Comparative Theories

Comparative Theories

Key definition:
 realism: wide school of thought in international relations theory that believes that world politics
will remain a field of conflict among actors pursuing power
 liberalism: wide school of thought in international relations theory that rejects power politics as
the sole outcome of international relations and emphasises mutual benefits and co-operation
 security dilemma: theory that any actions by a state intended to increase its security - such as
increasing its military strength - can lead to other states responding with similar measures,
producing increased tensions that create conflict
 international anarchy: concept that the world system is leaderless: there is no universal
sovereign or worldwide government
 complex interdependence: where states and their fortunes are inextricably tied together
economically, politically, militarily and culturally
 global governance: a movement towards the political integration of states in order to address
problems that face more than one state or region
 anarchical society and society of states: theory that the states of the world can be members of a
society, despite the anarchical nature of the international system

Main ideas of realism

 refers to being realistic, taking a practical, down-to-earth, matter-of-fact approach, with no room
for sentiment or idealism

States as key actors in global politics and the balance of power (state sovereignty)
 states are the most important actors in the global system and certain characteristics lead
to conflict
 selfish human nature leads to selfish states
 root cause of conflict: for classical realists, it is selfish human nature
 Thucydides + Morgenthau believe human beings are fundamentally self-centred and
people will pursue their own interests above and beyond those of others
 states promote their national interest at the expense of other states = makes sense to act
selfishly in a world where there is uncertainty about the intentions of other states (so no
means of guaranteeing co-operation)
 like Prisoner Dilemma, states cannot trust others to act in everyone's interests, so safest
strategy is to expect betrayal
 competition rather than co-operation = clash of interests = war
 states are rational
 states engage in dispassionate calculations of their interests
 relations with other states = determined by the relative value of the costs versus the
benefits of such an action
 states are unitary actors
 some think that the culture and nature of the regime of a state affect its interests
 others see interests as fixed, as it is always in states' interests to increase their power and
security

 states are amoral

,  states do not act according to concepts of justice, rights or religious morality; they act
according to their interests
 relations between states are not guided by universal principals
 Machiavelli = The Prince = rulers of states should be ruthless in pursing their interests
 Schweller = 'a just war is one in the national interest'
 states seek power
 states are motivated by the pursuit of their national interest, which realists argue is
power
 classical realists believe power is good in itself, whilst neo-realists see power as a means
to security (the more power = the better able it is to protect itself)
 not known how much power guarantees security = neo-realists argue the safest course is
for the state to become hegemon
 power is finite = states must compete with each other for military economic power =
affects the balance of power (zero-sum game)
 attacking less power states is less risky = weaker states are aware of their vulnerability so
they try to increase their power (e.g. increase the size of their military or acquiring more
powerful weapons) = security dilemma
 imbalance of power = potential for conflict AND balance of power = harmony
 states naturally seek a balance of power to curb hegemonic ambitions of more powerful
states
 international anarchy and its implications
 states are the principal actors in international systems = no higher authority than the
state = cannot be held accountable for their actions of be punished
 international system = like Hobbes' state of nature = states can act with impunity (exempt
from punishment) = international anarchy
 'state of nature' = before establishment of society and government = Hobbes' Leviathan =
war of 'every man against every man' = no rules and nobody in a position to enforce them
= individuals are free to do as they will = life is 'nasty, brutish and short'
 some realists believe that selfish human nature causes states to act selfishly, others
believe that the anarchy of the international system is the real cause of conflict
 inevitability of war
 logic of realism = war is inevitable = security dilemma, selfish human nature, states'
desire for power, zero-sum nature of power
 reasons for the inevitability of war:
1. people are selfish and act accordingly = bound to be disagreement and competition
2. lack of adherence to any moral principle + pursuit of power = bound to lead to
misunderstandings and disharmony
3. the limited amount of power means all states power a threat; Schweller = there is 'always
the danger of war lurking in the background'
 security dilemma
 security dilemma = actions that one state takes to increase its security cause other states
to follow, increasing the likelihood of conflict
 balance of power = rarely achieved = one exception is the Cold War where the USA and
Soviet Union dominated international relations
 mostly states find themselves in a competitive struggle for power
 as all states possess some military offensive capability, the temptation is to increase that
capability so as to increase their power and security = self-defeating as other states