Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Chapter 5: Mainstream theories: Realism and Liberalism
Chapter 5: Mainstream
theories: Realism and
Liberalism
Theories enlighten. A theory is a set of related
propositions that help explain why events occur the way
they do. A theory is an abstract, conjunctural or
speculative representation of reality. Thus one does not
ask of a theory whether it is true or false; rather one
asks whether it is enlightening. To theorize is to
speculate with an intention to explain or understand.
Knutsen, T. A history of international relations theory.
(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997) p.1.
Aims of the chapter
The aims of this chapter are to:
• explain why and how scholars make use of ‘theory’
• outline the core mainstream theoretical approaches to IR,
namely Realism and Liberalism
• Illustrate ways in which these approaches might be used to
better understand certain events or global phenomena
through the presentation of examples.
Learning outcomes
By the end of this chapter, and having completed the Essential
reading and activities, you should be able to:
• explain what a theory is and why IR scholars use them
• explain the core ideas used in Realist and Liberal theories of IR
• make use of these theories in analyzing ‘real world’ examples
• define the vocabulary terms in bold.
Essential reading
Dunne, T and Schmidt, B.
‘Realism’. Dunne, T.
‘Liberalism’.
Lamy, S. ‘Contemporary mainstream approaches: neo-realism
and neo-liberalism’.
Further reading
Dodge, T. ‘The ideological roots of failure: the application of
kinetic neo-liberalism to Iraq’, International Affairs 86(6)
2010, pp.1269–86.
Griffiths, M. ‘Introduction: conquest, coexistence and IR theory’ in
Griffiths, M. Rethinking international relations theory.
(Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2011) [ISBN 9780230217799].
Hill, C., ‘1939: the origins of liberal realism’, Review of
International Studies 15(4) 1989, pp.319–28.
Ikenberry, G.J. ‘The future of the liberal world order
internationalism after America’, Foreign Affairs 90(3) 2011,
pp.56–68.
6
5
11 Introduction to international relations
Lebow, R.N. ‘The long peace, the end of the Cold War and the
failure of realism’, International Organization 48(2) 1994,
pp.249–77.
Moravcik, A. ‘Taking preferences seriously: a liberal theory of
international politics’, International Organization 51(4) 1997,
pp.513–53.
Scheurman, W.E. ‘Why (almost) everything you learned about
Realism is wrong’ in Scheurman, W.E. The Realist case for
global reform. (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2011) [ISBN
9780745650302].
Schweller, R. and W. Wohlforth ‘Power test: updating Realism in
response to the end of the Cold War’, Security Studies 9(3) 2000,
pp.60–108.
Walt, S.M. ‘International relations: one world, many theories’,
Foreign Policy 110 1998, pp.29–47.
Introduction
So far in this course, we have skimmed over the surface of
several IR theories. The time has come to delve into them more
deeply, beginning with IR’s dominant approaches: Realism and
Liberalism. One of IR’s distinguishing features – as opposed to
an empirically-rooted subject
– is its focus on generalisation and the search for broad patterns of
behaviour in international affairs. History, on the other hand, tries
to avoid speculation by weaving ‘facts’ into a coherent narrative.
This is not to say that historians are atheoretical – meaning that
they work entirely without theory. In the end, scholars in all
disciplines employ some kind of theoretical framework to
understand the world around them. The ‘real world’, when
considered without a theoretical lens to prioritise evidence and
highlight general patterns, is a baffling, even incomprehensible
place. Theory allows us to discover causes, make useful
generalisations from a limited number of cases, and look for broad
patterns in world politics. Without theory to order our
observations, the empirical world is reduced to a series of isolated
events with neither pattern nor discernable links of cause and
effect.
It is certainly possible to analyse an event or action without being
conscious of the theoretical assumptions upon which the analysis
rests. Many go through their lives without taking the time to
reflect on the assumptions that shape their world views. It is
possible, but hardly desirable. Regardless of one’s intentions,
analyses depend on theories that assume answers to some big
questions about how the world works. Are material necessities,
like natural resources, more important than political ideologies in
driving states’ actions? Do fears about physical security always
override the desire for economic profit? Does the makeup of a
country’s government play a role in understanding its decisions,
or do external pressures determine state policy? The purpose of
theoretical thinking is to draw one’s assumptions out into the
open. The real choice for any student is not whether there will be
any theory in their analyses. That is unavoidable. Rather, the
choice is whether your theoretical assumptions will remain
implicit and unanalysed, or whether you will choose to think
about them explicitly, clearly and consistently.
