External relations
ASSIGNMENT 1
Realism: they see the world in tragedy and evil
states seek power and security because they exist in a self-help system
seek power, security, and mostly autonomy
→ all against all (everyone out for themselves) danger of war is always lurking
around
You can never trust anyone, so autonomy is important, because In such a world, you
don’t want to be interdependent today’s friend could be tomorrow’s enemy (so
never trust anyone) you can never have enough power
National interest
Important actors: states
Liberalism= international system creates opportunities for cooperation and conflict
(so: opportunities for bad things to happen but also for good things), and it’s up to
the states and other global political actors to take advantage of those opportunities
Mutual benefices and cooperation
Important actors: states (some more than others), but also businesses, religion,
social movements, political movements, other sorts of organizations (OTAN, ONU,
EU, …)
Liberals see the world full of opportunities (to pursue goals that are beneficial to
everyone)
Conflict is big component in the international system, but that’s not all that is there
(which realist believe that IS all that is there)
Not necessarily opposed to war or using force, but first exhaust every other option
before getting to military conflict (usually one of these other options will work, so no
need to military conflict)
Collective security
Many current international institutions are based on liberalism many of those were
made after WW2, with the idea “how do we make sure that doesn’t happen again”
Constructivism= the world is something that we built out of the way we relate to each
other
The idea of something is what makes it “real” if everyone decides tomorrow that
the US doesn’t exist anymore, it doesn’t exist because US is a concept in itself
Change the rules that the world is based endless cycle we are constantly
changing these rules in little ways that are themselves framed by ways and rules that
the world already works
You need to have a set of ideas in order to have international relations
Longer time scales than liberalists or realists
At some level, it is the choices we make that create the world we live in
Many things in this world are simply just constructs many things aren’t real of
itself, they only exist because we give them reality through social agreement
Hyde-Price, A. (2021). EU External Action from a Realist Perspective
● Origins of realism: Roots in 5th-century BC Greek philosophy (Stoics), emphasizing
structural constraints on actors; key early thinkers include Thucydides, Machiavelli,
and Hobbes.
→ Focus on analyzing what is rather than what ought to be.
,● Classical realism: Developed after WWI by E.H. Carr, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hans
Morgenthau; emphasizes history, philosophy, and human nature, especially egoism
and self-interest.
● Neorealism (structural realism): Introduced by Kenneth Waltz in the late 1970s; shifts
focus to the international system’s structure and distribution of power.
● Variants of neorealism:
○ Defensive realism (Waltz): states as security maximizers.
○ Offensive realism (Mearsheimer): states as power maximizers.
● Neoclassical realism: Combines systemic factors with domestic variables (state
capacity, culture, politics) to explain foreign policy.
● Realism and the EU:
○ Mainly applied to the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).
○ Neorealism used to explain European integration and defence cooperation.
○ Classical realism applied in broader historical and some CFSP analyses.
○ Neoclassical realism is gaining attention but remains underdeveloped in EU
external action studies.
- Philosophical mood:
Pessimistic about social progress and large-scale social engineering. Skeptical of
moral ambitions in international politics. It emphasizes prudence, scepticism, and
reciprocity.
It sees international politics as tragic, with conflict often arising from structural
pressures rather than deliberate hostility.
- Guide to action:
Stresses the gap between what is desirable and what is achievable. Prioritizes
sovereignty, survival, security, and national interest over moral or normative goals. It
warns against moralism in foreign policy. Encourages states to act as rational
calculators of interests, not promoters of values. It grounds policy in both practical
experience and sound theory.
- Scientific mode of enquiry (scientia):
Seeks objective, rational explanation independent of values or preferences. Explains
outcomes through structural forces rather than moral judgments. Exemplified by
Thucydides’ balance-of-power analysis and Machiavelli’s empirical statecraft. Most
clearly expressed in Waltz’s neorealism, using parsimonious, abstract, system-level
theory to maximize explanatory power.
● Power as the key driver of international politics
Realist theory argues that power is the most important factor for understanding
international outcomes. Although realists define power in different ways, they agree
that differences in military, economic, political, and technological capabilities shape
how states behave and interact. From a realist perspective, analysing the EU
therefore requires examining all forms of power it possesses and how these influence
its external actions.
→ Security dilemma
● International politics as diverse and unequal
Realism views the international system as pluralistic, made up of many different
states and political communities with their own interests, values, and levels of power.
, These differences create unequal and often unstable regional environments,
especially where rules and institutions are weak. In such contexts, including the EU’s
Eastern neighbourhood, power politics and competition play a greater role than
shared norms or cooperation.
