2️⃣ Realism - Jervis, Waltz, Kotkin, Wohlforth

Waltz

Structural Realism

Anarchy vs Hierarchy

Self-Help

Relative Capabilities

Like Units

This author argued for a structural, systemic way of approaching international politics, anarchy as the differentiation between international and domestic politics, emphasis on self-help and attention to relative capabilities as following from anarchy, and a conception of states as “like units.”

Jervis

Defensive Realism

Security Dilemma

Cooperation under Anarchy

Game Theory

Offense-Defense Differentiation

Building on Herz’ concept of the security dilemma, this author explains why cooperation poses problems for states in an anarchic environment using game theory scenarios like Stag Hunt and Prisoner’s Dilemma. He shows how mutual distrust and individual actions for self-preservation can lead to bad outcomes for everyone. He also underscores the importance of differentiating offensive & defensive advantages and intentions.

Wohlforth

Neoclassical Realism

Typologies of Realism

Realism as umbrella, not monolith

Four Principles of Realism — Anarchy, Egoism, Groupism, Power Politics

Kotkin

Neoclassical Realism

Hegemonic Stability Theory & Power Transition Theory as applied to the US and China

China angling to replace US, instability results

Anarchy, egoism, groupism, power politics

What are the four tenets of realism, according to Wohlforth?

Anarchy

One of Wohlforth’s four tenets of realism, this is the idea that there is no central enforcer to impose order / enforce commitments on the global stage. This lack of a central enforcer creates a lack of security that leads to competition and conflict.

I like to think of it as a “dog-eat-dog” world where anything a country can “get away with” goes.

expl: it’s much harder to prosecute international crimes than national crimes

• Other countries can express disapproval for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Israel-Gaza situation, US-Iran conflict but cannot actually prosecute involved parties because there is no "central authority” to decide who should be prosecuted. This is unlike if someone in, say, Ukraine, went and murdered another Ukrainian — the Ukrainian government would capture and prosecute that person. Because other countries are afraid they’ll be “next,” they build their military capabilities to make them seem like a less palatable target.

Power politics

One of Wohlforth’s four tenets of realism, this is the idea that relative capabilities shape states’ abilities to survive and pursue their interests.

e.g: North Korea has a nuclear arsenal, a powerful capability and a powerful deterrent against intervention in its oppressive authoritarian system. Other authoritarian states, like Venezuela or Iran, do not have this capability and are more vulnerable to intervention.

groupism

One of Wohlforth’s four tenets of realism, this is the idea that politics happens in groups.

e.g: US political parties, defensive alliances like NATO, economic blocs like BRICS, the United Nations, nations themselves, NGOs, movements like MAGA or Occupy Wall Street…etc.

egoism

One of Wohlforth’s four tenets of realism, this is the idea that actors (groups, nations, people) pursue narrow, self-interested goals.

E.g Russia wants land. It pursues that goal by invading Ukraine.

is not, monolith, anarchy, egoism, groupism, power politics, centrality, interactions

According to Wohlforth, realism [is/is not] a [term]. Realists share beliefs about four key tenets' [term, term, term, and term term] [term] to international politics, but disagree about the [terms] between these tenets.

has not, hegemonic stability theory, power transition theory

Kotkin argues that the basic logic of realism [has/has not] disappeared in modern times, illustrating realist frameworks of [term term term] and [term term term] through China’s rise and America’s decline.

hegemonic stability theory

Abbreviated as HST, this is laid out by Wohlforth in his typologies of realism, typified by Kotkin in his analysis of the US and China, and countered by Keohane’s point about systemic inertia in “the demand for international regimes.”

This theory within realism states that powerful nations try to take control of international systems, introducing hierarchy into anarchy. This control leads to cooperation and the formation of an “international order,” but, as the name of this theory suggests, the “international order” is only as stable as the powerful hegemon that created it.

