Comprehensive Notes on Realism in International Relations

Sir gives a thorough exploration of the realist tradition in International Relations (IR), covering its
historical genesis, key thinkers, evolutionary stages, and fundamental assumptions. It distinguishes
between classical realism and neorealism, elucidates the interrelationship of national interest and
national power, and underscores the primacy of state security. Furthermore, it extensively details why
the state remains the central actor in realist analysis and outlines the four core assumptions unifying
all realist thought.
1. Introduction to Realism in International Relations
 Foremost School of Thought: Realism is presented as the leading school of thought in
International Relations.
 Discipline of IR: IR is described as a modern and primarily Anglo-Saxon discipline, with
systematic study beginning in the 19th century in the United Kingdom, later developing
significantly in America, making it "more of an American discipline today". Its theoretical
models are globally adopted, including in East Jordan, South America, and Asia.
 Historical Depth: The realist tradition boasts a profound and extensive historical memory
and genealogy, reaching back as far as 4,000 years.
 Definition of "Realism": The term is used in various contexts (law, political philosophy,
sociological theory, often as an offshoot of behavioralism and positivism).
o Core Meaning: It fundamentally involves looking at a situation "as it is given" or
"as it presents itself," in a "stark and unfiltered manner".
o Epistemology: Emphasizes understanding reality through direct observation and
sensory perception – "what is visible from the naked eye," "can be sensed with our
ears," and "felt".
o Rejection of Human Constructs: Crucially, realism discounts standards that are
fixed or prepared by humankind, such as moral standards. It maintains that
reality should not be measured or interpreted through such human-made constructs,
observing the world strictly "as it presents itself, without applying external evaluative
criteria".
2. Historical Figures and Early Developments of Realism
Realist tradition has been shaped by numerous influential scholars throughout history.
 Thucydides (circa 460-400 BCE):
o First Prominent Scholar: Considered the first prominent scholar within the realist
tradition.
o "History of the Peloponnesian War": Authored this classic text chronicling the
conflict between Greek city-states (Athens vs. Sparta).
o Generalizations: Derived specific generalizations from these accounts that form the
bedrock of realist theory and its understanding of international politics.
o Advisory Nature & Level of Analysis: His work is advisory but distinctively shifts
the level of analysis. Unlike texts advising individual rulers, his insights are directed
towards city-states themselves, or the individuals who govern them.
o Primary Focus: Focused on what city-states must undertake to retain their
national preponderance or ensure their very existence among other city-states,
distinguishing his work by its focus on the survivability of city-states.
 Sun Tzu (circa 5th Century BCE):
o Chinese Realist Scholar: Emerged around the same historical period as Thucydides
in China (now the People's Republic of China).
o "The Art of War": Penned this renowned text.
o Orientation: Provides advice to the prince or king regarding the necessary steps
to both gain political power and sustain it.
 Kautilya (circa 4th Century BCE):
 o Indian Scholar: Concurrently, in India, authored a major text called "Arthashastra".
o Advisory Nature: Similar to "The Art of War," it is an advisory text.
o Guidance: Offers detailed guidance to the king or prince on the essential measures
required to acquire and maintain political power.
o Contrast with Thucydides: While these two Asian texts are advisory, their focus is
specifically on individual kings and princes, contrasting with Thucydides' broader
focus on city-states.
 Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527 CE):
o European Context: Introduced from later historical periods in Europe.
o "The Prince": His texts are advisory, specifically implying "The Prince" in
discussions of advising a prince.
o Abstract Prince: Machiavelli's portrayal of the "Prince" is abstract; he advises the
"prince as the figurehead of the state" rather than a particular individual, indicating
a generalization of advice to the ruler's role.
o Qualities of a Prince: Famously argued a prince must possess qualities of both a
"beast" and a "nobleman". He emphasized a prince must not be swayed by moral
precepts.
o Fox and Lion: A prince must embody the character of a "fox" (cunning and
cleverness) and a "lion" (bravery and courage). This duality means being brave and
decisive, but also clever enough to direct that courage strategically, avoiding foolish
acts, and not solely relying on manipulation or symbols.
o "Machiavellianism": The term describes cunning and manipulative behaviors in
daily conversation, underscoring his enduring influence.
This period, from ancient origins through the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, saw
realism take shape, amidst extensive global conflicts like the First World War.
3. Key Concepts and Evolution of Realism in the 20th Century
The 20th century was crucial for realist thought, especially in response to the World Wars and the
Cold War.
 The World Wars and "Balance of Power":
o WWI Context: WWI involved almost every country and caused widespread loss of
life, followed by a period where internationalism or liberalism gained traction.
o Realism's Resilience: The realist tradition proved resilient and strong.
o "Balance of Power": A 19th-century German "arch-minister" (implied to be Otto
von Bismarck) coined this core realist concept. It suggests that peace and stability
are maintained when power is distributed among states so no single state or bloc
dominates, often leading to alliances/counter-alliances for equilibrium.
o Carl von Clausewitz: Austrian general who wrote the classic title "On War," a
foundational realist text.
o Continuity: Realism gained strength from predecessors like Thucydides, even amidst
global conflicts.
 E.H. Carr (1892-1982):
o Interwar Period Scholar: Major realist scholar during 1919-1939, leading up to
WWII.
o Analysis of WWII Causes: Explored what led to WWII, highlighting the failures of
idealist or liberal approaches to prevent global conflict.
o Realist Insertion into UN: His influence extends to understanding realism's insertion
into the UN system. Despite the UN's "liberal internationalism" and "benevolence,"
the Veto Power principle was fundamentally realist.
o Veto Power: Allowed the five victors of WWII (permanent members of the UN
Security Council) to decide crucial international political issues (e.g., military
 intervention). The source critically notes these nations gained power not necessarily
due to intelligence, but simply because they were victors, implying a power-based
system.
 Hans J. Morgenthau (1904-1984) and Classical Realism:
o Synthesizer of Realist Thought: Credited with the first attempt to synthesize realist
thought and tie its "loose ends" into a concrete theoretical school.
o "Politics Among Nations": Referred to as a "Bible of international politics" and a
fundamental reference.
o Core Argument: Human Nature: Morgenthau's core argument was that the evil
nature of human beings inherently leads to all kinds of conflicts among states in
the international system.
o Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan": He rehashed Hobbes' account of human nature.
o Three Primary Reasons for Conflict (Hobbes/Morgenthau):
1. Competition: Individuals (and states) fight for gain.
2. Diffidence (distrust/mistrust): Individuals (and states) fight for safety and
security.
3. Glory: Individuals (and states) fight for reputation or recognition.
o Human Actions and State Behavior: Morgenthau posited that all human actions
reflect these three emotions, and consequently, states engage in wars due to these
same reasons.
o Security Dilemma: These three factors were rearticulated by subsequent realists as
contributing to the "security dilemma".
 Definition: Actions taken by a state to enhance its own security (e.g., military
buildup) can be perceived as threatening by other states. This prompts others
to increase their military capabilities, leading to a spiral of arms races and
escalating tensions, ultimately making all states less secure.
 Application: Widely used to explain state behavior in the international
system.
4. Neo-Realism (Structural Realism) and Its Refinements
Morgenthau's human-nature-based explanation did not fully satisfy all realists, leading to neo-realism.
 Kenneth Waltz (1924-2013) and the Birth of Neo-Realism:
o "Father of Neo-Realism": Widely regarded as such.
o "Man, the State, and War" (1955): His initial major work, published in the context
of post-WWII, American/Soviet bloc division, and Cold War.
o Central Argument: Structural Situation: Waltz argued states are not always driven
to war solely by human-nature or Hobbesian factors. Instead, the "structural
situation" within a part of the world primarily causes conflict.
o Shift in Focus: This fundamental shift from human nature/state-level characteristics
to the structure of the international system defined neo-realism (structural realism).
o Refinement of Explanation: Aimed to refine realist explanation for war by offering
a structural explanation of world politics.
o "Theory of International Politics" (1977): His second seminal work, elaborated his
structural approach during the Cold War.
o Anarchy and Self-Help: He argued that the anarchic nature of the international
system (absence of central authority) compels states to prioritize their survival and
engage in self-help behavior, which is the root cause of conflict and competition.
 John J. Mearsheimer and Sub-Schools of Structural Realism:
o Further Development: Mearsheimer further developed and refined structural
realism.
 o Four Major Neo-Realist Approaches/Sub-Schools: He broke structural realism into
four sub-schools to explain specific nuances of international political conflicts.
o Integration of Specific Variables: These move beyond Waltz's general structural
explanation by integrating specific variables to explain conflict among particular
states/groups in a region.
o The Four Sub-Schools:
1. Offensive Realism (referred to as "Offensive Defense"): States are
inherently power-maximizing and constantly seek opportunities to increase
their relative power, aiming for hegemony, as this is the only way to
guarantee security in an anarchic system.
2. Defensive Realism (referred to as "Defensive Offense"): States are
primarily security-seeking rather than power-maximizing. They aim to
maintain their position and the status quo, only increasing power when
necessary for defense, as excessive power accumulation can provoke
counter-balancing by other states.
3. Power Transition Theory: Major wars are most likely when a rising power
(e.g., China today) approaches parity with or overtakes the dominant global
power (e.g., the United States). This shift creates instability as the rising
power seeks to revise the order, and the dominant power seeks to preserve it.
4. Hegemonic Stability Theory: A stable and open international system is most
likely when there is a single dominant global power ("hegemon"). The
hegemon provides stability by enforcing rules, maintaining order, and
providing public goods (like free trade). Instability and conflict are more
likely when hegemonic power declines or is challenged.
o Illustrative Examples of Granular Explanations:
 India-Pakistan conflict: Not fully explained by structural factors alone;
specific bilateral relations and historical context are crucial.
 India-China conflict: While part of a global power play, geography plays a
very important role.
 Proximity and Intervention: Pakistan is more likely to conflict with India
due to proximity than with a distant nation. India is more likely to intervene
in Sri Lanka (as in 1987) due to its regional sphere of influence and the
impact of Sri Lankan internal politics on India.
 Conclusion: These sub-schools integrate specific variables like geography,
bilateral relations, and regional dynamics, enhancing understanding of
conflict behavior among particular states or within specific regions.
5. Core Assumptions/Hypotheses of Realism and Neo-Realism (7 Assumptions)
Seven basic assumptions are broadly agreed upon by realists and neo-realists globally, from historical
times to the present. These can also be considered conclusions or core hypotheses.
1. The international system is anarchic:
o Fundamental Assumption: No overarching central authority, world government, or
higher power above sovereign states to enforce laws, resolve disputes, or ensure
order.
o Self-Help System: States operate in a self-help system, relying on their own
capabilities for survival.
2. Sovereign states are the principal actors in the international system:
o Most Important Entities: While non-state actors exist, states are the most
important and powerful entities shaping international relations.
3. States are rational unitary actors, each acting under the consideration of its own
national interest:
 o Rational: States make logical, calculated decisions to achieve goals and maximize
benefits.
o Unitary: States are treated as single, cohesive entities, not fragmented by internal
divisions.
o National Interest: Overriding goals and objectives pursued in foreign policy,
encompassing specific elements in international politics.
4. National security and survival are the primary national interests of each state:
o Above All Else: States prioritize their own safety, physical integrity, and continued
existence against threats.
5. In pursuit of national security, states strive to increase their national power:
o Power as Essential Means: Power is the essential means to achieve national security
and survival in anarchy.
o Constant Enhancement: States constantly seek to enhance their military, economic,
and diplomatic capabilities.
6. National power and capabilities determine the relations among states:
o Primary Factor: The relative distribution of power among states is the primary
factor shaping their interactions, alliances, rivalries, and conflicts.
o Influence: States with greater power have more influence and options.
7. National interest, defined in terms of national power, guides the action of states in
international relations:
o Fundamental Driver: Foreign policy decisions and behaviors are fundamentally
driven by calculating how actions will serve national interests (particularly security)
and how power can be leveraged.
These seven assumptions form the bedrock of both classical and neo-realist thought, providing a
consistent framework for understanding state behavior.
6. The Evolution of International Relations Theory: From Classical Realism to Neorealism
(Detailed Comparison)
The sources extensively discuss the conceptual progression from classical realism to neorealism,
emphasizing a crucial shift in analytical focus regarding conflict causes and state behavior.
 Classical Realism: Human Nature as the Root of Conflict:
o Explanation for Wars: Sought to explain the frequent occurrence of wars, especially
during liberal internationalism.
o Proponents: Notably figures like Morgenthau, attributed conflict to fundamental
aspects of human nature.
o Inherently Driven by Negative Impulses: Posits that humans are inherently driven
by certain negative impulses.
o Three Primary Reasons Humans are "Evil in Nature":
1. Competition
2. Dependence (which the 4 Aug source called Diffidence/Distrust)
3. Glory
o Motivators for Human Actions: These three factors are seen as primary motivators
for human actions.
o Application to States: States, like individuals, exhibit a "selfish nature" and an
interplay driven by these same competitive instincts.
o States Engage in Conflict: States engage in conflict because their actions are
motivated by these deeply ingrained human impulses.
o Reflection of Individual Behavior: State behavior is essentially a reflection or
generalization of individual human behavior at a grander scale. Conflicts arise
because states are inherently predisposed to fight, driven by selfish and competitive
nature.
  Neorealism (Structural Realism): A Shift in Focus:
o Refinement: Emerged as a refinement, addressing limitations of classical realism and
providing a more nuanced explanation.
o Reorientation of Analytical Lens: Major contribution is its reorientation: instead of
human behavior as sole cause, neorealists attribute wars and state actions to the
"structural situation" of the international system.
o Key Figure - Kenneth Waltz: Emphasized conflict stems from "structural
reasons". These can include factors like the geographical nature between two
countries, which can inherently lead to problems or conflict.
o "Tie Loose Ends": Sought to "tie the loose ends" by explaining states are not always
driven by inherent human evils, but by the overarching structure of the
international system that compels states to behave in certain ways, including
going to war.
o Discernible Patterns: Structural analysis allowed identification of discernible
patterns in international relations.
o Observable Patterns: Rather than broad generalizations about fighting human
behavior, neorealism narrows explanation to observable patterns. These include
"offensive defense," "defensive offense," "power transition theory," and "security
theory".
o Structured Analysis: This ability to structure and categorize patterns marked a
significant advance, offering a more precise framework for understanding war, peace,
or stability.
 The Key Difference: A Shift in the Focus of Analysis:
o Classical Realism Focus: Primary focus is on human nature, then applied to
understand state nature and behavior. Conflict is inevitable consequence of inherent
human flaws/self-serving instincts, mirrored in state actions.
o Neorealism Focus: Primary focus shifts to the structure of the international
system. State behaviors and propensity for conflict are largely determined by the
anarchic nature, distribution of power, and systemic factors, rather than internal
characteristics or leaders.
o Intellectual Transition: Moved from individual psychology/morality to systemic
pressures/constraints. The overarching structure is the dominant explanatory variable
for patterns of war and peace.
o "Meat of the Matter": Encapsulated by "shifting the levels of analysis, shifting
from human nature to the structure of the international system".
7. Key Concepts in Realist Thought: National Interest, National Power, and Security Primacy
Core concepts central to realist thinking, applicable to both classical and neorealism, include national
interest, national power, and the paramount importance of security.
 The Seven Hypotheses/Assumptions: While not all seven are detailed in this section, it
