IR231 - INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS I - 4 REALISM & NEO-REALISM *Major Concepts of Realism and Classical Theorists of Realism 1.

Strong do what they can and weak suffer what they must. Thucydides. Here we understand that there is the primacy of power. States will try to be more powerful according to this statement. Also Machiavelli says it is better to be feared than loved. Nobody cares about love but if you are feared than one can achieve its goals. Hobbes; men have no pleasure but on the contrary a great deal of grief in keeping company where there is no power able to overall them all. What is important is that states should accumulate more power because there is no other power to overarchingly impose its authority. This is related to the existence of anarchy. Morgenthau, the father of the political realism in the post WW2, we assume that statesmen think and act in terms of interests defined as power. The major motto of realism is national interests defined by power. 2. All states act according to their national interests and these national interests are defined in terms of their power. It means that a powerful state has greater aims in world politics. 3. Morgenthau human nature has not changed since the classical philosophies of China, India and Greece. There is the emphasis that human nature is bad in classical realist understanding. Classical realism has grounded its basis on human nature. Later there is an evolution from nature of human beings to nature of international system. Human nature is bad, competitive, jealous, evil, so the state and this cannot change. Therefore change is very limited in international politics because change is very limited in human nature. 4. Main actors in international politics are states. States are functionally similar units. This means all states have similar characteristics and similar behavior patterns, they all pursue national interests, they are all rational actors and want to survive. 5. Realists until 1970s (neo-realism) were more or less concerned with the characteristics of human being. They, unlike liberals, underlined power seeking, selfish, antagonistic, competitive, egoist view of human and they made an analogy btw human nature and the state behavior. Why states act the way they do is because of human nature. 6. Just like individuals, states seek power and at the same time they are unitary actors. It means that realism does not care about what is happening within the state. There is a differentiation btw domestic realm and international realm. 7. International system is an aggregate of national states, a system composed of states. What makes the system to continue is a balance of power system. The system is anarchical which means that there is no higher power in the international politics that tells states to what to do and there is no state to come to states help when they are needed to be protected (self help system). The character of international system is anarchy but what keeps states away from a constant state of war is the balance of power system (ordering principle). The idea is that once in the system a power tries to be more powerful than others than other powers will come together in order to balance this emerging hegemon. Through balance of power, alliances formed in the system and states continue in the system as they are.
1

8. Realism rests on the assumption of continuity of the system rather than change. Realism assumes that international system is going to survive as it is because balance of power system will help the regeneration of the system. Realism assumes the rise and fall of the states within the existing anarchical system. What does not change is the system. According to realism the system goes as it is. All these struggle for more power takes place within an anarchy and anarchical international order does not change. There are changes within the international system which come through wars. Realism assumes wars are a nature of condition of the international system. Balance of power will provide the order in the system, when there is a power challenges to the system then there will be a systemic war. And through the systemic war, hegemon will be defeated and a new order, new great powers will emerge unit they will try to challenge to system. For realists wars are always common in international politics. Wars are to some extend natural and healthy. For some realists peaces are just a punctuation marks in history and some other argue that if you want peace make war because there will be a new order after war for a while. Theorists; Classical Theorists: Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, After WW2: Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz, Emergence of Realism as a Systematic Theory: It emerged as a systemic theory at post WW2 period. The debate which let the dominance of realism in post WW2 period is based on great debate-great paradigm in international politics and that is the debate btw idealists and realists. The great debate is at the core of emergence of the discipline of IR. The first study of international relations was formed by the end of World War in 1919. It was driven with the ideas of preventing wars, achieving peace, and driven with the idea of bringing a new kind of order. In inter war years there were attempts of league of nations, international organizations, mechanisms to bring peace. But there were also optimists who believed that this could work and pessimist who believed that one cannot change the system. Out of this debate realism emerged as the dominant theory of IR. Realists looking at the years 1919-1939 the twenty years ( called by E.H. Carr as twenty years crisis) , they argued that the idealist have failed to acknowledge the role of power in explaining the causes of war. For realists, the idealists by 1919 have ignored what power makes to states, that more power necessitates more wars. Idealist overestimated the degree that human beings are rational. They say that they believed in human beings wanting peace and human beings are able to change the balance of power existing system. Hegemon Hegemon
war

