Realism: Major Actors and
Assumptions


Based on four key assumptions :
1.States are the principal actors and most important actors. States
are the key unit of analysis. The study of IR is the study of relations
among these units.
Why? Because only the state, given its claim to sovereignty, possesses
the monopoly of legitimate force to resolve conflicts between
individuals and groups within its territory and also between itself and
other states and international actors.
Non-state actors like international organizations (UN), Multi-National
Corporations, and transnational actors are acknowledged by realists,
but they are of secondary importance. States are the dominant
actors.
Kenneth Waltz and Robert Gilpin argue that states are the ‘basic
actors in the international system’ by arguing that ‘the behavior of
other actors is conditioned and delimited by state decisions
and state power.
Second Assumption of Realism



State is viewed as a unitary actor. For realists a country faces
the outside world as an integrated unit. A common
assumption among realists is that political differences within the
state are ultimately resolved, namely the government speaks
with one voice for the state as a whole.
On any particular issue, realists assume that state as a unitary
actor has one policy. Of course there may be exceptions, but
realists support the argument that state is an integrated
actor. For instance, when a foreign ministry expresses policies
different from ministry of defense, action is taken to bring
these alternative positions to a common position.
If the issue is not so much important, alternative views can
remain, but if it is important, higher authorities will
intervene to prevent alternative views.
Second Assumption of Realism


States have sufficient autonomy from their
national societies to recognize and
pursue the interests of the nation as a
whole, not just those of particular powerful
groups and they may devise goals and
strategies that run counter to the preferences
of important parts of society.
Decision-makers respond on behalf of the
nation state to the opportunities and dangers
engendered by the international system.
Third Assumption of Realism


State is a rational actor. States are goal
oriented and their goals are consistent. Also,
states are assumed to derive strategies to achieve
their goals and they are cost sensitive. States
make cost-benefit analysis of every alternative,
they evaluate alternatives and select the ones that
maximizes their benefits. Thus, states can change
their strategies in the face of changes in external
constraints and opportunities.
Realists are aware of the limit of this claim:
Practically, governmental decision- makers may not
have all the information and knowledge they will
need for achieving their objectives.
State as a Rational Actor

As states are rational and define
their interest in terms of their
power, realists assume that all states
behave in a standard manner. Based on
the rationality assumption,
international sistem is composed
of states that have the same
patterns of behavior.
Fourth Assumption of Realism



the context of action: the anarchy
States coexist in a context of international anarchy
which refers to the absence of a centralized
authority to protect states from one another, each
state has to survive on its own. Thus, states are
by definition self-help agents.
They assume that within the hierarchy of
international relations issues, national security tops
the list. For them, military and related political issues
dominate world politics.
Balance of power mentality


For realists, the tendency of states to
balance against challengers through the
formation of defensive alliances is a
strong behavioral expectation about the
effects of anarchy on states.
All states, according to realists, are
then obliged to pursue a balance of
power strategy
The History of the European
States Illustrates the Balance of
Power



18th Century: Principal states were Britain,
France, Austria, Prussia, and Russia which
often changed sides to preserve the balance
Napoleonic France (1789-1815) attempted to
destroy the European balance and establish
French hegemony only to be defeated by a
European coalition
The Concert of Europe (1815-1914)
maintained peace through flexible and
overlapping alliances to ensure a balance of
power as a deterrent to war
The Focus on Power



They focus on actual or potential conflict between state
actors, and the use of force. They examine how international
stability is attained or maintained, how it breaks down, the
utility of force as a means to resolve conflicts. Thus, power is a
key concept.
The principal aim of states is to gain power
They call military, security or strategic issues as ‘high politics’,
whereas economic and social issues are viewed as less
important or ‘low politics’. For them, high politics dominate
and set the environment for low politics
Realist Description of IR