highlights state, national interest, national power, and their interrelations as bedrock
concepts.
 National Interest and National Power: A Direct Relationship:
o Cornerstone: A state's national interest is directly proportional to the quantum or
volume of national power the state possesses.
o More Power, More Influence: More power = greater ability to define, pursue, and
achieve national interests.
o National Power Definition: Overall capabilities to influence others and protect
interests, encompassing military, economic, and diplomatic strengths.
o Illustration: United States' Trade Policies:
  US Power: The US President, leveraging immense national power, can
impose unilateral tariffs.
 Acquiescence of Others: Despite adverse effects on other countries' national
interests (e.g., Japan, European states), many negotiate trade deals with the
US due to US international power.
 "At the Expense of Others": Other countries recognize the US possesses
such significant national power that it "can pursue its national interest at the
expense of others".
 Example of Imbalance: Europe committed to buying billions of dollars of
American energy and investing substantially in America, accepting terms
where American goods would be sold without taxation in Europe, while their
own goods to America would be taxed. This situation highlights an imbalance
adversely affecting the weaker party, despite reciprocal claims by the US.
 Conclusion: The US's ability to dictate such terms underscores that a state
with greater national power can more effectively advance its national interest,
often to the detriment of weaker states.
 Prioritizing Security Over Economic Interests:
o Two Categories: Realists identify economic interest and security interest as broad
categories of national interest.
o Realist Focus: Realists' analytical focus is "exclusively" or "largely" on the security
interest of the state, rather than its economic component or relations.
o Explanation for "Illogical" Deals: This prioritization explains the economically
disadvantageous deals (e.g., Japan and European states with the US).
o Military Dependence: Countries agreed to these deals "precisely because they are
militarily dependent on the United States".
o Calculated Comparison: Their decision involved weighing "how much they lose on
the economic front" against "how much they could lose on the military front" if they
did not agree.
o Security Outweighs Economics: The potential loss in security due to military
dependence outweighed the immediate economic disadvantage, compelling
compliance.
o Fundamental Goal: For realists, the fundamental goal of state policy is to ensure its
security and prevent being taken advantage of by others, particularly militarily
or strategically. Economic factors are secondary to the overriding concern of state
security and survival; an economically detrimental deal is acceptable if it preserves or
enhances security.
8. The Primacy of the State in Realist Analysis
A defining characteristic of realist theories is their exclusive or primary focus on the state as the
most significant actor in international politics. Realists contend that state actions are "most
consequential for international politics," largely setting aside non-state actors. This is a
deliberate "methodological choice".
 1. The State as the Ultimate Gatekeeper:
o Unique Authority: The state has unique and unchallenged authority as a "political
agency which is authorized to act as a gatekeeper in its boundaries".
o Exclusive Right: Possesses the exclusive right to regulate who and what enters and
exits its borders. No other agency can replace this.
o Example: Valid visa holders can still be denied entry by immigration officials,
demonstrating the state's ultimate control.
 o "Allows and Disallows": The state is the sole entity that "allows and disallows,"
regulating movement of individuals and goods, which is critical for sovereignty and
national security.
 2. States as Facilitators of International Negotiations:
o Indispensable Role: Crucial for facilitating and undertaking international
negotiations.
o IOs as "Creations" of States: International organizations (e.g., WTO) are not
independent but "creations" of states.
o States Negotiate: States, through representatives, "negotiate with other states in the
international political system on these plans".
o Binding Outcomes: Outcomes are "binding on all states," highlighting the profound
impact of state actions on international law and global order.
o Examples of Treaties:
 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
 Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)
 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START I and START II)
 3. Exclusive Focus on State Security:
o "Very Sensitive About": Realists are "very sensitive about" and "exclusively
concerned with the preservation of state security at any cost".
o State's Core Function: This singular focus reinforces state primacy, as non-state
actors generally don't have a direct role in preserving state existence and sovereignty.
o Addressing WMDs: Responsibility for global threats like WMDs(weapons of mass
destruction) and negotiating treaties to mitigate them falls squarely on states.
o WMDs vs. Environmental Crises: While environmental crises threaten humanity,
they don't inherently threaten "annihilation of entire mankind" in the same direct way
as WMDs, nor do they inherently "sacrifice the state" in the same manner. This
distinction emphasizes the realist focus on existential threats to the state and the
state's unique capacity to address them.
 4. State Sovereignty in "Benign" Global Issues:
o Critical Importance: Even in "benign domains" like environmental crises, states'
roles remain critically important.
o "Collective Ordering of State Preferences": While needed for environmental
issues, states ultimately retain their sovereign right to prioritize their own interests.
o Example: US Withdrawal from Agreements: Illustrated by the US (under a specific
presidency) pulling out of global environmental agreements, citing belief that
"environmental hazards are just an eyewash" and not aligned with national interest.
o Ultimate Decision-Makers: This shows state sovereignty and perceived national
interest can override international consensus, proving states are ultimate decision-
makers, giving "substantial direction" to international politics, "not [non-state
actors]".
 5. Methodological Choice and Empirical Tractability:
o Deliberate Choice: Exclusive focus on states is a deliberate "methodological
choice".
o Limits Variables: This choice "limits the set of variables" for analysis, making study
more manageable and analytically coherent.
o Avoids "Empirical Vastness": If all non-state actors (terrorist organizations, IOs,
advocacy groups) were considered, it would be "very difficult" to capture their
activities and influences.
o "More Explanatory, Albeit Partial": By narrowing focus to states, realists provide
a "more explanatory, albeit partial" understanding of international politics.
 o Streamlined Framework: Simplifies analytical framework by focusing primarily on
states' status (power, capabilities) and actions as unitary actors. Realists prefer
analyzing state acts over non-state actors' complex empirical landscape, aiding
streamlined hypotheses.
 6. States as Possessors of National Interest:
o Realist Assertion: Realists assert that states, not non-state actors, possess national
interest.
o Dilemma in Democracies: This concept presents a dilemma, especially in
democratic societies.
 Dictatorial States: National interest is generally clear and easily identifiable,
often dictated by ruling authority.
 Democratic States: Defining or obtaining a coherent national interest is
"very difficult to obtain" due to the "problem of aggregating the preferences
and norms of individuals and groups". Preferences vary widely, leading to a
"dilemma" with "no equilibrium" or universally agreed-upon concept (e.g.,
not everyone agrees with a tariff policy).
o Collective Actors: Despite this challenge, realists maintain states still act as
"collective actors" on behalf of their societies and are presumed to embody and
pursue this national interest. They assign ultimate possession and pursuit of national
interest to the state.
9. 8 August Class 1 Core Concepts in International Relations:
 Classical Realism: As a theoretical framework, it posits states operate in an
anarchic international system, with no overarching authority to enforce rules
or ensure security (information not in source). States prioritize their own
survival and security, pursuing power (military, economic, diplomatic) as the
means (information not in source). Classical realists emphasize human nature
as the root cause of conflict (information not in source). The source's
emphasis on "survival and power" aligns with these tenets.
 Neorealism (Structural Realism): The mention of "neo" points to
neorealism, a more structural approach (information not in source). Kenneth
Waltz shifted focus from human nature to the anarchic structure of the
international system (information not in source). States are unitary, rational
actors prioritizing survival in anarchy (information not in source). This leads
to "self-help" (information not in source). References to the "internal system"
and "states" within contexts of international distribution and survival align
with neorealist focus on systemic structure shaping interactions. Neorealism
often analyzes power distribution and its influence on conflict/cooperation
(information not in source).
o The Centrality of States and Sovereignty:
 Prominence: A recurring theme is the prominence of "states" and the
"sovereign system". States are primary actors in IR (information not in
source).
 States as Primary Actors: States are sovereign entities with supreme
authority over their territory and population, free from external control
(information not in source). This sovereignty is a cornerstone of the modern
international system (information not in source). Focus on "states"
underscores IR as fundamentally about interactions between independent
political units. The "internal system" likely refers to domestic political
structures influencing state behavior (information not in source).
  Sovereign System: The phrase "sovereign system" emphasizes the anarchic
nature of IR, where no global government dictates terms to sovereign states
(information not in source). Each state retains ultimate authority, and
interactions occur without a higher governing power (information not in
source). This absence of central authority necessitates self-help, reinforcing
the realist emphasis (information not in source).
o The Primacy of Survival and Power:
 Central Arguments: The source repeatedly highlights "survival and
power".
 Survival as Ultimate Goal: For realists, the primary objective of any state is
its survival in an anarchic system, where the threat of aggression is constant
(information not in source). All state actions aim to ensure continued
existence and territorial integrity (information not in source). States are
suspicious of others' intentions (information not in source).
 Power as Means to Survival: Power is the most crucial means (information
not in source). Realists conceptualize power as military, economic,
technological, diplomatic capabilities (information not in source). States
accumulate power to deter adversaries (information not in source). Pursuit of
power is a pragmatic necessity in an insecure environment (information not
in source).
 The Security Dilemma: Pursuit of power often leads to the security dilemma
(information not in source). A state's defensive power increase can be
perceived as a threat by others, leading to arms races and tension
(information not in source).
 Dynamics of the International System:
o Distribution of Power and Resources: The phrase "distribution and distribution
for internation" indicates discussion of power distribution, fundamental to global
stability and conflict, particularly from a neorealist perspective (information not in
source).
 Power Distribution: How power (military, economic, tech) is distributed
among major states impacts IR (information not in source). Categorizations:
Unipolarity (one dominant power), Bipolarity (two major powers),
Multipolarity (three or more major powers) (information not in source). Each
has different implications for stability, alliances, war (information not in
source).
 Resource Distribution: Refers to resources like natural resources,
technology, or influence. Uneven distribution can cause competition and
conflict, linking to realist concerns about power and survival (information not
in source).
o Contemporary Power Shifts: The Cases of America and China:
 Explicit Naming: The source names "America" and "China".
 Erosion of Influence: States their influence "has decline is eroding".
 Rise and Decline: History of IR is marked by rise and fall of great powers
(information not in source). Hegemonic stability theory suggests stable
systems require a hegemon; decline or challenger emergence creates
instability (information not in source).
 US Hegemony Challenges: "America" (US) has been the unipolar hegemon
since the Cold War (information not in source). Its eroding influence suggests
challenges such as: rise of new powers (e.g., China), economic crises, costs
of global commitments, shifting alliances (information not in source).
  China's Ascent: "China" has rapid economic growth and military
capabilities, a potential peer competitor (information not in source). "Decline
is eroding" might refer to erosion of Western dominance or power shift
towards Asian economies. Power transition theory analyzes interaction
between declining and rising powers (information not in source). The lecture
likely addressed geopolitical rivalry, economic competition, and strategic
maneuvering between these global actors, and how their relative power
impacts global stability "regardless of the territorial".
o Territorial Considerations:
 Ambiguous Remark: "regardless of the territorial".
 Traditional Basis: Historically, control over territory was fundamental to
state power and sovereignty (information not in source).
 Shifting Importance: May suggest a modern perspective where other forms
of power (economic leverage, tech dominance, cultural influence) are
increasingly important, overshadowing physical territory (information not in
source). Power projection extends beyond borders via economic networks,
tech, cyber capabilities (information not in source).
 Transcending Limits: Could imply pursuit of power/survival extends
beyond territorial defense to global influence (e.g., US and China competing
far from borders). Encourages broader view of power not confined by
geography.
 Challenges within the System:
o The Challenge of Law and Internationalism: Mentions "challenge of law" and
"internationalism".
 International Law in Anarchy: "Challenge of law" stems from state
sovereignty; no global government means international law lacks universal
enforcement (information not in source). States are bound by consent,
violations carry political consequences (information not in source).
 Internationalism: Refers to political ideology advocating greater
economic/political cooperation for common good (information not in source).
Emphasizes international organizations, treaties, shared norms (information
not in source). Liberal internationalism argues cooperation is possible
(information not in source).
 Challenges to Internationalism: Realists argue states adhere only when it
serves national interest (information not in source). "Challenge of law" is
tension between realist self-interest and internationalist rules-based order.
o Taxation as a Systemic Element: The source includes "taxation".
 State Capacity and Power: Taxation is primary means for states to fund
operations (military, infrastructure, welfare) (information not in source).
Effective tax collection reflects state capacity, contributing to overall power
and international influence (information not in source).
 Economic Strength: Robust tax base allows investment in R&D, education,
strategic industries for long-term economic strength and global
competitiveness (information not in source). Economic power, linked to fiscal
health, influences bargaining power and aid/coercion capabilities
(information not in source).
 Domestic Stability: Effective taxation contributes to domestic stability,
making states more credible international partners and enhancing diplomatic
influence (information not in source). Weak tax systems lead to instability,
weakening international position (information not in source).
 Domestic Political Structures: The Example of India:
 o Explicit Statement: "India is federal state".
o Federal State: Power divided between central government and constituent units
(states/provinces), with distinct powers defined by constitution (information not in
source). Contrasts with unitary state (information not in source).
o India's Federalism: India's Constitution establishes a federal system with a strong
central government and significant powers devolved to states (information not in
source). This accommodates diversity while maintaining national unity (information
not in source).
o Relevance to International Relations:
 Internal Stability and External Behavior: Stable federal system contributes
to national cohesion, enhancing strength and influence internationally
(information not in source). Internal divisions could weaken global coherence
(information not in source).
 Democratic Example: India is the world's largest democracy; federal
structure is key to its governance (information not in source). It might
illustrate effective governance for large, diverse nations within the "sovereign
system".
 Comparative Analysis: Could be part of comparative analysis on how
different domestic political arrangements influence foreign policy or
economic development (information not in source).
10. 8 August Class 2: The Four Core Assumptions of Realism (Detailed)
This source provides a detailed exploration of realism and neorealism, focusing on their fundamental
characteristics and the four core assumptions shared across various realist traditions.
 1. Introduction to Realism and Neorealism:
o Foundational Framework: Realism (including neorealism and subdivisions like
offensive/defensive realism) is a foundational theoretical framework in IR.
o Shared Assumptions: All forms of realism are united by a set of shared assumptions.
o "Spectrum of Ideas": Realism is best understood not as a rigid, fixed point but as a
"spectrum of ideas".
o "Attitude of Mind" and "Philosophical Disposition": Characterized as a distinct
and recognizable "attitude of mind" and a "philosophical disposition".
o "Big Tent": Described as a "big tent," encompassing a multitude of theories and
sub-schools.
