Realism International Security in the Modern World Masaryk University in Brno 1-2 July 2012 Věra Stojarová

Three phases of realism the beginnings between the WWI and WWII, the core in the 1950s. War, peace, development, freedom. 2nd half of 1970s Kenneth Walz published Theory of International Politics and opened the way for neorealists 3 rd phase 1980s. Neorealism – absorbed the international political economy

Realism Key concept POWER The POWER has many dimensions, the most important one is MATERIAL which is attached to the military power The main actors are STATES which are ENEMIES and fight for POWER. The most important thing is DIVISION of POWER There is no institution in the IR which shall regulate the state relations State existence in IR is the constant fight for SURVIVAL RIVALITY and ANARCHY excludes the COOPERATION and PEACE and means that the states have to assure their own security only by their own means.

„Bibles“ of realism E.H. Carr. The Twenty Year` s Crisis. (1939) Hans Morgenthau. Politics among nations. Both authors do not explicitly conceptualise security, mainly they deal with the issues of POWER

E.H. Carr Carr refuses the idea that the states would be able to live in the harmony of interest cause in IR do not exist constant common state interests. In politics rules the Darwinistic nature rule where the strongest one survives the weaker one that means the development of capable nation occurs at the expense of the weak and uncapable nation

E.H. Carr The state security is threatened by the interest of other stronger states The best situation is hegemony where the hegemonic state takes the responsibility for the sustainability of security. Human being is the citizen of one state and his security comes from the ownership of citizenship.

Edward Harlett Carr The membership in the society is voluntary, membership in the state (citizenship) is obligatory and one can not avoid that. Policy of maintaining status quo does not lead to the securing of the state security The change – strenghtening of power is the only chance how to secure security in a state

Morgenthau and individual Accent on the role of individual and his desire for power: 1.The endeavour to live and stay alive 2.The endeavour to reproduce 3.The endeavour to govern. The will for power is the characteristics of politics and war.

Morgenthau and the power of the state The state power comes from 8 sources: 1.Geographical position 2.Natural resources 3.Industrial capacity 4.Military readiness 5.Population 6.National character 7.National morality (decisivness and endurance of the nation) 8.The level of diplomatic capability

Morgenthau and the power of the state Internal and international policy has three types of interaction: 1.The effort to keep power 2.The effort to strenghten power 3.The effort to demonstrate power and to increase their own significance and reputation.

Morgenthau and the power of the state The biggest source of insecurity and threats is the effort of the states to increase their own power, the keeping of status quo and balance of power is the most secure situation. The security of individual depends on the security of state.

John Herz and security dilemma the increase in security of one group increases the weaking of security of other group.

Georg Sørensen There exist different types of the state (ideal are modern, postmodern and postcolonial states) Modern states face the classical security dilemma, that means they are afraid of the increase of power of other states Postmodern states face more economical and societal threats Post/colonial states face internal threats, the failure of their state structure, institutions and weakening of the social, cultural and political cohesion.

Seminar:Try to find pros and cons of NATO CONS A lack of confidence A philosophical approach European Union defense Blocking decisions and rapid reaction Imposing Western values PROS Small countries can not defend themselves No internal violent conflicts Safeguarding the transatlantic relationship Fighting terrorism More than a military alliance NATO successful

SEMINAR: NATO claims to secure THREE DIMENSIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY – do you think it has legitimacy to do that? Who should provide international security? Responsible for whom? Responsible for what? National Own citizensNational security International Other statesInternational peace Humanitaria n Humans everywhere Human rights