WHY DO ALL STATES
FIGHT?
THE THIRD IMAGE
-Even nice leaders and nice states
fight.
-Very different states and people
behave similarly and predictably
-Some periods and power
configurations have a lot more fighting
than others.
WHAT ARE REALISM’S KEY
ASSUMPTIONS?
• What drives international politics? Rationality vs. the power of
morality, norms, ideas, individual leaders, or domestic politics
• The main unit of analysis: states
• The main quality of the intl. system :
Anarchy=Sovereignty = Self-help=Aggression & preemption &
free-riding= perpetual conflict
• What are the two big ideas out there with respect to how to
deal with security dilemmas (Kant vs. Rousseau)
• All intl. politics is about power, but there are some debates:
– Is anarchy the problem or just the facilitator of bad apples
– Relative vs. absolute power shifts (Zero-sum vs. positive
sum-assumptions)
– What are the most important types of power? Hard, sticky,
and soft?
• What are the “liberal” objections to classical realism? (China
as example)
DIFFERENT FLAVORS OF REALISM
•
•
•
•
All that was classical realism
Neo-liberalism (Ken Waltz most famously) argues that anarchy isn’t the
problem, but certain configurations of power under anarchy are the
problem…
– Balances of power, esp. bipolar systems are best
– Equality of capabilities (parity) is the most pacific arrangement
– We should allow horizontal, but not vertical WMD proliferation.
Defense realism argues that (1) most states seek power for defense
purposes (prospect theory… Fighting over Texas vs. Fighting over
Canada); (2) conflict is most likely when there is a large advantage for
one state over the other; (3) When a state’s defensive resources is not
easily distinguishable from its offense.
Defensive realists acknowledge that some states and leaders may be
more affected by war pressures than others; anticipate that states that
threaten will create band-wagon of opponents
Offensive Realism (Mearsheimer). States always maximize power bc of
unknown future. They especially expand to the sea, offshore balance, &
buck-pass
IS SYSTEMIC CHANGE THE REAL
PROBLEM? WHEN REALSISTS
PRED
When is war most likely in the “power cycle” of
international relations?
• When change in the intl system is both abrupt and
unpredictable… Why? (when are security dilemmas the biggest
problem?)
• When a regional hegemon’s rising power capabilities mismatch
its aspirations (desired role, breath of its interests): status
discrepancy
• Things get more dicey if a global hegemon’s power is in play
and the speed of its change? Why don’t declining hegemon’s
usually help the rising power of its choice (US and GB)
• Things are more problematic depending on the number and
proximity of states going through rapid change
• The most problematic type of change is when a new set of
fundamental intl. rules and regimes is at stake… like now.
IS UNIPOLAR US THE BEST?
• Why are empires so stable?:
• Is the concentration of power a good thing?
Collective dilemmas, and institution formation
• How do hierarchy (both global and regional) and the
speed of change impact the probability of war?
• Why do empires inevitably come and go? Gilpin’s
War and Change in World Pol:
– Free-riding and overreach
– The law of uneven growth
– Consumerism, innovation, & decadence
– Status discrepancy
WOULD A MULTIPOLAR
SYSTEM BE BETTER?
•
•
•
•
•
Why do balances of power matter?
Do cross-cutting cleavages make for more stability?
More actors, more mediators
More actors, easier to balance: slower arms races
More actors makes it harder to concentrate war on
one other actor
• Multipolarity is less certain, so war reluctance more
likely
WOULD A BIPOLAR CHINAUS WORLD BE BETTER?
• Fewer actors, fewer mistakes, lower
possibility that one conflict goes global
• Fewer actors, more institutionalized
communication
• Fewer actors, less impact any defection
has
• Balance of power is easier to achieve,
less of a security dilemma
• Two parties = moderation: just like with
the median voter
WHY DO REALISTS THINK WE’RE HEADED
FOR DANGER? WHY DO LIBERALS THINK
WE’RE NOT?
• Liberals vs Realists: The debate over China as an
example
• What’s John Mearsheimer’s view of the likely
trajectory of US-Chinese relations in the next few
decades? Why do “liberals” reject the idea that
China and the US will fight?