o Analogy to Religion: Draws a powerful analogy, comparing realism to a religion
involving a combination of beliefs, a specific way of thinking/responding, and a
"pantheon of canonical exemplars and saints" whose lives embody the virtues of
this "religion". This highlights realism as a comprehensive framework guiding
interpretation of international events, driven by core principles and influential figures.
o Pervasive Assumptions: These are primarily four in number: groupism, egoism,
anarchy, and power politics. They are deeply interconnected and form the
foundational bases for realist thought.
 2. The Four Core Assumptions of Realism:
o Realists universally share these four fundamental assumptions about politics,
particularly international politics, serving as analytical bedrock.
o 2.1. Groupism:
 Inherent to Humans: Human beings inherently live in groups.
 Politics as Group Activity: Politics is fundamentally a group activity, where
groups (comprising individuals) actively pursue and express their interests.
Understanding group dynamics is crucial.
  Nation-States in IR: In international politics, the most recognizable and
significant political groups are nation-states.
 Primary Political Units: Nation-states are the primary political units
engaging in politics on the global stage.
 Unfolding Analysis:
 Basic minimum for survivability is the existence of groups.
 Politics is inherently a group activity where groups pursue interests.
 In international politics, these groups are most prominently organized
as nation-states.
 Consequently, nation-states are the key actors that engage in
political interactions.
 The core of international politics lies in interactions and interest
pursuit by these sovereign national entities.
o 2.2. Egoism:
 How States Engage: Pertains to how nation-states engage in political
interactions and negotiations.
 Human Nature Aspect: Often seen as an aspect of human nature, suggesting
self-interest is an important driving factor for nations.
 "Enlightened Self-Interest": When engaging in politics, states' primary
objective is the expression of their "enlightened self-interest".
 Prioritization: Nations prioritize and pursue what they perceive as beneficial
for themselves.
 Determinant of Policy: For realists, a state's self-interest is a crucial
determinant of its foreign policy and interactions.
o 2.3. Anarchy:
 Most Distinctive Assumption: Perhaps the most distinctive assumption.
 Contrast with Hierarchy: Crucial to contrast with hierarchy, characteristic
of domestic systems.
 2.3.1. Hierarchy in Domestic Systems vs. Anarchy in International
Systems:
 Domestic Systems (Hierarchy): Three important institutions:
legislature, executive, judiciary. Their collective/independent
function leads to "authoritative allocation of values". This is
"authoritative" due to sovereign power and potential for coercion.
Decisions/laws are binding on all citizens, who are compelled to
accept them. This creates a hierarchical structure with a central
authority.
 International System (Anarchy): Not hierarchical but anarchical.
No "super-national state" or "supra-national government" to
direct states, dictate choices, or enforce binding decisions. Absence
of such a global power. Dictates/decisions by individual states or
blocs are not universally binding like domestic laws.
 Example (US Tariffs on India): If US President imposes tariffs on
India, India can oppose it; there is no global authority to
definitively enforce the US decision or India's opposition.
 2.3.2. Hierarchy Within Anarchy and the Role of Technology:
 Hierarchy of Power: Despite anarchy, a hierarchy can prevail in
terms of "distribution of power as a resource". Policy decisions of
powerful states (e.g., US) have maximum impact. Some states are
more influential (US, Russia, China, India). Smaller states might be
compliant due to power imbalance.
  Impact of Technology (WMDs): A critical nuance is the impact of
weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Their existence
fundamentally alters power dynamics and can mitigate traditional
power hierarchies, making the international system decidedly
anarchical despite unequal power distribution.
 Example (North Korea): Despite its smaller size/power compared
to the US, North Korea's possession of WMDs meant the US had to
negotiate with its leader ("the pocketsized missile man"). This
technological capability makes the international system unpredictable
and difficult to manage. The negotiation by the most powerful state
with a seemingly insignificant state underscores the equalizing effect
of WMDs.
 Security Paramount: For realists, security is paramount,
overriding economic considerations. Concerns about Iran
developing nuclear weapons led to interventions, not for permanent
peace, but for "relative equilibrium" or "relative peace," showing
WMDs' profound impact on power balance. WMDs "sort of starts at
the very heart of the international system," reinforcing its anarchical
nature.
o 2.4. Power Politics:
 How States Operate in Anarchy: Describes how nation-states (groups)
pursue their national self-interest within the prevailing condition of anarchy.
 "Power Wins": In absence of a supra-national authority to check interest
pursuit, a dynamic emerges: "power wins". The state with more power
ultimately prevails.
 "Only Way" to Resolve Conflict: Power politics is presented as the "only
way" or "only resolution to conflict" in such an anarchical system.
 Unregulated Environment: Where there are no overarching norms, no
morality, and no superior authority (unlike domestic systems), states are free
to pursue interests.
 Determinant of Outcomes: Since no checks/balances beyond states
themselves, the ultimate determinant of outcomes is power. This makes
power politics the inevitable mode of interaction and conflict resolution.
 3. Interconnectedness of the Assumptions:
o These four assumptions – groupism, egoism, anarchy, and power politics – are deeply
interconnected and mutually reinforcing.
o Groupism: Establishes states (groups) as primary actors.
o Egoism: Dictates states act in self-interest.
o Anarchy: Describes the environment where no higher authority regulates these self-
interested group interactions.
o Power Politics: Becomes the inevitable means for self-interested groups to pursue
objectives in an unregulated, anarchical world, where might often makes right.
o Coherent Worldview: Together, they form a coherent worldview for realists,
explaining recurring patterns of conflict, competition, and security pursuit.
o Structure Dictates Behavior: They provide a framework for understanding why
states behave as they do, emphasizing that the inherent structure of the
international system, rather than domestic factors or leaders, largely dictates
state behavior.
o Primary Goal: For realists, the primary goal of states in this anarchical environment
is survival and the maximization of their power to ensure their security.
11 August
I. Introduction to Realism and Structural Realism (New Realism)
 The source primarily discusses realism, a foundational theory in international relations.
 It focuses on realism's evolution into structural realism, also known as new realism.
 This theory aims to explain the dynamics of international politics, emphasizing the role of
power and security in state behavior.
 The discussion begins by clarifying the basic distinction between realism and structural
realism.
 A common understanding is that structural realism stems from the idea that the "structure of
information system has a conflict-generating potential".
 However, the source indicates that structural realism encompasses more than is commonly
discussed, highlighting its three kinds of features or approaches.
 A key objective is to explain why the realist approach to international analysis is divided into
three images: the first image, the second image, and the third image.
 The underlying assertion is that even liberal and neoliberal approaches, despite their
different emphasis, implicitly promote or give space to the theory of balance of power in
international affairs.
 This concept of balance of power is central to understanding how states manage the
anarchical nature of the international system.
 A fundamental question addressed is: "Why shouldn't states engage in nuclear war against
each other? Why can't they live [peacefully]?".
 The simple, direct answer provided by realism is that "there is no mechanism in
international politics to prevent states from declaring war against other states".
 This absence of a supra-national authority is identified as a cornerstone of realist thought.
II. The Three Images of International Politics
 The realist perspective categorizes the behavior of states and the nature of the international
system into three distinct "images," each offering a different level of analysis for
understanding international politics.
o A. The First Image: States as Egoist Agents
 This image focuses on the inherent nature of states themselves.
 States are characterized as "egoistic agents".
 Egoistic agents "pursue their self-interest unrestrainedly".
 There is no external authority or "supra-national mechanism" to prevent
states from pursuing their self-interest, even if it might lead to conflict.
 Realists use this inherent egoism and lack of external restraint to characterize
international politics, seeing state behavior as primarily driven by self-
preservation and the pursuit of individual gain.
o B. The Second Image: Capabilities of States
 This image shifts focus to the "capabilities of states" in the international
system.
 It posits that states possessing "greater capability" or "greater national
power" are "more likely to vigorously assert their national interests"
against other states.
 This is considered a unit-level capability, pertaining to the attributes and
power of individual states.
 The distribution of power among states is central to this image.
 The source provides several historical illustrations of this principle:
 19th and Early 20th Century Predominance of Britain: The
"preponderance of Britain in global affairs" was evident. Treaties
 from this period, such as the MacMahon Line (India-China), the
Radcliffe Line (India-Pakistan), and the Durand Line (India-
Afghanistan/Pakistan), bear "the stamp of British" negotiation,
reflecting their dominant capability.
 American Dominance Post-World War II: With the decline of
British colonial power, the relative capability of Britain diminished,
leading to an increase in the capability of the United States in the
post-Second World War era, starting from 1949. This period saw the
establishment of the UN system and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR). Many significant treaties, such as START I
and START II (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties) and the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), were signed with the U.S. as one of
the "two predominant units in the international system".
 Unipolarity After the Soviet Union's Collapse: For a brief period
after the disappearance of the Soviet Union, the international system
experienced unipolarity. During this time, the United States
aggressively expanded its influence, notably by including former
Soviet sphere states into NATO membership, leading to NATO's
eastward expansion. The Warsaw Pact, a military alliance, dissolved,
leaving NATO, backed by American power, as the dominant force in
the absence of a "counterbalancing force of Soviet Union". This
period of American unipolarity reflects the assertion of interests by a
state with overwhelming capability.
 Emergence of New Powers: In the contemporary world, while the
U.S. remains a great power, there has been an emergence of "a
number of powers along with the great powers".
 Great Powers: Traditionally, the Americans were considered
the great power. China has "acquired the status of a great
power," and Russia, as the successor state to the Soviet
Union, "always enjoys the status of a great power"
particularly in the security domain. The source emphasizes
Russia's capability to influence the "politics of Europe,
politics of America," and its nuclear capabilities, asserting
that "to discount Russians as a force whose time has
passed is not very correct".
 Middle Powers: Countries like Japan are identified as
"leading economic power[s] in the world," but their
economic position "does not match up to their security
position" as they are dependent on Americans for security.
France is also mentioned as a middle power; while a
member of the P5, it "do[es] not possess the power to really
impose their politics or their wealth" as effectively as true
great powers.
 Swing Powers: New powers like India, South Africa, and
Brazil are termed "swing powers". Their relative capability
has "increased over the years" compared to the pre-1990s
era. They are called swing powers because their position in
alliances with other countries makes their "political
argument very important" and they are "forces to be
reckoned with". The source also briefly mentions Israel in
this context, noting its strong "lobby in America" which can
 make the political voice of countries aligning with it
"credible and powerful," though it's debated if Israel itself
is a swing power or a "hard power".
 Puppet Countries: Conversely, countries like the
Philippines are considered "not a country which realists...
give any value [or] any credit in their structural logic".
For realists, such countries are "minions" or "unimportant
players" because they "do not have any independent
existence" and their "activities are of no consequence".
They are often used by stronger powers; for instance, the
Americans have "created a chain of islands which includes
the Philippines to basically stop the Chinese navy from
going outside". Despite alliances (e.g., Filipinos aligning
with Americans in the Indo-Pacific), these countries "do not
have any [independent influence], and despite the
alignment, the Chinese... force their will upon them".
o C. The Third Image: The Structure of the International System
 The third image delves into the "structure of the international system"
itself.
 This structure is described as "quasi-constant or constant".
 When it is said to be "constant," it means that the fundamental "units in
[the] international system will remain as they existed 500 years ago" and
"are going to exist 500 years from now" (i.e., states as primary actors).
 However, it is "quasi-constant" because of the "changing nature of
boundaries of states". For example, in South Asia, "three states have been
created," which reflects changes within the broader constant structure. The
changes in boundaries are "very slow". The core idea is that while the
structure remains, "some changes in the structure" occur due to the
"boundaries of the states changing".
 A critical insight of structural realism is that the structure of the system can
force states to take actions, even if those actions are not their "natural
preference" or "natural choice".
 The example given is India's nuclear weapons program:
 A number of people argued for South Asia and the world to be a
"nuclear-free zone".
 India was aware that testing a nuclear weapon would lead to
sanctions and was not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT).
 However, the Indian defense minister, prime minister, and foreign
policy establishment argued that despite having "no desire to possess
weapons of mass destruction," their "northern neighbor, which is
the People's Republic of China, possesses" them.
 According to realist theory, there is "nothing in international
politics which will prevent the Chinese from not using their
nuclear weapons".
 Therefore, due to this geopolitical positioning and the existing
nuclear capabilities of its neighbor, the "structural [compulsion]
was invoked for [India] to declare [or test] nuclear weapons".
This demonstrates how the structure of the system "forces the states
to take actions... which sort of offers them security," making it a
core tenet of structural realism.
  The distribution of power and resources is also a system-level feature, but
the acquisition or relinquishment of power by individual units (states) is a
unit-level activity.
 These two aspects—the "quasi-constant nature" of the structure and the
"redistribution or distribution of power"—are the main reasons for
conflict.
 If a less powerful unit becomes more powerful, it will have "all the incentive
to change the nature of international system," potentially by attacking
weaker powers and expanding its boundaries.
III. The Concept of Balance of Power
 The balance of power is a pivotal concept in international relations that is implicitly or
explicitly embraced by realists, liberals, and neoliberals alike.
o A. Core Idea and Importance
 Broadly, the balance of power means "balancing one force against
another".
 Its key purpose is to "prevent a more powerful state... from acting
aggressively against a less powerful state".
 For instance, the source notes that it is the "balancing act of United States
which prevents Philippines... not being militarily overtaken by China," as
the U.S. balances China.
 The importance of the balance of power is rooted in the realist understanding
that the "international system begins to resemble the Hobbesian state of
nature".
 In Thomas Hobbes's philosophy, the state of nature is characterized by
"everyone against everyone".
 Thus, in an international system lacking a central authority, states must
"devise a method, a means to prevent the more powerful, more
aggressive state to not attack the less powerful state".
 The balance of power serves as this mechanism, allowing states to "cope up
with certain events of international politics where lives of states resemble
the Hobbesian state of nature".
o B. Anarchy vs. Hierarchy
 While the international system is fundamentally anarchical (lacking a central
authority), it can also be seen as hierarchical.
 In this hierarchical view, "the most powerful states... impose their will on
less powerful states".
 The United States serves as a prime example: despite any criticisms, other
nations, including powerful ones like Russia, engage in summits and
discussions with U.S. leaders because America is perceived as "the
preponderant or the most powerful state".
 This demonstrates that some states wield significant influence and can
effectively "counter-guarantee by power, by strength, by military"
outcomes in international affairs.
o C. Features of Balance of Power
 The modern formulation of the balance of power is attributed to Martin
Wight, building upon Hans J. Morgenthau's seminal work, Politics
Among Nations, which extensively discusses balance of power.
 The primary action states take to achieve a balance of power is to "enter into
an alliance with other states to prevent dangerous concentration of
power in a single or a coalition of states".
o D. Types of Balancing
  The balance of power approach involves two crucial aspects:

