Realism

Realism (globalization)

• Views globalization as not fundamentally altering the state-centric nature of world politics. For realists, the world remains divided into nation-states where powerful states retain sovereignty and the struggle for political power, the threat of force, and the balance of power remain paramount.

Key Concepts

• international politics is a struggle for power and resources among an anarchic system

• distribution of power in the international system is the most important factor in shaping behaviour in states

• Power is relational: it is never exercised in a vacuum, but always in relation to another entity.

• Power is relative to the capabilities of others.

Three S’s

• Statism

• Survival

• Self-help

  • may lead to a security dilemma as all react to others quests for more power

Classical Realism

• focus on the role of human nature and the importance of morality in international politics

• A form of realism that explains power politics largely in terms of human selfishness or egoism

• places interests over ideologies

  
  

Neorealism/ structural realism:

• Anarchy promotes or provokes self-help, meaning that states will try to maximise their security and relative power positions.

• focus on the structural factors that shape the behaviour of states (e.g. distribution of power in the international system)

• It is not human nature but the anarchical system itself that fosters fear and insecurity.

What is the importance of ranks in structural realism

• rank-ordering of states according to capabilities is important to understand the dynamics of the system.

• e.g. even if a situation of anarchy there are diff positions

Defensive Realism

• refers to states’ maximisation of security. Here, a bipolar world is the most stable system. Favour of unipolar state, cause it reduces conflict.

Bipolar World

• Defensive realists argue that a bipolar system is stable because each superpower can directly balance the other, reducing the likelihood of major conflicts. The clear delineation of power and spheres of influence creates a predictable and manageable international order.

Multipolar (current state of things)

• Defensive realists might view a multipolar world as less stable due to the complexity of balancing multiple major powers. However, if these powers focus on maximizing security and avoiding overextension, it can lead to cautious behavior and stability.

Offensive Realism

• refers to states’ maximisation of power, it identifies a situation in which a global hegemon dominates the international system as the ideal. A big country dominates the systems. (e.g. the US currently has biggest military)

Hegemony

• e.g. If China continues to grow and seeks to establish regional or global hegemony, offensive realists would argue that this could lead to a new stable order under Chinese dominance, assuming it can effectively project power and deter rivals. OR the British Empire's dominance in the 19th century.

Difference between Neorealism/ structural realism

• Classical Realism:

  • Focuses on human nature as inherently self-interested and power-seeking, leading states to pursue power and security in an anarchic international system.

• Neorealism (Structural Realism):

  • Emphasizes the structure of the international system, particularly the distribution of power, as the primary factor shaping state behavior in an anarchic environment.

Statism critique

• flawed on empirical grounds (the state faces challenges) and normative grounds (the state cannot respond to collective global problems).

• if you look at individual states there’s many problems still there (climate change for ex- will never be solved if every state focuses only on themselves)

Survival critique

• Question of whether there are limits to the actions a state can take in the name of necessity. aka brutal war crimes

Self-help critique

• Not an inevitable consequence of anarchy, but rather a logic that states have selected. Other options are possible, such as collective security systems.>> like NATO (collective security systems)

Case study: Strategic partnerships with `friendly´dictators

• Successive American administrations have taken the view that stability in the Middle East is more likely to be achieved by propping up Egyptian dictatorships. how do you justify that?

• The fundamental idea is that it is better to maintain a moderate friendly autocrat, than to risk an unfriendly revolutionary regime.
  In the Egyptian case, the policy proved mutually beneficial until the time of the Arab Spring.

• Some times you have to befriends for stability, and overrule ethics.
  this is a realist stance ^

Realism Critiques

• pessimistic view of international relations

• neglects the role of non-state actors (e.g. international organisations and transnational corps)

Realism view on international ethics

• Morality is irrelevant in international relations

• states should prioritise their own interests and power over ethical considerations