Realists criticized the idealists for believing the existence of a set of shared interests btw nation states and possibility of cooperation btw them.
2

Realism say that idealism as a theory which has emphasized the possibility of changing the existence system through collective security was simply nave. Writers like E.H Carr called this period as a period of utopianism that the idealists tried to create utopian. When the League of Nations failed and WW2 started, ideas of realists have confirmed. The idea which emerged by the end of WW2 was emphasizes the importance of power, competitive nature of politics among nations, and sealed in the minds of many scholars the victory of realism as the theory of international relations. The victory of realism has unchallenged for decades after WW2 rests on the failure of idealism. Realists criticisms of idealism is based on the assumption that believing in peace was nave. (normative nature of idealism) idealism have concerned about how politics should be, they have concerned about the prevention of wars, concerned about not how states behave but about how they should behave. So realists criticized idealists as being normative. They argue that theories have to concerned with what is. Rather than talking about the unity of power and morality, consent and coercion, force and appeasement what E.H Carr was trying to do was to separate these from each other and look at their interplay rather than their unity. Carr in his book is mainly questioning the universal morality of the League of Nations and idealism and he is questioning the harmony of interests. For him, states do not have harmony of interest, states interest challenge with each other because all states would want more power and one power accumulates more power, it will be detriment of other party because more power will dictate the greater national goals which might lead to expansionism. For Carr, there cannot be a universal morality. There are no universal moral norms. Morality can be only relative. The doctrine of the harmony of interests only justifies and maintains the countries dominant position. States will seek moral principles and norms will use morality as a context only when it would suit their interests. Timeless Wisdom: this context of timeless wisdom of truth that realists are claiming to adhere to is very important. Realism is often referred as a theory which is ahistorical and asocial. It is ahistorical because realists claim that they give a real picture of world politics for all times. They are reading history with scientific methods and revealing repetitive patterns of behavior therefore this theory can be applicable for any time. Timeless wisdom of realism claims that; All states independent where theyre located pursue national interests. Power drives politics The reason of war is because of power competition. Military power is the only available tool for survival in world politics. These are unchanging principles of politics for realists and therefore they are giving a true picture of world politics. They claim that just like observing a natural event in a laboratory we can also observe international relations as an objective subject. Therefore scientific truth does not change time to time and at any context. Evolution of the Realism: Although we are talking about timeless wisdom of realism, there is the evolution of the theory. Modern realism has emerged from 1939 to 1979 accepting the
3

classical realism as its basis. And after 1979 with Waltz we are talking about neo-realism. But all of them are grounded on the capacity of human reason to bring moral progress. In realism there are no questions related to morality. So all skeptics towards human capacity and human reason to bring morality and they are all looking at state behavior in an anarchical system where states try to survive and where there is no any room for any moral development or concern. CLASSICAL REALISM Classical realisms arguments make emphasis to two things; Raison dtat ( in Machiavellis writings) & Human Nature Classical realist looking at the idea of raison dtat in the actions of states, they argue that the reason of state is the main principle of world politics. This tells the statesmen what to do in the international arena. (What to do in order to preserve an increase and the strength of the state) It tells statesmen how to conduct affairs of their states and ensure the security. In order to pursue interest and ensure survival, states must pursue power. Only through more power states will be able to survive. Why they need more power is that classical realists basis their assumption on the danger of the international environment. The existence of anarchy, conflict, thread, lack of trust makes international realm danger. They say that a statesman duty to act and calculate rationally the steps to be taken in order to make sure the continuation of the life of the state in this hostile environment. The use of force resulting in wars is legitimate. Therefore, the statesmen have very tough duty. Raison dtat makes an analogy btw human nature and state behavior. Raison dtat is at the core of all realist thinking. Duality of morality and ethics There are no universal principles in international realm according to realist thinkers. Ethical conduct is not desired for international politics. Duality is the duality of ethics domestically and internationally. According to Machiavelli states have to be ethically correct at the domestic. This is what he calls as Christian ethics in domestic politics. The leader must be just, legitimate in the eyes of many, must protect its citizens. But in the international concept, there is no morality. Statesmen can lie, cheat if necessary to protect their interests while domestically they have to be trustable. So there is the duality btw inside and outside. There is also duality of the system; the distinction of domestic and international realms. Domestically there is hierarchy, internationally there is anarchy. This duality is also very important. Because there is anarchy in international system, everything we know in domestic politics cannot be applied to international politics, because domestically hierarch which means there is state authority, there is police, law, courts, rules. Internationally non of can be applied and because anarchy every state is alone. This brings the self help concept. Because there is anarchy, there is self help. States are all alone in an anarchical environment. States have to accumulate their own weapons, they have to make correct power calculations in order to survive in the anarchy. State is the main actor of international politics.
4

