Embedded Files
The Politics Shed- A Free Text Book for all students of Politics.
From the 1970s onwards, new thinking within the realist tradition started to emerge, which was critical of ‘early’ or ‘traditional’ realism. The key text in this process was Kenneth Waltz’s The Theory of International Politics (1979). For Waltz, theories about international politics could be developed on ‘three levels of analysis – the human individual, the state and the international system’. In this light, the defect of classical realism was that it could not explain behaviour at a level above the state, which is a limitation of any endogenous, or ‘inside-out’, theory (one which explains behaviour in terms of ‘the inside’, the intentions or inclinations of key actors)
Using systems theory, neorealism, or, more specifically, ‘structural realism’ explains the behaviour of states in terms of the structure of the international system. As such, neorealism is an exogenous, or ‘outside-in’, theory (one in which the behaviour of actors is explained in terms of ‘the outside’, the context or structure in which they operate) of global politics. In shifting attention from the state to the international system, it places an emphasis on the implications of anarchy. The characteristics of international life stem from the fact that states (and other international actors) operate within a domain which has no formal central authority.
But how does this shape behaviour? And why, according to neorealists, does international anarchy tend towards conflict rather than cooperation?
Neorealists argue that international anarchy necessarily tends towards tension, conflict and the unavoidable possibility of war for three main reasons. In the first place, as states are separate, autonomous and formally equal political units, they must ultimately rely on their own resources to realise their interests. International anarchy, therefore, results in a system of ‘self-help’, because states cannot count on anyone else to ‘take care of them’.
Has America given up on global dominance?
Second, relationships between and amongst states are always characterised by uncertainty and suspicion. This is best explained through the security dilemma (Booth and Wheeler 2008). Although self-help forces states to ensure security and survival by building up sufficient military capacity to deter other states from attacking them, such actions are always liable to be interpreted as hostile or aggressive. Uncertainty about motives, therefore, forces states to treat all other states as enemies, meaning that permanent insecurity is the inescapable consequence of living in conditions of anarchy.
Third, conflict is also encouraged by the fact that states are primarily concerned about maintaining or improving their position relative to other states; that is, with making relative gains. Apart from anything else, this discourages cooperation and reduces the effectiveness of international organisations, because, although all states may benefit from a particular action or policy, each state is actually more worried about whether other states benefit more that it does. Although such neorealist thinking had a profound impact both within and beyond the realist tradition, since the 1990s realist theories have often attempted to fuse systems analysis with a unit-level approach, giving rise to what has been called ‘neoclassical realism’ or ‘post-neorealism’ (Wohlforth 1993; Zakaria 1998).
Anarchical society: implications
Realism
Link: Thomas Hobbes 1588-1679
Anarchy is a state of "war of all against all" (Hobbes), where the lack of a central authority leads to perpetual insecurity and a "self-help" system. States must rely on their own capabilities for survival, creating a zero-sum game where one state's gain is another's loss.
Realists recognise the anarchical nature of society and that anarchy means that states will act as they decide (billiard ball model) The billiard ball model in international relations depicts nation-states as hard, independent, and indivisible units (the "billiard balls") operating within an anarchic international system, similar to a billiard table where balls collide and interact without a higher authority. This realist metaphor emphasizes that states prioritize self-interest and power in a continuous struggle for survival, acting as single, unified actors whose internal politics are largely ignored in favor of external, system-level interactions and collisions.
Consequences
The "security dilemma" is a core consequence, where a state's efforts to increase its own security lead to insecurity for others, potentially sparking an arms race. Conflict is viewed as inevitable and rooted in the selfish, power-hungry nature of human beings.
State motivation
States are primarily driven by their national interest, which is defined in terms of power and survival. This leads to competition for power and security, with states focused on relative gains.
Realists would accept that states do not accept any higher authority and that tension, disagreement and war is a consequence.
Liberaliam
Link:John Locke 1632-1704
Anarchy is a setting where cooperation is possible and can be achieved through reason and the pursuit of common goals. It is not an iron cage of conflict but a challenge to be overcome through collective action. the liberal view is that the global system has a character of complex interdependence (cobweb model) and cooperation. In International Relations (IR), the cobweb model describes a system of interconnected non-state actors and networks, contrasting with the billiard ball model's state-centric focus. This model emphasizes numerous interactions between governments, international organizations (IGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and individuals, moving away from the traditional view of impenetrable state borders and highlighting the complex, interdependent nature of global society.
The negative effects of anarchy can be mitigated by promoting democratic values, fostering economic interdependence, and strengthening international institutions. These factors help states overcome the security dilemma and see opportunities for absolute gains. The Kantian Triangle is a concept in international relations that posits peace is best achieved when states simultaneously foster democratic institutions, engage in deep economic interdependence, and actively participate in international organizations. Named after the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, this "peace theory" argues that these three components reinforce each other, creating a stable environment where cooperation and the rule of law are more likely to prevail than conflict.
Liberals accept the idea of a society of states built on norms, rules and values which may include the development of democracy (‘democratic peace thesis’-Fukuyama), international organisations and economic interdependence (Kantian Triangle)
The democratic peace theory proposes that democratic countries rarely, if ever, go to war with one another, though they may engage in war with non-democratic states. This theory is rooted in ideas about immanent social norms and structures within democracies that foster peace, such as public consent for war and the promotion of compromise and peaceful negotiation. Proponents believe that a world populated by democracies would lead to a more stable and peaceful international system.
States are not driven solely by self-interest but also by values and principles that can foster cooperation. They recognize the long-term benefits of collaboration and see security as a collective, not just competitive, concern.
Liberals believe that power is unlimited and that all states can benefit through cooperation with international institutions, mitigating basic state self-interest
Socialism: Greater optimism on human nature linked to the natural relationship among humans being cooperation and work for the common good – Marx - which makes the idea of a global society order and cooperation likely.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse