some understand it to be the sum of military, economic, technological, diplomatic and other capabilities at the disposal of states. Others see it as capabilities relative to others. The power of the USA is evaluated in terms of its capabilities relative to those of others.

Alternative definition, dynamic definition of power: a state’s influence is determined not only by its capabilities, but also by its willingness to use capabilities, and its control and influence over other states.

How Can States Achieve Power?

By the state’s own means:PopulationIndustrializationScience and Technology, etc…

By alliances: All alliances are conditional: they apply only if they remain in the power interests of the state.

Measurement, Indicators of Power Defense expenditures Military Personnel Iron & Steel Production Energy Consumption Total Population Gross National Product (GNP) Which is more important, military or economic power? David Singer emphasizes military, industrial and

demographic capabilities as crucial indicators. Power of a state is dependent on the issue involved. For

instance, Japan is economically powerful but militarily weak. Opponents say that economic power of Japan as a global trader is related with its military ties with the US. This ensures Japan’s freedom to engage in commerce.

Do States Cooperate? Each of the 5 individuals has to decide

whether to collaborate in hunting of a stag necessary to meet the hunger needs of all five or to defect from the group to capture a hare.

Deciding to capture a hare would serve one’s self interest at the expense of others. If the individual prefers to serve the common interest (go after stag), can he trust the others to do so? If one cannot trust others, is not it rational to go for the hare before the others?

Uncertainty of knowing whether the others are good, moral and rational.

Do States Cooperate? Anarchical, self-help system makes cooperation

difficult to achieve. What is the rational thing to do, to promote short term and self-interest or common interests?

If a state is concerned in absolute gains, it is indifferent to the gains of others. As long as I am doing better, I don’t care if others are also increasing their wealth or military power.

In relative gains, it is not satisfied with simply increasing its power or wealth but also how much others gained.

Different assumptions about a state’s preferences lead to different expectations about prospects for IR conflict and cooperation. For neo-realists relative gains assumptions makes international cooperation difficult to attain.

Difficulty of Cooperation

states are unwilling to cooperate and maintain that cooperation due to:

fears of cheating dependency concerns about relative gains

Relative Gains Concerns Prevent Cooperation The issue of how the gains were

distributed. Here the important question is how often has a concern for relative gains lead states to forgo mutually beneficial agreements.

For instance European Community concerned about the implementation of Tokyo Round government procurement and technical standards would allow US to achieve disproportionate gains resisted the US in pressing for such an administration of those two codes.

Interdependence and Realism For realists, dependent party is vulnerable to the

choices of the dominant party. Interdependence does not mean equality. Vulnerability of one party over another. For realists to reduce this vulnerability, it is better for the state to be independent.

Quadrupling of oil prices in 1973-74 did not affect equally all oil importing countries. Vulnerability is related with what alternatives are available. Ex: US had to increase domestic production, create strategic oil reserve to be drawn in emergencies, find other foreign sources of oil.

Interdependence and Realism Realists argue that maintenance of access to oil

and natural resources is essential to national security. Maintaining access to oil supplies was a core objective of IR community to force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait in 1991.

If a state wants to be more powerful, it avoids political or military dependency on other states.

For realists, interdependence may not enhance prospects for peace. Conflicts could easily erupt. Stability can be achieved when a strong state assumes leadership, even if it becomes hegemonic. The absence of hegemony may create chaos and instability.

Is Change Possible in the International System? Realists stress the continuity in

international relations. Many of the insights of Thucydides are considered as relevant today as they were 2500 years ago. Balance of power existed since 15th and 16th centuries. They are uninterested in change.

Ropert Gilpin argues that it is possible to identify recurrent patterns, common elements, and general tendencies in the major turning points in IR history.

Rise and Fall of Hegemons Continuity is the dominant theme of realism as the

anarchy forces states to behave in a similar, rational, power maximizing ways, or fail and to be conquered. However, change is constant at the systemic level, as powerful hegemons rise and fall.