🔡simple explanation: a powerful nation creates an international system, but that system is only as stable as the powerful nation that created it

e.g. Many analysts and world leaders are signaling that the “liberal international order” created by the United States is dying or dead as the United States’ international policy becomes more expansionist, erratic and unilateral and its domestic political landscape takes a turn towards radicalism and division.

power transition theory

Laid out by Wohlforth in his typologies of realism and typified by Kotkin in his “Realist World,” this theory is derived from HST. It states that there will be a breakdown of the international order established by a hegemon — and potentially war — as a rival state grows powerful enough to challenge the hegemon.

realism, foundational, international politics

The theory of [term] places power, security, and survival as essential to understanding international politics. Though it has been subject to many debates, criticisms, and modifications, it remains [term] to [term term].

diplomacy, international institutions, realists, self-interest, power politics, “utopian thinking”, moral goals, pragmatic considerations

After WWI, reformers hoped that [term] and [term term] could prevent another World War. In the 1930s, World War II broke out and [terms] argued that those reformers had underestimated the role of [term-term] and [term politics]. Carr criticized “[term term]” because he believed it elevated [term goals] above [term considerations] about power politics.

competing, differing assumptions, survive, competitive, cooperate, power, interests, lessen conflict, cooperation, laws, norms, constraints, prioritize security, absolute gains, relative gains, anarchy, insecurity, reforms, institutions, reduce

Realism and liberalism/idealism are often seen as [terming] theories. That’s not wrong, but they are more accurately seen as based on [differing terms] of how international politics work.

Problem:

~ Realism asks how states can [term] in a [term] system, while liberalism asks how states can [term].

Institutions: Realism believes that institutions reflect states’ [term] and [term]. Liberalism believes institutions can [term conflict] and promote [term].

International law: Liberalism establishes that [terms] and [terms] are adequate [terms] on states’ actions. Realism believes states always [terms] concerns about [term] over norms and laws.

Gains: Liberalism believes that states care more about whether everyone benefits (term gains), while realism believes that states care most about who benefits more (term gains).

Conflict: Realism believes [term] and [term] make conflict recur and persist, liberalism believes [term] and institutions can [term] conflict.

classical realism, flaws in human nature, not institutional failure, doesn’t reject morality, emphasizes pragmatism

This type of realism argues that conflict stems from [flaws in term term], [term] from [term failure]. It [doesn’t reject term] but [terms] that moral concerns must be paired with [term] about considerations like power and self-interest.

structural realism, neorealism, patterns come from structures, not from leaders

Waltz creates a new type of realism called [term realism or term] running counter to classical realism, states that repeating [terms] in international politics [come from terms] of international and national political systems, [not from terms].

systems, units, structure, affect, internal characteristics

Waltz argues that analyses of conflict in international politics must focus on causes from [terms], not causes from [terms]. Waltz’ chief claim is that the [term] of the international system generates pressures that [term] all states, regardless of their [term terms].

anarchy, ordering principle, hierarchy

the absence of a central authority above sovereign states — not the presence of chaos or disorder. According to Waltz, it is the [terming term] that distinguishes international politics from domestic politics, which is characterized by [term].

self-help, responsibility, own security

[term-term] — the concept that under anarchy, because no higher authority guarantees their survival, states must assume primary [term] for their [own term].

Ordering principle

Waltz’ conception that international politics is anarchic, not hierarchical

There is no central enforcer/government to reward compliance, punish deviation, or enforce agreements.

Functional similarity

Waltz’ conception that states perform similar survival functions.

Both democracies and dictatorships have to manage their finances and defend their borders, for example.

Distribution of capabilities

Waltz’ conception that power is unevenly distributed among states.

China, for instance, has a stronger military than Japan. Some countries are nuclear-armed, others aren’t.

structural realism, omits domestic features, isolate structural effects, overlook variation

Waltz’s [term realism] [includes/omits domestic features] of states not because they’re irrelevant, but because he wants to [term term effects]. Abstraction helps provide a [term] explanation for recurring patterns, but the tradeoff is that it may [term term].

polarity

distribution of capabilities among the international system’s most powerful states

unipolarity

one state possesses overwhelming capabilities, overshadowing all others

ex. US post-Cold War

bipolarity

two great powers dominate the system

ex. Cold War rivalry between US and USSR

multipolarity

several great powers coexist

ex. pre-WWI Europe

security dilemma

Trying to gain more security actually decreases everybody’s security.

Jervis— though states are only trying to protect their security, their defensive preparations may threaten others because of misperceptions about their intentions, causing an escalatory spiral.