Theories Of International Relations 2 Dersi 2. Ünite Sorularla Öğrenelim

How long has realism been the dominant theory of International relations?

Realism has been the dominant theory of International Relations discipline since the end of the Second World War even though, for some analysts, “the vast majority of IR theorists are not realists” because of “its pessimistic conviction that there are severe limitations on human reason and its ability to achieve the progressive, liberal goals that most of us take for granted as moral truths” (Folkner, 2013:15). However, especially in the United States, for more than a half-century – since the publication of Politics Among Nations of Hans Morgenthau in 1948- realist paradigm remains at the heart of the study of world politics (Grieco, 2015: 163).

What are the six principles of realism that could help us comprehend profoundly the realist vision of international phenomenon (Morgenthau, 1997)?

Morgenthau (1997) states six principles of realism that could help us comprehend profoundly the realist vision of international phenomenon. These six principles are: 1. Politics is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature. 2. Statesmen conduct themselves in terms of interest defined as power. 3. Interest determines political conduct within the political and cultural context which foreign policy is formulated.4. Prudence is the supreme virtue in international politics. There can be no political morality without prudence. 5. Nations are entities that pursue their interests as defined by power and should not be judged by universal moral principles. 6. Political realism rejects the legalistic-moralistic approach to international politics.

According to the first classical realists, what is the role of human nature?

As seen in these principles, first classical realists, without denying the importance of anarchy, underlines the role of human nature. To describe this nature, Thomas Hobbes uses these words: “… in the first place, I put for a general inclination of all mankind a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death” (Hobbes, 2016). Put simply, man is naturally egoist and in a world of limited resources, he is guided by an endless will to gain power and it is this will that shapes his relations with others. As an animus dominandi, he constantly seeks to make others the subject of his domination. In realist perspective, this egoism and powerseeker (domination-seeker) character of human-being is also found as a constitutive element in every association and organization created by man. So, if international politics is all about power, it is the inevitable result of the reflection of human characteristic on international actors.

What is “balance of power"?

Realists do not deny existence and necessity of a regulating mechanism at the center of an anarchical environment full of powerseeker, rational and amoral actors. This mechanism, called as “balance of power”, creates a kind of order and constitutes, as mentioned above, the distinction between anarchy and chaos. According to Morgenthau, “the aspiration for power on the part of several nations, each trying either to maintain or overthrow the status quo, leads of necessity to a configuration that is called the balance of power and to policies that aim at preserving it” (Morgenthau, 2006: 281). The idea of balance is a longstanding part of international politics and as a practice, it can be seen in ancient Greece. Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, without naming the concept, draws a picture of a bipolar system revolving around Athens and Sparta (Thucydides, 2012: 59).

According to realists, what is the role of "balancing the power" in international relations?

For realists, “within this anarchical environment [international system] various distributions of capabilities or power among states emerge in dynamic, competitive relations among states. Indeed, anarchy plus the distribution of capabilities among states define for many realists the international system at any one time, described by them typically as unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar. Balances of power and alliances among states are the means realists conceive for sustaining international order” (Viotti and Kauppi, 2012: 59). Therefore, in the international system, the power of some states is intended to be balanced by the power of others and this is what generates the balance of power. Depending on the number of poles (power centers) in the system it might take the shape of a struggle between two alliances, two states or, a group of states against one hegemon.

In this regard, classical realists, unlike their structural counterparts, build their analysis on the idea that balance of power, in international politics, is a construction or creation by statesmen. Desire for power of every state that tries either to reverse or maintain status quo leads inevitably to a balance of power. This balance that does not appear automatically, serves ultimately to a temporary stability and peace at international level. In that sense, vast majority of classical realists adopt, regarding to the concept of balance of power, a voluntarist approach. However, one must remember that this balance can be very effective to avoid war as well as to provoke one. In other words, as generally accepted by classical realists, military power and alliances are double-edged swords; they are as likely to provoke as to prevent conflict. Thus, “at the international level, the balance of power has contradictory implications for peace. It might deter war if status quo powers outgun imperialist challengers and successfully demonstrate their resolve to go to war in defence of the status quo. Balancing can also intensify tensions and make war more likely because of the impossibility of accurately assessing the motives, capability and resolve of other states” (Lebow, 2010: 64). However, even if balance of power fails to prevent conflict between international actors, it plays a considerable role to limit its scope and means employed for desired victory. In this regard, the most important and primary responsibility of a statesman who is in charge of state behavior in international environment is to ensure and/ or maintain a balance of military power among actors that are considered to be the great powers to prevent any one of them to shape the system solely in its own favor and to impose its political and military will on the others. “Thus, in classical realist thinking, the balance of power is a valued political objective that promotes national security, upholds order among great powers, and makes independence of states and their people possible” (Jackson and Sorensen, 2013: 85).

What is "Waltzian structural realism"?

