What do classical realists believe about human nature? (3)
- Humans are egoistic and desire power
- Our selfishness, appetite for power + inability to trust leads to predictable outcomes
- Individuals are organised by states, so state behaviour is impacted by these characteristics
What are the key tenets of Hans Morgenthau’s classical realism?
- Emphasises power over morality
- Every political action is directed towards keeping, increasing or demonstrating power
- Thus pursuing the national interest is amoral (not subject to calculations of morality)
How did Kenneth Waltz modernise realist theory?
Moved realism away from its unprovable assumptions about human nature
What does Waltz’s neorealism believe? (2)
- All states are constrained by existing in an anarchical international system
- Any course of action they pursue is based on their relative power when measured against other states
What was the impact of neorealism on IR? (4)
- Sparked new era in IR theory
- Used social scientific methods rather than political theory methods
- Waltz’s variables (international anarchy, how much power a state has) can be empirically measured
- Ideas like human nature cannot be measured in the same way
What is neorealism? (5)
- Dominant theory of IR for past 3 decades
- First conceptualised in Waltz’s Theory of International Relations (1979)
- Represents ideological shift away from classical realism
- Rather than attributing state’s quest for power to the greed + selfishness of human nature, neorealists view states as rational actors who are forced to compete with each other in an anarchical international system
- In self-help system, states feel inherently vulnerable
- So pursue FP goals that whilst maximising their own security, often cause them to come into conflict with other states
What do offensive neorealists, such as John Mearsheimer believe? (7)
- Security is scarce because resources are scarce
- Thus increasing security can only be achieved through accumulation of power
- Ultimate aspiration of every state to be global hegemon
- Only then is a state untouchable and truly safe
- Inevitability of conflict between states competing for scarce resources
- Accumulation of resources is critical to survive in international system
- Those who are most offensive will gain lion’s share
Why will states always prioritise their own national security above all else?
- In a world that is characteristically anarchical, states will always prioritise their own national security above all else
- Because if they cannot survive, they cannot hope to pursue any other goals
What divides neorealism?
- The optimum amount of power that is necessary for states to feel safe
- Between offensive and defensive neorealism
- Key division is based upon their assumptions of how much security exists in international system
What do defensive realists, such as Waltz, believe about competition for resources? (4)
- Take a more positive view
- Security is abundant and relatively obtainable for all
- So competition between states is not so fierce
- Thus the objective of every state is to maintain its position in the international system
Why do defensive neorealists believe aspirations of hegemony are foolhardy? (5)
- Too have too little power would be to attract conquest
- But the accumulation of too much power only serves to antagonise rival powers
- So they would have to form a balancing coalition in order to check a state’s rise
- Thus aspirations of hegemony are ‘foolhardy’
- Optimum security can only be achieved through appropriate amount of power
What is the main point of agreement between offensive and defensive realists?
That the international system forces great powers to compete among themselves for power
What do both offensive and defensive realists accept about the rice of China?
- Both accept that China is a fast-rising great power
- And thus will look for opportunities to shift the balance of power in its favour
- But they disagree on how much conflict this will cause
Why is China rising according to offensive realism? (3)
- Aggression is the only path to security
- China has already called victim to anarchy, in 20th century at hands of Imperial Japan
- Its aim as a rational actor is to vastly increase its preponderance of economic and military power in relation to its rivals
According to offensive realism, why are China’s neighbours scared?
- Talk is cheap and states will always struggle to discern each other’s intentions
- As China’s military capability grows, so too will its neighbours’ fears of a malevolent hegemonic contender
- Already states have begun forming informal alliances to check China’s rise
According to offensive neorealism, why is the US fearful of CHina’s rise? (5)
- Power gap is closing between China + US
- US is currently only regional hegemon in international system + wants to stay that way
- Revisionist tendencies of China, and resultant insecurities of US, have driven both states to engage in intense security competition
How are China’s neighbours behaving? (3)
- Many of China’s neighbours sought to strengthen ties with US
- Sparked fears of regional arms race
- Malaysia declared in October it needed to boost its naval capabilities to prepare for conflict in SCS
Why is China rising according to defensive neorealism? (4)
- China will look for opportunities to shift BoP in its favour
- Due to incentives created by anarchic system
- Both USA + China’s neighbours will have to balance against China to keep it in check
- So security competition will not disappear from Asia altogether
Why does defensive neorealism think China’s rise will be more peaceful? (2)
- It doesn’t make strategic sense to pursue hegemony
- Beijing will strive to preserve the status quo, so as not to provoke rival powers into forming a balancing coalition
Why do defensive neorealists believe that the presence of nuclear weapons is another cause for optimism? (2)
- Difficult for any great power to expand when confronted by other powers with nuclear weapons
- India, Russia + USA all have WMDs
Why have realists downplayed the role of institutions in international politics? (2)
- Argue institutions exist in “low politics” domains e.g. communication and health, rather than in “high politics” e.g. security
- Institutions are epiphenomenal: created by the powerful to serve their interests + are dissolved when power and interest shift
According to Mearsheimer, what are the main obstructions to international cooperation?
Relative gains considerations and cheating
According to Waltz, under global anarchy, what are states compelled to ask and why?
Not “will both of us gain?”, but “who will gain more?”
Because the intentions of states are unknown
Why do neorealists doubt the neoliberal link made between economic cooperation and stability? (3)
- As neoliberal theorists avoid military issues
- Absolute gains logic can only apply to the economic realm
- Whereas relative gains apply to the security realm
