GOVT 2060 International Relations: Theories and Approachesab1234.yolasite.com/resources/GOVT2060 03 2017 Realism.pdf · GOVT 2060 International Relations: Theories and Approaches

1/29

THE UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES ST. AUGUSTINE

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCES

GOVT 2060 International Relations:

Theories and Approaches

Fall 2017

2/29

ab1234.yolasite.com

3/29

Course content • The History and Evolution of the International System • Levels of Analysis and Foreign Policy

POSITIVIST THEORIES MAINSTREAM APPROACHES

• Liberalism • Realism • Neorealism • Neoliberalism

STRUCTURALIST APPROACHES

• Classical Marxism • Dependency Theory • Structural Imperialism • Worlds System Theory

• International Society Theory (The English School)

POST-POSITIVIST THEORIES • Constructivism • Postmodernism • Critical Theory • Feminism

4/29

Topic 3 Realism The impending outbreak of WWII spelled the birth of the first Great Debate in International Relations when E.H. Carr launched his scathing attack on the liberals or utopians as he came to call them. Together with Hans Morgenthau, he would forge the more pessimistic approach to IR known as Realism. The relevance of Realism to an understanding of International Relations, its major authors, assumptions, strengths and weaknesses and its role as the dominant paradigm in IR will be examined in this session.

Readings: 1. Meyer, Karl. E. “ The Quicksands of Realism”. World Policy Journal, Fall 2001, Vol. 18, Issue 3.– Ebsco Host (11p) 2. Molloy, Sean. “Truth, Power, Theory: Hans Morgenthau’s formulation of Realism”. Diplomacy & Statecraft, Mar 2004, Vol. 15 Issue 1, p 1-34 - Ebsco Host (34p) 3. Baylis, John & Steve Smith. The Globalization of World Politics. Chapters 7 & 9 (3rd ed.) 4. Carr, E.H. The Twenty Years Crisis 5. Morgenthau, H. Politics Among Nations 6. Buzan, Barry. “The Timeless Wisdom of Realism” (Photocopy) 7. Burchill, Scott and Andrew Linklater. Theories of International Relations. Chapter 3 8. Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff. Contending Theories of International Relations Chapter 2 9. Nye, Joseph S. Understanding International Conflict. Chapters 3 & 5 10. Rothstein, R. Little & Smith. “On the Costs of Realism”. Perspectives on World Politics ed. 11. Steans Jill & Lloyd Petiford. International Relations: Perspectives and Themes Chapter 2 12. Kegley Charles. Chapters 2, 3, 14 13. Vasquez, J. “The Enduring Contributions of Hans J. Mogenthau’s Politics Among Nations”. 14. Viotti & Kauppi. International Relations Theory, Chapter 2. 15. Woods, Ngaire. Chapters 4-8

5/29

At the Caspian Sea University: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B1_Z5ACd6MBPNGJDSUJLX2t4ZG8?usp=sharing John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens, The Globalization of World Politics: an Introduction to International Relations. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2008 (4th edition) Ch. 5 Realism. Robert Jackson and Georg Sørensen, Introduction to International Relations. Theories and Approaches, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2013 (5th edition), Ch. 3. P. Viotti and M. Kauppi, International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism, and Beyond. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2012 (5th edition), Ch. 2 Realism. Paul D'Anieri, International Politics: Power and Purpose in Global Affairs, Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning (2nd edition), 2012, Ch. 3 Realism.

6/29

Utopian (Marxism-Leninism)

Utopian liberalism 1920s Focus:

• International law • International organizations • Interdependence • Cooperation • Peace

Realist response 1930s-1950s Focus:

• Power politics • Security • Aggression • Conflict • War

7/29

Realism:

• statism • conflict • self-help

Realist paradigm: World politics = a struggle among self-interested states

- for power and position - under anarchy.

Each state → its own national interests Identities and interests are fixed Forerunners Thucydides → State = rational actor

Kautilya Niccolò Machiavelli → all means...

8/29

Thomas Hobbes → Homo homini lupus, War of all against all

Thucydides (c. 460-c. 400 BC)

Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527)

Thucydides - 'The Melian Dialogue' (from the History of the Peloponnesian War):

9/29

Athenians: Then we on our side will use no fine phrases saying, for

example, that we have a right to our empire because we defeated the

Persians, or that we have come against you now because of the

injuries you have done us—a great mass of words that nobody would

believe. And we ask you on your side not to imagine that you will

influence us by saying that you, though a colony of Sparta, have not

joined Sparta in the war, or that you have never done us any harm.

Instead we recommend that you should try to get what it is possible

for you to get, taking into consideration what we both really do think;

since you know as well as we do that, when these matters are

discussed by practical people, the standard of justice depends on the

equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they

have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept.