● States as the primary actors
Realists maintain that states remain the most important actors in international politics
because they control key resources and remain the main focus of political loyalty.
Even when international organisations like the EU act externally, their policies largely
reflect the interests and priorities of their member states. The EU’s influence
therefore depends on its role as a collective instrument through which states pursue
common goals.
→ for example, the EU has power because France or Germany give it (powerful countries),
other countries of the EU don’t really give power to the EU + believes that it only works when
there is a shared pursuit of common interest of MSs and shared concerns
CASE STUDY:
→ uses realism to explain the EU’s approach to its Eastern neighbourhood through the ENP
(European neighborhood policy) and the Eastern Partnership. From a realist perspective, the
policy failed because it relied mainly on soft power, norm promotion, and institutional export,
while ignoring shifts in the balance of power and Russia’s strategic interests. The EU
underestimated the geopolitical importance of Ukraine to Russia and assumed its
values-based approach would be accepted in an anarchic international system.
The ENP aimed to improve EU security through milieu-shaping, economic integration, and
the promotion of good governance. While this reflected shared interests among EU member
states, it combined stabilisation and transformation goals that often conflicted. Realists argue
that this over-ambitious strategy underestimated structural constraints and the risks of
unintended consequences.
Most importantly, the EU failed to recognise the continuing importance of geopolitics and
hard power in Eastern Europe. Russia increasingly viewed the EU as a strategic rival, and
the Ukraine crisis exposed the limits of the EU’s soft power approach. Overall, realism
highlights that EU external action must balance normative goals with strategic thinking,
power realities, and security concerns.
Moravcsik, A. and C. Emmons (2021). Liberal Intergovernmentalism and EU External
Action
Liberal Intergovernmentalism (LI) explains EU action by arguing that national preferences
are formed domestically, before states bargain at the EU level. These preferences come
from economic, social, and ideational pressures linked to interdependence, not from a single
national interest like security or welfare. Preferences are issue-specific, meaning they vary
across policy areas, and can be driven by economic interests, identity concerns, or political
pressures depending on the case.
→ Democratic Peace Theory!
● First stage:
, In the first stage of LI, states develop their national preferences, which are the main goals
that guide their policies and decisions. These preferences come from economic, social, and
cultural interdependence, as well as from the influence of powerful sub-national actors—like
businesses, interest groups, or social organizations—who push the state to handle
international issues in certain ways. These demands are issue-specific, meaning that goals
for one area, like trade, can be very different from goals in areas like human rights or
migration. Governments then filter and prioritize these demands, choosing which to act on.
→ Economic interests often play a big role, for example in trade or agriculture, but in some
areas—like migration, environment, or identity-related issues—other concerns may be more
important. How clear and strong these national preferences are depends on how immediate,
certain, and concentrated the effects of a policy are. When the stakes are uncertain or
spread out over time, preferences are less clear, and other factors, like domestic politics or
chance events, may have more influence.
● Second stage:
Focuses on interstate bargaining. Since states rarely want exactly the same things, they
negotiate to improve the situation for all while deciding how gains and costs are shared.
Efficiency comes from cooperation in a positive-sum environment: states can usually
negotiate successfully on their own, while EU officials or other third parties mainly provide
information or organize meetings without controlling outcomes.
Distribution depends on asymmetric interdependence—how much each state depends on
the deal compared to alternatives. States that care most may make concessions, while those
that care less can influence outcomes by withholding cooperation. Size often matters, but
small states can still have power if their preferences are extreme or backed by domestic
support.
In EU external action, not all states must participate in every issue. Trade often requires
universal participation, but in areas like security, aid or development, ad hoc coalitions of the
willing are common, with the EU acting mainly as a network for consultation.
● Third stage:
Explains how states decide whether and how to delegate authority to EU institutions after
agreeing on a policy (institutionalization). LI uses regime theory, seeing institutions as tools
to manage collective action problems and uncertainty. Institutions help coordinate policies,
set rules, monitor compliance, and allow diffuse reciprocity, making cooperation easier.
The design of institutions depends on the size of joint benefits, distributional conflict, and
uncertainty. Coordination problems (alignment without cheating risk) lead to shared rules
and forums like the Council. Collaboration problems (risk of cheating) require stronger
enforcement through institutions like the Commission or Court of Justice.
Pooling sovereignty is not always needed. States can cooperate through ad hoc coalitions,
embed rules in domestic law, or use informal norms like consensus decision-making. These
informal tools let states adapt, protect national interests, and cooperate strategically.