Since 1500, 4 powers dominated the system. Portugal (1500-end of 16th century), Netherlands (17th century), Great Britain (18th and 19th century), and the United States (1945-).

In each cycle, one nation state is ascending, while another one is descending. Dynamic view of the IR system.

Realism is critized for reducing change in the international system to the change in the distribution of power.

Mechanisms of Change

What has been the principal mechanism of change throughout history? Wars, because wars determine which states will govern the system. It determines the new distribution of power.

Focus on Continuities in World Politics Realism’s particular strength lies in its

pointing out and explaining continuities in world politics. Realism can also be useful in understanding the rise and decline of major powers, international conflict and cooperation.

Yet, there are important unresolved questions within the core of realist international theory. Among the most important are whether states are security or power maximizers, and whether this makes a difference for their behavior toward one another.

Defensive Realists States maximize security Defensive realists such as Kenneth Waltz and

Stephen Walt focuse on a structural concept known as the offence-defence balance. They maintain that military power at any point in time can be categorized as favoring either offence or defence. If defence has a clear advantage over offence great powers will have little incentive to use force to gain power and vice versa. Defensive realists respond that offence-defence balance is usually tilted towards defence.

Defensive Realism Jack Snyder: states attain security in the anarchical

system by accumulating an appropriate amount of power in balance with others

excessive amount of power may lessen security by setting off the dynamics of a security

dilemma the international system ‘rewards’

states maintaining a status quo – not those with the ambition to dominate

Offensive Realists Randall Schweller in his analysis of

revisionist states mainly opposes the neorealist assumption that states merely seek to survive in favor of the status quo because of the existence of aggressive revisionist states.

He criticizes Kenneth Waltz and Stephen Walt for seeing the world solely through the eyes of a satisfied status quo states. He argues that at least some states want to change their status in the system and will want to advance their relative power position.

For Schweller, states maximize power not security

Offensive Realism John Mearsheimer power is difficult to measure:

states do not know when their power is sufficient

are driven to accumulate as much power and capabilities as possible

this leads them to pursue aggressive, expansionist policies

the objective is to become a regional, if not global, hegemon

Criticisms against Realism

For realists, continuities are more important than changes in interstate politics. Realists also argue that states are engaged in the game of power politics, and unable to change the rules even if they desire. Critics say they are deterministic and pessimistic.

Criticisms against Realism Realism is unsatisfactory in its understanding the

question of international change, it does not take into consideration the domestic factors such as economic and social processes) on the foreign behavior of states.

Realists failed to foresee the dissolution of the Soviet Union as they just focused on military aspect of power. This limited perspective could not reflect the social, political and economic difficulties of the Soviet society. Realists failed to see how Soviet people were ready for a radical change.

It is difficult for realists to understand change in the absence of war.

The fact that Soviet Union dissolved in the absence of war reflects the inadequacy of realist perspective.

Ignoring Non-State Actors Realists are obsessed with state and

ignore other actors and issues. Non-state actors-MNCs, banks, international terrorist organizations, International Organizations are excluded from the analysis. Other concerns such as the socioeconomic gap between rich and poor societies or international pollution rarely make the realist agenda.

Realist respond to criticisms Arms race and military spending contribute to

tension in the international system. Because it is exclusively states that spend this money to buy or produce military capabilities, so it makes sense to focus on states.

It is only the state, given its claim to sovereignty, possesses the monopoly of legitimate force to resolve conflicts between individuals and groups over which it rules with a defined territorial space and also between itself and other states and international actors

Neo-realism and Kenneth Waltz

Its theoretical premises are organized around basic features of world politics: anarchy, distribution of power, self-regarding states. A rise is international insecurity, new Cold War in 1979 and 1980 triggered its popularity.

Waltz’s work as a response to pluralism

Kenneth Waltz and Neorealism

Waltz’s Man, the State and War (1959) offered three ‘images’ of Realism:

1. war caused by the nature of man (i.e. ‘bad people’);

2. war caused by the nature of states (i.e. ‘bad states’);

3. war arising from the anarchic structure of the international system (i.e. ‘there is nothing to stop bad people and states’).