Interstate politics is a permanent bargaining game over the
distribution of power, thus it describes world politics as a
state of war, and a struggle for power and is generally
pessimistic about the prospects for eliminating conflict
and war.
Best description for world politics is a state of war, the constant
possibility of war, because the nature of humanity or the
structure of international order allows wars to occur.
The outcome of an interstate bargaining is determined
by the power of states at their disposal. Control over material
resources in world politics lies at the core of realism. For them,
material resources determine state behavior.
They define IR as relations between states. Individuals, NGOs,
IOs are less important.
Classic Realists



The realist worldview was shaped by the
ancient Greek historian Thucydides,
Niccolo Machiavelli in the 16th century,
Thomas Hobbes in the 17th century.
They focused on national security and
state survival and portrayed international
politics as power politics: an arena of
rivalry, conflict and war between states
Defending the national interest and
ensuring the survival of the state repeat
themselves permanently
Thucydides (471-400 BC)




Greek historian. He is considered as the founding
father of realism.
Focused on the competitions and conflicts between
Greek city-states.
In Peloponnesian War (431 to 404 BC) , he
analyzes the war between Athens and Sparta in the
5th century BC. He dealt with the nature of war and
why it continually recurs. For him, the past was the
guide for the future. His work is a study of the
struggle for military and political power.
He emphasizes the limited room for manoeuvre
available to statesmen.
Thucydides’s Explanation of
War




Why did war occur between Athens and Sparta? For him, the
reason was the fear associated with a shift in the balance
of power. Although fear may lead to war, power and
capabilities relative to others determine the outcome.
Sparta was afraid of losing its pre-eminent role in the Hellenic
world thus took counter measures to build up its military
strength: Balance of power mentality.
When leaders perceive that balance of power is shifting to their
disfavour, they try to change the situation due to suspicion, fear,
distrust they feel for their rivals.
The Peloponnesian War reshaped the Ancient Greek world.
Athens, the strongest city-state in Greece prior to the war's
beginning lost its power, while Sparta became the leading power
of Greece.
Melian Dialogue



The Melian Dialogue is an account of the
confrontation between the people of Melos, a
colony of Sparta, and the Athenians in 416415 B.C.
The Athenians wanted to conquer the island
to impose a greater threat over the Spartans.
Before doing any harm to the island,
Athenians sent representatives to the Melos
island to negotiate the Melian surrender to
Athens.
Melian Dialogue


The Melians appealed to the strong Athens
for the principle of justice and demanded that
they should be respected as an independent
state.
Athenians replied that: “The standard of
justice depends on the equality of
power”. “Justice is not about equal
treatment, it is about knowing your
place. The strong do what they can, and
the weak accept what they have to”.
Melian Dialogue



Athenians stated that: “you will save
yourselves from disaster if you surrender us”.
Melians: “We want to remain neutral, we can
be friends instead of enemies”.
Athenians: “It is not your hostility that hurt
us. If we were on friendly terms with you, our
subjects would regard that as a sign of
weakness of us, but your hatred is evidence
of our power”. “by conquering you we shall
increase not only the size but the security of
our empire.
Melian Dialogue



Melians:”We will establish an alliance with the
Spartans. It is their own self-interest to protect us.
We are of the same race and share the same
feelings”.
Athenians: “Do not trust Spartans, where danger is
concerned, Spartans are not venturesome”.
The Melians refused to surrender to the Athenians
because of their strong sense of independence. They
also did not want to be regarded as cowards for
surrendering so easily. The Melians argued that an
invasion will alarm the other neutral Greek states,
who will become hostile to Athens for fear of being
invaded themselves.
Melian Dialogue



Melians:”We are not prepared to give up in a short
moment the liberty which our city has enjoyed from
its foundation for 700 years”.
After this response, the Athenians occupied Melos
and killed the men and enslaved the women and
children.
The irony of the Melian Dialogue: "The Athenians
look at the present and can see nothing will save
Melos. They are right. The Melians look to the future.
They are right too. Athens is also destroyed. The
decline of Athens reflects the justification of the
Melians.
Niccolo Machiavelli (14691527)




