This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Politics Notes International Relations Notes

Ir Theory Notes

Updated Ir Theory Notes Notes

International Relations Notes

International Relations

Approximately 35 pages

These notes contain a complete summary of my module on International Relations. The notes cover the main topics of IR, and each set of notes consists of an in-depth analysis of how the topic relates back to core IR theory, multiple examples and case-studies and a summary of the key literature of the topic, as well as possible answers to essay questions. ...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our International Relations Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

IR Theory Notes

  • We should understand the different theories available as being like tools in a toolbox, we can use them when asking different questions

Realism:

  • Commonalities amongst all variants of realism:

    • International system is anarchic: no actors exists above states capable of regulating their interactions. International system exists in a state of constant antagonism

    • Primacy of the state such that the state is the primary actor and sovereignty is the primary trait. Billiard ball states

    • All states are unitary, rational actors – tend to pursue self interest

    • Concern for state survival: security above all else, power is the means to achieve this

      • States build up military to survive = possible security dilemma

      • Security dilemma (Herz 1951): actions by a state intended to heighten its security , such as increasing military strength, making alliances, can lead other states to respond with similar measures = tensions which create conflict even though no side actually desires it eg. WWI – major European powers felt forced to go to war by feelings of insecurity over alliances of their neighbours despite not actually wanting war

    • Self-help: states must fend for themselves

    • States uncertain about what others will do

    • All states potentially dangerous – possess some military capability

    • Based on the above, 3 main patterns of behaviour:

  1. States fear each other, no mechanism to punish an aggressor

  2. States seek to guarantee their survival = alliance are temporary marriages of convenience

  3. States aim to maximise their relative power

  • Types of realism:

    • Human/Classical realism (Morgenthau/Hobbes)

      • Based on human nature – behaviour of states governed by human drive for power and the will to dominate

      • Since conflict occurs due to human nature, order can be maintained by skilled statesman – absolute power corrupts absolutely

    • Structural/Neorealism (Waltz, Mearsheimer)

      • Emphasis on rationality rather than human nature. This was preferable because more scientific, also, human nature doesn’t change, so how do we explain war and peace

      • Neorealists argue structural constraints, noy strategy or egoism, will determine state behaviour in international relations

      • Based on micro theory of firms in market – states maximize security

      • States want survival, prompting considerations about relative power. Relative abilities to balance power shape international relations

        • Internal balancing: states grow their own capabilities

        • External balancing: states enter into alliances

      • Suggests bipolar system is more stable, because balancing can only be internal – no great power through which to form alliances so less chance for miscalculation. Maps the Cold War world well.

      • Failure to balance not a refute – nothing Waltz says implies states get it right all the time

      • Neorealists conclude war is an effect of the anarchic structure of the international system – long lasting peace not likely

    • Defensive realism (Waltz, Jervis (moderate realist), Fearon)

      • Anarchical nature of international system means states maintain moderate and reserved policies to attain security

      • Offensive realism assumes states seek to maximize power to achieve security through domination and hegemony – defensive realists say this is undermined by balance of power through = military capabilities become distributed such that no one state is strong enough to dominate all others

      • Rational to keep status quo, if one is too powerful others balance against it. Snyder argues “international anarchy punished aggressors – it does not reward them’

      • Defensive capabilities out-trump offensive ones eg. Trench warfare

      • Does not deny aggression – sometimes keeping status quo requires aggression

      • Criticism: states cannot assess offensive/defensive balance, so naturally assume worst case scenario. Hard to distinguish between what might be offensive and defensive

    • Offensive Realism (Mearsheimer)

      • Both neorealist branches argue states primarily concerned with maximising power, they disagree over amount of power required in the process:

        • Defensive = states seek to preserve the status quo

        • Offensive = states are power maximising revisionists, so even more pessimistic

      • States don’t just want security, they want to maximise their security

      • Ultimate goal = hegemony

      • Offensive realism may answer the question why there is so much conflict among states in the international system

      • Security often maximised through aggressive channels – 60% of aggressors win

      • Criticisms: Snyder = assuming all states are revisionists undoes one of the main tenets of the security dilemma, that states cannot be sure of other states intensions

    • Neoclassical Realism (Zakaria, Scweller)

      • 3rd wave of realism

      • primary motivation: neorealism only useful in explaining outcomes, had little to offer on state behaviour

      • they wanted to explain behaviour of specific states, not a general theory

      • foreign policy is the result of international structure, domestic influences, and the complex relations between the two

      • zakaria: elite perception matters – behaviour of US and Soviet Union in the cold war undoubtedly influenced by the leader’s interpretation of their capabilities

      • unit level factors matter – Truman needed to fight Korean war even though he didn’t want to to get congressional support so he could do what he wanted in Europe

      • is it still liberalism? Borrows heavily from liberal tradition

  • Relative gains dictated by power politics: state conducts foreign policy on the basis of calculated power gains

  • The anarchic system threatens security, all states must fend for themselves and power is essential to survival

  • Although war is very rare, its effects are constant – security, budgets, defense, deployment, diplomacy

  • Concept of ‘self-help’ is crucial: drive to improve own security through expanding military/weapons etc. but this creates insecurity for others = security dilemma

  • No possibility of progress, peace is a temporary lull

  • Realism is about material pursuits

  • Operates on power and security – realists identify these...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our International Relations Notes.