In this chapter, we look again at two of the dominant schools of
theoretical thought in IR: Realism and Liberalism. In the first part
we look at Realist theory in all of its complexity, followed by a few
case studies that explore the ways in which Realism can be used to
make sense of international affairs. We then do exactly the same
for Liberalism, reviewing its fundamental assumptions before
looking at some of the issues it is best equipped to address.
Realism and Liberalism serve different purposes.
The goal of this chapter is to think more systematically about the
different ways these different theories can be deployed by students
of IR.
6
6
Chapter 5: Mainstream theories: Realism and Liberalism
Realism: the basics
Stop and read section 1 of Chapter 5, pp.86–89
What do Realists mean by anarchy? Why is it so central to how Realism
understands the international system? Could the lessons of Realism hold
true without an anarchic international system?
In earlier chapters we have made several direct and indirect
references to a particular school of thought that goes under the
broad heading of Realism. As we have shown, Realism – which
has many variants – is one of the oldest and most influential
theories of IR; and is influential quite because it focuses on big
issues such as power and its distribution, the notion of interests
and why states claim to have them, the idea of anarchy (which
in the field of IR points to a lack of an overarching global
authority) and the inescapability of competition. Realist thought
can also claim a pedigree that dates back centuries,
encompassing the ancient Greek historian Thucydides and the
seventeeth-century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes.
In the era of modern IR scholarship, however, it owes more to twentieth-century
authors such as Hans J. Morgenthau, E.H. Carr and George F. Kennan. This
generation of classical Realists came to prominence in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s –
partly in response to the dangerous times in which they lived, and partly as a reaction
to Liberal attempts to build a new world order around international organisations
after the First World War. To Carr and Morgenthau, these attempts had deeply
problematic consequences. In their view, the great crisis of the 1930s and 1940s was,
in part, the result of earlier statesmen’s inexperienced belief that a harmony of
interests between states could be achieved by gathering nations together in the spirit
of cooperation and diplomacy. Such misguided idealism,
Carr and Morgenthau claimed, had to be replaced by a more ‘Realistic’ appreciation
of the world as it was, rather than how some hoped it might become.
According to classical Realists, states naturally tend to serve their own interests and
aggrandize themselves at the expense of others.
Fundamentally, the top priority of every state is its own survival. This is best
guaranteed by ensuring that its strength is sufficient to defend against – either alone
or in alliance with other states – those who might seek to dominate it. Sensible
statesmen, according to Realists, avoid putting their trust in paper agreements or
goodwill to guarantee peace. The language of international politics is the language
of power: how great are your military capabilities and how strong is the resource
base that sustains them?
Peace, which Realists define narrowly as the absence of war, can be expected only
when there is a balance of power, where adequate power exists to resist the efforts
of any one state to gain hegemony over all, or part, of the international system.
Classical Realists tended to attribute much of this pattern of behavior to the natural
tendency of people and states to be selfish and greedy.
Stop and read to the end of ‘Classical realism’ in section 2 of
Chapter 5, pp.89–91
Would it be true to say that classical Realism relies on a pessimistic
understanding of human nature to justify its conflictual understanding
of IR? Why or why not?
6
7
11 Introduction to international relations
In more recent decades a new strand of Realism, called structural Realism, has placed more emphasis
on the structural context in which states find themselves. Thinkers like Kenneth Waltz argue that the
anarchic international system is itself responsible for producing state behavior.
To use a well-known phrase, in the international arena, ‘when you call 999 (or 911), nobody answers’.
As a result, even if states have the best of aims, they are forced into the suspicious, selfish and power-
oriented behaviour as portrayed by classical Realists. The international system portrayed by Waltz is
unforgiving, and will punish states unwise enough to behave in open, cooperative and trusting ways.