He wrote about power, balance of power, formation
of alliances, causes of conflicts. His primary focus
was on national security.
Survival of the state is crucial. The main responsibility
of the rulers is always to defend the interests of the
state and ensure its survival.
Power (Lion) and deception (Fox) are two
essential means for the conduct of foreign policy. If
necessary, a ruler must be ruthless and deceptive
while defending self-interest.
His famous work “The Prince” deals with how to gain,
maintain and expand power.
Suggestions of Machiavelli



World is a dangerous place, and also full of
opportunities. One should take necessary measures
against dangers.
If states want to enrich themselves, they should
exploit opportunities. One should calculate rationally
his interests and power against those of rival groups.
A responsible ruler should not follow Christian
ethics such as be peaceful, avoid war, share
your wealth... If states follow these values,
they will disappear in the end.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679):



He had a pessimistic view of human nature. He
emphasizes the necessity of having a powerful,
centralized political authority.
Human beings lived in a condition of war ‘every one
against every one’.
He tried to show in order to escape from this
situation, he suggested placing all power to a
sovereign state or Leviathan (a state authority or
supreme ruler) that would maintain order and end
anarchy. Without order, no economic development,
art, knowledge…
Hobbes and Security Dilemma



Achievement of personal security and domestic security through
the creation of a state leads to international insecurity that is
rooted in the anarcy of the state system: security dilemma
No escape from the security dilemma as there is no
possibility of forming a world government. He argues that
there is no higher authority over states to impose order. The
international system is a condition of anarchy. States claim to be
sovereign with a right to be independent and autonomous with
respect to each other. Without a leviathan, distrust, conflict and
war are inevitable: no permanent peace between states
Due to the survival concerns in anarchy, states are expected to
act in balance of power logic.
Hobbes and Morality



Due to the anarchy assumption, there is no
fixed idea of good or bad. For realism, might
is right.
Law or morality does not apply beyond
nation’s boundaries.
Hobbes asserts that without a superior
authority to legislate codes of conduct, no
morality or justice can exist. ‘where there is
no common power, no law; where no
law, no justice.
Hans Morgenthau





Hans Morgenthau was one of the leading twentiethcentury figures in the study of international politics.
Hans Morgenthau is considered one of the "founding
fathers" of realist approach.
For him, humanbeings are evil by nature. They are
born to pursue power and enjoy the benefits of
power.
The final political space within which security is
ensured is the independent state. Beyond the state,
security is impossible.
The lust for power brings people into conflict with
each other.
For Moregnthau, politics is a struggle for power.
Morgenthau’s Principles of
Realism


In “Politics Among Nations”, Morgenthau presents
the fundamental principles of his conception of
realism, which will be referred to as classical realism.
1. Politics "is governed by objective laws that have
their roots in human nature which is selfish, selfinterested. For him, the laws of politics are grounded
in human nature. As the essence of the human
nature never changes, the essence of the
international system does not change, either.
Morgenthau’s Principles of
Realism



2. Politics is an autonomous sphere of action, and
cannot be reduced to economics as Marxists do or to
morality as liberals do.
3. Morality for the public sphere is different than the
morality of the private sphere. A political leader does
not have the same freedom to do the right thing that
a privatize citizen has.The ruler has the responsibility
of ensuring security and welfare.
4. As individuals are self-interested, international
politics is a arena of conflicting state interests
Relation between power and
national interest




For Morgenthau, IR is a discipline which is based on
the concepts of national interest and power.
Interests of states should be defined in terms
of their power. Statesmen should determine and
defend their interests in accordance with the power
they have.
For Morgenthau, politics is a skill of harmonizing
endless needs (interests) and scarce resources
(power)
Realists think within the framework of the national
interest defined in terms of power.
Basic Concept of
Realism:Power


No consensus even among realists how to define it.
Some understand it to be the sum of military,
economic, technological, diplomatic and other
capabilities at the disposal of states. Others see it as
capabilities relative to others. The power of the USA
is evaluated in terms of its capabilities relative to
those of others.
Alternative definition, dynamic definition of power: a
state’s influence is determined not only by its
capabilities, but also by its willingness to use
capabilities, and its control and influence over other
states.
How Can States Achieve
Power?