In this vein, considered as the precursor of neorealism, Kenneth Waltz, in his seminal work, Theory of International Politics (1979), tries to develop a scientific approach to understand and explain the international political system. Waltzian structural realism is, as expectedly, not a total refusal of classical realist insights. Rather, certain elements such as the existence of independent sovereign states operating in an international system characterized by anarchy constitutes a point of departure of neorealist arguments as well. What separates essentially neorealism from the classical tradition is that it gives no account of human nature and that it disregards the statecraft ethics. In that sense, Waltz’s theory focuses, first and foremost on the structure of the international system, on international actors in constant interaction, and on the continuities and transformations of the system. Unlike classical realism that puts the emphasis on leaders and their decisions and actions at international level; neorealism’s center of attention is the systemic structure that is completely external to the actors, particularly, relative distribution of power and capabilities.

What is the difference of the units of analysis between neorealism and classical realism?

As it is seen, questions regarding the units of analysis are of the main lines that distinguish neorealism from classical realism. Refusing the theories, he called, “reductionist” that explain international politics at first level of analysis by human nature and the characteristics of decision-makers or at second level of analysis by the traits of states depending on their geographic location or domestic political regimes; Waltz, intends to put forward an explication of international politics at third level of analysis, precisely, the international system. In his view, individual decision-makers are not important because systemic structures constrain them and tell them what to do. Besides, states’ traits are not relevant as they are shaped by the particularities of domestic field characterized hierarchically not anarchically as do the international environment that lacks an entity having legitimate physical violence monopoly. Hence, what determines state actions at international level are the systemic structures and, in this regard, Waltz’s theory of international relations is, definitively, a determinist theory.

How is "balance of power" different in structural realist paradigm and classical realist framework?

The concept of balance of power constitutes an important aspect of structural realist paradigm as it does in classical realist framework. However, meaning of this concept in these two approaches, not surprisingly, is not the same. While classical realists emphasize the primacy of absolute gain to take a better position at international scene; their neorealist counterparts, in this regard, highlight relative gain concept as the most critical preoccupation of state that is in search of security in anarchical system. In order to develop a comprehensive understanding of this relative/ absolute gain distinction, it is definitely needed to examine these two paradigms’ thinking related to the issue of polarity of international system.

According to Waltz, what are “four factors that encourage the limitation of violence in interstate relations”?

There are, in this respect, “four factors that encourage the limitation of violence in interstate relations”, thus, the stability, within a bipolar world. First of all, as a natural result of an international system with only two major powers, there are no peripheries. Secondly, the scope of factors those included in the competition is extended as the intensity of competition increases and “increased intensity is expressed in a reluctance to accept small territorial losses.” As a third characteristic of bipolar world, one must point out “the nearly constant presence of pressure and the recurrence of crisis.” Although it may sound, at first glance, a bit odd that this condition of permanent tension is considered to be a factor that encourages peace and stability, this assumption emphasizes the fact that “to fight small wars in the present may be the means of avoiding large wars later.” These three factors as the stabilizing particularities of a bipolar world, combined with a fourth element which is the preponderant power of major actors that help to achieve, in one way or another, comprehension and absorption of revolutionary political, military, and economic changes within the bipolar balance, are to be seen as sources of peace and stability. These are also the characteristics of the AmericanSoviet relations in the post-WWII era and in that perspective, they are considered to be generally effective to maintain the relative stability of this period and relevance of each factor is proved by various crisis examples of different degree such as Korea, Formosa Strait, Cuba, Berlin, Indo-China, etc. (Waltz, 2006b: 99-102).

What is "offensive realism"?

The image of state portrayed by Mearsheimer is greedier and more aggressive than how Waltz pictures it. He claims that states seek hegemony; they all want to become, ultimately, regional hegemons. His theory, as it is called, offensive realism is built upon the assumption that “[G]reat powers… are always searching for opportunities to gain power over their rivals, with hegemony as their final goal” (Mearsheimer, 2001: 29).

What is the difference between defensive realists and offensive realists?

For defensive realists, international structure incites states to maintain the existing balance of power, the present status quo. So, in this regard, main goal of international actors is to preserve their relative power not to increase it. However, in offensive realist perspective, common belief is that it is extremely rare to find states that are content with the existing status quo. That is because the international structure compels them to maximize their relative power as it is the only way to maximize their security. In that sense, their aggressive actions should be considered as an implication of their natural desire to survive.

On what points does classical realism differ from structural realism?

classical and structural realism are founded on same basic principles and differ from each other at certain points such as unit of analysis to be employed, conception of balance of power, or their view related to polarity of international system. 

According to Gideon Rose, what is neoclassical realism?

Gideon Rose (1998) says, “it [neoclassical realism] explicitly incorporates both external and internal variables, updating and systematizing certain insights drawn from classical realist thought.”

What is the most common critic toward neoclassical realism?

