191635

1. Explain Kenneth Waltz’s theory of international politics. How did Waltz attempt to make IR more scientific?
Kenneth Waltz's theory of international politics is known as neorealism or structural realism. It is one of
the most influential theories in the field of international relations, and it offers a distinctive approach to
understanding the behavior of states in the international system. Waltz's theory is based on the idea that
the structure of the international system is the primary determinant of state behavior, rather than
individual leaders, domestic politics, or ideology.

At the heart of Waltz's theory is the concept of anarchy. Anarchy refers to the absence of a centralized
authority in the international system. In the absence of a world government, states must rely on their own
capabilities to ensure their security and survival. This creates a self-help system, in which states are
motivated to acquire more military and economic power to protect themselves from potential threats.
Waltz argues that anarchy is the defining feature of the international system, and it has profound
implications for state behavior.

Waltz's neorealism emphasizes the importance of the distribution of power in the international system.
The distribution of power refers to the relative capabilities of states in terms of military, economic, and
technological resources. According to Waltz, the distribution of power is a key determinant of state
behavior. In particular, he argues that states will engage in a balance of power strategy, in which they
seek to prevent any one state from becoming too powerful. This leads to a pattern of behavior in which
states align themselves with others to balance against potential threats.

In neorealism, the unit of analysis is the state, rather than the individual. According to Waltz, states are
rational actors that seek to maximize their power and security. This leads to a focus on issues such as
military capabilities, alliances, and the balance of power, rather than domestic politics or ideology.

One of the key contributions of Waltz's neorealism is its emphasis on the idea of structural constraints.
According to Waltz, the structure of the international system places limits on the behavior of states. In
particular, anarchy creates a constraint on state behavior, as states must focus on their own security in
the absence of a world government. This means that even if individual leaders or states have aggressive
intentions, they may be constrained by the structure of the international system.
 Kenneth Waltz attempted to make IR more scientific by advocating for the use of simplified and testable
theories. He believed that theories in IR should be grounded in observable evidence and be able to
make predictions about future events. To achieve this, he emphasized the importance of building models
that capture the essential elements of a particular phenomenon while excluding extraneous details. He
argued that these models should be logically consistent and clearly defined, so that they can be used to
test hypotheses and make predictions.

By focusing on simplified models and testable theories, Waltz believed that IR could become more
scientific and less reliant on subjective opinions and interpretations. He believed that this approach
would make it possible to identify general patterns and regularities in world politics, which would allow for
more accurate predictions about future events. (521 words)

2. What is security dilemma? Explain and elaborate.

In the book, “A Theory of Security Strategy for Our Time,” Shiping Tang mentioned eight aspects of
security dilemma which were originally proposed by the three original proponents of the concept –
Herbert Butterfield, John Herz, and Robert Jervis. Among those eight, three aspects are most essential:
anarchy (which leads to uncertainty, fear, and the need for self-help for survival or security); lack of
malign intentions on both sides; and some accumulation of power (including offensive capability).
The security dilemma is a concept in international relations that explains how actions taken by one state
to increase its own security can inadvertently decrease the security of other states, leading to a spiral of
insecurity and conflict.
The security dilemma arises from the fact that in an anarchic international system, states must rely on
their own military power to protect themselves from potential threats. However, as one state increases its
military capabilities, other states may perceive this as a threat to their own security and respond by
increasing their own military capabilities. This creates a situation in which each state is constantly trying
to outdo the others in terms of military power, leading to an arms race and a cycle of insecurity.
The security dilemma is based on the idea that states are uncertain about each other's intentions and
capabilities, and that even defensive actions can be interpreted as offensive. This means that, in many
cases, states may not have any aggressive intentions towards each other, but their actions may be
misinterpreted as such. They cannot trust that other states will not use their military capabilities to
threaten their security, and as a result, they are always on guard. The need for self-help is a natural
 consequence of this uncertainty and fear. Each state must do whatever it can to ensure its own survival,
even if it means taking actions that may harm other states. For example, a state may increase its military
capabilities in response to a perceived threat from another state, but the other state may interpret this as
a sign of aggression and respond with its own military buildup. This lack of malign intentions can create a
situation where both states are simply trying to protect their own security and interests, but their actions
inadvertently create a sense of insecurity in the other state. This can create a situation in which both
states feel threatened by the other, leading to a cycle of escalation and conflict.