1. Internal Balancing: This involves states increasing their
"economic and war-making capabilities". Essentially, it
means building up one's own military strength and economic
power to deter potential aggressors or to match the power of
others.

2. External Balancing: This occurs when states "aggregate
their war-making capability, military capability, or
security capability with other states". The goal is to
"balance the dangerous concentration of power in one
state" by forming alliances or coalitions.
 A classic historical example of the balance of power approach is the
interaction between Russia, Britain, and Crimea in the 19th century,
illustrating how states maneuvered to prevent any single power from
dominating the region.
IV. Conclusion (11 August)
 The source provides a foundational understanding of realism, particularly structural realism.
 It breaks down its core tenets into three analytical images: the individual nature of states
(egoism), the varying capabilities of states and their impact on international relations, and the
enduring but slowly changing structure of the international system that compels states to act
in certain ways.
 Central to navigating this anarchic international environment is the concept of the balance of
power, a mechanism states employ through internal and external means to ensure their
security and prevent any single actor from achieving dangerous hegemony.
 This comprehensive view underscores the realist focus on power, self-interest, and the ever-
present potential for conflict in a world without a higher authority.
12 August
I. The Balance of Power Theory: Foundations and Methods
 The concept of the balance of power is central to understanding how states manage power
dynamics in the international system, primarily to prevent any single state or coalition from
achieving predominance.
 The theory suggests that states will act to counteract the concentration of power that threatens
their interests, often through alliances or increased capabilities.
o A. Historical Illustration: The Crimean War
 A significant historical example of balancing behavior is found in the 19th-
century Crimean War, where Britain and France jointly confronted Russia.
 The British and French, though geographically distant, anticipated that if they
did not fight Russia in Crimea, Russia would eventually threaten them at
home in London and Paris.
 Despite Crimea being over 2,000 kilometers from Western Europe, the two
Western European powers engaged Russia there to prevent a future
confrontation on their own soil, thus balancing the rising power of Russia.
 This demonstrates a proactive balancing act to counter a perceived future
threat.
o B. Martin Wight's Six Methods of Balancing
 Martin Wight, described as a functionalist theorist, outlined six methods by
which states or coalitions of states balance or manage power in the
international system.
 These methods, proposed in 1957, were also accepted by prominent realist
theorist Hans Morgenthau in his seminal work, Politics Among Nations.
 The core reason for balancing is the concentration of power in one state or a
coalition of states that threatens others.
 While states do not always resort to direct conflict, they maintain balance
through external balancing acts, often by forming coalitions against
powerful states.
 The six methods are:

1. Increase Capabilities (Internal and External Balancing):
States enhance their power through both internal and external
means. Internal balancing involves developing one's own
military and economic strength, while external balancing
involves forming alliances with other states to aggregate
power.

2. Negotiate Rather Than Fight: This suggests that states
should prioritize diplomatic solutions over military
confrontation to maintain balance. The source, however,
immediately follows this with a seemingly contradictory
point, indicating the complexity or alternative interpretations
within the theory.

3. Fight Rather Than Fail to Increase Capabilities: This
method emphasizes that states should be willing to use force
if necessary to prevent their capabilities from being
diminished or outmatched by others. It underscores the
importance of maintaining a competitive edge in power.

4. Stop Fighting Rather Than Eliminate an Essential Actor:
Essential actors are states whose actions or consequences
profoundly influence international political and economic
life. Examples include the United States, Russia, China, and
emerging "swing powers". The principle here is to avoid
completely eradicating such actors, as their elimination can
create a power vacuum that destabilizes the international
system.

5. Oppose Any Coalition or Single Actor That Tends to
Assume a Position of Predominance Within the System:
This method directly targets the core objective of balance of
power: preventing hegemony. States should resist any entity
that seeks to dominate the system.

6. Constraint Actors Who Subscribe to Supranational
Organizational Principles: For realists, individual states are
the fundamental actors in the international system. When
groups of states form supranational organizations, they
aggregate their capabilities, becoming more powerful
through external balancing. The source cites ASEAN as an
example. While ASEAN might not be a militant bloc, it
 began as a trading bloc and has evolved to include security
dimensions. Individually, member states like the Philippines
or Thailand may have limited capacity, but collectively, their
aggregated capability makes them a significant force in
Southeast Asia. Therefore, the balance of power principle
necessitates resisting the principles of supranational
organizations or states that adhere to them.

7. Permit Permanently Defeated or Constrained Essential
Actors to Re-enter the System: This principle is particularly
highlighted in the context of the collapse of the Soviet
Union. If a state's capability is permanently excluded, it
creates a vacuum in the international system, which can be
destabilizing. The re-entry of Russia, replacing the Soviet
Union, was deemed important for maintaining global
balance, as the Soviet Union's retreat had created a unipolar
moment that was not conducive to world politics' balance.
 The source clarifies that not all six methods are always immediately visible in
a state's balancing act; often, a combination of some of these
recommendations is employed.
II. Refinement of Balance of Power: The Balance of Threat Theory
 A significant refinement to the traditional balance of power theory was introduced by
Stephen Walt, who proposed the concept of balance of threat.
 Walt argued that states balance against the perceived threat, rather than merely against
power.
 This distinction is crucial because a powerful state might not be seen as a threat if its
intentions are benign, whereas a less powerful state with aggressive intentions could be
perceived as a significant threat.
 Geography plays a very important role in how states balance against threats.
 For instance, the source explains that the Indian state constantly balances threats from its
western and northern neighbors (referring to Pakistan and China).
 Even if the U.S. imposes tariffs that could be seen as a threat to India, India does not balance
against them as intensely as it does against threats from Pakistan, particularly concerning
statements about the use of weapons of mass destruction.
 This highlights that the feeling or perception of a threat, heavily influenced by geographical
proximity and historical context, drives balancing behavior more than raw power alone.
III. Neo-Realism and its Sub-Theories
 Neo-realism, as a broad and abstract approach to international politics, posits that the
anarchical structure of the international system imposes choices upon states.
 This structure often compels states to make decisions that might not be their natural
preference.
 However, neo-realism's general nature meant it sometimes needed to "reinvent itself" to offer
more specific explanations for particular issues in international politics.
 This led to the development of sub-schools or sub-theoretical models, two of which are
"defensive realism" (or "defensive offense") and "offensive defense".
o A. Defensive Realism / Defensive Offense (John Mearsheimer)
 John Mearsheimer, a prominent contemporary realist, is associated with the
concept of defensive realism.
 His work, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, has achieved classic status
in international relations theory.
 Mearsheimer presents a seemingly paradoxical argument for a realist: states
do not naturally choose to go to war. Wars are expensive, involve significant
loss of life, and are generally not the first choice for states.
 This suggests an "inbuilt element of negotiation" in interstate relations,
where the option of war is not always viable.
 Despite arguing against war as a natural choice, Mearsheimer contends that
states constantly prepare for war for three important reasons:

1. Anarchical Structure and Uncertainty: The anarchical
nature of the international system offers no certainty that
peace or negotiations will prevail over war. The possibility of
conflict is always present, compelling states to prepare for
war. This preparation involves enhancing both internal and
external capabilities. Internal balancing, in this context,
means increasing economic capability and directing
resources from economic development towards defense and
security.

2. Sociological Factor: Societal Cohesiveness: States are
inherently difficult to conquer or defeat, partly due to the
cohesiveness of their societies. The more cohesive a society,
the harder it is to defeat in war. The source points to the
American defeat or withdrawal from Vietnam as an example,
attributing it partly to the Vietnamese society's cohesiveness.
Although anti-war protests and the prolonged nature of the
conflict also contributed, the stiff challenge posed by the
Vietnamese was significantly aided by their societal
cohesion. The speaker notes that they cannot definitively link
American withdrawal from Afghanistan to the same reasons
as Vietnam, given Afghanistan's complex tribal structure and
constant internal warfare, despite having expertise on
Afghanistan. However, the general point remains that highly
cohesive societies are difficult to defeat.

