Realism

international system

* the pattern of relationships between and among states that establishes an order of measures & predictability
* for realists, it is characterized by: anarchy, self-help, the security dilemma, the balance of powers

anarchy

* lack of global supranational sovereignty, no legitimate overarching power
* different types (eg: anarchy of friends) that neo-realists don’t really consider

power

according to structural realists (Mearsheiner) there are 5 key assumptions:

* great powers are the main acotrs in int’l system, which is anarchic
* all states possess at least some military capacity
* uncertainty about the intentions (present & future) of other states
* key goal of states is survival (territorial integrity & autonomy of internal political order)
* states are rational actors, capable of strategic thought

material capabilities

key problem of the security dilemma and the balance of powers: takes the form of military buildup, etc

war

* realists are preoccupied by systemic wars, that can entirely change the “rules of the game”
* according to Waltz, they happen under 3 levels: man/the state/the int’l system

self-help

state actors act in their nation’s interest on the int’l level → leads to security dilemma

balance of powers

* system in which no one states predominates over others, which tends to create a general equilibrium & curls the hegemonic ambitions of all states
* attempts to reach a certain balance, through military buildup or alliances, often feeds into the security dilemma
* also: caused by the security dilemma
* can increase power internally (buildup), externally (allies) or try and tie down the other power (WTO & China)

state of nature

* theoretical state in which there is full freedom & anarchy
* social contract: giving up freedom for security

national interest

foreign policy goals, objectives, or policy preferences that supposedly benefit society as a whole

security dilemma

dilemma that arrises from the fact that a buildup of military capabilities for defensive reasons by one state is always liable to be interpreted as agressive by another state

→ parable of the stag, Rousseau

neo-realists

only care about great powers, don’t care about individual countries, FP are at the level of the system

absolute vs relative power

eg: the US’s world order: WTO gives absolute economic power to everyone, but relatively gives more gains to the US → acts like a hegemon

prisonner’s dilemma

* not actually true in prison because of the pre-existing social system
* for realists, the world order is not a social system & is full of insecurities
* shows that the realists’ vision of the individual is very thin

MAD

mutually assured destruction: what kept the world stable during the CW: knowledge that if one attacked, the other would immediately destroy them

→ Star Wars was abandonned because it stopped deterence & disturbed the balance of powers

Kenneth Walls

* inventor of neo-realism


* said more nuclear weapons are better than less → the only time they have been used was in Japan, when no one else had any → as soon as Russia got them, they never got used again

offensive vs defensive realism

* offensive: every country wants to increase their capabilities, no cooperation, no trust, no security need the most power to survive
* defensive: all you need is nukes: eg: NK, you trust the other they want to survive

Thucydides

defensive realist? you should try and create a sense of community in IR → anarchy of friends is the goal

(but: more of a greek thing than a realist thing → concept of hubris, satisficing option)

regime

unimportant for realists → didn’t predict the fall of the USSR

in defense of realism

Machiavelli: ruling is a different ballgame, virtue is important but doesn’t have a space in politics because the stakes are too high

→ try to make it scientific and economic-like

→ black box: just need input & output, don’t care about the details

also: heavily influenced by WW2, lots of US based realists were european immigrants