In this anarchic world, states are victims of what has been termed the security dilemma or security
paradox. As Waltz argues, the only rational course of action for a state in an anarchic international
system is to invest in armed strength in order to be able to defend itself against aggression. If a state
identifies the most likely sources of such threats within the system, it might seek alliances with
others who, on the basis of a common threat, might come to its aid in a crisis. From the perspective
of the states against whom such preparations are targeted, these rational efforts at self-defense can
appear aggressive. The rational response of a state so threatened is to invest in its own material
capabilities and, perhaps, form its own alliances. As a result of this dynamic, states’ attempts to
defense their independence contribute to making the international arena less secure for everyone.
However unfortunate it may be, Realists believe that this paradox is common to the anarchic
international system. In the absence of a world government, states are condemned to exist in an
environment of mutual suspicion. Moreover, any state’s declaration that it is seeking armed strength
for only defensive reasons is bound to be met with suspicion.
Not all Realists agree about everything. As we noted in Chapter 1, some saw the Cold War as being
inherently dangerous while others thought it contained the seeds of a new and more stable international
order. A few Realists welcomed the end of the Cold War; others feared it would make the world less
orderly. Realists remain divided by some fairly important theoretical differences too. Some follow to the
traditional notion that a balance of power is both possible and the most likely basis upon which some
form of global stability can be constructed – hence their hopes for a new balance of power today to limit
US power. Others think that such a balance is highly doubtful on the grounds that any normal great
power will try to break free from the constraints of the system by becoming a hegemon. This analytical
approach, normally called offensive Realism (as opposed to defensive Realism) has been most
recently on display in the current debate on China – a subject we will return to shortly. Defensive
Realists make the simple but important claim that states seek security and nothing more. They
therefore argue that China and the USA will approach each other with great caution, as neither will
want to annoy the other and risk a threat to its own security. Offensive Realists see things very
differently. To them, a rising China will necessarily seek hegemony in its region and is therefore bound
to clash with the USA, whose hegemonic position it will threaten. States’ competition for power, rather
than their competing ideologies, is the roots of Realist international conflict.
6
8
Chapter 5: Mainstream theories: Realism and Liberalism
Stop and read section 2 of Chapter 7, pp.117–20
Activity
Now is the time to think about what differentiates classical Realism from the four ‘neo- Realisms’
discussed in Chapter 7 of the textbook. Using the table below, consider how each thinker would
respond to the following question:
‘What impact will China’s rising economic and political power have on the anarchic
international system?
Classical Realism dangerous
(Morgenthau)
Structural Realism dangerous
(Waltz)
Neo-Realism dangerous
(Grieco)
Offensive Realist bad, it may harm others
(Mearsheimer)
Defensive Realist not bad, it will seek its security
(Jervis)
What sorts of things might Realist ideas help to
explain?
Stop and read section 3 of Chapter 5, pp.93–96
Activity
In each of the sub-sections that follow, use the tables provided to consider how three of
Realism’s most important concepts (statism, survival and self-help) influence its answers to
the questions posed below.
Let us now concentrate on the way Realist theory might be applied in practice by looking at
five key questions that it seeks to address:
1. Why don’t international organisations work as idealists want them to?
Many see international organisations as opportunities where states come together and set aside
narrow self-interest to cooperate for the greater good. The United Nations Security Council
(UNSC), for example, is supposed to address threats to international peace and security and
enforce international law. In reality, however, it has often been impossible for states to agree
on what security and the laws require in particular cases, especially when the states making the
decisions at the UN are directly involved in the cases under consideration. Realism tells us that
we should begin with low expectations for international organisations. States will never
surrender their autonomy. To do so would be equal to surrendering their sovereignty and, with
it, their independence. Realists argue that states use international organisations to further their
own power and interests, and as barriers to block others when they try to do the same. For
example, the UNSC has often been unable to act in response to important events, such as the
NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999, the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 or Russian invasions into
Georgia (South Ossetia) in 2008. Realism explains that this is because – in each case – the
major powers were divided over what course of action to take. Without a clear
harmony of interests, the UNSC’s efforts to arbitrate were effectively blocked by the security
dilemma.
