week six: realist theories of IR

What are the two strands of realist thought?

‘classical’ and ‘stuctural’/neorealist

What is the aspiration of realism?

• to be suprahistorical, explainining in all epochs the fundamental features of international politics: first and foremost conflict and war

What is the polemical target of realism?

• the progressive, reformist optimism connected with liberal internationalists like US president Woodrow Wilson. Realism comported a more pessimistic outlook.

What is the Realist perspective on conflict?

• Conflict is inevitable, even necessary in international politics

• When disputes cannot be resolved peacefully or diplomatically, force - and war provide a decisive means of settling matters.

In the eyes of realists, what is order?

• the precarious product of the balance of power or hegemony (supremacy by a great power and its allies) according to Levy 1993.

Why is realism best understood as an eclectic and plural tradition of thought rather than theory as such?

• the relationship between theory and practice is complex. The gulf between theory and practice is complex. Wherever choices must be made and decisions taken, the unique case that calls for action is deep and cannot be bridged.

Despite the efforts of Waltz, realism is not properly speaking a theory - an explicative coherent whole. Rather, it is

the name given by exponents and critics alike to the tradition of thought, signifying an approach to politics that claims to avoid wishful thinking by dealing with international relations as they are.

• However, it does not abandom morality, but does extol a morality specific to the state (reason of state) and statespeople (ethics of responsibility). Murray 1997.

Wight, 1991, a realist, alludes to some of the key tenets of realism. What are they?

1. the concept of anarchy

2. historical supposition that international relations are unavoidably shaped by power politics and war (ie Peloponnesian war for an ancient one)

What is a reason for realism’s enduring relevance?

• Emphasis on history. Realists claim to speak about historical reality and takes its orientations and practice from history.

What is a foundational core of Realism, which Wight references, that draws back to Machiavelli?

• ‘realm of recurrence and repetition’, where ‘political action is most regularly necessitous’/

The essence of this lies in the historical fact that rulers are regularly called upon to suspend conventional moral and legal rules to deflect threats to the state → Machiavelli’s doctrine of necessity, central to politics.

Machiavelli writes on the independence of politics from morality or legal rules, because it must respond to the demands of necessity. Morgenthau and Schmidt reformed this, which led to what crucial identification of a certain dimension to historical politics?

• The intense antagonism between friend and enemy as the crucial dimension of concrete historical politics.

From Machiavelli, Carr derives three key essential realist tenets:

1. ‘history is a sequence of cause and effect, whose course can be analysed and understood by intellectual effort… but not directed by ‘imagination’”

2. ‘Theory does not create practice… but practice theory’.

3. ‘morality is the product of power’ (Carr 2016).

Ultimately these discern political dimension of human nature, the role of fear, avarice and ambition in driving political action and generating conflict.

What did Hobbes provide the realist branch with, conceptually?

• Anarchy - life is a miserable condition because it is a condition of war. No superior authority.

In realist thought, what are the two consequences of anarchy, or presence of state of nature?

1. Nothing can impede the normal recurrence of war, which is one of the most regular human activities

2. States are responsible for their own self-preservation (legitimacy or legality of the use of military force, (Aron 1967) and international relations takes place within ‘the shadow of war’)

According to Carr, what is the main polemical attack he makes on liberalism?

• The principle of natural harmony of interests in international relations born of ‘the almost total neglect of the factor of power’ (Carr 2016).

For Carr, IR has an oligarchical pattern, meaning some states are more important than others. More specifically:

states are divided into ‘haves’ and ‘haven-nots’, where the disparity between the haves - those satisfied with the existing international order (status quo power) and the have-nots (dissatisfied or revisionist powers) explains recurrent tensions.

There is no world interest in peace identifiable with the interest of each individual nation. It fulfils an ideological rather than analytical function.

What did Morgantheau do slightly differently in the post-WWII period in realist thought?

• he conceded the tragic presence of evil in all political action, and lust for power, makes international politics, like all politics, a struggle for power. (echoing Niesczhan ideas)

What are Morgenthau’s commitment, the six general principles of realism?

1. politics are governed by ‘objective laws that have their roots in human nature’

2. The concept of ‘nationalv interest defined in terms of power’ is the most important foreign policy goal

3. While ‘interest defined as power’ remains unaffected by historical change, the exercise of power is permanent

4. ‘Universal moral principles’ cannot be used to judge the actions of states in their abstract formulation. Prudence is the morality proper to politics

5. Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe.

Self help is the only certain means to the uncertain end of self-preservation or survival meaning:

Each state aspires to survive as independent, making major decisions on its own. But in the final analysis, it can count only on itself.

• it is only through the balance of power, that states, alone, or through alliances can check the power of other states.

What is the most important aspect of the balance of power?

It can preserve a state’s independent existence from threat, aggression, and hegemony. It is only for these reasons that realists see the balance of power as the only real means of achieving common security - and alliances are considered the typical form of cooperation among states.

What are alliances and why do states form them?

Alliances are a union of states for a common cause. States form alliances to increase their security, but to decrease uncertainty regarding other states’ expected actions, exchanging some freedom of manoevre in order to reduce this uncertainty, and every ally tries to condition and control the other (Cesa, 2010)

What is the difference between (structural realism) neorealism and realism?

• The basis of neorealism is a scientific method that systematises core doctrines of realist thought into a structural model of international relations, based more on economic theory and philosophy of science than historical reflection.

What does Waltz’ parsimonious version of neorealism do?

It breaks down the connection between the internal and external dimensions of politics,denying that the itnernal structure of states has any serious effect on interstate relations. It seeks to establish the autonomy of international politics.

What does Waltz do that’s different to classical realist arguments?

• He rejects that human nature and the domestic character of states are relevant factors in explaining IR

• War alliances, etc cannot be approached by focusing on the behaviour of states in themselves (which Waltz says is reductionist). Their domestic character does not make a difference at the level of the international system, the concern of international relations theories.

According to Waltz, what is the system?

Structure and interacting unitsW

What is structure according to Waltz?

‘the system wide component that makes it possible to think of the system as a whole’. It is made of three components;

1. an ordering principle ‘deep structure’ (hierarchy or anarchy)

2. differentiation of units according to their function - in IR states are the same or undifferentiated, performing the same range of actions and primarily concerned with security

3. distribution of capabilities - how states stand in relation to one another, according to the power they can mobilise and the aggregation of power around one or more poles - unipolar, bipolar, etc.

In Waltz’s view, what are the three elements that matter in a systemic analysis of structure?

1. the differentiation of units (irrelevant because states are undifferentiated in their primary function, which is to gain security. Hence → self-help is necessarily the principle of action in an anarchic order)

2. the organising principle (anarchy)

3. distributions of capabilites.

What is an idea of itnerdependence within anarchy?

• States must be concerned with the asymmetric distribution of advantage, worried about relative rather than absolute gains.

• Moreover, it is risky to be dependent on others who are free to cheat.

  • Interdependence produces not just amity, as liberals claim, but reciprocal vulnerability, according to neorealism.

What does neorealism say about the distribution of capabilities and how it affects states behaviour?

Walz says, ‘at a minimum, states seek their own preservation, and at a maximum, drive for universal domination’ (1979).

• The distribution of capabilities across states, especially the military field, is the only fundamental changing element in the international system. Hence, states can be bipolar or multipolar.

According to Waltz’ international theory, how does the market function similarly to IR?

Great powers tend to adopt a defensive behaviour that upholds the status quo - the market like the international system, tends towards equilibrium.

What is Gilpin’s theory of change that opposes Waltz’s static structuralism?

• Hegemonic war is the basic mechanism of systemic change in world politics.

• The balance of power has historically only played a secondary role with other elements, like the loss-of-strength gradient, economic and technological limits, and domestic insitutions.

• The ‘power transitions theory’ → a stable international system is characterised by hierarchical ordering of states based on hegemony. But over time, power of one subordinate state grows, and conflicts with the hegemon → new hierarchic international system.

How is Mearsheimer’s offensive realism different to Carr and Waltz?

• He argues great powers are rarely satisfied and seek to instead maximise their power, extending power and assuming hegemony. They do not want simply security (as Waltz says) but to maximise power. This is closer to Morgenthau’s classical realism than Waltz’s neorealism.

What is a common contestation of realists of neorealism?

The assumptions that all states have an equal set of interests (Schweller). Some have reaffirmed relevane of domestic politics and human nature factors, such as perceptions and motivations. Others have challenged that automaticity that neorealism attributes to the political process, primarily the balance of power.

What are states according to the realist conceptualisation?

States have three features:

1. sovereignty: the supreme authority to make and enforce laws

2. monopoply over both internal and external violence

3. sovereign units are territorial; partitioning the Earth by imposing both material and immaterial barriers between people

What are the roles of intergovernmental (UN) and supranational (EU), NGOs?

• Important, but subordinate to states. Same with international law, being the product of the contingent will of other states.

How does terrorism challenge realist conceptions of violence

Terrorism → violence is problematic because it doesnt always align with the state’s monopolisation on violence.

What is the security dilemma (Herz)

Providing for one’s own security can often inadvertenly increase the sense of insecurity in other states, which can lead to arms races.

What is the ‘ethic of responsibility’ (Weber 1948)?

Good intentions or convictions to not matter as much as the results of actions, which is why realists have often been outspoken critics of US foreign policy adventurism. Justifying bad results in terms of good convictions is politically unnacceptable.

What do realists have to say about the Iraq war?

Hussein’s behaviour, may have been deplorable, but not irrational. The war was unnecessary.

Why does realism continue to remain relevant?

-          A reason for the enduring relevance of realism is the emphasis on history, where realism claims to speak about historical reality, taking orientation and practice from history

o   It traces itself to Thucydides clash between the great powers; Athens, Sparta and Persia, where he sought answers for the causes of conflict, the profound logics behind political events and instruments of powers deployed by political powers, openly, secretly of through dissimulation.

o   Machiavelli says “it may be true that fortune is the arbiter of “half our actions, but….she still leaves the control of the other half (or a bit less) to us”

What does Aron have to say about stability and its roots in the international system?

-          Sovereignty and Mutual Recognition of Violence: States recognize each other’s sovereignty and the legitimacy of using force to pursue their interests. Unlike domestic politics, where states have a monopoly on violence, international relations are characterized by the shared understanding that states have the right to use force against one another if necessary.

-          Nuclear Deterrence: During the Cold War, the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) created a unique stability. Both superpowers, the U.S. and the Soviet Union, possessed nuclear weapons that could destroy each other, thus making direct conflict between them highly unlikely due to the catastrophic consequences. This paradoxical peace contributed to global stability on the highest level, even as tensions persisted.

-          Instability: However, Aron also identified several sources of instability:

-          Ideological Conflicts: The rivalry between capitalist and communist ideologies during the Cold War created inherent instability. States aligned with either superpower often found themselves in proxy wars or facing existential threats to their ideologies, leading to instability even if the superpowers themselves avoided direct conflict.

-          Regional Conflicts and Proxy Wars: Although nuclear deterrence stabilized relations between the great powers, regional conflicts and proxy wars—especially in the developing world—added layers of instability. The superpowers often became involved in these conflicts, further complicating international relations.

-          Changes in the Balance of Power: The balance of power is not static; it shifts based on changes in technological, economic, and military capabilities. For example, the advent of nuclear weapons fundamentally altered the power dynamics of the international system. Similarly, shifts in economic power, such as the rise of China, challenge established power structures and create potential instability.