ASSIGNMENT 1
Realism: they see the world in tragedy and evil
states seek power and security because they exist in a self-help system
seek power, security, and mostly autonomy
→ all against all (everyone out for themselves) danger of war is always lurking
around
You can never trust anyone, so autonomy is important, because In such a world, you
don’t want to be interdependent today’s friend could be tomorrow’s enemy (so
never trust anyone) you can never have enough power
National interest
Important actors: states
Liberalism= international system creates opportunities for cooperation and conflict
(so: opportunities for bad things to happen but also for good things), and it’s up to
the states and other global political actors to take advantage of those opportunities
Mutual benefices and cooperation
Important actors: states (some more than others), but also businesses, religion,
social movements, political movements, other sorts of organizations (OTAN, ONU,
EU, …)
Liberals see the world full of opportunities (to pursue goals that are beneficial to
everyone)
Conflict is big component in the international system, but that’s not all that is there
(which realist believe that IS all that is there)
Not necessarily opposed to war or using force, but first exhaust every other option
before getting to military conflict (usually one of these other options will work, so no
need to military conflict)
Collective security
Many current international institutions are based on liberalism many of those were
made after WW2, with the idea “how do we make sure that doesn’t happen again”
Constructivism= the world is something that we built out of the way we relate to each
other
The idea of something is what makes it “real” if everyone decides tomorrow that
the US doesn’t exist anymore, it doesn’t exist because US is a concept in itself
Change the rules that the world is based endless cycle we are constantly
changing these rules in little ways that are themselves framed by ways and rules that
the world already works
You need to have a set of ideas in order to have international relations
Longer time scales than liberalists or realists
At some level, it is the choices we make that create the world we live in
Many things in this world are simply just constructs many things aren’t real of
itself, they only exist because we give them reality through social agreement
Hyde-Price, A. (2021). EU External Action from a Realist Perspective
● Origins of realism: Roots in 5th-century BC Greek philosophy (Stoics), emphasizing
structural constraints on actors; key early thinkers include Thucydides, Machiavelli,
and Hobbes.
→ Focus on analyzing what is rather than what ought to be.
,● Classical realism: Developed after WWI by E.H. Carr, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hans
Morgenthau; emphasizes history, philosophy, and human nature, especially egoism
and self-interest.
● Neorealism (structural realism): Introduced by Kenneth Waltz in the late 1970s; shifts
focus to the international system’s structure and distribution of power.
● Variants of neorealism:
○ Defensive realism (Waltz): states as security maximizers.
○ Offensive realism (Mearsheimer): states as power maximizers.
● Neoclassical realism: Combines systemic factors with domestic variables (state
capacity, culture, politics) to explain foreign policy.
● Realism and the EU:
○ Mainly applied to the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).
○ Neorealism used to explain European integration and defence cooperation.
○ Classical realism applied in broader historical and some CFSP analyses.
○ Neoclassical realism is gaining attention but remains underdeveloped in EU
external action studies.
- Philosophical mood:
Pessimistic about social progress and large-scale social engineering. Skeptical of
moral ambitions in international politics. It emphasizes prudence, scepticism, and
reciprocity.
It sees international politics as tragic, with conflict often arising from structural
pressures rather than deliberate hostility.
- Guide to action:
Stresses the gap between what is desirable and what is achievable. Prioritizes
sovereignty, survival, security, and national interest over moral or normative goals. It
warns against moralism in foreign policy. Encourages states to act as rational
calculators of interests, not promoters of values. It grounds policy in both practical
experience and sound theory.
- Scientific mode of enquiry (scientia):
Seeks objective, rational explanation independent of values or preferences. Explains
outcomes through structural forces rather than moral judgments. Exemplified by
Thucydides’ balance-of-power analysis and Machiavelli’s empirical statecraft. Most
clearly expressed in Waltz’s neorealism, using parsimonious, abstract, system-level
theory to maximize explanatory power.
● Power as the key driver of international politics
Realist theory argues that power is the most important factor for understanding
international outcomes. Although realists define power in different ways, they agree
that differences in military, economic, political, and technological capabilities shape
how states behave and interact. From a realist perspective, analysing the EU
therefore requires examining all forms of power it possesses and how these influence
its external actions.
→ Security dilemma
● International politics as diverse and unequal
Realism views the international system as pluralistic, made up of many different
states and political communities with their own interests, values, and levels of power.
, These differences create unequal and often unstable regional environments,
especially where rules and institutions are weak. In such contexts, including the EU’s
Eastern neighbourhood, power politics and competition play a greater role than
shared norms or cooperation.
