Three perspectives on international politics IR theories: Realism.

Three perspectives on international politics

IR theories: Realism

Ali G at the UN: here. Events of the day/week

Digital Camera: gallery (spelling correct?) Gaza, elections in Serbia, Kenya, etc. Issues from last week: Israel, European integration

BBC documentaries Levels of Analysis Prisoners’ Dilemma Theories of IR

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 Hans Peter Schmitz

Levels of AnalysisLevels of Analysis

InternationalInternational

Domestic/NationalDomestic/National

IndividualIndividual

Third Image: Qualities of the

international system

Third Image: Qualities of the

international system

Second Image: Qualities of the domestic political system

Second Image: Qualities of the domestic political system

First Image: Qualities of state

leadership

First Image: Qualities of state

leadership

Who, what, why, and how?

Realism Institutionalism Constructivism

What is the organizing principle?

Anarchy Interdependence Norms/ideas

Who are the main actors?

States States States/IGOs/NGOs

What are their main goals?

Survival/power(protect domestic population)

Economic gain and cooperation (maximize domestic well-being)

Solving global problems (maximize everyone’s well-being)

What are the core capabilities?

Military Technologic and economic

Knowledge


Main internationalist views (third image)

Neo-realism Institutionalism Sociological institutionalism (constructivism)

Organizing principle of the international system

Anarchy

(zero-sum game: one wins what the other looses; competition for survival)

Interdependence

(all can win from cooperation, some economic competition)

Institutions, Rules and Norms

(all can win from cooperation, no competition)

Peace results from

Balance of Power and Deterrence

International cooperation among states

NGO activism; bottom-up mobilization

Intellectual history

Machiavelli, Hobbes

Smith, Ricardo, Hume, Kant

Kant

Understanding the Prisoners’ Dilemma

International politics: a unique sphere of social interactions among states: absence of higher authority Main actors (states) are functionally similar

Realism: Anarchy drives states to arm themselves and face a perpetual PD. Security Dilemma explained, Nau, p. 23


How to overcome the PD

Two suggestions: Liberalism: Accept the basic assumption of

PD/realism and show how states can use international institutions to overcome it.

Constructivism/Idealism/Identity: Dispute the underlying assumptions of PD and realism.


A realist perspective: Security dilemma

Anarchy > Insecurity > Self-defense > Deterrence > Conflict > more anarchy

Define anarchy: “a state of lawlessness and disorder”, Nau, p. 20


Anarchy and Power

What matters

1. The system and its principles (anarchy)

2. The units and their capabilities


1. Principles of the system

Domestic Hierarchy Centralized decision-

making Monopoly of

violence/enforcement Division of labor,

dissimilar units

International Anarchy No rules or enforcers Means of violence

dispersed Similar units competing for

the same goods Best case: balance of

power Worst case: War


The Security Dilemma

Anarchy is the ordering principle of international politics. Anarchy creates insecurity among units (states). Under anarchy, states strive for security defined as

independence and functional integrity. States can either increase their security by maximizing

autonomy or influence. Dilemma: Each state’s natural efforts to increase security

translates into a security threat to others.


Anarchy and Power: Neorealism Anarchy and Power: Neorealism

Conflict

AnarchyStates

Power

Strife for power



The International System

Focus on security (survival)

Insecurity

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Hans Peter Schmitz

Security strategies/realism

Internal balancing: Defensive military build-up

External balancing: Forging short term military alliances


Balance of power

Unipolar system: post-Cold War

Bipolar system: Cold War

Multipolar system: prior to WWI and WWII

From a realist perspective, which system is more likely to produce peace?, Nau, p. 24-25


The core assumptions

What realists and liberals share:

States are the main players. States are rational and unitary actors. States seek security and material gains. Anarchy is the main obstacle to

cooperation.


Weaknesses of realism

Neorealism can’t account for cooperation among states.

Military power can’t solve many of today’s problems (climate change, refugee flows).

European integration makes no sense.

Non-state actors become more and more visible in global affairs.


Solving the Prisoners’ Dilemma: Liberalism

Cooperation under anarchy (Nau, p. 17):

Communication Common problems/goals Technological change

Strategies: ‘tit-for-tat’ and reciprocity/creation of international institutions


A liberal perspective: interdependence

Shared problems > interdependence > cooperation > institutions > peace and security

Define interdependence: “a reciprocal relationship between independent entities”


Security strategies/liberalism

Create international institutions Build trust among states

Use trade to spread democracy and wealth Trade creates more interdependence and makes war

less likely


Role of institutions

International institutions are instrumental in facilitating cooperation by:

Lowering transaction costs and providing an arena for cooperation.

Providing information and transparency. distributing the costs of cooperation evenly. monitoring compliance with agreements. providing impartial adjudication.


Role of trade: comparative advantage

If country A is relatively better at making wine, then it makes sense to put more resources into wine production, and to export some of the wine to pay for imports. Country A does not have to be the best in producing wine (absolute advantage), but only relatively better than others in order to gain from trade.

The gains follow from specializing in those goods which, at world prices, the country is relatively stronger at producing.


Contesting the Prisoners’ Dilemma: Identity

Neither anarchy nor interdependence…..

Identity Beliefs Norms

Strategies: socialization and persuasion


Constructed reality

Anarchy is neither destiny (realism), nor a disincentive to cooperation (institutionalism).

“Anarchy is what states make of it.”

Alexander Wendt


Doing what is “right”

States are neither in a perpetual state of war (realism), nor do they only cooperate for their own profit (liberalism).

Most states follow most international rules most of the time (Theodor Meron).

Norms work without enforcement (realism) and sometimes even without economic incentives and self-interest (liberal institutionalism).


A constructivist perspective: norms and identity

Shared norms> socialization through IGOs and NGOs > common identity > interests > global policies (world government)

Define norms: “collectively shared understandings of appropriate behavior”


Definitions

Norms: Collectively shared understandings of appropriate behavior.

Institutions: Sets of rules which stipulate how to cooperate/compete.

Organizations: Institutions endowed with autonomy and actor qualities. Wednesday, January 23, 2008 Hans Peter Schmitz

Why norms matter

Realism Fear of penalty/coercion by someone else; passive

resistance likely (obedience) Liberal instiutionalism

In my best interest, compliance is a means; (autonomous compliance)

Idealism/Constructivism Internalized, compliance is an end in itself; (habit-

driven conformity)


IR theories and institutions

Realism Instruments of powerful states

Liberalism Arenas for inter-state cooperation

Idealism/Constructivism Actors independent of states


Three perspectives on international politics IR theories: Realism.

Documents

Transcript of Three perspectives on international politics IR theories: Realism.