✅Realism

what is a state

• A state is a political + legal entity, with certain characteristics, it is The most important actor- what they do largely determines what happens in global politics

what do some argue about the power of the state

 it is in decline + other actors (IGOs, regional organisations) are becoming more important

key characteristics of a state

1. Clearly defined territory- a border that defines it geographically

2. Permanent population (citizens)

3. Central govt that controls how the state is run

4. Sovereignty- freedom from outside interference

5. Recognition by other states (accepting sovereignty)

6. Monopoly over the legitimate use of force within their borders (only they have a police force, army, etc)

States aren’t the same as nations?

Some will overlap but many states contain multiple national groups, there are cultural identities (religion, language, customs, etc). They may see themselves as distinct from the state. This can create tension

what type of world view does realism have?

 a pessimistic world view- see the world as unsafe, uncertain, unpredictable

as a result of the realism world view, what must states do?

states must seek power + security - you can never have too much power

what type of system is the world in the eyes of realism?

• It’s a self-help system- you cannot rely on others, so must seek autonomy (self-reliance)

according to realism what is the only way states can act?

 in their national interest, rather than ‘moralising’ (seeking to spread their own ideas/ world view

what does realism see global politics as?

 a ‘war of all against all’ as there is no overarching authority

realism beliefs around international anarchy?

• Realists believe that nation states are the most legitimate + powerful actors in global politics in a system of international anarchy, where there is no higher authority that can control states

realism, international anarchy + sovereignty

• Authority of IGOs should be limited, so as to not restrict N-S sovereignty. N-S may choose to work w others, but don’t abandon self-interest

realism, international anarchy + self-reliance

• Global anarchy means states must be self-reliant, not dependent on others for protection. This creates a security dilemma

realism, international anarchy + states are rational

• This means their main priority is defending their national interests + particularly security

realism, international anarchy + power maximisers (zero-sum view)

• All states are constantly trying to increase their power + influence (often, but not always, at the expense of others)

realism, international anarchy + competition + comflict

Natural global order is one of competition. This often causes conflict, as states come into conflict w each other

key principles of international anarchy according to realism?

sovereignty

self-reliance

states are rational

power maximisers (zero-sum view)

competition + conflict

Implications of international anarchy

IGOs such as the EU + the UN will be limited in their impact + effectiveness.

Unlike national law, rules in global politics (international law) doesn’t always apply.

States will also want to prevent IGOs from making decisions that aren’t in their national interest.

International courts may be ignored or may not have decisive powers to investigate at all.

why IGOs such as the EU + the UN will be limited in their impact + effectiveness due to international anarchy?

because states determine the success or failure of these international efforts. States have created IGOs, + IGOs ultimately serve state interests (when they no longer to this, they collapse- such as the League of Nations- or states leave, as seen in Brexit)

how Unlike national law, rules in global politics (international law) doesn’t always apply under international anarchy?

In an anarchical world system, no international body can force states to sign up to international law. Customary international law, which in theory applies too states regardless of whether or not they have signed + ratified a law, does exist for abuses of humanitarian law. The Geneva conventions for e.g. are cons to Mary international law + apply to all states, but the decision to enforce the law is ultimately the political decision of international bodies, i.e. the UN, or individual, esp powerful states

where is it often seen that States will also want to prevent IGOs from making decisions that aren’t in their national interest under international anarchy?

in the veto powers that the 5 UNSC permanent members (china, France, Russia, UK, + USA) wield, which frequently prevent coordinated action on matters ranging from Israel + Palestine conflict to the Syrian civil war

where it is seen that International courts may be ignored or may not have decisive powers to investigate at all under international anarchy

The international criminal court (ICC) has limited powers to hold states to account for the most serious crimes against humanity. In reality tho, the states that haven’t fully agreed to the ICC’s founding Rome statute are able to escape justice, as there is no authoritative global force to bring states + those responsible for international crime before the court. The ECtHR (European court of human rights) experiences similar difficulties 