Statism, self-help and survival are common and they display the elements of continuity in the international system. And both classical and modern realism emphasize the importance of human nature. There is also rationality principle. It means that states in anarchical system where each state is competitive, where there is no principles except the principles of Westphalia- respecting borders, respecting sovereignty and keeping the balance of power-. In this context it is the duty of state to calculate the power games, to observe rationally the system, neighbors, the distribution of power and design a rational policy of survival. So this theory assumes that states are rational actors, they are able to calculate and find out rational solutions for their survival. This is important because rationality principle assumes that states do not wage wars because of crazy leaders, do not wage wars only because they want to. States must make a cost and benefit calculation and then act in the international system. Basic Values of Three Classical Realists: Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes Thucydides: He talks about the Greek city states. Greek city states were one early example of international society. Why we take it as the early example of the international society is because at the time, in a limited geographical scope we are talking about equal and horizontal relations between actors. In this system there was no one overarching authority in an hierarchical manner. He is underlying the inevitability of conflict and cooperation btw city states, inequality of power btw them. And this was inevitable. There was a reflection of egoist human feature on the behavior of the states that human nature explains why international politics is power politics he argued. He emphasizing the limited choices and restricted sphere of maneuver in conduct of foreign policy. So political faith had a factor in this context based on the consequences of decisions. A rational actor would calculate and make the best of the choices but the consequences will determine your political future, the faith and possibility of survival. So rationally made choices based on observation and power calculations determine the faith of the states. The lesson that we learned from the Melian dialogue is that the call for justice has no place in international politics. There is no room for justice, hope and for friendship in int. politics. Melian dialogue also brings the major controversies in IR; the relationship btw order & justice. Realism in this controversy btw the principles of maintaining order or bringing justice keeps and hangs on the principle of keeping the order as it is. It is the power politics, nobody wants to change it. Maintaining order in international system as it is, is what realists desire. for Thucydides and realists international relations is not about equal treatment of members of international society. But it is about knowing your power and capacity and adapting to the natural reality of unequal power. We are talking about anarchy. Although states are not equal in terms of power, they are having equal relations with each other meaning that they are all functionally similar and there is no higher authority above sovereign states. Machiavelli: He also gives importance to raison dtat. He argues that there are difficulties in putting forward universal principles of state conduct but change is a continuing process. He argues that rather than ahistorical realism, ahistorical issues and truths, we can talk about historical realties. What was the supreme value in this was to achieve national freedom in terms of seeking power, in terms of deception, lack of morality. So the idea is that statesmen have to be aware of dangers, and have to use opportunities skillfully. This made Machiavellian politics. This meant today referring to the idea of being aware of dangers and
5

