Introduction to International Relations Week 2 Lecturer: Andris Banka

Realist tradition There is little doubt that the realist tradition has had an enormous influence on general field of International relations. As a theory Realism arose in the late 1930s and early 1940s largely in response to what was perceived as the naive thinking of liberal politicians and scholars. It was a response to the utopianism, or wishful thinking. Even its harshest critics would acknowledge that realist theories, with their focus on power, fear and anarchy, have provided centrally important explanations for conflict and war. E. H. Carr ‘The Twenty Years’ Crisis’ Hans J. Morgenthau ‘Politics Among Nations’ Kenneth Waltz (most cited author in modern IR) ‘Man, The State and War’

Classical Realism According to classical realism, because the desire for more power is rooted in the flawed nature of humanity, states are continuously engaged in a struggle to increase their capabilities. Wars are explained, for example, by particular aggressive statesmen. Selfish human appetites for power, or the need to accumulate the wherewithal to be secure in a self-help world, explain the seemingly endless succession of wars and conquest.

Classical Realism: Key assumptions The Hobbesian state of nature: Men are equal in the elemental sense that ‘the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest. According to classical realism, because the desire for more power is rooted in the flawed nature of humanity, states are continuously engaged in a struggle to increase their capabilities. This explains endless succession of wars and conquest. ‘Political man’ is an innately selfish creature with an insatiable urge to dominate others (Morgenthau).

Neo-realism (Structural) Realism States are ‘black boxes’. For Realists the main actors on the world stage are states, which are legally sovereign actors. Sovereignty means that there is no actor above the state that can compel it to act in specific ways. Other actors, such as multinational corporations or international organizations don’t matter. Neo-Realism sees power as the centerpiece of political life and sees states as primarily concerned with ensuring their own security in a world where there’s no world government to protect them from others. For political realists, the internal structure of the state is largely irrelevant because when the security of a state is threatened, all decision makers will behave in a similar manner. International Politics is the realm of survival rather than progress.

Outcomes according to Realist thinking International politics is characterized by a consistency; the same depressingly familiar things happen over and over again. When the security of a state is threatened, all decision makers will behave in a similar manner. Democrats, dictators, monarchs, and oligarchs will all seek to maximize a state’s ability to meet the external threat . In this view (Realism) there is relatively little scope for discussions of ethics and morality, states simply do what they have to do in order to survive. “A condition of (potential) war of everyone against everyone” . Balance of power - Alliances merely reflect moment - and topic-specific agreements between members in terms of preferred outcomes. Cooperation is short-lived and instrumental. There is no room for long-term convergence of national interests.

Criticism of Realist thinking Neo-realism cannot explain structural change. For example, the emergence of peace among democratic states. The ending of the Cold War is a major anomaly for the paradigm because it underlines the incompleteness of the picture of the world the paradigm paints and its distortion of ‘reality’. Some of these interventions occur in states of negligible geostrategic or economic importance to the interveners. US more concerned about Iran but not Canada. Why?

LIBERALISM ‘Inside out’ theory. We need to like inside the state. Liberals have a different view of world politics compared to that of Realists. The main themes that run through Liberal thought are that human beings are perfectible, that democracy is necessary for that perfectibility to develop, and that ideas matter. They see multinational corporations, transnational actors such as terrorist groups, and international organizations as central actors in some issue-areas of world politics. Belief in progress. Accordingly, Liberals reject the Realist notion that war is the natural condition of world politics. Focus on inter-conectidness. It has advocated political freedom, democracy and constitutionally guaranteed rights, and privileged the liberty of the individual and equality before the law. Market capitalism best promotes the welfare of all by most efficiently allocating scarce resources within society.

LIBERALISM The end of history The article was written in 1989, during a period of profound changes in the history. Key point - inevitable triumph of liberal capitalist democracy.

Change of historical direction: 2016. The return of history Change of historical direction: 2016. The return of history? Questioning of the pillars of liberal democracy. Democracy is a living thing. It can also slide back. No permanent alliances? Disintegration of EU/NATO Everyone on their own?