Examples that show an anarchical world order in action

the Iraq War 2003

China + Taiwan

Russian annexation of Crimea 2014

War in Afghanistan 2001-14

Syrian Civil War 2011

Brexit 2016

how the Iraq War 2003 shows an anarchical world order in action

• Countries acting in national interest- rational defence on security based on fears on WMD

• Ignores UN/ collective approach

• Didn’t want to rely on international system for protection

how China + Taiwan shows an anarchical world order in action

• Seeking to maximise power through control of resources (micro ships)

• All abt sovereignty - who recognises chine + who doesn’t

• Security dilemma- has caused USA to build up military in pacific

• Increased military presence (risk of conflict)

how Russian annexation of Crimea 2014 shows an anarchical world order in action

• Maximising power through territory + strategic port at Sevastopol

• Acting in national interest -as a warning to other neighbours

• Unilateral - in defiance of international law

• As part of wider competition w NATO

how War in Afghanistan 2001-14 shows an anarchical world order in action

• USA/UK acted unilaterally w/out UN backing

• Intervention in order to protect national interest in War on Terror

• Self-reliance- couldn’t rely on Afghanistan’s rules (Taliban) to not harbour terrorists intent on attacking West (Al-Qaeda)

how Syrian Civil War 2011 shows an anarchical world order in action

• Use of chemical weapons in violation of international law

• Assad argues he represents the state, so can maintain security against ‘terrorists’ by any means

• Russia exploiting as an opportunity to extend power + has vetoed any UN involvement

• Lack of coordinated action- states unwilling to intervene- as it is not in our national interest + could make things worse

how Brexit 2016 shows an anarchical world order in action

• ‘take back control’= arguments over sovereignty - trade deals, EU| law, control of immigration etc

• Competitive negotiating stance- ‘drive a hard bargain’

• Nationalist rhetoric of GB as great country- maximise influence or reverse decline

• Self-reliance- want to strike our own global trade deals, contempt for multilateral institutions

realists + the superiority of states

• Realists believe that states are the most important actors in global politics + that they are more powerful + significant that others such as IGOs, NGOs (non-govt organisations) + MNCs (multinational corporations)

In terms of IGOs, realist states might still join them if?

it is in their national interest to do so + if they can defend + promote the national interest within the IGO

• Ultimately, realists see IGOs as driven by state action, because:

IGOs exist only because states created them

IGOs succeed or fail based on member state actions

States often act outside IGOs

Free trade exists only because states have agreed to it

States still have the power to act unilaterally + to ignore IGOs or treaties

e.g. of how States still have the power to act unilaterally + to ignore IGOs or treaties

e.g. Russian action in Crimea 2014 + UK+US action in Iraq 2003 went ahead w/out clear UNSC mandates. These actions show the overwhelming power of nation-states to act alone. When states do this frequently it’s called isolationism

that fact that IGOs exist only because states created them further reflects?

the power of states. States have the ultimate power to decide to join or leave. States are therefore the fundamental building blocks of IGOs

e.g.s of how IGOs exist only because states created them

• E.g. UK deciding to trigger article 50 of the treaty of Lisbon, enabling it to leave the EU in 2020. 1966 France withdrew its troops from NATO but remained a member state in protest against perceived US dominance. African Union states threatened to withdraw from the ICC in protest at a perceived bias against African states in the courts judgements

how IGOs succeed or fail based on member state actions?

most IGOs are intergovernmental forums in which state govts conduct + negotiate business + only agree what the member state govts are prepared to accept. When a UNSC resolution is passed on matters of international peace + security, as states have negotiated the text between them, amended it + then a majority agreed to it. When the UNSC fails to agree on a resolution, this is because a majority of states has not agreed to it

e.g. of how IGOs succeed or fail based on member state actions

. criticism of the UN for ‘failing to act’ : Syrian war

how States often act outside IGOs

 by negotiated treaties w each other. These treaties are each individually pieces of international law. States have complete freedom to agree to/ opt out of these treaties

e.g. of how States often act outside IGOs

 the New strategic arms reduction treaty (START) in 2021 is one of many treaties signed between Russia + the US whereby both states agree to limits on nuclear warheads

how Free trade exists only because states have agreed to it?

 it is states that control tariff + non-tariff barriers at their territorial borders. States are the ‘building blocks’ of the global system of international trade. States are able to create protectionist measures that could make trade more difficult, + States have the power to enter free-trade agreements w groups of countries

e.g. of States creating protectionist measures that could make trade more difficult

e.g. raising tariffs, or harder by granting tariff-free access

e.g. of how  States have the power to enter free-trade agreements w groups of countries

 e.g. trans-pacific partnership/ TPP trade agreement w mostly pacific states, which fell through in 2018 when Trump withdrew from the treaty, leading to a replacement treaty excluding the US. States can also negotiate individual trade agreements w individual states. E.g. the new free-trade agreements signed by the UK w other states when it left existing EU trade agreements.

States vs MNCs

• MNCs operate in an economic environment that is controlled by states, e.g. thru taxation, which can either help or hinder MNCs according to the wishes of states. States’ power to control tariff + non-tariff Barrie’s is another state-driven reality with which MNCs have to cope + adapt

States vs NGOs

• NGOs can try to influence states’ behaviour w advocacy campaigns but ultimately hold no decision-making power, which rests w states. Access + safe passage for aid or human rights inspections can be blocked at the whim of states

States vs violent non-state actors

• If states are vigilant to the emergence of violent non-state actors, they can possess more + higher-tech military power than violent non-state actors + ultimately defeat them. This would be the sensible, realist foreign policy to adopt in terms of being uncompromising in military campaigns against such insurgencies/ terrorist groups

The inevitability of conflict

Realists agree that conflict in an important feature of global politics + is the most natural/ usual state of affairs in global politics.

Realists agree that conflict in an important feature of global politics + is the most natural/ usual state of affairs in global politics. this is cuz they believe:

• States are likely to try + maximise their power + influence, resorting to/ provoking conflict if necessary

• States are inherently selfish + are likely to promote their own national interest, even if that means resorting to conflict

• The world system is anarchical, so there is no authority capable of preventing conflict unless states judge that conflict is not in their interests.

• States put their own security at risk + make conflict more likely when they build up their own military defences to counter a perceived threat. This in turn encourages the opposing state to inc its own security/ military infrastructure. This is known as the ‘security dilemma’

e.g. of how The world system is anarchical, so there is no authority capable of preventing conflict unless states judge that conflict is not in their interests.

• E.g. international efforts thru the UN + Geneva peace talks failing to restrain the various actors form pursuing their perceived interests during the Syrian conflict

Realists view global politics as?

arena in which states can’t trust each other + can’t reliably predict the actions of other states. Therefore states can rely only on themselves for protection against attack. The world is a ‘self-help’ system where there is no other power that can be relied on to come to states’ rescue when things go wrong

as a consequence of the ‘self-help’ system all states want to?

protect themselves against threats from other states + , increasingly, non-state actors

all states want to protect themselves against threats from other states + , increasingly, non-state actors, therefor they may:

• Decide to invest in their military power, by increasing the number of troops, warships or aircraft that they are able to deploy

• Keep or acquire nuclear weapons (e.g. Iran/ North Korea), others may want to acquire new tech to gain a strategic advantage, such as missile-firing drones

what may states see military build up as + what might they do?

 states may see this military build-up as a threat + respond by building up their own military resources or they may even respond w aggression.

It’s difficult for other states to trust the intention of states which have ____? + what will they not do? + what is the net result?

• states which have built up their military resources + states will not risk being inferior to another state

• The next result is that states can become locked in a pattern of continually building up their security + no state can ever feel safe for long

the dilemma in military build up is?

by trying to act defensively, states risk acting aggressively + provoking conflict. But, if states do nothing to protect themselves + enhance their security, they may also invite conflict thru apparent weakness

Trying to achieve a non-threatening balance of power may be a more desirable strategy, but?

this is a precarious process, where states may misread each other’s intentions or mistakenly exceed (rather than match) their rivals military resources + become sucked into the security dilemma’s downward spiral of increased tension

1 means of avoiding the security dilemma is?

to agree international treaties to try deliver a more transparent + verifiable balance of power, e.g. the US + Russia have agreed several treaties to gradually decrease their nuclear weapons at similar rates

A recent treaty + what it does?

