Realpolitik and Realist Theories of International
Politics: Part 2
Kim Dong Jung
Korea University
Objectives
• Familiarize with key concepts
• Understand main theoretical claims of structural realism
Propositions on state (great power) behavior
Propositions on international stability
Overview
• Key concepts
• Structural theorization in IR
• Structural realism: 1. state behavior
• Structural realism: 2. international stability
Key concepts
• States: the basic political units in the modern international system
an inhabited territory controlled by a government
internally, they have a monopoly over the legitimate use of force (Max
Weber's de nition)
externally, they have the unique capacity to decide whether or not to use
force against other states
fi
Key concepts
• Anarchy
International anarchy means the lack of a central authority with power over
states
Sovereign states are not governed by any superior government
Anarchy IS NOT chaos
Key concepts
• War
“the use of organized force between two politically independent units, in
pursuit of [each unit’s] policy.” (Bronislaw Malinowski)
An armed con ict (that is, organized violence; not private violence or
accidental killing), waged deliberately (usually, deliberate state action), by
two or more independent political units against each other
For many IR scholars, peace simply means absence of war, most importantly
great power wars (major wars)
fl
Key concepts
• Power
“Three faces of power” (Steven Lukes)
A’s ability to get B to do something that B would not otherwise do (Dahl;
behavior modi cation)
Ability to prevent B from bringing to the fore any issues that might in their
resolution be seriously detrimental to A’s preference (Bachrach and Baratz;
agenda setting)
Ability to shape B’s initial preference (Lukes; altering ideas and beliefs)
fi
Key concepts
• Power
In IR, widely de ned in terms of “state material capabilities”
For academic analysis, must come up with some measurement of power
(operationalize)
Decision makers want to know “who’s more powerful” before making a
decision, and must know how much power/resources their country has
Military power + latent power (economic capacity, technology, population,
natural resources)
fi
Key concepts
• Security
Traditionally, means preserving territorial integrity and political autonomy
Primary goal/job of national governments: usually pursued through defense
and diplomacy
Broader de nitions with di erent emphasis also exist (human security,
environmental security, economic security, etc)
fi
ff
Key concepts
• Balancing
Confronting a potential aggressor
Internal balancing: Mobilize domestic resources and buildup one’s own
military capacity
External balancing: Align with foreign state(s) against common adversary
power (economic capacity, technology, population, natural resources)
Key concepts
• Balance of power/capabilities
Distribution of material capabilities between states
• Balance of resolve
Willingness to devote one’s resource or accept costs (willingness to die for)
Key concepts
• Security dilemma
The situation where “many of the
means by which a state tries to
increase its security decrease the State A, fearing these
security of others.” State A tries to increase
State B fears A’s measures
and responds by increasing
new actions by its
adversary, adds to its
security arms to maintain its own arms to maintain
security
A vicious cycle/spiral even its security
between states that only want
their security
Structural theorization in IR
• What is theory?
A theory is a simpli ed picture of reality, a mental map that identi es the
most important features relating to a particular phenomenon
• Causal theory
Identify key causes of certain phenomenon, as well as the mechanisms
linking the cause and the outcome
• Theories provide general explanations that are valid across space and time
Key is parsimonious explanation; without parsimony, cannot generalize
fi
fi
Structural theorization in IR
• Which approach to theorize important phenomena?
Kenneth Waltz’s three images (levels) to explain origins
of war (1954)
Waltz argues that theorists have tried to explain war in
three fundamentally di erent ways
Individual-level (Image 1): Men’s inherent defects
Unit-level (Image 2): Particular type of government
System-level (Image 3): Anarchic structure
ff
Structural theorization in IR
• Structural theories
Building a parsimonious theory: Deliberately choose to focus on
international structure in understanding important international outcomes
and state behavior
Beginning from structural realism, neoliberal institutionalism and
constructivism all pursue structural theorization
Considered outdated or reductionist by many, but renewed attention with
the rise of great power competition
Structural realism
• Structural realism was founded by Kenneth Waltz, but we focus on
o ensive realism by John Mearsheimer
After Waltz, considered “pure” form of structural realism
Explicit about assumptions and causal logic, as well as the purpose of the
theory
Note that it’s a theory about great powers (states=great powers)
ff
Structural realism
1. Propositions on state behavior
• Begin from a set of simplifying assumptions about the world (for
parsimonious theorization)
Anarchy
Security seeking
Uncertainty about intentions
State as unitary, roughly rational actor
Presence of o ensive capability
ff
Structural realism
1. Propositions on state behavior
• Deduce expectations about state behavior
Fear each other; security dilemma prevalent
Self help
Maximize relative material power; pay attention to changes in the distribution of
material power
Structural realism
1. Propositions on state behavior
• Maximize power, but calculated
aggression:
Although structural realism
recognizes the utility of military
force in international politics, it
warns against unnecessary
aggression that degrades
one’s power in the dangerous
international realm
Structural realism
1. Propositions on state behavior
• Power maximization: great powers’ pursuit of regional hegemony
Structural realism
1. Propositions on state behavior
• Power maximization: thwart rise of another regional hegemon
Structural realism
1. Propositions on state behavior
How great powers behave
Starting Assumptions
• Anarchy • Fear each other
• Security seeking • Self help
• Uncertainty about intentions • Maximize power: calculated
aggression; regional
• Unitary, rational actor hegemony; cooperation
• O ensive capability limited
ff
Structural realism
2. Propositions on international stability
• Key goal of structural realism: Theorizing the structural impact on
international stability (war)
Want to understand when international system is more or less stable
The anarchic system or nature of states do not change
What can vary over time is the distribution of power (material capacity)
among major units (great powers)
More simply, implies variations in polarity (or number of great powers)
Structural realism
2. Propositions on international stability
Unipolar
• Polarity: Number of military great
powers in the international system
1 power: unipolar(ity)
Bipolar
2 power: bipolar(ity)
3 or more: multipolar(ity)
Multipolar
Structural realism
2. Propositions on international stability
Polarity
-Unipolar International
-Bipolar stability
-Multipolar
Structural realism
2. Propositions on international stability
• For many structural realists, bipolarity is the most stable
Less uncertainty and easier judgment/calculation
No need to appeal to third parties
Long range plans and implementation