By the state’s own means:
Population
Industrialization
Science and Technology, etc…

By alliances:
All alliances are conditional: they apply only if
they remain in the power interests of the
state.
Measurement, Indicators of
Power









Defense expenditures
Military Personnel
Iron & Steel Production
Energy Consumption
Total Population
Gross National Product (GNP)
Which is more important, military or economic power?
David Singer emphasizes military, industrial and demographic
capabilities as crucial indicators.
Power of a state is dependent on the issue involved. For
instance, Japan is economically powerful but militarily weak.
Opponents say that economic power of Japan as a global trader
is related with its military ties with the US. This ensures Japan’s
freedom to engage in commerce.
Do States Cooperate?



Each of the 5 individuals has to decide whether to
collaborate in hunting of a stag necessary to meet
the hunger needs of all five or to defect from the
group to capture a hare.
Deciding to capture a hare would serve one’s self
interest at the expense of others. If the individual
prefers to serve the common interest (go after stag),
can he trust the others to do so? If one cannot trust
others, is not it rational to go for the hare before the
others?
Uncertainty of knowing whether the others are good,
moral and rational.
Do States Cooperate?




Anarchical, self-help system makes cooperation difficult
to achieve. What is the rational thing to do, to promote short
term and self-interest or common interests?
If a state is concerned in absolute gains, it is indifferent to
the gains of others. As long as I am doing better, I don’t care
if others are also increasing their wealth or military power.
In relative gains, it is not satisfied with simply increasing
its power or wealth but also how much others gained.
Different assumptions about a state’s preferences lead to
different expectations about prospects for IR conflict and
cooperation. For neo-realists relative gains assumptions
makes international cooperation difficult to attain.
Difficulty of Cooperation




states are unwilling to cooperate
and maintain that cooperation due
to:
fears of cheating
dependency
concerns about relative gains
Relative Gains Concerns
Prevent Cooperation


The issue of how the gains were distributed.
Here the important question is how often has a
concern for relative gains lead states to forgo
mutually beneficial agreements.
For instance European Community concerned about
the implementation of Tokyo Round government
procurement and technical standards would allow US
to achieve disproportionate gains resisted the US in
pressing for such an administration of those two
codes.
Interdependence and Realism


For realists, dependent party is vulnerable to the
choices of the dominant party. Interdependence does
not mean equality. Vulnerability of one party over
another. For realists to reduce this vulnerability, it is
better for the state to be independent.
Quadrupling of oil prices in 1973-74 did not affect
equally all oil importing countries. Vulnerability is
related with what alternatives are available. Ex: US
had to increase domestic production, create strategic
oil reserve to be drawn in emergencies, find other
foreign sources of oil.
Interdependence and Realism



Realists argue that maintenance of access to oil and
natural resources is essential to national security.
Maintaining access to oil supplies was a core
objective of IR community to force Iraq to withdraw
from Kuwait in 1991.
If a state wants to be more powerful, it avoids
political or military dependency on other states.
For realists, interdependence may not enhance
prospects for peace. Conflicts could easily
erupt. Stability can be achieved when a strong
state assumes leadership, even if it becomes
hegemonic. The absence of hegemony may create
chaos and instability.
Is Change Possible in the
International System?


Realists stress the continuity in international
relations. Many of the insights of Thucydides
are considered as relevant today as they were
2500 years ago. Balance of power existed
since 15th and 16th centuries. They are
uninterested in change.
Ropert Gilpin argues that it is possible to
identify recurrent patterns, common
elements, and general tendencies in the
major turning points in IR history.
Rise and Fall of Hegemons




Continuity is the dominant theme of realism as the
anarchy forces states to behave in a similar, rational,
power maximizing ways, or fail and to be conquered.
However, change is constant at the systemic level, as
powerful hegemons rise and fall.
Since 1500, 4 powers dominated the system. Portugal (1500end of 16th century), Netherlands (17th century), Great Britain
(18th and 19th century), and the United States (1945-).
In each cycle, one nation state is ascending, while another one
is descending. Dynamic view of the IR system.
Realism is critized for reducing change in the
international system to the change in the distribution of
power.
Mechanisms of Change

