Realism is one of the oldest and most well known theories in international relations.

In realism, in
essence, individuals are rational actors and are assumed to aim to maximize their own power. If another
individual becomes stronger than they are themselves this poses a security challenge. It is a world of all
against all. Without the central authority that regulates their interactions. In classical realism, in which
Hans Morgenthau is one of the famous authors. It is this human nature that has seen us driving conflict,
also in terms of international politics. Generally, in realism, groups can be the focus or unit of analysis
but in classical realism, it is states, they are the unit of analysis and with this the main actors involve
politics. These states calculate their interests in terms of power or as Hans Morgenthau has stated
political leaders think and act in terms of interest defined as power. This is a quote from his book politics
among nations, published in 1948. So, realism in international relation theory, is based on three core
assumptions. One, states are the unit of analysis, that is the main actors in world politics. Two, states
aim to increase their power. Three, states behave in a rational way. In the international system states
aim to increase or even maximize their own power, notably in military terms. If another state becomes
more powerful than they are themselves, this can pose a security threat in the future. Therefore, states
tend to be concerned about what is called relative gains. Not what they obtained in absolute terms, but
in relative ones. If another state is more powerful or has more arms than your own state does, you fear
that you could be defeated in the future.

2:54

In modern versions of realism, also called neorealism. Human nature is not necessarily the driving force
for conflict. In this modern perspective, the structure of the international system and the units, so the
states, are seen as interacting with each other. It is the structure that encourages certain actions and
discourages others like states.

3:19

Neorealism is based on some core assumptions. One, the international system is anarchical, meaning
that there is no central authority. Two, the international system is characterized by interaction between
it's units, the states. Three, within the structure of the international system the distribution of
capabilities, that this power can vary over time, and can vary between states.

3:50

In contrast to realism, neorealism sees the structure of the international system as largely determining
state behavior. Rational calculations about their own position in the system determines state's interests
and their strategies. States define their interests in terms of power and position. Political leaders
respond to the incentives and the constraints that the system provides, and to the distribution of
capabilities within it.

4:22

So variations in state behavior are due to the variations in the characteristics of the international
system. According to neorealism cooperation between states is unlikely to happen, but states may aim
to form coalitions or alliances. In an attempt to balance the power of other entities in the system. The
formation of an alliance may cause the formation of a counter-alliance. In the global system, on a
regular basis, such balances of power will form.

4:55

States or coalitions of states may also face a security dilemma. For example, they might prefer to
disarm. But the fear that the other side gets stronger than they are themselves and the fact that there is
no higher level authority controlling the system forces them to continue the armaments process.

5:16

When do you think we saw such balances of power or security dilemmas happen in world politics? A
prominent example could be the situation of the Cold War, where the United States and the Soviet
Union formed the two poles of a bipolar international system. They balanced each other's power and
were caught in a kind of security dilemma.

5:42

In neorealist thinking changes at the distribution of capabilities will also cause changes in the relations
between states. The world system may, at times, be dominated by what is called hegemonic power.
That is a power that has geo-political and may be also culturally dominant. But states may also fear the
rise of the hegemon and may try to form coalitions or bans against such a potential hegemon. States
may also lose power in the global system, allowing for challenging powers to rise. In neorealism
thinking, regional integration can also be seen as an attempt to balance the power of a major state, or
coalition of states, with in the international system. For example, corporations among the states of the
European Union would be seen as unlikely to happen. But European integration, from this theoretical
perspective, makes more sense if it is seen as an attempt to increase Europe's power and standing in the
global system. The formation of regional integration schemes around the world Including those focused
predominantly on economic integration. Could then be seen as deliberate attempts of its member states
to increase their collective power and influence on the global level. Of course, organizations such as the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, In organization that we will deal with later in this course are
other examples of alliance formation in the global systems. Currently, the rise of major powers such as
China, challenges the existing global power balance and may also lead to the rise of new powers and
new regional integration schemes.

7:34

According to realist thinking, in international relations theory, corporation between states is not likely to
happen, and neither is the establishment of international institutions. Because they could constrain their
own actions. States will be willing to create international rules and institution if they are consistent with
their interests. International institutions if they are created are then likely to largely reflect the
preferences and power of the most influential states in the system. They are unlikely to be able to act
independently of the interests of these powers. This is an argument that has been presented for
example by John [INAUDIBLE] in the 1994 article called The False Promise of International Institutions.
The article actually was a reaction to literature that assumes that international institutions can be quite
influential.