The most common critic toward neoclassical realism, especially coming from adherents of other strands of realism, is concerned with determination of intervening variables to take into account to develop an analysis. As argued by Stephen Walt, “neoclassical realism tends to incorporate domestic variables in an ad hoc manner, and its proponents have yet to identify when these variables will exert greater or lesser influence” (Walt, 2002: 201).

Why do many scholars consider realism as a suitable framework to analyze international politics?

The reason why many scholars consider realism as a suitable framework to analyze international politics is that it focuses on fundamental questions in this field such as what is the reason of conflict and peace between nations and what are the necessary conditions of cooperation and peace at international scene? Thus, by seeking answers to basic questions, the realist theory offers an opportunity to build comprehensible and multi-dimensional understanding of international relations.

Who are the thinkers of realism?

Furthermore, realist thinking represents a long historical tradition that extends from Thucydides and Machiavelli to Hobbes, Rousseau and Clausewitz and that refers to Realpolitik vision of (post)-Westphalian epoch. In modern sense, however, it is influenced the most by two authors, namely, Edward H. Carr and Reinhold Niebuhr (Battistella, 2012: 129-131). Until today, there are, of course, many other names such as George Kennan, Hans Morgenthau, Nicholas Spykman, Henry Kissinger etc. who contributed to the development of the theory in its classical shape. Moreover, since 1980s, the realist paradigm has witnessed, a fragmentation for some, a sophistication or adaptation for others. Starting with neo-realism (structural realism) of Kenneth Waltz, followed by offensive/defensive realism of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt and neoclassical realism of Gideon Rose, realists keep to exert relatively accurate and profound insights regarding the international politics and state behavior in the post-Cold War World.

Who is the most well-known thinker of offensive/defensive realism?

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

Who is the most well-known thinker of neoclassical realism?

Gideon Rose

Who is the most well*known thinker of neo-realism (structural realism)?

Kenneth Waltz

What are the four main realist theory of international relations' assumptions upon which further various hypotheses are built to analyze certain events and/or phenomena?

realist theory of international relations has four main assumptions upon which further various hypotheses are built to analyze certain events and/or phenomena. First of all, states are the central and most important actors of world politics. Thus, states, whatever form they have, are seen as main units of analysis to study international relations that are shaped in an anarchical world of which the most distinctive feature is lack of a central government. State, as it has been claimed, is considered to be central institution for understanding politics and naturally, international relations. At this point, it must be made clear that anarchy is not to be confused with chaos; quite the contrary. Anarchy may be consistent with order, stability, and regulated forms of interaction between independent units” (Holsti, 1995: 5). In that sense, anarchy means that for the actors, in the absence of a superior authority capable of organizing the relations between sovereign units, relying upon themselves for their goals, security and survival is the only option. Another insight derived from this first assumption is that non-state actors have lesser importance, if not any, for the study of world politics. International organizations have no capacity to do more than its member states want to do and they have very little influence on state behavior (Mearsheimer, 1994). Other nonstate actors such as terrorist groups, multinational corporations etc. play a secondary role at best, in realist perspective. So, the “system” referred frequently by realists is consisted of sovereign states and network of their complex interactions. Secondly, from the realist point of view, state is seen as a unitary actor. “For purposes of theory building and analysis, realists view the state as being encapsulated by a metaphorical hard shell or opaque, black box.” (Viotti and Kauppi, 2012: 39). In this logic, when it comes to international issues, a country speaks with one voice and faces the hostilities of international arena as an integrated unit. The government resolves domestic political differences and the state as a unitary actor, has one policy for every issue it has to deal with. So, as unitary actors, states are seen, in this framework, as monoliths that try constantly to maximize their power. Third realist assumption is based on the belief that, incarnated in the leader, states are, in essence, rational (purposive) actors. Hence, they seek to maximize at the international scene, their interests defined in terms of power. As stated by Hans Morgenthau (1997), “international politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power. Whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is always the immediate aim” (31). This powercentered vision is shared by Edward Carr who stated in his Twenty Years’ Crisis that “[P]olitics are, then, in one sense always power politics” (Carr, 1981: 103). Thus, through a rational decision-making process, states choose, from a set of alternatives that serves to primarily stated objectives in optimum way. “Rationality and statecentrism is often defined as main realist premises” (Donnely, 2013: 54) and they play a critical role, along with the acceptance of state as a unitary actor, to facilitate to apply rational choice models to important phenomena such as balance of power, deterrence, the use of force etc. Fourth and the last main realist assumption puts emphasis on hierarchy of issues according to which the ones related to national and international security are located at the top. “Military and related political issues dominate world politics.” (Viotti and Kauppi, 2012: 40). In that logic, military, strategic issues that concerns security of state are often referred to as “high politics” whereas socio-economic topics remains in the field of “low politics”. In that context, the hierarchy mentioned here schematize the realist vision of political issues regarding their importance and primacy over one another.