Theories of International Relations

1. Theories of International
Relations
Dr. Md. Kamal Uddin
Professor
Department of International Relations
University of Chittagong
&
Adjunct Faculty of BUP

2. Learning Outcome
• Understand the IR today
• To identify how is theory matter in IR?
• Able to blend the Core IR theories
• Learn the application of IR theories today

5. Key theories and theorists

6. Key theories and theorists

7. • Understanding the Various forms of Realism

8. Introduction to Realism:
•IR “Realism” is a modern theory . . . . Founding debate –
the interwar years (1919-1939) = Two “camps”:
• “Idealism”: Approach that emphasized international law, morality and
organizations, rather than power
– E.g. Hope that League of Nations could prevent future wars
• “Realism”: Approach that explained IR mainly in terms of states’ pursuit
of power
– E.g. States must seek to maximize power or face destruction = WWI
was not “war to end all wars”
–E. H. Carr (1939) coined terms - Argued that WWII proved that
“realism” was the correct theory
–Dominant theory until 1990s – particularly in US

10. Thus, the realist thinkers include:
Sun Tzu (Ancient China)
Machiavelli (Medieval Italy)
Thomas Hobbes (civil war torn England)
Mao Tse Tung (Communist China)
Hans J. Morgenthau (USA 1950s)
They have all come to similar conclusions about the
characteristics of the international system that can
be grouped together as the theory of realism.

11. Realism is a theory based on power politics
Main Assumptions:
1. States are most important actors
2. Unitary-Rational Decision-making
3. International system is anarchic and conflict-
prone: often zero-sum situations
4. All States must pursue power to survive
5. States balance against threats
6. Morality has no place in international politics
7. International politics more important than
domestic politics.
8. Value Relative over Absolute Gains

12. Q. 1. Why do Realists claim that states must pursue
power or that morality has no place in world
politics?
•The world is anarchic and it is a self-help system.
To survive states must pursue power.
•Also, if there is no higher authority, then there is no
international law that states must abide by.

13. Q 2. Why is international politics seen as more
important than domestic politics by Realists?
• If you do not take care of international politics,
there may no longer be any domestic politics.
This is a point made by Machiavelli.
• Domestic politics is only important to the extent
that it strengthens or weakens a state.
• Also, since states are essentially the same,
domestic regime type and institutions do not
matter much for world politics.

14. • Anarchy makes conflict in the system inevitable.
• Realists understand the implications of the
security dilemma but see them as unavoidable.
• Anarchy forces states to compete against each
other in a self-help system.
To survive, states must try to increase their power
by:
1. Internal development
2. Conquest
3. Alliances (balancing)

20. 20
6. Sun Tzu
• The Art of War (written in the 6th century BC)
• One of the oldest and most successful books on military
strategy in the world
• National interests should be the top priority
• There is no place for ethics in inter-state relations
• Statesmen who pay too much attention to ethical principles
would do so at their peril

25. Classification of Realism
• Three major types of “Realism”:
• 1. “Classical Realism” – based on danger posed by other
humans
• World is dangerous and violent place
• “Wise” states pursue own power and security
• Morality and trust of allies can be foolish
• Classical sources that warned against “idealism” – still
cited to this day . . . .
• Thucydides (?)
• Machiavelli (?)
• Hobbes (?)
2. “Neorealism” – based on the structure of international
system = “Structural realism”
3. “Neoclassical Realism” – Combines insights from Classical
and Neorealism.

26. Classical Realism

27. Key Assumptions of classical Realism
a) Humans are potentially “bad” . . .
– Inherently selfish and power seeking
• E.g. Debate between “Classical Realism” and
“Idealism” about human nature
– Thomas Hobbes (1642)
• Only Leviathan, or strong sovereign government,
keeps us from killing one another
=There is no “Leviathan” in international politics under
normal circumstances . . . .
“Anarchy”: A political system that has no central
authority – does not equal chaos, but does not have
enforceable rules separate from power . . . .

28. Key Assumptions of Classical Realism
b) “Statism”: Realism emphasizes the role of states as
the legitimate, rational, and constitutive actors of
international politics.
• Key concerns of the state:
–“Survival” . . . .
• Classical realist scholars argue that leaders’ first and
only priority is to ensure the durability of the state (E.g.
Machiavelli)
–“Self Help”: Under “anarchy” states can only trust in their
own abilities to ensure survival

29. Key Assumptions of Classical Realism
c) “Power”: the ability to get others to do what you
want them to do . . . .
–For realists power comes before politics and influence and
can be understood in material terms
= Military, economic and strategic “capabilities”
–Modern realists emphasize the “Balance of Power” above
all else

30. Neo-Realism
Why reform Realism?

31. Neo-Realism (Waltz) borrows many of the traditional
assumptions of Realism. Differences:
• System structure dictates the environment of
international interactions.
• System structure is determined by polarity –
number of major powers.
• States are mostly defensive in nature.
• Bipolar systems are more stable than multi-polar
systems – balancing more effective and predictable.