10/29

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) "Leviathan" (1651)

11/29

Main authors

• E.H. Carr (1939) • Hans J. Morgenthau (1948) • George F. Kennan (1951, 1954) • Reinhold Niebuhr (1947) • Kenneth Thompson (1960)

E. H. Carr (1892-1982)

Hans J. Morgenthau (1904-1980)

12/29

Doctrine of raison d'état Survival of the state War = legitimate Dual moral standard (citizens / state) IR vision Cynical, pessimistic and conflict-based

Main element

Power

Main features

Conflict, not cooperation (←human nature) + competition, suspicion How the world is, not how it ought to be

13/29

Premises IR actors = states (and nothing else) State = rational Essential = politics and security Anarchy Power Military power = essential Self-help

Billiard balls IR = zero sum game Conflict; no cooperation Interdependence = mutual vulnerability

Main concepts

Strategies: - augment power capabilities (→ security dilemma) - balance of power → alliances

14/29

The billiard ball (realist) model and the cobweb (sociological liberal) model:

One country - two images

Realism Sociological liberalism

15/29

Taxonomy of Realisms (Baylis and Smith, Table 5.1, p.96)

Author Work Cause of insecurity

Thucydides The Peloponnesian War (includes 'The Melian Dialogue')

IV c. BC

Machiavelli The Prince 1532

E. H. Carr The Twenty Years Crisis: 1919-1939

1939

Classical realism

Hans Morgenthau

Politics among Nations 1948

Human nature

Rousseau The State of War 1750

Kenneth Waltz

Theory of Int. Politics 'Defensive realism' states=security maximizers Goal: status quo

1979 Structural realism

(Neorealism) John Mearsheimer

Tragedy of Great Power politics 'Offensive realism' states=power maximizers Goal: hegemony

2001

Anarchical system

16/29

Fareed Zakaria

From Wealth to Power The domestic level

1998

How power is perceived

How leadership is exercised

Neoclassical (or post-classical) realism

(Neorealism)

Background • World War II → strong criticism of the liberal idealist paradigm • Idealists = utopians (label used by E.H. Carr) • Idealists neglected power politics and human selfishness ↓ • eradicating the instinct for power = hopeless • International Politics = a struggle for power, "a war of all against all"

(Hobbes). • Primary obligation of every state:

- promote its national interest - acquire power for this purpose

↓ Liberals ignoring power = failure to reform int. anarchy

• IR = recurrence and repetition, not reform and change

17/29

18/29

Security vs. Economics: anarchy ↓ states should: - acquire arms ("prepare for war to

keep peace") - not be hesitant to use arms

economics = less relevant than military might economic growth ↓ state power and prestige

Do not trust allies do not entrust self-protection to

� int. security organizations � int. law � global governance

19/29

all states → maximize power: - augment power capabilities (→ security dilemma) - alliances ↔ balance of

power

stability ↔ maintaining the balance of power (shifting alliances) Balance of power: - not a cause of conflict - best guarantee of peace

The security dilemma:

Should state A try to become more powerful in order to increase its security?

Desire of security of state A → stronger army → neighbouring states afraid of state A → they arm themselves → they become more powerful than state A → the security of state A diminishes

20/29

Balance of power

Concert of Europe - Balance of Power

21/29

England’s Balancing Act (between the fall of Napoleon and the rise of Germany)

Every time a camp got weaker, England supported it to prevent the other camp from conquering the continent

22/29

German Perception of Balance of Power in 1914 → WW I

The Principle of the Balance of Power: When a great power becomes too strong, all other great powers spontaneously

form an alliance against it.

23/29

The balance of power, as depicted by Honoré Daumier

24/29

The state: State = the most important actor.

International Organizations, multinationals, NGOs = controlled by states

Conflicts of interests among states = inevitable

States = rational problem solvers ↓ calculate their interests in terms of power

Power: = the factors that enable one actor to manipulate another actor's behaviour against its preferences

international politics ↔ pursuit of power: - acquiring - increasing - projecting

power

25/29

Purpose of statecraft = national survival in a hostile environment Main means = acquisition of power Main principle = self-help (actors must rely on themselves) State sovereignty: = under International Law, the principle that the governments of states are subject to no higher external authority • cornerstone of int. law • heads of state → do whatever is necessary to advance the state's interests and survival • respect for moral principles = wasteful and dangerous ≠ rational pursuit of national self-advantage

26/29

Moral values: Dual moral standard (citizens / state) • values = not allowed to interfere with policymaking • states' philosophical or ethical preferences = neither good nor

bad ↓ serve its self-interest Realism

- accepts war as normal - rejects morality

Theory in Action: Realism (vs. Liberalism) (3min52) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnKEFSVAiNQ

27/29

Realism/Neorealism Strengths

Good explanation of a pessimistic age (WWII, Cold War):

• competition ↑ • inevitability of conflict • military security ↑ • cooperation ↓ • divergence of national

interest among selfish states + Continuing large scale perception: world politics ↔ global tension

Weaknesses • Contradictions in the use of

terms like power, national interest and balance of power

• Only considers big powers • Many assumptions are not

testable • Cannot explain change in the

int. system (end of Cold War, int. cooperation, globalization)

• Disregards ethical principles and social costs to military expenditure

28/29

(J. Baylis, S. Smith and P. Owens, The globalization of world politics: an

introduction to international relations. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2008)

29/29

ab1234.yolasite.com