Waltz’s neorealist theory: restricts the scope of theory to

‘international system’: impossible to understand the international

system through unit-level theories: that would amount to reductionism

IR theory should be focus on the systemic level

in an anarchical system, units must be structurally similar (although their capabilities may vary)

Systemic Explanation of State Behavior The central determining cause of state

behavior is the system of nation-states:anarchy

This anarchical system imposes an imperative of security and survival on each state

States seek their survival, not power States that ignore their relative power will be

subordinated to other states no supreme authority self-help system: no other

state can be relied upon to defend another state at the risk of its own power

Neorealist claim that their conception of international relations achieves the level of a scientific proposition

System as Anarchy

Many realists considered anarchy and distribution of power among states as critical components of the international system. They argue that anarchy and distribution of power among states, namely the structure constrain decision-makers. Anarchy contributes distrust and conflict.

Anarchy: refers to violence, destruction, and chaos. When we use this term, we are referring to the absence of hierarchy. Due to anarchy states must rely on power.

Polarity of the System For neo-realists, defining feature of a

system is the distribution of power among states: unipolar, bipolar and multipolar. They analyze how shifts in these capabilities influence state behaviour, interactions and possibility of war.

The bipolar system is allegedly more stable than a multi-polar system since the power balance between the superpowers can be more accurately and reliably calculated

Self-help situation It is dangerous to place the security of one’s

own country in the hands of others Security dilemma: even if a state is arming for

defensive purposes, it is rational in a self-help system to assume the worst. How can one be sure that a rival is arming for defensive reasons?

Maybe all states desire peace, but anarchical nature of the IR system makes them to be suspicious of each other.

Security dilemma is regulated by balance-of-power politics

Polarity and System Stability: Kenneth Waltz argues that uncertainty increases as the

number of international actors increase. Waltz argues that greater uncertainty makes it more likely a decision-maker will misjudge the intentions and actions of a potential foe. Thus, multipolar system with higher levels of uncertainty is less desirable

For waltz, relations in a bipolar system between superpowers were simple and predictable. Direct conflicts between superpowers were usually avoided.

Mearsheimer also argues that in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the cold war, it is likely that Europe will turn to multipolarity which will create instability and conflict on the continent.

Hegemonic Stability Thesis Neo-realism also claimed a central place in

international political economy in the form of hegemonic stability theory.

Robert Gilpin and Stephen Krasner argue that a necessary condition for the formation and maintenance of a liberal international economy is that a single state should be able and willing to invest the resources and to bear the burdens associated with the operation of such an economic order.

John Ikenberry and Charles Kupchan supporting hegemonic stability thesis hold that one aspect of US hegemonic leadership after the Second World War took the form of the US using its power to socialize the Western European states to be inclined to economic openness.

Is Hegemon Necessary for the Stability? Robert Keohane criticizes Gilpin and

Krasner’s structural theory that explains the rise and decline of world economic orders.

Keohane states that the movement toward a more liberal order requires a hegemon, but adds that such an order might endure for some period of time without the continued support of a hegemonic leader.

The Central Defects of Realist and Especially Neorealist Theory Neo-realists claim that state system, anarchy

determines the behaviour of states. Statesmen are granted too little autonomy and little room for manoeuvre, decision-making process is seen as devoid of human action.

The end of the Cold War presented a deep challenge to neo-realism. Structural realism is unable to explain the changes that peacefully ended the Soviet Empire.

This and other events such as the acceleration of institution-building in EU and widespread opening to international economy by developing countries revived interest in a broadened liberal theory.

The Role of International Institutions New research focused on the role of

international institutions in facilitating cooperation and the transformations produced by economic integration. The explanatory power of structural variables, as the distribution of power, was demonstrated to be weak.

Hegemonic stability theory had been undermined and empirically challenged. Even the presence or absence of a liberal hegemonic power did not seem necessary to explain the persistence of institutions or habits of cooperation.