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
•3rd 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
PROS
Small countries can not defend
themselves
A philosophical approach
No internal violent conflicts
European Union defense
Safeguarding the
transatlantic relationship
Blocking decisions and rapid
reaction
Imposing Western values
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 Responsible
whom?
for what?
National
Own citizens
International Other states
Humanitaria Humans
everywhere
n
National security
International
peace
Human rights