3. Presence of Technology (Weapons of Mass Destruction -
WMDs): The advancements in war-making technology,
particularly Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), act as a
significant deterrent. The end of World War II, marked by the
atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ushered in an
era where the destructive potential of nuclear weapons
became evident. Since then, there has been a concerted effort
by nuclear-armed states to control their proliferation, as
universal possession of such weapons would imply universal
capacity for annihilation. WMDs can create equivalence
among states, even if they lack in other aspects of power,
thus preventing them from fearing others in an uncertain
international environment. The source provides the example
of Pakistan and India, noting that Pakistan's possession of
nuclear technology creates a situation of "relative peace"
despite their adversarial relationship, as the threat of WMDs
deters full-scale conflict.
  These three factors, especially the sociological aspect and technology, act as
"roadblocks" or "defenses" that prevent states from easily engaging in war
with one another, even though the first reason—the inherent preparation for
war due to anarchy—remains constant. States perpetually prepare for war due
to anticipation of uncertainty and conflict, even if they aim to avoid actual
combat.
o B. Offensive Defense
 The "offensive defense" sub-theory within neo-realism posits that despite
technological capabilities potentially placing states on an equal footing, there
is no guarantee that states will not develop superior technological
capacities.
 This uncertainty necessitates that states must always prepare for war.
 The theory acknowledges that while technology might create a temporary
balance, the continuous pursuit of advanced military capabilities is a
fundamental requirement.
 The example provided is American investment in missile defense systems,
like the concept of "security umbrellas" designed to intercept incoming
missiles.
 While such systems, like Israel's Iron Dome, have shown some effectiveness,
they are not infallible, reinforcing the need for constant preparation and
adaptation in an uncertain security environment.
IV. Summary (12 August)
 The provided source elucidates the dynamic nature of power balancing in international
relations.
 It evolves from traditional methods to more nuanced understandings of threat perception and
the role of societal cohesion and technology, all within the overarching framework of neo-
realism's emphasis on state survival in an anarchic world.
13 August - no class
14 August
1. Introduction to International Relations Theories
 The discourse introduces foundational concepts in international relations, particularly those
rooted in Realism and Neorealism.
 These theoretical frameworks largely center on the state as the primary actor and emphasize
the significance of power distribution in the international system.
 The discussion aims to elucidate how power dynamics contribute to stability or instability,
and how different states navigate their interests within this framework.
2. Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST)
 Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST) is presented as a significant advancement in Neorealism,
primarily developed during the Cold War.
o 2.1. Definition and Core Concept
 HST refers to a situation where two hegemons in a bipolar international
system, where power is more or less equally shared, provide stability to the
international system.
 This theory suggests that a concentrated distribution of power, particularly
in a bipolar structure, can foster a more stable global environment.
o 2.2. Role of Hegemons
 A hegemon, according to the source, enjoys a dominant status across all
dimensions of power.
 Key roles and characteristics of hegemons include:
 Setting Norms and Rules: The hegemon establishes the normative
or rule-based order of the international system. This involves setting
 standards and expectations for state behavior, thereby influencing
global governance.
 Maintaining Stability: Hegemons are crucial for maintaining
stability, especially in bilateral and multilateral negotiations. They
"underwrite" or stabilize these negotiations, providing the necessary
support for agreements to be reached and upheld. For instance, in
South Asian politics, China and India are identified as hegemons
who underwrite specific negotiations between smaller countries like
the Maldives and Sri Lanka, or Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Without
the support or endorsement of the hegemon, particular negotiations
may not succeed.
 Demonstrating Pre-eminence: A hegemon demonstrates pre-
eminence in setting up international norms and rules. This implies a
leading role in shaping the foundational principles and structures of
global interactions.
o 2.3. Historical and Contemporary Application
 The Cold War situation, led by the American and Soviet Union, serves as a
prime example of a bipolar system with a near-equal distribution of power
that, according to HST, provided a certain level of stability. Although the
Soviet Union eventually lost the "race" in 1991, its prolonged status as a
strategic competitor to the United States exemplifies this dynamic.
 The theory's applicability extends beyond the global bipolar context, and it
can also be applied to smaller geopolitical contexts.
 For example, the relationship between China and India in South Asia is
cited as an instance where these regional hegemons influence stability and
negotiations.
3. Power Transition Theory
 Power Transition Theory offers a contrasting perspective, focusing on the redistribution of
power and its implications for international stability.
o 3.1. Definition and Core Concept
 Power Transition Theory describes a situation where power, as a resource, is
being transitioned or transferred from one country to another.
 Realists, in this context, emphasize the distribution and concentration of
power in the hands of those actors whose actions genuinely influence the
course of international affairs.
 The core of this theory involves a shifting balance between a dominant state
and a revisionist state.
o 3.2. Dominant vs. Revisionist States
 Dominant State: This refers to the state that holds the maximum
concentration of economic and military power at a given time. Currently, the
United States is identified as the dominant state.
 Revisionist State: This is a state that seeks to revise or challenge the
dominance of the predominant state. The People's Republic of China (PRC)
is explicitly named as the primary revisionist state seeking to challenge
American dominance.
o 3.3. Case Study: United States and China
 The relationship between the U.S. and China is presented as a contemporary
manifestation of power transition.
 Analogous to the Soviet Union: The situation of the PRC is considered
analogous to that of the Soviet Union in terms of its power indices; China is
described as being "close to the Americans" in many respects. However, the
 source notes that China does not yet possess the definitive "edge" to fully
upstage the Americans on a global scale.
 Acknowledgement of Competition: A significant point highlighted is the
acknowledgment of the PRC by the American presidency in 1991 as a
"strategic competitor". This acknowledgment, unlike that extended to other
countries like Pakistan or India, signified China as a "stiff competitor" and a
potential contender ready to "upstage" American pre-eminence. This
recognition itself is interpreted as a manifestation of power transition.
 US Dependency and Strategic Calculations: The source illustrates the
nuanced power dynamics between the U.S. and China by contrasting U.S.
policy towards China with that towards India.
 China: The Americans are cautious about imposing significant tariffs
or aggressive measures on China, largely because they are dependent
on Chinese foreign exchange reserves and realize that without
Chinese assistance, they cannot manage global affairs. This
dependency makes the U.S. willing to "give a lead" to the Chinese.
 India: In contrast, the U.S. has imposed tariffs on India (e.g., 50%
tariffs), indicating that they believe they can manage the affairs of
Asia without India's direct assistance. This disparity in treatment
underscores the differing power perceptions and strategic
calculations by the dominant state.
o 3.4. Deterministic Realism
 The underlying philosophical stance of this analysis is rooted in
Deterministic Realism.
 This perspective asserts that states are the primary actors in international
politics, and they are inherently driven to pursue domination.
 Deterministic Realism suggests there is no "indeterminacy" or "confusion"
regarding states' fundamental goals; they are programmed to seek power and
influence.
4. The "Status Approach" to International Politics and its Limitations
 The discussion then shifts to scrutinize the "Status Approach" in international politics, which
is inherently tied to Realism and Neorealism due to their focus on state structure.
 Neorealism, while acknowledging the role of other actors, primarily concentrates on the
attributes and actions of states.
o 4.1. Arnold Wolfers' Critique of "National Interest"
 A central critique of the "Status Approach" is presented through the
arguments of Arnold Wolfers (1952).
 Definition of National Interest: Wolfers contended that states pursue
"national interest," which can be characterized as "enlightened self-
interest" or, more candidly, "narrow self-interest". He further posited that
"national interest" is synonymous with "national power".
 The Argument: "Interest of a Few": Wolfers critically declared these ideas,
particularly the notion of "national interest," as "scandalous" or, at the very
least, "contested". His core objection to the concept of a unified "national
interest" is that when states pursue it, it is often qualified as the "interest of a
few" or a "particular interest," rather than the "interest of all".
 Conclusion: Wolfers concluded that the so-called "national interest" "does
not hold any water" as a concept; it is merely the "interest of a few,
particular interests" that state elites pursue in international relations. He
argued that this concept should not be overly emphasized.
o 4.2. Counter-Arguments to Wolfers' Critique
  The source presents a counter-argument to Wolfers' skepticism about
"national interest," which also serves as the first limitation identified within
the "Status Approach" itself.
 The Binding Nature of State Actions: The primary counter-argument asserts
that the acts of states and the laws passed by states are equally binding on all
their citizens.
 Even when considering the "redistributive aspects" of state actions—
meaning how benefits or burdens are distributed—the fact that the burden is
equally shared by all citizens renders Wolfers' critique less potent.
 Justification for "National Interest": Therefore, it is argued that it is proper
to refer to the "interest of everyone as national interest" because the state's
actions affect all its citizens equally. This argument suggests that despite
potential critiques, the concept of a collective national interest remains valid
due to the universal binding nature of state actions on its populace.
5. Conclusion (14 August)
 The source material provides a comprehensive overview of two fundamental theories in
international relations: Hegemonic Stability Theory and Power Transition Theory.
 It elucidates how the distribution and shift of power among states critically influence global
stability and interactions.
 Furthermore, it delves into the philosophical underpinnings of state behavior by examining
the concept of "national interest" and its critiques, specifically through the lens of Arnold
Wolfers, while also offering a counter-argument to reaffirm the legitimacy of the "national
interest" in discussions of state conduct.
 Together, these concepts form a framework for understanding the complex dynamics of
power, competition, and cooperation that define the international system.
:
I. Understanding the Limitations of the State-Centric Approach
The discourse begins by acknowledging the intention to analyse the limitations of the state-centric
approach, emphasising their validity as a critique.
 Defining the Scope: Domestic vs. International Relations
o The two core categories for analysis are domestic politics and international
relations.
o Domestic Politics: Refers to the internal political dynamics within a state, reiterating
key arguments about the nature of the state in relation to its domestic society.
o International Relations and Transnational Politics: Also referred to as "national
relations," this is divided into domestic politics and transnational politics. This
highlights the dual nature of international relations, encompassing internal
dimensions influencing external policy and cross-border interactions that transcend
state control.
 The Nature and Existence of the State
o A foundational argument is that "states do not exist" in isolation or a vacuum; they
are not independent, self-contained entities, but are deeply embedded within broader
contexts.
o States in international politics are located both within the international system and
within their respective national systems.
o The similarity between international and domestic politics (or domestic jurisdiction)
is deemed important for the existence of states, implying interconnectedness rather
than isolation.
 States as Responders to Twin Challenges
 o A crucial insight is that states respond to the "pulls of domestic politics" and the
"pressures of international relations".
o This dual challenge dictates their actions and policies, as states must navigate these
internal and external forces to survive in the international system.
 National Interest as a Product of Pressures
o States generally pursue their respective national interests.
o National interest is not an inherent or static concept, but rather "the product of
the pulls and pressure[s] of domestic [and] foreign, and pressures of
international [relations]". This definition sets the stage for a critical examination of
what constitutes national interest and whose interests it truly represents.
II. Critique of the Concept of National Interest
The concept of national interest is presented as the "mainstay of [the] realist... state-centric
approach," but the source strongly argues against its simplistic acceptance, presenting a robust
critique.
 National Interest: A Dangerous and Controversial Concept
o A key thinker in 1952 argued that national interest is a "dangerous and
controversial concept".
o National Interest vs. Collective Interest: If national interest genuinely represented
the interest of the nation, it could be equated with a collective interest. However, the
source contends that national interest "can barely be called the product of or the
summation of the aggregation of everybody's interest". This challenges the notion
that national interest is a shared, universal good for all citizens.
o Sectional or Elite Interest: Instead, it is argued that national interest can, "at best,
be [a] sectional or elite or [particular] interest". This means it often reflects the
preferences or benefits of certain segments of society rather than the entire
population.
o For realists, concepts like state, national interest, national power, and national
security are considered important and often viewed as synonymous.
o If national interest truly represents everyone's interest, it should have an "equal
[redistributive] effect" across the population; otherwise, it cannot be called the
interest of the entire nation. This forms the basis of the critique, suggesting a
disconnect between the ideal and the reality.
 Empirical Examples Supporting the Critique
o To substantiate the argument that national interest is not equally shared and can be a
dangerous concept, three distinct examples are provided: economic policy, security
policies, and climate change.
 Economic Policy and its Redistributive Effects: Any economic policy
invariably affects people differently, creating "gainers" and "losers".
Therefore, arguing that an economic policy is "shared by all and everybody
bears the redistributive effect" is considered wrong, reinforcing the idea that
it's often a sectional or elite interest.
 Security Policies and Unequal Burdens: A primary function of the modern
state is to protect resources and people from external threats. In conflict,
states are expected to protect land, citizens, and resources. However, the
source asks: "Who bears the brunt of [the conflict]?". The 1962 conflict
example highlights that civilian populations bear significant burdens, and
despite national interest calling for land protection, costs are not equally
shared. This leads to the conclusion that national interest in conflict is "not
equally shared," thus invalidating it as an interest of all and rendering it a
"dangerous concept".
  Climate Change and Global Warming: Disparate Impacts: This issue
affects all individuals and groups and, given its "redistributive dimension,"
should theoretically be the quintessential national interest. However, like
economic and security policies, climate change policies also have "losers
and winners".
 For instance, strict climate regimes might negatively impact
subsistence farmers, while those with carbon-intensive industries
might influence policymakers against stringent measures.
 The Problem of Free Riders: Even though global warming is
disastrous for some countries (e.g., small island nations), not all
states equally embrace mitigation policies. Major polluters like the
United States (significant greenhouse gas emitter) have pulled out of
international climate agreements, demonstrating a divergence
between what some countries want and what they do. This illustrates
"free loaders" or "free riders" who benefit from others' efforts
without equivalent commitments, undermining the idea of a
universally shared national interest.
 What States Want vs. What They Do: There is a critical
discrepancy between "what states want and what they do in
international [relations]". Many countries desire reduced global
temperatures, but not all are willing to commit to reducing emissions.
The US withdrawal from climate discussions is used as an example
to argue that if their national interest truly aligned with reducing
global temperatures, they would contribute more actively.
III. Limitations of the Critique of National Interest
The discussion then shifts to the limitations of the critique of national interest, presented in two ways
(excluding constructivism).
 States as Authoritative Actors
o Questioning national interest does not "undercut [the] authority of states".
o Regardless of policy outcomes, states remain the "most authoritative actor within
its own jurisdiction".
o States, acting within their sovereign domain and projecting national interest, are the
primary variable for analysis in international relations. Their authority to make and
enforce domestic decisions is largely undisputed.
 Jeffrey Negro's Two-Stage Process and Reductionist Approach
o Jeffrey Negro, an international relations scholar, suggested a "two-stage process" to
understand causation in international relations.
o This is referred to as a "reductionist approach" or "bottom-up" approach, often
adopted by international political economists.
o Aggregation of Interests: This approach begins by aggregating the interests of
individuals and groups within national states. It starts at a micro-level, combining
diverse interests to understand how national interest is formed, calculated, and
aggregated from these sub-state interests.
o Limitation: This approach does not necessarily go "behind how this interest is
being formed". Instead, it often takes the national interest, as articulated by
governments (economic, political, security, environmental, or cultural), as a given
index, without delving into its intricate formation processes.
 The Systemic Approach
o In contrast to the reductionist approach, many scholars of international relations are
"systemic scholars".
 o They primarily focus on the system as a whole, rather than disaggregating interests
within states, setting up a broader discussion about different theoretical perspectives.
IV. Systemic vs. Reductionist Approaches in International Relations
The source elaborates on the differences between these two scholarly approaches.
 Systemic Scholars
o Defined by their practice of taking "national interest as given".
o They do not question how national interest is formed but analyse it as a characteristic
of each unit (state) within the international system.
o Their focus is on the international system itself, theorising about phenomena like
war and peace based on the interactions of these states, each pursuing its "given"
national interest.
o They operate at the macro level, viewing states as unitary actors whose interests are
already defined.
 Reductionist Scholars
o Do not take national interest as given.
o They are "curious about how the national interest is coordinated and [formed]".
o They begin by segregating and then aggregating the interests of various groups and
individuals within the national political system, aiming for a more nuanced
understanding of how state behaviour emerges from internal dynamics.
o Challenges for Reductionist Scholars:
 Does not always yield a "parsimonious understanding of reasons of war
and [peace]" because calculating or correctly aggregating national interest is
difficult.
 Grapple with the "problem of equilibrium and disequilibrium" when
attempting to aggregate diverse interests.
 Are "not able to correctly predict all the time why states choose to go to
conflict".
 In democratic states, it can be "far more [difficult], rather impossible," for
reductionist power to accurately aggregate interests and arrive at a definitive
understanding, due to the complex interplay of diverse interests.
V. The Evolving Landscape of International Relations: Transnational Actors
The discussion broadens to consider transnational relations, highlighting that three sets of actors now
play a vital role in creating an unprecedented level of interdependence among states, departing from a
purely state-centric view.
 Expanding the List of Actors Beyond States
o The list of relevant actors has expanded beyond just states. The four key actors in
international relations now include:
 States
 Cosmopolitan individuals: Individuals whose loyalties and identifications
transcend national borders, often engaging in global issues or movements.
 Transnational corporations (TNCs): Large companies operating in multiple
countries, often with significant economic and political influence that can
rival or exceed some states.
 Transnational advocacy networks (TANs): Networks of activists, NGOs,
and other non-state actors coordinating across borders to advocate for
specific causes (e.g., human rights, environmental protection).
o These additional actors have emerged to dominate the international system,
influencing the course of international relations.
 Challenging Realist Perspectives
 o The inclusion of cosmopolitan individuals, TNCs, and TANs directly challenges the
realist perspective.
o Realism traditionally focuses on "single action" actors, with the state being the key
principle.
o However, the rise of these non-state actors, particularly in the age of globalisation,
necessitates a broader analytical framework.
 The Significance of Transnational Actors in the Age of Globalisation
o While some theorists argue these actors are merely "creation[s] of states," the source
emphasises that even if so, they perform an "important role in international
political life".
o Therefore, their actions and consequences "have to be taken into consideration"
when analysing international behaviour, such as states going to war or choosing
peace. Their influence is profound in the age of globalisation, shaping dynamics and
outcomes.
VI. Critique of the State-Centric/Realist Approach to International Relations (Additional
Insights)
The sources fundamentally challenge the state-centric approach, often associated with realism, which
posits the state as the sole or primary actor.
 The Multitude of Actors Beyond States
o Realism's focus on states as the "fundamental actor" is seen as incomplete,
overlooking a multitude of other significant actors and complex dynamics.
o Paradoxically, states themselves create many of these other actors (e.g.,
international organisations like the World Trade Organization - WTO, or the Financial
Action Task Force - FATF) which then profoundly influence international affairs.
o Problem for realism: It is not clear or "measurable by any scale" to what extent
these IOs impact state behaviour, or how states impact these organisations. If IOs are
state creations yet exert significant influence, the state-centric approach lacks
"symmetric power" to fully explain why states remain the sole important actors, or
how their authority functions in such a context.
o This leads to the crucial point that sovereignty needs to be re-theorised to
adequately explain state authority and cooperation in a world with these additional
actors.
o Beyond IOs, other crucial transnational actors identified are cosmopolitan
individuals, transnational corporations, and advocacy networks. These interact
with similar entities across borders, creating a complex web of relations beyond state-
to-state interactions.
 Re-theorizing Sovereignty: Internal and External Dimensions
o A core element of the critique is the argument that sovereignty needs to be re-
theorized, traditionally having two dimensions.
o External Dimension: Refers to the historical understanding of international law,
which guides and regulates sovereign interaction among states.
o Internal Dimension: This is the more critical aspect for challenging realism. The
internal dimension of sovereignty is what allows the three types of transnational
actors (cosmopolitan individuals, transnational corporations, and advocacy networks)
to interact with similar actors across borders.
 Crucially, liberal states are highlighted as having inherent limitations in
controlling these internal interactions, by law, not just convention.
 While liberal states can regulate national economies, pass laws, impose taxes
on multinational corporations, or take punitive measures against those
threatening economic sovereignty, they cannot pass laws that restrict
 fundamental freedoms granted to individuals and groups (e.g., freedom
of assembly, freedom to propagate religion).
 Because citizens of liberal states are "armed with legal provisions" allowing
global interaction, these non-state actors can "substantially alter choices
made by states" in international relations.
 This explains why international relations are "much more developed"
among liberal states than between liberal and non-liberal states. The
European Union serves as a classic example, where member states adhere to
democratic governance and the rule of law, leading to greater interaction and
interdependence. This inherent legal framework in liberal states, protecting
freedoms, makes it challenging for them to fully control transnational flows,
further undermining a purely state-centric view.
 The Role of Technology: Enabler and Controller
o Technology is a significant factor, cutting both ways as an enabler of transnational
interactions and a tool states attempt to control.
o As an enabler: Developments in communication technology allow all three types of
transnational actors (advocacy networks, TNCs, cosmopolitan individuals) to
communicate instantly across nations. For example, technology enables TNCs to
move capital rapidly between stock markets.
o As a controller: Technology is also designed to allow states to exercise control.
States can implement "checkpoints" to regulate internet content, allowing
information not harmful to their existence or security, while preventing other content
or propaganda from reaching citizens. Examples include China's ban on certain
apps following "Sino-Indian discussions" or the Indian government banning
YouTube channels deemed anti-national.
o Despite these efforts, liberal states find it "extremely difficult" to "clamp down"
on the free flow of communication technology. This difficulty arises because
information and communication are "interconnected in a much more mysterious
way," allowing adversarial states or actors to bypass bans and exert influence through
other "pressure points" in a state's social or economic life. This again underscores the
limitations of state control in a digitally interconnected world.
 Limitations of Realism's Uni-Focal Approach
o The overarching criticism is that realism, or neo-realism, focuses "too much on a
uni-focal approach" to explaining international relations, concentrating exclusively
on the state and its actions.
o This "uni-dimensional approach" becomes questionable when the actions and
impacts of other actors are considered.
o The presence of multiple actors in the international system provides "greater
solidarity" and complexity, which in turn reduces the "resilience or resolve" of
realist explanations to capture the full nature of international relations.
o Ultimately, the power that realism attributes to states is derived from their
sovereignty, which, as argued, needs to be re-theorized given the contemporary
international landscape.