 (new strategic arms reduction treaty/ new START) was signed in 2021 + limits the amount of nuclear missiles, warheads + launchers to a specific number for each state. This is a means of delivering greater predictability, backed up by international law, helping both states to avoid the suspicion + misjudgement of the security dilemma. It gives confidence that both sides are reducing their weapons by similar amounts, increasing the chances of a balance of power emerging

Key example of the security dilemma: NATO + Russia

• Tread water around each other, + are highly vigilant against potential threats from each other

Realists believe that a balance of power in a bipolar world order is?

best for security + that the most stable outcome is for the powerful states to roughly match each other’s power

defensive realism believes?

 that states will balance each other out, sometimes called defensive realism, as the idea is to maintain enough power to match the rival state’s power, as opposed to maximising state power relentlessly as offensive realists would want

defensive realism is an idea put out by who?

 Kenneth Waltz in his 1979 book

Neither state in a balance of power will want to do what?

risk attacking/ challenging the other as they would run the risk of retaliation by a state w similarly threatening military resources to their own

Neither state in a balance of power will want to risk attacking/ challenging the other as they would run the risk of retaliation by a state w similarly threatening military resources to their own, this could lead to the following:

• States may try to balance power by trying to match the military + economic resources of their rival. There may be an arms race, w both states trying to acquire similar amounts of weapons or types of technology

• Smaller states may try to join alliances w these powerful states. This is known as ‘band wagoning’ as states jump on the ‘bandwagon’ of the state they think is most likely to serve their interests

A world in which there is a balance of power is not necessarily w/out what?

 risk. There is the chance that states will misread the other's intentions + the security dilemma might emerge, where some believe that when states try to match each others military power, they can risk provoking other states by representing a threat

An e.g. of a balance of power

 between the US + its NATO allies + the Warsaw pact during the cold war. The they knowledge that both were equally matched + a nuclear attack would result in a deadly retaliation, the 2 states started a nuclear arms race, the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD) successfully ensured there was no nuclear confrontation between the US + the soviet union, they both instead engaged in proxy wars using other actors to fight each other

The balance of power doesn't necessarily mean a bipolar world order dominated by only 2 powers, it could mean instead?

that states seek equilibrium, so there may be more than 1 balance of power in the world, there may also be regional powers trying to seek a balance of power within a region, i.e. Saudia Arabia + Iran, this world order of balances of power is more common within the current multipolar distribution of power

what type of realist thinker is Morgenthau 1948

classical realist thinker

wha does Morgenthau 1948 say?

political man  is a naturally selfish creature + will always try to dominate + have power over others. Moral considerations in global politics are less important than the national interest. The statesman must think in terms of the national interest conceived as power among other nations

what type of realist thinker is Waltz 1979

a defensive realist thinker

what does Waltz 1979 say?

 bipolarity, where 2 major powers are competing for power, is more stable than multipolarity, where many rival powers are competing w each other, 2 major powers can negotiate their way to stability ,ore easily than many powers.

Neorealism/ structural realism suggests the interaction of sovereign states can be explained by

the pressures exerted on them by the anarchic structure of the international system which limits + constrains their choices. The anarchy of international politics means that states must act in a way that ensures their security above all, or else risk falling behind

what type of thinker is John Mearsheimer 2001?

an offensive realist thinker

what does John Mearsheimer 2001 say?

the conflict + competition for power between the great world powers will continue, states are trying to secure hegemony, meaning they want to dominate all other states within a region

Offensive realism suggests that the interaction between great powers is dominated by?

a rational desire to achieve hegemony in an anarchical world, as the intentions of other states can never be known for certain

key principles of realism

1. international anarchy

2. the superiority of states

3. the inevitability of conflict

4. the principle of power