32. Neorealism
• Waltz’s theory of international Structure
• politics: key terms System = structure + interacting units.
• Structure, Waltz says (1979, 79) is ‘the system-wide component that makes it possible to
think of the system as a whole’.
• It is made up of three components:
• 1. ordering principle, sometimes called ‘deep structure’ (either hierarchy or anarchy)
• 2. differentiation of units according to their function (in international relations the units
(states) are functionally the same or undifferentiated – performing the same range of
functions and concerned
• primarily with security)
• 3. distribution of capabilities (how states stand in relation to one another, according to the
power they can mobilise and the aggregation of power around one or more poles
• – unipolarity, bipolarity, multipolarity).

33. The Evolution of Realism:
a) “Classical Realism”: Carr and others drew on inspiration
from classical sources . . .
–States should be protective of the “national interest”
–Leaders should prioritize “raison d’etat/reasons of
state”
• E.g. Machiavelli's Prince must be ready to do what is
necessary, not what is “good”.
–Deep suspicion of trust in rules and other sovereign
authorities . . . as they also (if they are wise) will pursue
“raison d’etat” in their strategies.

34. The Evolution of Realism:
a) Classical Realism was largely replaced by “Neorealism” after
the 1970s
– Desire for more science and clearer variables - arguments about threats
inherent in human nature and rogue states give way to a more
“structural” theory (Kenneth Waltz)
• “Neorealism”: Used ideas from behavioral science to understand
state behavior, given the structure of the international system.
– Two variables:
1) “Anarchy”
2) Distribution of power (military and economic abilities)
Note: Internal characteristics of states (Democracy versus non-
democracies etc.) are NOT important, as all states seek the survival
under “anarchy”

35. The Evolution of Realism:
“Neorealism” directed focus to:
“Relative Gains”: International politics is a “zero-sum game”, in
which states must be concerned about how much other states
gain in relation to them = one state’s gain necessarily means
another state has lost . . . .
“Security Dilemma”: As states acquire capabilities to make
themselves secure, they make others more insecure – leads to a
cycle of arms races and growing insecurity.
• Implications? >> Possibility of cooperation is very limited,
because of rational self interest and fear of "Relative Gains"

36. Neorealism: Relative Gains, “Prisoners’
Dilemma” and Nuclear Proliferation
• India vs. Pakistan - Both would be better off by
not developing “nukes” = cooperation
However, each state
most fears cooperating
(not developing nukes)
while other “defects”
and does!!!
= huge relative gains
problem!!!

37. Pakistan
Cooperate
(No nukes)
Defect
(Get Nukes)
Cooperate
(No Nukes)
C,C C,D
India
Defect
(Get Nukes)
D,C D,D
•India preference = DC>CC>DD>CD
•Pakistan preference = CD>CC>DD>DC
•If both states are rational, fear of cheating and “relative
gains” leads to equilibrium at (D,D)
Key Point: Rational self interest makes cooperation difficult

38. The Evolution of Realism:
“Neorealism” also led to debate between “offensive
realism” and “defensive realism”.
–Both see states as necessarily focused on maximizing their
security, but have different theories about the impact of
capabilities . . . .

39. Offensive vs. Defensive Realism
John Mearsheimer – “Offensive Realism”
• Assumptions:
– All states possess some military capability
– All states concerned about survival
– All states uncertain of other’s intentions
• Friends today can be enemies tomorrow . . . .
• Result:
– Great powers should think and act aggressively
whenever they can
• Maximize power & exploit other’s weakness
= Culture of fear!

40. Offensive vs. Defensive Realism
Robert Jervis – “Defensive Realism”
• Assumption:
– If military capabilities favor defense then the
capabilities of others are less threatening
• E.g. Weaker states can defend themselves
against stronger if there is an attack
• Result:
– States do not need to be so quick to maximize
power to survive
• E.g. post World War I France
• Problems?

41. The Evolution of Realism:
“Neoclassical realism”: Combines the structural ideas of
“neorealism” with more classical ideas bout the nature
of individual states.
–“Neorealism”: Suggested states were the same, and all were
threatening
–“Neoclassical realism”: Suggests some states are less
threatening regardless of their “capabilities” as they are
satisfied with the status quo.

42. The Evolution of Realism:
–Key point: Realism needed to move beyond just thinking
about military capabilities and think about the goals of
individual societies and states.
• “Revisionist” states are the ones that should be feared . . . .

44. Conclusions - Realism
• View of individual:
• Power seeking, selfish and antagonistic
• View of state:
• Unitary, rational and power seeking
• View of international system:
• Anarchic, conflict constant (only inhibited by
“balance of power” – E.g. conflict less likely
under “Hegemony” or “unipolarity”
“Neorealism” has tended to play down individual and
domestic politics explanations of state behavior