-          2) Actual and Preferred Balance of Power Among States:

-          Actual Balance of Power: Aron saw the balance of power as an ongoing, dynamic process influenced by military, economic, and political factors. In his time, the Cold War structure was defined by a bipolar balance of power, with the U.S. and the Soviet Union as the two dominant superpowers. This rivalry was based not just on military capabilities but also on ideological and economic competition.

-          Preferred Balance of Power: Aron’s preferred balance of power was more nuanced. While he agreed with realists like Morgenthau that power struggles were central to international relations, he argued that power should not be understood in purely material terms (e.g., military force or economic strength). Instead, he emphasized the diversity of state goals, including security, ideology, and prestige. Aron’s ideal balance of power was one where states could coexist peacefully, not through ideological dominance but by respecting one another's sovereignty, interests, and political systems. He advocated for a balance of power based on diplomacy, negotiations, and the reduction of ideological conflict.

-          3) How Should Great Powers Behave Towards One Another and Weaker States?

-          Great Powers’ Behavior Toward One Another:

-          Prudence: Aron was a strong proponent of prudence in the foreign policies of great powers. He argued that states should not pursue unattainable goals or ideological crusades. Instead, they should act based on concrete, achievable objectives and respond to the particular circumstances of the situation, not rigid norms or abstract ideals.

-          Deterrence and Diplomacy: While Aron acknowledged the importance of military strength, he also recognized the importance of diplomacy in maintaining peace. The Cold War era, particularly the nuclear standoff, demonstrated how nuclear deterrence could prevent direct conflicts. However, Aron cautioned against reliance on abstract strategies or game theories, advocating for practical diplomacy grounded in the realities of international politics.

-          Great Powers’ Behavior Toward Weaker States:

-          Pragmatism and Respect for Sovereignty: Aron believed that great powers should behave pragmatically toward weaker states. While recognizing that great powers might seek to influence weaker states for strategic or ideological reasons, he stressed the importance of respecting the sovereignty and political autonomy of these states. Rather than coercion or imperial control, diplomacy and non-intervention should guide interactions with smaller states.

-          Competition and Coexistence: Although Aron accepted that competition between states, including great powers and weaker states, was inevitable, he believed that such competition should not lead to constant military escalation. Diplomacy, negotiation, and the maintenance of peace should be prioritized to avoid unnecessary conflict.

-          4) Sources and Dynamics of Contemporary Changes in the Balance of Power:

-          Technological and Military Changes: The development of nuclear weapons was a defining factor in shifting the balance of power during the Cold War. The presence of nuclear weapons, and the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, fundamentally altered the strategic calculations of superpowers, ensuring that direct warfare between them would likely be catastrophic. The shift from conventional to nuclear weapons forced a rethinking of military strategy.

-          Economic Shifts: Economic factors also contributed to the balance of power. For example, the rise of economic powers such as China in recent decades has changed the international order. Economic power increasingly influences political influence, and countries are now competing for economic, technological, and military superiority.

-          Ideological Shifts: Ideological shifts also play a role in the changing balance of power. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War marked a shift in ideological alignment, leading to a unipolar world dominated by the U.S. However, with the rise of China and other emerging powers, we may be witnessing a shift back toward a multipolar world, potentially changing the balance of power once again.

-          Regional Instability and Proxy Wars: The post-Cold War period has seen the U.S. and other powers involved in regional conflicts, where they often act indirectly through proxy wars. This continues to influence the international balance of power, as regional conflicts often have global ramifications. The stability that nuclear deterrence once provided between superpowers has not necessarily extended to regional conflicts.

What is EH Carr’s central argument in The Twenty Year’s Crisis?

