The document discusses structural realism in international relations, focusing on why states seek power, the debate on how much power is necessary, and factors leading to great power wars. It explores perspectives from offensive and defensive realists, highlighting disagreements over hegemony, the inefficacy of conquest in the context of nationalism and technology, and the implications of nuclear weapons. Ultimately, it emphasizes the complexities in understanding state behavior and the conditions that foster conflict within the international system.

1. STRUCTURAL
REALISM
Ibrahim Koncak
International Relations Department

2. QUESTIONS
• Why do states want power?
• How much power is enough?
• What causes great power war?
• Case Study: Can China rise peacefully?

3. FIVE ASSUMPTIONS
• Great Powers are the main actors in world politics and they operate in an
anarchic system.
• All states possess some offensive military capability.
• States can never be certain about the intentions of other states.
• The main goal of states is survival.
• States are rational actors.

4. WHY STATES WANT POWER?
• Great powers fear each other in a self-help world.
• The best way to survive is to be especially powerful. The more powerful a
states is relative to its competitors, the less likely it is that it will be attacked.
• Great powers look for opportunities to shift the balance of power in their
favor. States want to make sure that no other state gains power at their
expense.
• Every state, even satisfied or status quo power, thinks and acts when
appropriate like a revisionist state.

5. HOW MUCH POWER IS ENOUGH?
• There is disagreement on the amount of power a state should aim among structural
realists.
• Offensive realists argue that states should always be looking for opportunities to
gain more power whenever it seems feasible. States should maximize power with
ultimate goal to become hegemon in the system.
• Defensive Realists maintain that it is strategically foolish to pursue hegemony. States
should strive for appropriate amount of power due to three factors. 1) if a state
becomes too powerful balancing will occur. Other great powers will build up their
militaries and form a balancing coalition that will leave aspiring hegemon less secure
or may even destroy it. (Napoleonic France, Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany)

6. HOW MUCH POWER IS ENOUGH?
• Some defensive realists argue that there is an offence-defense balance. It is
debatable whether offense pays since sometimes conquest maybe defender’s
favor. Any state that attempts to gain large amounts of additional power is
likely to end up fighting a series of losing wars.
• Even when conquest is feasible, it does not pay: the costs outweigh the
benefits. Due to nationalism, it is especially difficult, even impossible, for the
conqueror to subdue the conquered. It is difficult for foreigners to exploit
modern industrial economies because information technologies require
openness and freedom which are rarely found in occupation.

7. HOW MUCH POWER IS ENOUGH?
• Offensive realists argue that the alliances formed by threatened states, against an
aggressor state, is often inefficient and this provides opportunities for aggressor to
take advantage of its adversaries.
• States opt for buck-passing.
• Even though it may be difficult to gain hegemony in the world, a state may gain
hegemony in its proximity as the USA gained hegemony in western hemisphere.
• Both defensive and offensive realists acknowledge that nuclear weapons have little
utility for offensive purposes, except where only one side in a conflict has them.

8. OFFENSIVE VS. DEFENSIVE
Defensive Realists
• Limited power or strive for appropriate amount of power
• Conquest does not pay in the age of nationalism and technology.
• Nuclear weapons have little utility for offensive purposes, except
where only one side owns them.
• Some defensive realists acknowledge that the great powers often
behave in ways that contradict their theory.
• State that maximize power do not enhance their prospects for
survival; they undermine it.
• Structural realism explains part of state behavior, additional
theory (organizational theory, domestic regime type, militarism) is
needed. Domestic and system level is combined.
Offensive Realists
• States should maximize power when it is feasible with ultimate
goal to gain hegemony in the system.
• Sometimes conquest does not pay, but sometimes it does.
• Nuclear weapons have little utility for offensive purposes, except
where only one side owns them.
• The security competition will tend to be intense and there are
likely to be great power wars.
• Potential hegemon on the scene will arise the danger of central
war.
• Additional theory is not structural realist theory so Offs. Realists
tend to rely on only structural arguments.

9. HOW MUCH POWER IS ENOUGH?
• Both camps agree that conventional war between nuclear armed states is
possible but unlikely, because of the danger of escalation to the nuclear level.

10. What Causes great power war?
• No single theory to explain fully
• Gain power over a rival state and enhance their security
• Ideology and economic considerations
• Likelihood of war is affected by the architecture of international system
• Changes in the distribution of power
• Variations in the defense-offence balance
• The number of great powers or poles in the system
• Distribution of power amount the major states

11. THE POLARITY OF THE SYSTEM
• Debate on whether bipolarity or multi-polarity is less or more war prone.
• Bipolarity proved to be more peaceful in 20th century but still it is difficult to
determine.
• The more major players, the more uncertainty in the system.
• Balancing is more efficient in bipolar systems.
• Unipolar world may be more stable
• Whenever there is shift of power, major war may occur.