Realism by William C. Wohlforth

Realism: An Overview
  The academic study of international relations is often understood as a debate about
realism. Realism serves as a foil against which other schools of thought define
themselves and their contributions, making the study of international politics largely
inexplicable without a grounding in it.
 Despite its influence, realism is systematically misunderstood. Scholars, whether for
or against realist ideas, are incentivised to misrepresent it, leading to many popular
criticisms missing the mark.
 Crucially, realism is not, nor has it ever been, a single theory. The term "theory" is
often used to refer to three distinct things within this context, leading to confusion:
o Realism: A large and complex tradition of statecraft and scholarship.
o Subschools within realism: Complex schools of thought fitting within the
realist tradition, such as neorealism.
o Specific realist theories: Propositions about patterns of relations among states
or pressures facing a particular state (e.g., balance of power, security dilemma,
offense-defense balance). The author reserves the term "theory" for these
specific propositions or arguments.
 The misunderstanding that realism can or must be reduced to a single, internally
consistent, and logically coherent theory is identified as the "taproot of the greatest
misunderstanding".

What is Realism?

 Political realists typically trace their tradition back through Thomas Hobbes and
Niccolò Machiavelli to Thucydides.
 Within the academic study of international relations (which is roughly a century old),
four principal generations of realist thought can be identified:
o Interwar and wartime generation: Key figures include Reinhold Niebuhr
and E. H. Carr.
o Postwar or early Cold War generation: Symbolised by Hans
Morgenthau’s Politics among Nations (1954), and prominently including
George Kennan and Raymond Aron. Morgenthau’s book gained its famous
first chapter, outlining his six principles of political realism, in its 1954 second
edition.
o Détente generation: Best represented by Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of
International Politics (1979), with leading exponents like Stephen Krasner
and Robert Gilpin.
o Post-Cold War generation: Led by John Mearsheimer (2001), whose book
The Tragedy of Great Power Politics is becoming emblematic, and also
including Steven Walt, Randall Schweller, and Charles Glaser. This
generation includes representatives of offensive, defensive, and neoclassical
realism.
 Realism is best understood as a "spectrum of ideas," not a fixed point. It's described
as an "attitude of mind" with a distinctive flavour, a "philosophical disposition,"
and a "big tent" for various theories. C. A. J. Coady (2005, 122) draws an analogy to
a religion, involving a loosely related set of beliefs, a way of thinking, a desire to
preach, and a pantheon of canonical exemplars embodying its virtues.

Four Central Propositions of Realism

Realists generally converge around four central propositions, forming a working definition of
the tradition:

1. Groupism:
o Politics occurs within and between groups.
o Group solidarity is crucial for domestic politics, while conflict and
cooperation between polities are central to international politics.
o Human survival beyond subsistence requires group cohesion, but this very
cohesion can generate conflict with other groups.
o Currently, nation-states are the most important human groups, and
nationalism is the primary source of in-group cohesion.
o While the term "states" is used for convenience, realism makes no assumption
about the specific nature of the polity and can apply to any social setting
where groups interact. It is a misconception to claim that states (defined by
territorial sovereignty) are necessarily the central actors; rather, it applies to
any polity or group.
2. Egoism:
o Individuals and groups acting politically are primarily driven by narrow
self-interest.
o This egoism is rooted in human nature.
o Its expression can be exacerbated, moderated, or temporarily overcome by
national and international political structures, institutions, and values.
3. Anarchy:
o The absence of government significantly shapes international politics.
o Anarchic political systems are systems of self-help.
o Anarchy imposes distinctive constraints on international actors' ability to
achieve their purposes and exacerbates group egoism.
4. Power Politics:
o The combination of groupism and egoism in an anarchic environment leads
international relations to be, "regrettably, largely a politics of power and
security".
o Human affairs, beyond the hunter-gatherer stage, are always characterised by
great inequalities of power in two senses:
 Social influence or control: Some groups/individuals have
disproportionate political influence.
 Resources: Some groups/individuals are disproportionately endowed
with material means to achieve their goals.
o Politics involves the interaction between social and material power, unfolding
under the shadow of the potential use of material power to coerce.
o A key corollary is realism's characteristic skepticism toward pursuing moral
objectives in international relations.
o The assumption of rationality is often identified as another premise, but it is
either broadly shared by most theories or not essential to realism in a "thick
sense".

 Groupism and egoism apply to both domestic and international politics. Canonical
realists like Thucydides and Machiavelli did not make a categorical distinction, and
Niebuhr and Carr saw realism as a general approach to politics.
 However, over the past century, most scholars have treated realism as primarily
pertaining to international politics. In this view, anarchy qualitatively transforms
 politics, making power politics principally characteristic of international relations.
The difference between civilisation and barbarism, in this sense, is a revelation of the
same human nature under different conditions.

Realism's Unity: The Signature Argument

 If the world operates by the four rules (groupism, egoism, anarchy, power politics),
important consequences follow for understanding international politics:
o Focus on powerful groups: The main identifying groups (tribes, city-states,
nation-states) will significantly influence human affairs, making it analytically
useful to focus on the most powerful (resource-rich and influential) groups.
o Centrality of group interest: The group's collective interest will be central to
its politics, suggesting skepticism toward professed foreign policy aims other
than state interest.
o Necessity trumps universal morality: Necessity, as defined by group
interest, will override any universal morality, necessitating a look beyond
rhetoric to the underlying power realities.
 Realists, therefore, analyse international relations by looking for where the power is,
what the group interests are, and the role power relationships play in reconciling
clashing interests.
 Realists view their propositions as "simply realistic"—based on dispassionate
observation of human affairs as they are, not as one might wish them to be.
 The most important intellectual thread providing coherence to the realist tradition is
its signature argument: If human affairs are characterised by groupism, egoism, and
power-centrism, then politics is likely to be conflictual unless there is some central
authority to enforce order.
 In the absence of such authority ("anarchy"), any state can resort to force. This
uncertainty means states tend to arm themselves, leading to a different political
dynamic where disputes that could be settled with higher authority can escalate to
war.
 Thus, the signature realist argument is that anarchy makes states’ security
problematic and potentially conflictual, and is a key underlying cause of war.