● States as the primary actors
Realists maintain that states remain the most important actors in international politics
because they control key resources and remain the main focus of political loyalty.
Even when international organisations like the EU act externally, their policies largely
reflect the interests and priorities of their member states. The EU’s influence
therefore depends on its role as a collective instrument through which states pursue
common goals.
→ for example, the EU has power because France or Germany give it (powerful countries),
other countries of the EU don’t really give power to the EU + believes that it only works when
there is a shared pursuit of common interest of MSs and shared concerns
CASE STUDY:
→ uses realism to explain the EU’s approach to its Eastern neighbourhood through the ENP
(European neighborhood policy) and the Eastern Partnership. From a realist perspective, the
policy failed because it relied mainly on soft power, norm promotion, and institutional export,
while ignoring shifts in the balance of power and Russia’s strategic interests. The EU
underestimated the geopolitical importance of Ukraine to Russia and assumed its
values-based approach would be accepted in an anarchic international system.
The ENP aimed to improve EU security through milieu-shaping, economic integration, and
the promotion of good governance. While this reflected shared interests among EU member
states, it combined stabilisation and transformation goals that often conflicted. Realists argue
that this over-ambitious strategy underestimated structural constraints and the risks of
unintended consequences.
Most importantly, the EU failed to recognise the continuing importance of geopolitics and
hard power in Eastern Europe. Russia increasingly viewed the EU as a strategic rival, and
the Ukraine crisis exposed the limits of the EU’s soft power approach. Overall, realism
highlights that EU external action must balance normative goals with strategic thinking,
power realities, and security concerns.
Moravcsik, A. and C. Emmons (2021). Liberal Intergovernmentalism and EU External
Action
Liberal Intergovernmentalism (LI) explains EU action by arguing that national preferences
are formed domestically, before states bargain at the EU level. These preferences come
from economic, social, and ideational pressures linked to interdependence, not from a single
national interest like security or welfare. Preferences are issue-specific, meaning they vary
across policy areas, and can be driven by economic interests, identity concerns, or political
pressures depending on the case.
→ Democratic Peace Theory!
● First stage:
, In the first stage of LI, states develop their national preferences, which are the main goals
that guide their policies and decisions. These preferences come from economic, social, and
cultural interdependence, as well as from the influence of powerful sub-national actors—like
businesses, interest groups, or social organizations—who push the state to handle
international issues in certain ways. These demands are issue-specific, meaning that goals
for one area, like trade, can be very different from goals in areas like human rights or
migration. Governments then filter and prioritize these demands, choosing which to act on.
→ Economic interests often play a big role, for example in trade or agriculture, but in some
areas—like migration, environment, or identity-related issues—other concerns may be more
important. How clear and strong these national preferences are depends on how immediate,
certain, and concentrated the effects of a policy are. When the stakes are uncertain or
spread out over time, preferences are less clear, and other factors, like domestic politics or
chance events, may have more influence.
● Second stage:
Focuses on interstate bargaining. Since states rarely want exactly the same things, they
negotiate to improve the situation for all while deciding how gains and costs are shared.
Efficiency comes from cooperation in a positive-sum environment: states can usually
negotiate successfully on their own, while EU officials or other third parties mainly provide
information or organize meetings without controlling outcomes.
Distribution depends on asymmetric interdependence—how much each state depends on
the deal compared to alternatives. States that care most may make concessions, while those
that care less can influence outcomes by withholding cooperation. Size often matters, but
small states can still have power if their preferences are extreme or backed by domestic
support.
In EU external action, not all states must participate in every issue. Trade often requires
universal participation, but in areas like security, aid or development, ad hoc coalitions of the
willing are common, with the EU acting mainly as a network for consultation.
● Third stage:
Explains how states decide whether and how to delegate authority to EU institutions after
agreeing on a policy (institutionalization). LI uses regime theory, seeing institutions as tools
to manage collective action problems and uncertainty. Institutions help coordinate policies,
set rules, monitor compliance, and allow diffuse reciprocity, making cooperation easier.
The design of institutions depends on the size of joint benefits, distributional conflict, and
uncertainty. Coordination problems (alignment without cheating risk) lead to shared rules
and forums like the Council. Collaboration problems (risk of cheating) require stronger
enforcement through institutions like the Commission or Court of Justice.
Pooling sovereignty is not always needed. States can cooperate through ad hoc coalitions,
embed rules in domestic law, or use informal norms like consensus decision-making. These
informal tools let states adapt, protect national interests, and cooperate strategically.