8:36

Since the global political system is assumed to be anarchical, meaning there is no formal central
authority, It largely constitutes what is called a self-help system. According to some neorealist thinkers
including Kenneth Walls, states mainly act to ensure their survival. This approach is also called Defensive
realism. Other neorealist thinkers including. Have argued that states, mainly great powers, aim to
maximize their power in an attempt to dominate the international system. This approach is called
offensive realism. Sometimes, neorealists are seen as pessimists, who see the word as very conflictoral.
However, you may need to remember that neorealists were often concerned with the maintenance of
global peace and stability. They did not describe the world as conflictual because they felt that was how
it should be, but they aimed to describe and understand state behavior exactly in an attempt to prevent
violence and war. An example of this is Kenneth Waltz who makes very important contributions to neo-
realist thinking. Waltz aimed to understand what drives state behavior, why states may feel insecure in
the system. And, with this, how situations can be prevented where states go to war with each other.

10:08

Do you think it is indeed true that cooperation between states is difficult to achieve because states are
mainly concerned about relative gains? Do states indeed seek to increase their power? I think that while
neo realism has many worthwhile elements. States are not likely to be the main and almost only actor,
and that other factors may co-determine the actions apart from the aim to increase power, such as the
existence of institutions, of norms, and identities.

10:47

So what have we learned? Realism is one of the oldest theories of international relations. It has been
extended to account for the dynamics of the international system in what is called neorealism.
Neorealists assume that the world is anarchical and conflictual in nature. States aim to continuously
increase their power due to fears that others might become more powerful than they are themselves.
And with this, their security could be threatened. But we have to keep in mind that realism and neo-
realism are not prescriptions as to how individuals or states should behave. They simply aim to
understand what drives behavior and, with this, on the international level, how patterns could be
established that prevent states from going to war with each other.

11:40

In the next video, we will look at another approach to international relations that is very different from
realism. It is liberalism, and later neoliberalism. And these approaches, while some assumptions are
shared as realism, the perspective on rural politics is quite a different one.
Liberalism has a rich tradition. In its political versions, summarizing various different trends of this major
theoretical stream, it focuses on aspects and values such as individual liberty, political freedom and
equality. In what is sometimes called Republican Liberalism, for example democracies are believed to be
more peaceful than non-democracies. The so called Democratic Peace Theory even assumes that two
democracies will not actually fight each other. Sociological liberalism by comparison, emphasises that
transnational contacts and coalitions affect national attitudes, interests and behavior. Aspects of
liberalism can also be found extensively for example in the principles of neo-classical economics, where
the unit of analysis or focus tends to be the firm or the individual. In neoclassical economics, there was a
sense that the economy should be as free as possible from political interference. Markets should
operate on their own and invisible hands would then generally lead to welfare gains for all. There were
just a few areas where collective action would fail and that government interference would be needed.
This is the case of market failures. In this economic version of liberalism, special emphasis was placed on
so called comparative advantage. This means that every state focuses on the production of certain
goods, or services. That it actually can produce best, and cheapest. If all states do this and the exchange
this is beneficial to all. Economic liberalism was largely a response to approaches that had emphasized
the importance of government interference in markets such as mercantilism. In the framework of what
is at times called commercial liberalism, economic entity patents is believed to allow for the
development of peaceful relations between states.

2:46

Economic liberalism has been extremely influential in most parts of the world, also the last decades.
However, in recent years, more concerns have been voiced about the effects of economic liberalism,
especially in the aftermath of the global financial crisis.

3:08

In international relation theory, an adaptation of liberal thoughts to international relations, has been
labeled neoliberalism. At times also called neoliberal institutionalism. This tradition shares some of the
core principles as realism and neorealism, including the assumption that states are the most important
actors, and that they are rational. But it differs from them in some other important aspects. Key authors
who sparked off the school are Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, who in 1989 published a world famous
book, Power and Interdependence. In their perspective, next to states, there are many other actors that
influence world politics. Transnational linkages and the various patterns between of interdependence
between states, crucially influenced the ways in which states behaved and conducted foreign policy.