To avoid security dilemma, one way to mitigate the security dilemma is through communication and
transparency. If states are able to communicate their intentions and capabilities to each other, they may
be able to avoid misunderstandings and reduce the likelihood of conflict. For example, if a state is
increasing its military capabilities for defensive purposes, it could communicate this to other states to
avoid being perceived as a threat.
Another way to mitigate the security dilemma is through collective security arrangements. If multiple
states agree to cooperate in providing security for each other, they may be less likely to feel threatened
by each other's military capabilities. For example, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was
formed as a collective defense alliance to provide security for its member states and deter potential
aggressors.
In conclusion, the security dilemma is a complex and challenging issue in international relations. While
states must take measures to ensure their own security, these measures can inadvertently decrease the
security of other states, leading to a spiral of insecurity and conflict. To mitigate the security dilemma,
states can communicate their intentions and capabilities to each other, and work together through
collective security arrangements. (602 words)
3. Explain realism in IR theory. What is the difference between offensive realism and defensive realism?
Realism is one of the dominant theories in International Relations (IR) and is often considered the oldest
and most established. The theory is based on the assumption that the international system is anarchic,
meaning that there is no central authority or government that can regulate the behavior of states. In this
system, states are the primary actors and must rely on their own capabilities and resources to survive
and achieve their goals. Realism is often associated with power politics, the pursuit of national interest,
and the use of force to achieve strategic objectives.
According to realists, states are the most important actors in international relations, and the preservation
of their security and survival is their primary objective. This means that states will prioritize their own
interests over those of other states, which can lead to conflicts and competition between them. In this
view, international politics is a struggle for power and influence between states, with each trying to
maximize its own security and prosperity at the expense of others.

Realism is rooted in the works of several prominent scholars, including Thucydides, Machiavelli, and
Hobbes, who emphasized the importance of power and self-help in international relations. However, the
modern form of realism is most closely associated with the works of Hans Morgenthau. In his book,
Politics Among Nations, Morgenthau argued that states are motivated by power and that international
relations is a struggle for power among states.

One of the key assumptions of realism is that the international system is anarchic. This means that there
is no central authority or government that can regulate the behavior of states. Instead, states must rely on
their own capabilities and resources to survive and achieve their goals. This creates a situation in which
states are constantly vying for power and influence, which can lead to conflicts and competition between
them.

Realists also emphasize the importance of the distribution of power in the international system. In their
view, states seek to balance power in the system to ensure their own security and survival. When one
state becomes too powerful, other states will form alliances or take other measures to balance the power
and prevent the dominant state from becoming too powerful. This can lead to a balance of power in the
international system, which helps to maintain stability and prevent conflicts.

Another important aspect of realism is the emphasis on national interest. Realists argue that states act in
their own self-interest and seek to maximize their own security and prosperity. This means that states will
prioritize their own interests over those of other states, which can lead to conflicts and competition
between them. Realists argue that this pursuit of national interest is a natural and necessary aspect of
international relations.

Realism can be divided into two main strands: offensive realism and defensive realism. Both theories
share the fundamental assumptions of realism, which includes the centrality of power, the anarchic
nature of the international system, and the primacy of state interests. However, they differ in their
understanding of the best strategy for achieving and maintaining state security in the international
system.

Defensive realism was developed by Kenneth Waltz in the 1970s as a response to classical realism,
which emphasized the aggressive pursuit of power by states. According to Waltz, the anarchic structure
of the international system creates a constant state of insecurity for states. As a result, states seek to
maximize their security by balancing against potential threats. In this view, states are motivated primarily
by a desire for survival and security, rather than by a desire for power.

Defensive realism argues that states are rational actors that respond to external pressures in a way that
minimizes their vulnerability. States will engage in a balance of power strategy, which involves seeking
alliances and building military capabilities in order to deter potential aggressors. According to defensive
realism, the best way to achieve security is to maintain a balance of power, in which no state is able to
dominate the others. This is achieved through the formation of alliances and the maintenance of a
credible defense posture.

Offensive realism, on the other hand, takes a more aggressive approach to state security. It posits that
states seek to maximize their power and influence, rather than simply ensure their own survival.
Developed by John Mearsheimer in the 1980s, offensive realism argues that states are inherently
aggressive and that their primary goal is to achieve hegemony, or dominant control over the international
system. This is because the international system rewards states that are the most powerful and punishes
those that are weak. Therefore, according to offensive realism, states must engage in a strategy of
offensive balancing, in which they seek to dominate and control other states in order to achieve security.

Offensive realists argue that states will engage in power-maximizing behavior, even if it risks war or other
negative consequences. They argue that the best way to achieve security is not through balancing, but
through domination and control of other states. This is achieved through the pursuit of military power, the
formation of alliances, and the use of force to achieve strategic objectives.

In summary, the key difference between defensive and offensive realism lies in their approach to
achieving state security. Defensive realism emphasizes the importance of balancing against potential
threats and maintaining a balance of power, while offensive realism emphasizes the pursuit of power and
hegemony as the best means of achieving security. While both theories share the fundamental
assumptions of realism, they differ in their understanding of how states should act in the international
system to ensure their survival and security. (932 words)

= 2055 words