Politics Notes International Relations Notes
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:
States fear each other, no mechanism to punish an aggressor
States seek to guarantee their survival = alliance are temporary marriages of convenience
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.
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. ...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started