What has been the principal
mechanism of change throughout
history? Wars, because wars
determine which states will govern the
system. It determines the new
distribution of power.
Focus on Continuities in World
Politics


Realism’s particular strength lies in its pointing
out and explaining continuities in world
politics. Realism can also be useful in
understanding the rise and decline of major
powers, international conflict and cooperation.
Yet, there are important unresolved questions
within the core of realist international theory.
Among the most important are whether states are
security or power maximizers, and whether
this makes a difference for their behavior
toward one another.
Defensive Realists


States maximize security
Defensive realists such as Kenneth Waltz and
Stephen Walt focuse on a structural concept
known as the offence-defence balance. They
maintain that military power at any point in time
can be categorized as favoring either offence
or defence. If defence has a clear advantage
over offence great powers will have little
incentive to use force to gain power and vice
versa. Defensive realists respond that offencedefence balance is usually tilted towards defence.
Defensive Realism



Jack Snyder:
states attain security in the anarchical system
by accumulating an appropriate amount of
power in balance with others
excessive amount of power may lessen
security
by setting off the dynamics of a security dilemma

the international system ‘rewards’ states
maintaining a status quo – not those with the
ambition to dominate
Offensive Realists



Randall Schweller in his analysis of revisionist
states mainly opposes the neorealist
assumption that states merely seek to survive
in favor of the status quo because of the
existence of aggressive revisionist states.
He criticizes Kenneth Waltz and Stephen Walt
for seeing the world solely through the eyes of
a satisfied status quo states. He argues that at
least some states want to change their status
in the system and will want to advance their
relative power position.
For Schweller, states maximize power not security
Offensive Realism


John Mearsheimer
power is difficult to measure:




states do not know when their power is sufficient
are driven to accumulate as much power and
capabilities as possible
this leads them to pursue aggressive,
expansionist policies
the objective is to become a regional, if not
global, hegemon
Criticisms against Realism

For realists, continuities are more
important than changes in
interstate politics. Realists also argue
that states are engaged in the
game of power politics, and unable
to change the rules even if they
desire. Critics say they are
deterministic and pessimistic.
Criticisms against Realism




Realism is unsatisfactory in its understanding the
question of international change, it does not take into
consideration the domestic factors such as economic
and social processes) on the foreign behavior of states.
Realists failed to foresee the dissolution of the Soviet
Union as they just focused on military aspect of power. This
limited perspective could not reflect the social, political and
economic difficulties of the Soviet society. Realists failed to
see how Soviet people were ready for a radical change.
It is difficult for realists to understand change in the
absence of war.
The fact that Soviet Union dissolved in the absence of
war reflects the inadequacy of realist perspective.
Ignoring Non-State Actors

Realists are obsessed with state and
ignore other actors and issues. Non-state
actors-MNCs, banks, international terrorist
organizations, International Organizations
are excluded from the analysis. Other
concerns such as the socioeconomic gap
between rich and poor societies or
international pollution rarely make the realist
agenda.
Realist respond to criticisms


Arms race and military spending contribute to tension
in the international system. Because it is exclusively
states that spend this money to buy or produce
military capabilities, so it makes sense to focus on
states.
It is only the state, given its claim to sovereignty,
possesses the monopoly of legitimate force to resolve
conflicts between individuals and groups over which
it rules with a defined territorial space and also
between itself and other states and international
actors
Neo-realism and Kenneth
Waltz


Its theoretical premises are organized
around basic features of world politics:
anarchy, distribution of power, selfregarding states. A rise is international
insecurity, new Cold War in 1979 and
1980 triggered its popularity.
Waltz’s work as a response to pluralism
Kenneth Waltz and Neorealism
Waltz’s Man, the State and War (1959) offered three
‘images’ of Realism:
1.
2.
3.
war caused by the nature of man (i.e. ‘bad
people’);
war caused by the nature of states (i.e. ‘bad
states’);
war arising from the anarchic structure of the
international system (i.e. ‘there is nothing to stop
bad people and states’).
Waltz’s neorealist theory:

restricts the scope of theory to ‘international
system’:



impossible to understand the international system
through unit-level theories: that would amount to
reductionism
IR theory should be focus on the systemic level
in an anarchical system, units must be structurally
similar (although their capabilities may vary)
Systemic Explanation of State
Behavior