4:04

In neoliberalism, like in neorealism, the global system is believed to be anarchic. But states are not seen
as the unit of analysis acting as cohesive entities. But rather as being constituted by a range of different
actors. Domestic politics and international institutions shape the priorities of governments and
determine their behavior. In addition to this, actors can cooperate across state borders. Multinational
corporations and transnational interest groups, for example, are seen as playing a crucial role in terms
of shaping the incentives of states to act. International institutions, or what is called regimes, essentially
sets of rules, norms and principles that govern behavior in given issue areas are seen to affect state
behavior. Stephen Krasner has actually international regimes as being implicit or explicit principles,
norms, rules and decision-making procedures around which actors' expectations converge in a given
area of international relations.

5:14

In neoliberalism, international institutions are seen as much more important than they are in realism.
This is captured, for example, by an influential article published in 1995 by Robert Keohane and Lisa
Martin titled The Promise of Institutionalist Theory. A link to this article is in our list of assigned readings.
Actually, John Mearsheimer's article The False Promise of International Institutions, which we briefly
mentioned in the last video, was an explicit reply to this kind of work.

5:50

In essence, according to neoliberal institutionalism, institutions effect the ways in which states define
their self-interest. Cooperation between states is then possible, partially because of the existence of
institutions, and what is called regimes. And the effects of reciprocity. Although states may be tempted
to break the rules of cooperation and display non-cooperative behavior, institutions can exercise
important functions that allow for cooperation. Institutions, for instance, can monitor the behavior of
actors, provide information, allow for repeated interaction for the reduction of transaction costs. They
can sanction actors if they display non-cooperative behavior. And with this they create the foundations
for long term, stable patterns of cooperative interaction. In this perspective, cooperation and
sustainable peace are possible. Neoliberal institutionalists often draw on tools such as game theory to
explain patterns of interactions between states. Do you think that cooperation between states is
possible also without international institutions? I think it is, but institutions can clearly help create
systems and frameworks that increase prospects for states to engage in cooperative behaviour, also for.
Neoliberal institutionalists sometimes mention European integration as an example of such patterns,
with its rich and dense network of institutional structures.

7:32

In essence then the work of neoliberal institutionalists can be seen as a reaction to realism and
neorealism. Schools of thought they believe are being too pessimistic in terms of explaining the behavior
of states. And notably their assumptions regarding the likelihood that cooperation between states can
occur.

7:55

Robert Keohane however sees himself more as what he calls a rational institutionalist because he also
believes that some of the realist assumptions are actually relevant and very useful. He has criticised
neorealism but seen this more an attempt to adapt the theory rather to reject it entirely. According to
neoliberalism, international institutions will not simply be reflections of the interest of the most
powerful actors in the global system. Clearly, the preferences of such actors will matter. But they, like
smaller or medium sized countries, are constrained in their behavior by their imbedding into networks
of international or regional institutions, or regimes. In fact, international institutions are believed to be
able to crucially influence the behavior of states in the global system.

8:54

Interdependence between states according to this school of thought, does not create dependence and
vistas a fear of gaining less then others in a relative terms, but it adds to the prospects for stability and
peace over time. In fact, we can see a project like European decoration in the light of the theory. After
World War II former enemies such as Germany and France integrated some of the most important
sectors of their economy at the time, coal and steel. This economic interdependence created the
foundations for a long lasting pattern of stability and peace among what's today as the European Union.
Moreover, the theory would argue that the European integration process has led to the establishment
of institutions that have further stimulated the integration process. And that they do not simply reflect
the preferences and power of its most important member states.

9:58

Summarizing. Liberalism has a rich tradition in terms of both it's political and its economic features.
Political liberalism emphasizes values such as individual liberty, political rights, equality, human
freedom, and democracy. Economic strands of liberalism focus on the importance of markets, the
benefits of trade, and the needs to keep markets as free as possible from government interference.
Neoliberalism, or neoliberal institutionalism, as it is also called, emphasize the role of a range of
different actors on the domestic and the international level. Including transnational actors in terms of
constraining and shaping the behavior of states. In this theoretical school of thought, international
institutions do matter. In the next video, we will investigate a third major theory which differs in terms
of quite a few aspects from realism and liberalism. That of constructivism.