use opportunities. Machiavelli wrote in his book Prince that statesman and state should not wait things to happen rather they should act before their rivals. By saying this, he was talking about duality of morality, separate Christian ethics from state politics in international relations. There cannot be Christian ethics in international politics otherwise statesman will compromise his interests in order to be just. Domestically there is normativism but internationally there is no morality and responsibilities to others. Hobbes: Hobbes and leviathan draws a pessimistic portray of human nature where there is a constant state of war, every man against every man in the state of nature. So anarchical system becomes an anarchical society in international politics as elementary rules of coexistence are formulated like principle of sovereignty and non-intervention. What is making the state of nature turn into anarchical international society is that through the discovery of principles of coexistence (Westphalian principles) we manage to escape in international system from a constant state of war. There is always a possibility for war in this system. There is no guaranteed peace. War is a necessity as a last resort, there can be some role of international law but it is very limited. The states solution will always result in a security dilemma. And security dilemma will constitute the core of realist thinking. Shortly classical realisms ideas; duality of morality raison dtat anarchy power politics survival and self help main actor in international politics is state as a unitary actor sharp distinction btw domestic and international system (hierarchy vs. anarchy) In international system, the character, structure is anarchy. According to neo-realists especially, the structure is important in state behavior. Neo-realists in post 1970s have seen the reasons of war are not in human nature as classical and modern realism argue, but in the structure of the system. All realists agree on the idea that states seek more power but they are not agree on the reason of the behavior of state. Neo realists bring the importance of structure. Why conflict is common in international system is the structure of anarchy because there is no sanctioning in the international system. Therefore because all states want more power, states main aim is to survive. It is power that ensures survival and this power u ntil late 1970s is defined as military power. Power is the ability to get what you want or ability to use of force. Power is the currency in the anarchy. States pursue power for the promotion of their national interests. States with more power have more chance to survive in the system. States ultimately depend on their own resources to promote their interests and to survive, which is called as self help system. States are all alone in the anarchical system. As Machiavelli says states dont have friends, states have temporary alliances against one threat. Alliances are contextual, today there might be an alliance system to balance the system, and tomorrow that enemy can change. The goal of states is to enlarge power capabilities, so there
6

is a constant military buildup. Balance of power is the ordering principle in the anarchy because when a small state is threatened it will join in forces with others temporarily against the enemy. Possible emerging power will be deterred and will not be able to overtake the anarchy. Realism became dominant when bipolarity was major principle. Warsaw pact and NATO is a good example of balance of power. The aim of balance of power is not maintain or bring a peaceful international system. The only aim is to keep a possible aggressor which might distort the anarchy. There is no belief in transforming to system for peace. Realism in generally assumes the primacy of military issues, high politics and hard power. Realists assumed that world politics is power politics was only about the issues of military, defense and high politics. High politics must be the major subject of IR discipline, according to realists. Realists did not see any relationship btw high and low politics until 1970s, they rather make a distinction btw them. MODERN REALISM: (Morgenthau) Morgenthau is known as the father of modern realism. He is known as the realist who has laid down the scientific formulations of realist international theory. His six principles are known to be the major text for realism and his six principles are important. NEO-REALISM: It emerged as a response to ontological events and developments. And also neo realism emerged as a respond to some theoretical questions in realism. Waltz in his book called International Politics argued the weakness in modern realism, realism until 1970s it put states at the core of the discussion, saw international system as aggregate of the states, togetherness of states. Waltz said that then what the difference btw state and the system if the system only brings states together. Waltz argued that you cannot look at the actions of the parts and reach conclusions about the some. What you have to do is to add another component into this system. And considered anarchy as a structure of the system and saw international system as a some of not only states but states and the structure which is anarchy. He said looking at the parts and behavior of the parts and reaching scientific conclusions from the parts is very reductionist. What he tries to do is to add structure as a component and try to see what anarchy is doing to states rather than states creating an anarchy. Looking at human behavior to understand state behavior is very reductionist for Waltz and unexplanatory. He said only if we consider that there is structure of the system then we can understand the state behavior. For Waltz, states behave they do because of the analogy btw human nature and state behavior is reductionist and not scientific enough. He tries to enlarge definition and he is looking at the system level to understand state behavior. Level of analysis questions is one of the most important underlining questions of international politics. Which level is important in understanding international politics is one of the most important analytic questions. Modern realists, look at the level of the state. They look at states and try to understand international politics. Neo realists look from the system level. They look at the anarchy and distribution of power and try to understand behavior of states in that given anarchical system. So Waltz didnt think that it is enough to equate nation states as the only actors to look at the underlining principles of international politics. He looks at the states as the only relevant actors yet where they are at the anarchy to understand state behavior. He thought that states are not act the way they do because of human nature but they behave the way they do because of the constrains of the anarchy. Emphasis is on structure. According to Waltz
7