Carr’s central argument in The Twenty Years’ Crisis is that international relations during the interwar period were largely shaped by idealistic thinking, particularly regarding the notion of collective security and the moralistic assumptions that underpinned it. Carr critiques the belief that peace could be achieved through legal frameworks and collective enforcement, such as the League of Nations. He argued that these idealistic approaches failed to account for the nature of international power relations and the diverse aspirations of states with varying interests and levels of power. He notes, "The idea of an international society based on collective security... is a product of a particular historical balance of power in which Britain was a dominant force" (Carr, The Twenty Years' Crisis).

Carr believed that this idealistic view was divorced from the geopolitical realities of the time, where different states had differing levels of commitment to maintaining the international status quo. The emphasis on peace and diplomacy, he argued, ignored the structural inequalities in the global system. He explained that "the trouble with utopianism in international relations is that it is based on the belief that international conflict can be overcome by human effort to enforce universal moral principles, without recognizing the power structures that define the possibilities of peace and war".

What was Carr’s approach for realism as a corrective to utopianism?

Carr's realism was not merely about an unflinching acceptance of the harshness of world politics. Instead, he framed realism as a more grounded approach to understanding international relations that recognizes the importance of power dynamics, the inevitability of conflict, and the limits of idealism. Realism, for Carr, involved understanding the world as it was, not as how one wished it to be. He argued that the utopian ideal of peace based on collective security was unsustainable because it overlooked the complexities of the international system. "The balance of power is not a system of peace, but a system of rivalry, competition, and occasional conflict" (Carr, The Twenty Years' Crisis). For Carr, realists understood that power politics, negotiations, and compromise were necessary to maintain any semblance of order in international relations.

However, Carr acknowledged that "realism without utopianism... excludes four things essential for effective political thinking: a finite goal, an emotional appeal, a right of moral judgement, and a ground for action" (Carr, The Twenty Years' Crisis). In other words, while realism could describe the world as it was, it lacked the normative principles that could inspire people to work toward a better world. For Carr, this dynamic relationship between realism and utopianism was essential in shaping effective political thought.

What did Carr have to say about the Role of Diplomacy and Compromise?

In a world of conflicting national interests, Carr argued, peace could only be achieved through diplomatic negotiation and compromise between the states. He stressed that "the process of give-and-take must apply to challenges to the existing order", where both the defenders and challengers of the status quo must make concessions to maintain order and stability. According to Carr, this was the key to dealing with conflicts between status quo and revisionist states. The challenge of international diplomacy was not to impose one state’s ideals on others, but to find a workable middle ground where competing interests could coexist without escalating into violent conflict.

Carr’s insistence on diplomacy over rhetoric is central to his critique of the idealistic belief that peace could be achieved through lofty norms and principles alone. He argued for practical, day-to-day political negotiations, acknowledging that moral principles and human aspirations had to be grounded in the pragmatic realities of the international system.

According to Gilpin, what are the main sources of stability and instability in the international system?

1. Stability: According to Gilpin, the stability of the international system depends significantly on the existence of a hegemon— a powerful state that can provide international public goods such as law, order, and a stable currency. A hegemon creates an environment where trade and cooperation can flourish by providing essential infrastructure that markets themselves cannot generate, such as property rights, enforcement mechanisms, and a stable financial system.

2. Instability: Instability arises when there is a decline of hegemonic power, as the costs of maintaining dominance outpace the resources available to the hegemon. Over time, there is a growing disequilibrium between the demands of the international system and the ability of the hegemon to meet those demands. Gilpin argues that this disequilibrium often leads to systemic change, which, if unresolved peacefully, could result in war, particularly hegemonic war—a conflict that determines the dominant power in the system. Thus, instability often emerges from the inability of states to maintain a balance between power and resources.

What is the actual and preferred balance of power according to Gilpin?

1. Actual Balance of Power: Gilpin argues that the actual balance of power in the international system often reflects the distribution of economic, military, and technological capabilities among states. Historically, this balance has shifted as hegemonic powers rise and fall, with the U.S. serving as the hegemon post-WWII. However, due to the erosion of U.S. dominance in the 1980s, he notes that this balance is shifting, with rising powers like Japan potentially filling the role of a new hegemon.

2. Preferred Balance of Power: Ideally, Gilpin suggests that the international system would benefit from a multi-polar balance of power, where great powers can engage in cooperation and competition, while maintaining relative stability. However, he acknowledges that maintaining this balance is challenging, particularly because of the difficulties associated with the decline of hegemony. While the U.S. was a force for stability after WWII, the decline of U.S. hegemony could lead to instability as other powers, such as Japan or even China, might attempt to assert themselves as regional or global leaders.

What does Gilpin say about sources of change in the international system?

1. Sources of Change: Gilpin identifies several sources of change in the international system, including economic shifts, technological innovations, military advancements, and political transformations. For example, the rise of new powers like Japan and China and the relative decline of the U.S. have fundamentally altered the international landscape. These changes are influenced by factors such as economic interdependence, the spread of technology, and the competition for global resources.

2. Dynamics of Change: Gilpin’s model of systemic change is based on a cyclical theory, where changes in the balance of power emerge when the costs of maintaining the status quo surpass the benefits. As the hegemon’s ability to provide international public goods diminishes, other powers may rise to challenge the established order. Economic changes, such as the movement from a liberal international economic system to one of mercantilism, could also shift the balance of power, particularly if the U.S. becomes less willing to bear the costs of maintaining global economic stability. Furthermore, military technology and population shifts contribute to changes in the distribution of power, leading to new forms of competition and cooperation among states.

---

Additional Key Themes in Gilpin’s Work:

• Hegemonic Stability Theory: Gilpin’s work draws heavily on the idea that stability in the international system depends on the dominance of a single state capable of providing international public goods. For example, in the 19th century, Britain played this role, and post-WWII, the U.S. assumed it. The decline of U.S. power, Gilpin suggests, could lead to new configurations of power, where other nations take on more influential roles.

• Economic Interdependence and State Power: While many argue that economic interdependence weakens states, Gilpin contends that interdependence can actually strengthen states if managed properly, with the hegemon playing a central role in ensuring the provision of global public goods.

• The Role of War: Despite the preference for peaceful change, Gilpin acknowledges that war often plays a central role in resolving power imbalances. He refers to hegemonic war as a mechanism for determining the dominant powers when systemic disequilibrium reaches a breaking point.

According to Herz, what is the causes of stability and instability in the international system?

1. What are the main sources of stability and instability in the international system?

   • Stability: Herz emphasizes the stability that can come from mutual recognition of survival needs among states, especially in the nuclear age. While sovereignty and territorial integrity of states are sources of order, Herz is critical of the way these are understood and used in practice. He recognizes the perceived ‘balance of terror’ brought about by nuclear weapons as a force that prevents large-scale wars, providing a form of stability, but one that is precarious and based on the threat of mutual destruction rather than cooperative stability.

     • Quote: "The very fact that technical developments of weapons and armaments in themselves wield such a tremendous impact has meant that they have almost come to dictate policies, instead of policies determining the type and choice of weapons." (Herz, International Politics in the Atomic Age)

   • Instability: Herz points to the security dilemma as the primary source of instability in international relations. States, in seeking their own security, inevitably make others insecure, which may lead to an arms race, aggression, and, in some cases, war. The escalation of military capacity, especially nuclear weapons, creates a paradox where weapons designed for deterrence can destabilize the very system they are intended to secure.

     • Quote: "What is true among individuals is equally relevant to understanding group behaviour. In fact, Herz argues that the security dilemma is more acute among groups, for the simple reason that groups can develop means of self-defence that are far more destructive than those available to individuals." (Herz, Political Realism and Political Idealism)

According to Nye, what are the four faces of power?