Realism's Diversity: Theoretical Schools

 The four general propositions and their arguments provide coherence, while debates
about their relative importance, implications, and conditions of application generate
diversity.
 For example, some realists stress egoism/human nature as the primary cause of war,
while others prioritise anarchy. Some believe all states always seek more power,
while others see power-seeking as more variable. There are also debates on the
potential of powerful states to impose order, the limits of that potential, and the roles
of agency (enlightened statesmen) versus structure (constraints from egoism,
groupism, and anarchy).
 The scholarly portrayal of realism's development as a linear succession of
comprehensive theories (e.g., Morgenthau's failure, Waltz's neorealism ruling the
seas, then degenerating into new schools) is "mainly mythical".
 Realist research has always been highly diverse, even during neorealism's peak. The
novelty lies in these diverse schools now having names.
3.1 From Classical to Neorealism

 Classical realism is a term scholars used after the development of neorealism to refer
to all realist works from the interwar and early Cold War years, and even wider to
include works from Thucydides to Morgenthau.
 It is not a subschool but rather the realist tradition in its entirety before Waltz’s
Theory of International Politics (1979).
 Morgenthau’s Politics among Nations is a pivotal classical realist text, inaugurating
the practice of translating the realist tradition into an explicit "realist theory of
international politics".
 Morgenthau’s text was comprehensive, applying realist arguments to many
phenomena (war, peace, cooperation, international law, diplomacy, ethics,
international organisation, world public opinion), though it omitted international
political economy.
 However, Morgenthau’s theory was criticised for "open contradictions, ambiguity
and vagueness," with key concepts like "national interest" and "balance of power"
being undefined or contradictorily defined, and arguments not always cohering across
issue areas.
 Neorealism (Structural Realism):
o As criticisms mounted and interest in a scientific approach grew, Kenneth
Waltz sought to "revivify" realist thinking.
o Waltz (1959) argued that classical realists' insights were weakened by their
failure to distinguish arguments about human nature, internal state attributes,
and the overall system of states.
o His Theory of International Politics (1979) clarified how the features of the
overall system of states affect state interactions.
o Waltz’s text had a profound influence on international relations scholarship.
o It is described as "not really a theory of international politics" in a
comprehensive sense, as it does not explicitly address most phenomena
encompassed by that term.
o Instead, Waltz restated realism's signature argument about how anarchy leads
to competitive pressure and war, regardless of states' internal politics.
o It purported to answer a few general questions: why the modern state system
persists despite attempts at dominance, why great-power war recurs, and why
states find cooperation difficult.
o It also forwarded one specific theory: great-power war would be more
frequent in multipolarity than bipolarity.
o Waltz left the exploration of his book’s implications for other questions (e.g.,
alliances, arms races, institutions) to others. Scholars often found Waltz's
theory insufficient for more specific questions.
o Many used Waltz's work as a foil for nonrealist explanations or alternative
theoretical schools (e.g., institutionalism, constructivism).
o Some realists developed their own theories drawing on Waltz, such as Walt's
"balance of threat" theory, Snyder's combination of Waltz's theories, and
Grieco's supplementation with game theory.
o Neorealism evolved into a complex subschool within realism, encompassing
many Waltz-inspired theories.
o What linked neorealist research was a common belief that Waltz’s
reformulation was the best starting point for inquiry.
 o Neorealism never subsumed all realist research, as Waltz and followers
focused on core ideas explaining continuities, often downplaying theories of
change. Robert Gilpin’s War and Change in World Politics (1981), conceived
independently of Waltz, explicitly addressed hegemonic war and change,
demonstrating that neorealism was only part of a larger, vibrant realist
tradition.

3.2 Offensive and Defensive Realism

 These two subschools emerged from Waltz’s neorealism, as scholars realised that
depending on how core assumptions and real-world conditions were conceptualised,
neorealism could lead to very different predictions.
 Waltz’s abstract neorealism ignored variations like geography and technology, which
could drastically change inter-state dynamics.
 Defensive Realism:
o Argues that under common conditions, the war-causing potential of anarchy
is attenuated.
o Building on groupism, defensive realists contend that stronger group identity
(e.g., nationalism) makes conquest and subjugation harder.
o Technology (e.g., nuclear weapons) can also make conquest difficult,
increasing states' security.
o Under these conditions, states can defend themselves without threatening
others or signal peaceful intentions, leading to more potential for peace than
previously thought.
o This pushes analysts to look inside states for domestic/ideational causes of
war and peace.
o Key figures include Charles Glaser (1997) and Stephen Van Evera (1999).
 Offensive Realism:
o More persuaded by the conflict-generating, structural potential of anarchy
itself.
o Argues that without a higher authority, states can never be certain that peace-
causing conditions will last.
o Uncertainty means states can rarely be confident of their security and must
view others' power increases with suspicion.
o States are thus often tempted to expand or strengthen themselves (and/or
weaken others) for long-term survival.
o This reinforces the classic realist argument about the competitive nature of
life under anarchy, regardless of states' internal properties.
o John Mearsheimer (2001) is a prominent figure, portraying offensive realism
as the successor to Waltz's neorealism.
 Defensive and offensive realism emerged in the 1990s as outgrowths of Waltz’s
neorealism. While some scholars presented them as the realist theory, they clearly
coexist as distinct subschools and do not exhaust realism’s diversity.

3.3 Neoclassical Realism

 A problem-focused subschool within realism that embraces realism’s diversity.

 It focuses on explaining specific puzzles or events.
 It seeks to recapture important realist insights lost in neorealists' "obsessive search
for the one overarching realist theory".
  While neorealism and its offshoots were clear and elegant, their relevance to specific
foreign policy problems was often unclear. Waltz himself famously argued,
"international politics is not foreign policy," suggesting a disconnect between theory
development and foreign policy analysis.
 Neoclassical realism aims to rectify this imbalance between the general and the
particular.
 It accepts the utility of thinking theoretically about the international system distinct
from internal state properties (from neorealism).
 After assessing international conditions faced by particular states, neoclassical realists
factor in specific features of a given situation for more complete explanations.
 They aim to combine the "gritty details of foreign policy" of classical realism with
the "rigorous theorizing" of neorealism.
 Neoclassical realists are not driven by the goal of a single universal theory.
 Their question is: Which realist school or theory is most useful for explaining a
given puzzle or analysing foreign policy at a specific time and place?.
 They acknowledge that the choice of theory is contextual; for example, offensive
realism might apply better to certain periods in European history, while defensive
realism might apply to others, and Gilpin's theory to different problems.
 They remain agnostic on which theoretical proposition applies, instead bringing
relevant theories to bear.
 They agree that theory strengthens analysis by helping to address fundamental
questions in foreign policy: the degree to which policy responds to external pressures
vs. internal factors, how much policy would change with a new government, and how
a state would respond to incentives or threats.
 Neoclassical realists see theoretical structures like offensive and defensive realism not
as universally true or false, but as tools for performing "mental experiments" to
frame assessments of external constraints and incentives.

Realism's Diversity: Specific Theories

 Theoretical subschools do not capture realism’s full diversity; specific theories are
equally important for explaining behaviour and outcomes.
 Subschools clarify intellectual connections and scholarly progression, but for real
explanatory problems (e.g., puzzling foreign policy behaviour), one should use
specific relevant theories.
 Balance-of-Power Theory:
o Arguably the best-known theoretical proposition in international relations.
o Given anarchy, states will guard against any one state amassing power to
compel or eliminate others.
o Predicts that states will check dangerous power concentrations by building
their own capabilities ("internal balancing") or forming alliances ("external
balancing").
o Balancing can occur before a state gains an obvious power edge, as states
anticipate future problems.
o Example: Britain and France fighting the Russian Empire in Crimea (mid-19th
century) to check potential future threats, consistent with balance-of-power
expectations.
 Balance-of-Threat Theory:
o Adds complexity to balance-of-power theory, predicting states balance against
threats, not just power.
 o Threat is driven by three variables:
1. Aggregate capabilities: Overall military and economic potential.
2. Geography.
3. Perceptions of aggressive intentions.
o If a state becomes powerful, and its location and behaviour fuel threat
perceptions, balancing strategies will dominate others' foreign policies.
o Example: US post-WWII balancing against the Soviet Union (despite Soviet
inferiority in many power categories), due to the location of Soviet power in
Europe and perceived aggressiveness. Stephen Walt developed this theory.
 Security-Dilemma Theory:
o Term coined by John Herz (1950).
o States arming for self-defence might decrease their own security by
unintentionally making others insecure, prompting them to arm in response.
o Robert Jervis (1986) showed how this consequence of anarchy could lead to
costly spirals of mistrust and rivalry.
o The severity of the security dilemma depends on two variables:
1. The balance between offense and defense.
2. The ability to distinguish offense from defense.
o Though anarchy is constant, there can be significant variation in the
attractiveness of cooperation/competition, prospects for security, and war
probability.
o This theory prompted a major debate among realists, leading to the offensive
and defensive realism subschools.
 Offense–Defense Theory:
o An offshoot of Jervis’s security dilemma theory, developed by Glaser,
Stephen Van Evera, and others.
o A set of propositions about how technology, geography, and other factors
affect the ease of conquest versus defence, and the ease of distinguishing
offensive from defensive postures.
 Hegemonic Stability Theory:
o Based on the observation that powerful states tend to seek dominance over all
or parts of an international system, creating hierarchy within anarchy.
o Seeks to explain how cooperation emerges among major powers and how
international orders (rules, norms, institutions) are sustained.
o Core prediction: Any international order is stable only to the degree that
authority relations are sustained by the underlying distribution of power.
o Example: The current "globalisation" order is sustained by US power and is
likely to destabilise as challengers like China gain strength.
 Power Transition Theory:
o A subset of hegemonic stability theory, explaining how orders break down
into war.
o Deduces that dominant states prefer to retain leadership.
o Lesser states' preference for contesting leadership strengthens as they grow
relative to the dominant state.
o This clash is likely to become prominent when the capabilities of the two sides
approach parity.
o Current application: As China strengthens, it's more likely to be dissatisfied
with the US-led order, predicting a potential war or Cold War-style rivalry
unless China's growth slows or Washington accommodates Beijing.
  The source highlights that these specific theories (security dilemma, hegemonic
stability, power transition) were not part of Waltz’s neorealist theory, underscoring
that specific theories are far more diverse than any one subschool. Equating a single
subschool with realism as a whole causes useful theories to be overlooked.

Myth-Induced Misconceptions about Realism

Many common criticisms of realism miss the mark due to myths of a monolithic and
universally valid realism.

 The Monolithic Myth:

o Leads to equating diversity within realism with degeneration.
o Scholars often desire a neatly defined competition between internally
consistent, contrasting grand theories, and diversity undermines this vision,
making scholarship appear "messier".
o This view is normative (how it ought to work), not positive (how it actually
works), and thus misleading.
 The Universalistic Myth:
o Leads to a failure to recognise the contingent nature of realist theories.
o No single subschool or theory is always correct or the master explanation.
o Different strands of realism are more or less relevant to different problems
and cases.
o The crucial question for researchers is which subschools or specific theories
apply to a given problem or case.
 Confusing Assumptions with Predictions / Denying Variation:
o Many realists and critics mistakenly universalise components of realism's
signature argument (groupism, egoism, power-centrism making politics
conflictual under anarchy).
o For example, stating that conflict is an assumption that defines realism is
incorrect. Realists do not assume conflict; rather, realism contains theories
that identify the conditions under which inter-state interactions are likely
to be conflictual.
o Misconception 1: Denying variation in the salience of any part of the
argument:
 The concept of "anarchy" is often treated as a constant by theorists
seeking pure conceptual building blocks.
 This leads to realists squabbling over whether the logic of anarchy in
defensive or offensive realism is universally valid, and critics citing
this as evidence of degeneration.
 In practice, anarchy varies. States' ability to rely on an authority to
enforce agreements is a matter of degree.
 For example, great powers can enforce order among nearby small
states, attenuating anarchy for those states on certain issues.
 Realist theories highlighting anarchy would therefore not apply equally
strongly to all states everywhere, or across all issues. To know where
and to what degree anarchy is attenuated, in-depth knowledge of
specific states is required.
o Misconception 2: Confusing assumptions with predictions:
 Mistakenly thinking conflict is a core assumption leads to concluding
that when states are cooperative, realist theories don't apply.
  Realist theories explain peace as well as war. For realists, peace
results when the key causes of war are absent.
 Amity among states might result from attenuated anarchy due to a
local order-providing great power, or from a shared need to oppose
another group.
 In such cases, realist theories predict that the absence of conflict is
contingent on a particular power configuration, and conflict might
return when that configuration changes.

Realism Today: The Advent of Modest Realism

 Realism is not and never has been a monolithic, universal "theory of international
politics"; it has always been diverse.
 The last fifteen years have seen a greater recognition of this diversity and a possible
decline in realism's centrality to the discipline, particularly in the United States, where
formal theory has risen.
 With neoclassical realism, realist research has become more problem-focused and its
interactions with other traditions more complex and productive.
 While Mearsheimer’s The Tragedy of Great Power Politics elaborates offensive
realism as a new candidate "theory of international politics," it's unlikely to attract the
aspirations and illusions Waltz’s work did, given changes in the discipline.