The central determining cause of state behavior is
the system of nation-states:anarchy





This anarchical system imposes an imperative of security
and survival on each state
States seek their survival, not power
States that ignore their relative power will be subordinated
to other states
no supreme authority  self-help system: no other state
can be relied upon to defend another state at the risk of its
own power
Neorealist claim that their conception of international
relations achieves the level of a scientific proposition
System as Anarchy


Many realists considered anarchy and distribution
of power among states as critical components
of the international system. They argue that
anarchy and distribution of power among states,
namely the structure constrain decision-makers.
Anarchy contributes distrust and conflict.
Anarchy: refers to violence, destruction, and chaos.
When we use this term, we are referring to the
absence of hierarchy. Due to anarchy states must
rely on power.
Polarity of the System


For neo-realists, defining feature of a system
is the distribution of power among states:
unipolar, bipolar and multipolar. They analyze
how shifts in these capabilities influence state
behaviour, interactions and possibility of war.
The bipolar system is allegedly more stable
than a multi-polar system since the power
balance between the superpowers can be
more accurately and reliably calculated
Self-help situation




It is dangerous to place the security of one’s own
country in the hands of others
Security dilemma: even if a state is arming for
defensive purposes, it is rational in a self-help system
to assume the worst. How can one be sure that a
rival is arming for defensive reasons?
Maybe all states desire peace, but anarchical nature
of the IR system makes them to be suspicious of
each other.
Security dilemma is regulated by balance-of-power
politics
Polarity and System Stability:



Kenneth Waltz argues that uncertainty increases as the number
of international actors increase. Waltz argues that greater
uncertainty makes it more likely a decision-maker will misjudge
the intentions and actions of a potential foe. Thus, multipolar
system with higher levels of uncertainty is less desirable
For waltz, relations in a bipolar system between superpowers
were simple and predictable. Direct conflicts between
superpowers were usually avoided.
Mearsheimer also argues that in the wake of the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the cold war, it is likely
that Europe will turn to multipolarity which will create
instability and conflict on the continent.
Hegemonic Stability Thesis



Neo-realism also claimed a central place in international
political economy in the form of hegemonic stability
theory.
Robert Gilpin and Stephen Krasner argue that a necessary
condition for the formation and maintenance of a liberal
international economy is that a single state should be
able and willing to invest the resources and to bear the
burdens associated with the operation of such an economic
order.
John Ikenberry and Charles Kupchan supporting
hegemonic stability thesis hold that one aspect of US
hegemonic leadership after the Second World War took
the form of the US using its power to socialize the Western
European states to be inclined to economic openness.
Is Hegemon Necessary for the
Stability?


Robert Keohane criticizes Gilpin and
Krasner’s structural theory that explains the
rise and decline of world economic orders.
Keohane states that the movement toward
a more liberal order requires a
hegemon, but adds that such an order
might endure for some period of time
without the continued support of a
hegemonic leader.
The Central Defects of Realist
and Especially Neorealist Theory



Neo-realists claim that state system, anarchy
determines the behaviour of states. Statesmen are
granted too little autonomy and little room for
manoeuvre, decision-making process is seen as
devoid of human action.
The end of the Cold War presented a deep
challenge to neo-realism. Structural realism is
unable to explain the changes that peacefully
ended the Soviet Empire.
This and other events such as the acceleration of
institution-building in EU and widespread
opening to international economy by developing
countries revived interest in a broadened liberal
theory.
The Role of International
Institutions


New research focused on the role of international
institutions in facilitating cooperation and the
transformations produced by economic integration.
The explanatory power of structural variables, as the
distribution of power, was demonstrated to be weak.
Hegemonic stability theory had been
undermined and empirically challenged. Even the
presence or absence of a liberal hegemonic power
did not seem necessary to explain the persistence of
institutions or habits of cooperation.