Chapter 2 IR - POLS006

No single theory fully explains all international interactions, but realism is foundational.
Realism emphasizes power dynamics in international relations, often termed realpolitik.
Realist theory evolved primarily in response to idealism, highlighting the importance of power over morality, ideology, or other social aspects.
Historical figures like Sun Tzu, Thucydides, and Machiavelli laid groundwork for realist thought, emphasizing the sovereign state's survival and strategic use of power.
Hans Morgenthau posited that international politics is driven by power defined through national interest rather than psychological motives.

Power as Influence: Defined as the ability to persuade others to act for their own interests.
- Military force and economic sanctions are common tools of influencing states.
- The challenge lies in measuring what an actor would have chosen without the other's influence.
Power as Capability: Involves states' tangible assets (GDP, population, military might).
- National capabilities are assessed based on qualities that enable effective action and influence.
- Measurement complexity includes diverse indicators like GDP, which while helpful, remains imprecise.

Anarchy refers to the absence of a central governing authority in the international system.
States operate independently and are primarily engaged in self-help to ensure their survival and interests.
Realists view international relations as inherently competitive, leading to mistrust and occasional conflict.
The principle of sovereignty is critical: states are separate and uphold territorial integrity, limiting external intervention in domestic affairs.

NATO was established in 1949 to counter Soviet influence, evolving into a collective defense mechanism.
Initially focused on the Cold War, NATO’s role transformed post-1991 to address new security threats (e.g., terrorism, humanitarian crises).
Article V serves as the core commitment: an attack on one is an attack on all.
NATO later undertook missions in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, illustrating shifts in the alliance's strategic focus.

The Prisoner's Dilemma serves as an analogy for the tensions in international relations, where self-interest leads to suboptimal outcomes.
In this scenario, rational individuals, by acting solely for themselves, incur costs that would have been avoided through cooperation.
This mirrors international arms races: countries may pursue military enhancements, fearing others' capabilities, leading to mutual detriment despite potential collective benefit from disarmament.