The document discusses several concepts from realist international relations theory including power, survival, and anarchy. It summarizes views of different theorists such as Thucydides, Machiavelli, Morgenthau, and Waltz. A key point discussed is the idea that in the international system, where there is no overarching authority, states are driven primarily by self-interest and power maximization in their relations with other states.

2. “Power” man’s control over the minds and
actions of other men
Relational Power – directed towards
something or someone
Relative Power – considers the other actors
capabilities
“Survival” precondition for attaining other goals
Anarchic” absence of an overarching central
authority

3. Proponents of “Raison de tat”
Dual Moral Standards
 One Moral Standard for individual citizens
living inside the state
 Different standard for the state in its
external relations with other states

4.  Thucydides: Peloponnesian War
 International Law is driven by an endless struggle
for power that has its roots in human nature
 Median Dialogue: The strong will do what it has
the power to do and the weak accept what it has
to accept

5.  Machiavelli: The Prince
 Political realism recognizes that
principles are subordinate to policies
 The end justifies the means
 It is better to be feared than loved

6.  Morgenthau: Politics among
nations
 Politics is governed by laws that are
created by human nature
 The main signpost of political realism is
the concept of interest defined in terms
of power

7.  Thucydides Representation of power politics
as a law of human behavior
 Drive for power and will to dominate are held
to be fundamental aspects of human nature
 Human Nature explains International Politics
 Nature for man: competition, fear, and war
explained
 The Struggle for belonging, a struggle is
often violent

8.  Rousseu: The State of War
 It is not human nature but the anarchical
system that factors fear, jealousy, suspicion
 Waltz: Theory of International Politics
 States maximize their securities
 Polarities: unipolarity, bipolarity, multipolarity
 Mersheimer: Tragedy of great power
 States maximize their powers

9.  Security competition and inter-state conflict to
the lack of an overarching authority above states
that have relative distribution of power in the
international system
 Waltz-> security maximizers
 Mersheimer-> no satisfied status quo: he argues
that states recognizes that the best path to
peace is to accumulate more power
 Bipolarity-> nuclear weapons to preserve peace
 Multipolarity->competition

10.  Zakaria: From Wealth to Power
 Actions of States can be explained by:
▪ Systematic variables
▪ Cognitive variables
▪ Domestic variables
 Bring individual and unit variation back into the theory
 One important intervening variables is leaders themselves
namely how they perceive the international distribution of
power

11.  STATISM
 sovereign states are the primary actors
 SURVIVAL
 the pre-condition for attaining all other goals
 SELF-HELP
 No other state can be relied on

12.  Relationships: Zero-sum (Relative gains)
 My gain is your loss
 Characterized by competition
 Concentration of economic controls and
planning in the hands of highly centralized
government often extending to government
ownership of industry

13.  Distinguishing trait= “sovereignty”
 State has supreme authority to make
and enforce laws
 Moves of the state
▪ Organize power domestically
▪ Accumulate power internationally

14.  State power is challenged from above
and below
 States are unable to respond to
collective global problems
 Realism does not explain the existence
of non-state actors

15.  The pre-eminent goal in international politics
 This involves conquest or merely
independence
DEFENSIVE OFFENSIVE
Kenneth Waltz Who? John Mersheimer
Security Goal of State? Power
The existence of status quo What now? Competition is always
powers lessens the present
competition for power

16.  Dual Moral Standard
 One moral standard for an individual citizens
living inside the state and a different moral
standard for the state in its external relations with
other states
 Ethnic Responsibility
 Machiavelli
 Individual acts of an immoral kind might have to
be performed for the greater good

17. Are there no limits to what actions
a state can take in the name of
the greater good?

18.  Under anarchy, security can only be realized
through self-help
 Security dilemma (Spiral of power)
 Absence of trust in international relations
DOMESTIC POLITY INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
Citizens do not have to defend There is no higher authority to
themselves prevent and counter the use of
force

19.  Self-help is not an inevitable consequence of
anarchy
 Historical and contemporary security
 examples where:
▪ States have preferred collective security
systems or forms of regional security systems
▪ NATO, UN with a common goal of security