structure of the system, anarchy, is the key factor in underlining state behavior. He minimizes the importance of national attributes, states as functionally similar units is emphasized. There is acceptance of traditional assumptions which are force is important and effective, balance of power is central mechanism, but why these are the main principles is because of the structure, not because of human nature and practices btw states. this is more about epistemological question, more about search for knowledge; where do we look? Should we look at the state level or system level? Because of anarchy states obsessed with power and states fell a necessity to cheat. In order to explain international system, Waltz says we must create a system level theory. Units of the system is functionally similar and international politics will be different from domestic politics. Anarchy will be the defining aspect of the system it will be anarchy which would lead to self help, uncertainty, drive for power. It will enable us go beyond the human nature to go to more analytically solid ground. The search of power has its limits. The question of the whether search for power for states is for security of it is for aggression is an ongoing question in int. politics. States according to realists in general will try to balance in order to survive rather than bandwagon with the emerging power. Generally balance of power works best in bipolar systems rather than multi-polar systems. This issue of balancing and bandwagoning are important terminology in alliance building in realism. Realism argues that when one power emerges and threatens anarchy, states are faced with two option in alliance building, either that state sees the rising power and bandwagon with it or from the balance of power view that state know that when a country is powerful they will have greater interests and you can never be friends so today you may trust and bandwagon and tomorrow you may be invaded and become a colony of that state. So they argue that states will balance through alliance building with like minded states to stop this power from emerging. Ne realism in this calculation of power in the anarchy pays a lot of attention to how alliances work and in that they still see the balance of power as a best way to make ensure the continuation of the system. Some state might bandwagon as an alliance behavior but the general trend is to balance against a possible aggressor. Neo realism has two main versions; offensive defensive Offensive realism argues that states get power to attack others. Defensive realism argues that not all states are offensive some states might be defensive. What neo realists do by asking these questions, by making this distinction btw offensive and defensive btw bandwagoning and balance of power is to focus on anarchy and the distribution of power in the anarchy as the major characteristic of state behavior. States act in that way because anarchy compels them to do so. Realists in 1980s and 1990s tried to adjust their theory by looking at world events and by trying to come up with answers to certain new events. Why states behave they do? Why do some states which are militarily strong do not attack their neighbors. They try to look at it because they were being criticized because in their theory the more power you have the more aggressive you must be. So they ask the question; why do state with immense military power dont go out and invade their neighbor? They came up with the idea of defensive realism. They said because in anarchy they are happy with the distribution of power, they dont want to disturb it, so they use this military just to defend themselves against aggressors rather than becoming an aggressor. So they tried to answer such question by looking at system level. Although all variations of realism are there
8

State Power Survival Self help are the unchanging and underlining principles of realism. With neo realism, state is still the main actor but there is the admission that there are other actors besides states in international system. Power is still important, but it is not only military power but it is also economic and soft power. Survival is still the game and it is a self help system. States can build alliances by bandwagoning or by balancing but these are all temporary alliances because self help is what states have in an anarchical system. Realists have a pessimistic understanding about cooperation. They do not think that states will cooperate for the sake of cooperation. They only think that states will cooperate if they have relative gain in this cooperation. By focusing on relative gain they assume that states will be interested in entering into cooperation with another state in case they think they will do better than others, not how well they do but only they will do better than other. This makes relevant gain. It is different than the liberal understanding of absolute gain. Liberals argue that states will enter into cooperation if they see that they will be better off with that cooperation. So liberals argue that state enter into cooperation easily, for realists cooperation is difficult to do and when even states cooperate it is harder to maintain. This pessimistic view of cooperation is reflected on realists idea about NGOs. Realists argue that NGOs do not function as separate units with their own agenda. For realists NGOs are just platform to repeat national interests. Realists say how states secure their interests is trough balance of power or through their military. They think that they cannot achieve anything by entering into organizations. International organizations are limited in importance. NGOs can even be manipulated by great powers. So states should be concerned with their security of survival and power (military power) will guarantee the states survival. International organizations are just talking clubs. There is state centering view, so international organization as compose of states might be considered important if they think they can create new platforms to push for their national interests.

Jeton Dukagjini

J.D