In essence, constructivism in international relations theory is based on many different approaches. But
broadly, it can be seen as a reaction to neorealism, but also neoliberalism. It criticizes some of the core
assumptions of these trends of theorizing and aims to offer alternative explanations. Constructivism like
other major theories of international relations has many different authors and sub-schools, but what is
common to most of these approaches is that social reality is not assumed to just be given, but it is
constructed. Knowledge does not exist independently of interpretation and the use of language. They
give what we see a meaning, so how we and others see the world depends on how the social reality is
constructed. It is not so much material interests and power that matter, but for example, ideas, norms,
identities and processes of learning.

1:37

It is not so much the structure of the international system that determines how state act, but how states
view each other. An enemy of the state is not an enemy, because it holds a specific amount of power,
but because it is perceived as an enemy. In other states, this is similar level of economic or military
power is perceived as a friends and this is not seen as security threat. The level of threat that another
state poses to the own state is not something that can just be measured by its military weights or its
economic power.

2:18

For constructivists, institutions may not only offer formal rules of interaction, but they also shape actor
behavior. Actors will learn this in the setting of formal or informal institutions and get socialized by
them. The gradual acquisition and development of shared norms, and values will matter. For example,
the value of human rights or democracy may be learned and by mutual interaction gradually be seen as
valuable. Constructivism does not see actors as utility maximizing or rational. Ideational factors are
generally understood as being more important than material interests. It is the spread of norms and
values, changing identities and patterns of socialization that will mainly affect actor behavior including
interactions between states. Images and perceptions will matter, such as better actors perceive others
as belonging to self or to the other. In 1992, Alexander Wendt wrote a very influential article in which he
presented some of the most important elements of what now is called social constructivism. His article
was titled, Anarchy is What States Make of it, The Social Construction of Power Politics. In essence, he
criticized some of the core assumptions of neorealism, but also of neoliberalism. A main message of his
article is that states do not so much act on the basis of the constraints and opportunities that the global
system offers, but the ways in which they perceive each other and their actions. Social reality in this
sense is constructed and this is also the patterns of interaction between states in international relations.
For constructivism, cooperation between states may be possible, but the focus of analysis is different
compared to other theories of international relations.

4:27

For example, when analyzing an entity such as the European Union, a constructivist is more interested in
aspects such as how this regional organization is affected by and supports values and norm, such as
democracy, the rule of law and human rights than how material features shape the behavior of this
organization. Similarly, identities will matter like the question to which extent citizens of the European
Union, for example, will feel they are French, German, Polish rather than citizens of the European Union.
The European Union in turn will effect these identities.

5:13

Constructivism differs from other major strands of international relations theorizing by its emphasis on
how states perceive each other by the importance of identities and of images, such as self and the other
by whether states see each other as friends or as enemies. And finally, by a focus on socialization and
learning. In constructivism, institutions matter, but as formal or informal rules that affect act or
behavior. For most constructivists, it is not so much material forces that are assumed to influence the
behavior of actors, but rather ideational ones. The end of the Cold War, for example, triggered many
debates about the relevance of constructivism as a theory to explain international relations.
Constructivists argued that the failure to predict the end of the Cold War showed that the focus of
neorealism on security and anarchy was largely wrong. As explained, for example, by Robert Snyder,
constructivist claim it should rather be the terms of agency and of ideas and the so-called new thinking
of Mikhail Gorbachev. The Cold War ended not because of strategic or military reasons, but because of a
change in identity and a change in thinking in the Soviet Union itself. However, as also explained by
Snyder, this in turn fails to recognize that Gorbachev was not only driven by ideas, but that his foreign
policy was also an instrument for domestic purposes. For more on this article, please refer to the
reading list. This example shows that there are many different explanations of a major event, such as
the Cold War and its ending. Scholars do not agree on the causes and dynamics of what could be called
one of the most defining periods of the history of the 20th century. What do you think of these different
explanations? Do you think that one strand of theorizing can more adequately explain international
relations than the others?

7:27

So, what have we learned?

7:30

In essence, constructivism is now one of the major strands of theorizing international relations. It does
not consist of one single school of thought, but most constructivists in international relations believe
that social reality is constructed by mutual interaction. That material interests are not as important as
non-material ones, including norms ideas and identities. In the next video, we will explore quite a
different topic by looking at one of the most important institutions in global affairs. The United Nations
Security Council.