Three key trends are evident in contemporary realism:

1. Reduced Salience of Inter-Paradigmatic Competition:

o While realists are still motivated by dissatisfaction with existing explanations,
the impulse to prove realism's overall explanatory priority over other
theoretical approaches has receded.
o The focus is increasingly on what realist theories can add to knowledge
about specific problems or issues.
o Most recent realist research aims to answer general empirical puzzles or
explain particular events/behaviour patterns.
2. More Productive Interactions with Other Theoretical Schools:
o Paradigm wars fostered the "pernicious notion" that certain explanatory
variables (e.g., domestic politics for liberals, ideas for constructivists, power
for realists) were the exclusive domain of particular approaches. This led
scholars to view explanations incorporating variables from other paradigms as
suspect.
o As scholars move towards explaining specific phenomena rather than
competing over universal theories, opportunities for productive interchange
increase.
o Both realists and adherents of other traditions show sensitivity to the social
world's complexity and the contingent nature of all theories, leading to a
premium on integrating arguments and variables from different traditions.
o This is evident in the cross-fertilisation between neoclassical realists and
constructivists.
o Self-identified realists increasingly incorporate theory and findings from other
disciplines, notably psychology.
3. Cumulation of New and Important Research:
 o This includes work on general phenomena like the origins of war, suboptimal
security provision, great-power interventions, threat assessment, revisionist
state preferences, constraints on peace settlements, and dynamics of
unipolarity.
o It also includes research explaining discrete events or behaviours, such as US
foreign policy in the Cold War, the end of the Cold War, US/South
Korean/Japanese strategies towards the North Korean nuclear crisis, evolution
of US monetary policy, and the George W. Bush administration's foreign
policy approach and invasion of Iraq.
o These works are eclectic, avoiding "chest-thumping advocacy" for realism.
o They share a sensitivity to realist core insights, a central role for the four
defining propositions, and an appreciation for how neorealism and its
subschools aid in "mental experiments" for causal explanation.
o They are open to classical realism's insights and lack dogmatic attachment to
one theory.
o Collectively, they demonstrate realism's ongoing contributions to the
discipline.

Conclusion: The Advent of Modest Realism

 The decline of the aspiration for a monolithic, universal realist theory may be
associated with realism's reduced centrality in the discipline.
 While some may regret this shift from neorealism's "master theory" ambitions, and
anti-realists might miss easily critiquable overreaching claims, this development is
beneficial for productive scholarship.
 Realism's diversity is now more transparent.
 Contemporary realist scholarship is more problem-focused, empirical, historically
and methodologically sophisticated, and open to other traditions and disciplines
than it was during the heydays of classical or neorealism.
 As a result, scholars working within the realist tradition are arguably adding more to
knowledge today than ever before.

The State and International Relations by David A. Lake":

THE STATE AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Introduction and Centrality of the State
 The state is central to the study of international relations (IR) and will remain so.
 State policy is the most common object of analysis in IR.
o States make decisions regarding war, trade barriers, and environmental standards.
o They enter and abide by (or not) international agreements.
 Even scholars focusing on domestic interests or non-state actors are typically concerned with
understanding or changing state practice.
 IR as a discipline primarily focuses on what states do on the world stage and how their
actions affect other states.
 States are a common unit of analysis in IR theories.
o Many analysts explain world politics patterns by focusing on states and their
interactions.
o The state is fundamental to neorealism (Waltz 1979) and neoliberal institutionalism
(Keohane 1984).
 o It is also key in many constructivist (Bull 1977; Reus-Smit 1999; Wendt 1999) and
English School theories.
o Even critical, postmodern, or feminist theories often focus on deconstructing states
and state practice.
 As both the object and unit of analysis, international relations is largely about states, making
the state an indispensable component of world politics theories.

Part 1: Why Study the State?

The state is considered central to the study of international relations (IR) and will remain
so. Its policies are the most common object of analysis, as states make decisions on war,
trade, environmental standards, and international agreements. Even scholars focusing on
domestic interests or nonstate actors are typically concerned with understanding or changing
state practice. IR as a discipline primarily focuses on what states do on the world stage and
how their actions affect other states.

States are a common unit of analysis in IR theories, including neorealism (Waltz 1979),
neoliberal institutionalism (Keohane 1984), and many constructivist and English School
theories (Bull 1977; Reus-Smit 1999; Wendt 1999). Even critical, postmodern, or feminist
theories often focus on deconstructing states and state practice. Thus, the state is an
indispensable component of theories of world politics.

All theories rely on simplifying assumptions to make complex reality explicable, forming
"methodological bets" on the most useful way to capture a phenomenon. State-centric
theories of international relations assume that states are the primary actors in world
politics. While acknowledging other political units, these theories claim that states,
particularly great powers, are significant enough to be at the core of any positive IR theory
(Waltz 1979). The "bet" is that a focus on states will yield parsimonious yet empirically
powerful explanations of world politics, accepting an inevitable trade-off between
theoretical elegance and empirical richness.

Beyond parsimony, there are at least three key reasons why state-centric theory is considered
a good methodological bet:

 States may possess a national interest.

o A national interest can be plausibly assumed when society has relatively
homogeneous policy preferences or has internalised certain norms.
o Alternatively, it can exist when states have domestic institutions that
aggregate individual or group attributes into a coherent collective
ordering.
o In such cases, analysts can abstract from domestic politics and treat the state as
a unitary entity with a collective preference or identity.
o In realist theories, the national interest is often assumed to be state power
(Morgenthau 1978), and in neorealist theories, it is state survival (at a
minimum) or power (at a maximum) (Waltz 1979). Survival is seen as a
primordial goal, and power as instrumental.
o Constructivists view widely shared norms or those embodied in domestic
institutions as defining a state’s social purpose (Reus-Smit 1999; Ruggie
1996; 1998; Katzenstein 2005).
 o Other theories posit context-specific national interests, like avoiding
annihilation in nuclear deterrence or benefiting from freedom of the seas or
stopping terrorism.
o Treating states as unitary actors is a convenient analytic shortcut when
citizens possess relatively homogeneous interests or norms.
 States are authoritative actors whose duly enacted policies are binding on their
citizens.
o As sovereign entities, states possess ultimate or final authority over their
delimited territories and inhabitants.
o Once a policy is enacted, it binds all citizens, regardless of their individual
support (e.g., tariffs, declarations of war). This is the analytic foundation of
the adage that "politics stops at the water’s edge".
o Their internal hierarchy allows states to be reasonably treated as unitary
actors when interacting with other similarly hierarchical states.
o Westphalian sovereignty implies that authority is indivisible and culminates in
a single apex (Hinsley 1986; Krasner 1999).
o This ability to bind their societies makes states virtually unique in
international relations, as non-governmental organisations (NGOs) can only
speak for their members and cannot bind others.
o Because of their unique status and ability to act on behalf of citizens, states are
considered central and important units of analysis.
 Theories of systems-level processes naturally assume states as units of analysis.
o This is especially true when such processes affect "states as states".
o Theories involving international evolutionary processes that select on unit
attributes or differentially reward behaviours logically assume states as central
actors (Kahler 1999). For instance, Waltz (1979) hypothesises that states
failing to balance against rising powers are "selected out".
o Systemic constructivists posit that socialisation or legitimation occurs at the
level of the state within a society of states (Wendt 1994; 1999; Finnemore
1996; 2003), shaping states' normative understanding of society. As Wendt
(1992) noted, "anarchy is what states . . . make of it".
o If systemic processes are significant, states and their behaviours cannot be
reduced to the sum of their domestic attributes. A "bottom-up" approach
would not fully capture the system's effect on states.
o The state as a whole can have "interests" that are not reducible to its internal
parts, a key insight from Waltz’s (1959) argument about anarchy.
o Therefore, a focus on states and their interactions is absolutely essential for a
full understanding of international politics, especially if the states system is
more than the sum of its parts.

These rationales share a pragmatic approach to theory, acknowledging that state-centrism

is not an empirical description of states in the real world. Theorists recognise states have rich
domestic political lives and that transnational forces are important. The core question is the
trade-off between empirical power and parsimony and identifying when state-centric
theory is most useful.

Part 2: The Limits of State-centric Theory

State-centric theories have faced widespread criticism, often stemming from alternative
methodological bets. This section probes two valid criticisms and their limitations,
highlighting the need for more contextualised IR theories.

2.1 Domestic Politics

 Criticism: There is no such thing as the "national interest."

o Arnold Wolfers (1952) famously argued that "national security" was an
ambiguous and potentially dangerous concept, often used rhetorically to
garner support for particularistic policies.
o Most policies are redistributive and have differential impacts on groups
within a country, even on issues like global climate change where there are
winners and losers from both the problem and its mitigation.
o This means the concept of a national interest shared equally by everyone
"evaporates" in redistributive politics.
o Contemporary scholars often focus on domestic political interests and
institutions to realistically identify what states desire from international
politics (Gourevitch 2002).
o Societies are divided by internal material and normative cleavages, and
varying political institutions aggregate interests with different degrees of bias
(Moravcsik 1997; Rogowski 1999). Understanding state desires requires
focused attention on how groups mobilise and how institutions transform
interests into policy.
 Limits of this criticism:
o States remain authoritative: Despite the divisiveness of an issue, a policy,
once enacted by the state, is equally authoritative and binding for all
citizens. Debunking the myth of a singular national interest does not
undermine the importance of state authority in treating states as units of
analysis.
o Domestic politics explains "what states want," not necessarily "what they
do" or the outcomes they achieve. Most interesting puzzles in international
politics arise from the strategic interaction of states themselves, not just
groups within countries (Morrow 1999). For example, a country's interest in
reversing global warming, derived from domestic politics, is insufficient
without the cooperation of other countries, which face free-rider incentives.
o This leads to a "cooperation two-step" division of labour (Legro 1996),
where some scholars focus on explaining domestic policy preferences, while
others, taking these preferences as given, develop theories of strategic
interaction between states.
 In the latter, the state is assumed to be the unit of analysis due to its
explanatory utility, not because it is "natural".
 International political economists tend to emphasise domestic politics,
while international security scholars focus more on strategic
interactions related to bargaining, information, and credible
commitment (Fearon 1995; Powell 1999). These are methodological
bets.
o The "two-step" may be inadequate when systemic processes are
important. Reductionist and systemic theories are not merely different
starting points yielding the same results; they identify separate and
incommensurate processes.
  International factors can directly influence how individuals or groups
define their interests, which they then pursue domestically ("open
economy politics" approach) (Gourevitch 1977; Frieden 1988;
Rogowski 1989).
 Holistic constructivist theories show that international norms structure
political agendas, condition actors' strategies, and determine the
success or failure of normative change (e.g., decolonisation, anti-
Apartheid campaigns linked to national self-determination) (Klotz
1995; Crawford 2002).
 When domestic actors' interests and capabilities are influenced by
international structures, processes, and norms, the two-step approach is
insufficient.

2.2 Transnational Relations

 Criticism: States have lost control over private (nonstate) actors.

o Critics argue that the erosion of sovereignty and the growth of
transnational forces (e.g., cosmopolitan individuals, multinational
corporations, transnational advocacy networks) make state-centric theory less
attractive (Keohane and Nye 1972; 1977).
o While some transnational actors like the Catholic Church have a long history,
the rise of multinational corporations (Vernon 1971) and transnational
advocacy networks (Keck and Sikkink 1998; Smith and Wiest 2005) since
the 1970s led many to question the continued utility of state-centric theory,
noting a more crowded international political landscape.
 Responses and Nuances:
o Some scholars, like Waltz (1979), reaffirmed the explanatory power of state-
centric theory.
o Others argued that states remain sovereign and, rather than being challenged,
permit and even encourage the existence and influence of non-state actors
(Gilpin 1972; 1975; Krasner 1995).
o However, the explanatory power of state-centric theories and the ability of
states to control transnational actors are not constant; sovereignty and
effective control must be theorised and explained.
o Sovereignty is variable:
 Beyond the external face of sovereignty (recognition by the
international community, e.g., "juridical" or "international legal"
sovereignty as per Jackson 1990; Krasner 1999), there is a crucial
"internal" face of sovereignty.
 The authority of states over their own citizens varies dramatically.
 Liberal states have legally or customarily constrained ranges of
authority, with larger private spheres (e.g., freedom of speech,
assembly, press) and their authority is continually contested.
 Strong states possess greater authority over a wider range of
behaviours, often including direct controls over the economy.
 Transnational relations are most developed and consequential in liberal
states, not necessarily because actors "escape" state authority, but
because they enjoy constitutionally protected autonomous action.
Reasserting control in liberal states may require renegotiating the
constitutional compact that defines them.
 o Technology is a variable, cutting both ways:
 It is often assumed that new communication and transportation
technologies favour transnational groups, allowing them to escape state
control (e.g., MNCs developing global networks, TANs exposing
human rights abuses).
 However, states also have counter-strategies. For example,
governments can impose content restrictions on the internet by
exploiting "choke points" and firm cooperation (Cowhey and Mueller
forthcoming). The US government has extended its monitoring
capabilities over phone calls, internet traffic, and financial flows
globally after 9/11.
 States also exert significant influence over which technologies are
developed, how they are used, and how they are regulated. While
new technologies likely favour transnational actors on balance, this
balance "will ebb and flow over time".

Ultimately, the greater the autonomy of transnational actors, the more consequential they
become, and the less useful state-centric theories will be. This does not make state-centric
theories obsolete but requires theorists to be more attuned to when nonstate actors are
important. The usefulness of state-centric theory varies by issue, time, and country, and the
old methodological bets still hold merit.