1. First face: Making you do something against your preference (Dahl/Weber)
Realpolitik
2. Second face: Agenda-setting (Bachrach and Baratz) Liberalism (soft power)
3. Third face: Structural power (Lukes) Neo-Realism, Neo-Liberalism, Marxism
4. Fourth face: Constructing reality and resisting structures (Foucault) Post-
Structuralism
Haugaard, Mark (2012) “Rethinking the Four Dimensions of Power: Domination and
Empowerment,” Journal of Political Power 5(1), 33–54.
Nye, Joseph (2011) “Power and foreign policy,” Journal of Political Power 4(1), 9-24.

What is realism in a nutshell?

- The international realm is characterised by anarchy
- States are the most important actors in International Relations

-States assert their power for ‘national interest’ which is not as clear cut as it appears
- IR is the study of power: “Power is the most important factor in international
relations” (Lobell 2017)
- States pursue their national interests (“defined in terms of power”, cf Morgenthau)
- The struggle for power creates conflict -> hegemony, hierarchy of focus
- There is no World Government to effectively resolve conflict
- Great power are the most important actors in world politics, and they are likely to
want to be granted spheres of influence
- Power maximizing or balancing power is what states do under anarchy to avoid conflict

-Ideas of war and fears of nuclear war are central to realism

There are two types of realism: classical realism and neo-realism

What are morganthau’s six principles of political realism?

1. Claims realism is an objective theory based on the view that human nature is unchanging and well established over thousands of years. People are by nature power seeking and self-interested.
2. Believes politics is driven by a competition for power, which is an inherent characteristic of human nature.
3. Argues that states universally seek to maximise their own interest (defined in terms of power)
4. Suggests that political action has moral significance but morality cannot guide foreign policy. Ethics are not unimportant but “Universal moral principles ... cannot be applied to the actions of states in their abstract universal formulation, but ...they must be filtered through the concrete circumstances” (9).
5. Recognises self-protection and the recognition of the interests of other states is crucial in world politics. Thus: “Prudence, and not conviction of one’s own moral or ideological superiority, should guide political action.” (Stanford)
6. Sees politics as an autonomous sphere. It cannot be subordinated to ethics, though ethics does still play a role in politics. “A man who was nothing but ‘political man’ would be a beast, for he would be completely lacking in moral restraints. A man who was nothing but ‘moral man’ would be a fool, for he would be completely lacking in prudence” (12). Political art requires that these two dimensions of human life, power and morality, be taken into consideration.

What is neorealism in a nutshell?

- Move away from basing theory on assumptions about human nature or history
- IR is the study of the international system, not the study of state-to-state foreign policy
- “Anarchy is the permissive cause of war”
- Great powers are the focus of analysis and set the agenda (within a multipolar/ bi-polar/tri-polar/ unipolar system)
- Non-government actors (NGO, IOs, MNC, and terrorist organisations) not that important in world politics (contra Keohane and Nye)
- Parsimonious theory (criticism: too simplistic?)

Why do states do what they do?

Because there is no world government, states will seek to maximise their own power and government, and it is the anarchy that causes war. It’s how the states fulfil their interests…3^rd level analysis.

Neoliberalism recognises institutions much more than neorealism. Neorealists do not see institutions (just as classical). They see institutions as important sites of cooperation, but not that important because states power is derived from anarchy and that is where their power comes from.

What are Waltz’ three images?

What is the key difference between offensive and defensive realism according to Steven Lobell?

“offensive realism seeks power and influence to achieve security through domination and hegemony. On the other hand, defensive realism argues that the anarchical structure of the international system encourages states to maintain moderate and reserved policies to attain security. Defensive realism asserts that aggressive expansion as promoted by offensive realists upsets the tendency of states to conform to the balance of power theory, thereby decreasing the primary objective of the state, which they argue is ensuring its security.” (Steven Lobell)

What is the key assumption in anarchy in neorealism and neo-classical realism?

Are realists warmongers or anti-interventionalists?