Realist assumption
Impact on Question
1
Statism
Survival
Self-help
2. Why do promises made by states often fail to translate into reality?
Realists have drawn many lessons of their own from the unfortunate fate that befell the
international system between the two world wars. As they point out, several international
agreements were formed in which states promised to refrain from war and aggression, most
famously the Kellogg–Briand Pact. Adolf Hitler gave personal written assurances to the British
Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain at Munich in 1938 that Germany’s ambitions would be
satisfied by obtaining a part of Czechoslovakia. In the end these promises proved worthless, as a
state with growing strength (Germany) launched a war to pursue wider territorial gains. Near the
end of the Second World War, the Russians acted similarly, making agreements and promises
that promised free and democratic elections in Eastern Europe. In reality, the USSR under Stalin
imposed its own preferred governments on Eastern and Central Europe. Realists are not surprised
by such cheating activity. To them, the powerful forces behind states are not their signatures on
paper, but their hunger for power. While agreements may be signed and obeyed to in the short
term, many Realists claim that they will collapse if, and when, they come into conflict with hard
interests. When states have the power to do so, we should expect them to ignore their promises.
As Kenneth Waltz would argue, only strong power can guarantee obedience.
Realist assumption
Impact on
Question 2
Statism
Survival
Self-help
3. Why does international cooperation often fail to occur, even when it
seems in everyone’s interests?
There are numerous issue areas in which it seems as though a big problem can only be
addressed through collective, cooperative action. The problem of climate change, for example,
clearly demands binding agreements under which all states agree to sacrifice some aspect of
their short-term gains (i.e. the profit that comes from ecologically-destructive economic
activity) for a greater long-term benefit (reducing the harmful effects of anthropogenic climate
change). To choose another example, many over the years have sought universal nuclear
disarmament by all nations, or the placing of nuclear weapons under
7
0
Chapter 5: Mainstream theories: Realism and Liberalism
international control. In each case, Realists tell us that the chances of success are remote, because
states cannot or will not trust one another enough to sacrifice their own interests in the hope that
others will do the same. Those with an advantage will always attempt to keep it, and will always
fear that sacrifice on their part will be taken advantage of by others. This dynamic is captured by
the Prisoner’s Dilemma, a thought experiment described in Box 18.3 on p.302 of the textbook.
Realist assumption
Impact on
Question 3
Statism
Survival
Self-help
4. Why do states broaden/narrow the scope of their foreign policy
over time?
As we have now read, many neo-Realists think of states as functionally similar, meaning that
each carries out similar functions regardless of where or when it exists. In the anarchic
international system, only states’ material capabilities differentiate them from another. States
that have limited material capabilities tend to define their interests narrowly. States that are
stronger think ‘bigger’. That is what being a great power entails. Uruguay will have different
views to Brazil on how widely its interests extend and what establishes a threat to its security.
This is largely because of Uruguay’s more limited capacity to mobilize power on the
international stage. American foreign policy, obviously, provides an appropriate case study for
this argument. As the USA went from being a relatively weak and marginal power in the
eighteenth century to a global superpower in the twentieth, it experienced a similar transition
from isolationism – which frowns on international entanglements – to interventionism. Realists
generally agree that this was predictable because the USA’s increasing material capabilities
allowed it to pursue an increasingly active foreign policy.
Looking to the future, such a Realist would predict that current Chinese attitudes towards
sovereignty and intervention will inevitably shift as its capacity for intervention grows. Powers
that lose relative power and status over time, such as Britain or Spain, might likewise be
expected to gradually narrow their horizons.
Realist assumption
Impact on
Question 4
Statism
Survival
Self-help
5. Why do states engage in ‘balancing behaviour’?
Realists believe that the world order is defined by its most powerful states – the great powers.
Smaller powers, unable to compete openly with their more capable neighbors, will organize
around the great
7
1
11 Introduction to international relations
powers in the international system. Hence, during the Cold War, the world’s states gathered
around the two ‘poles’ of greatest power in the system: the USA and the Soviet Union. On the
level of pure imagination, it is possible that in such circumstances the two dominant powers
might ally themselves together to dominate all others. However, most Realists believe that
states automatically react to the possibility of a dominant (hegemonic) concentration of power
in the world by ‘balancing’ against it. They argue that it was inevitable that the USA and USSR
would end up in an aggressive balance after the Second World War, because each feared that
the other was capable of achieving a hegemonic position. In the first decades after the collapse
of the USSR, Realists argued among themselves about whether or not new groups of states were
likely to ‘balance against’ the USA in order to limit its dominance, or if the scale of the US lead
would prevent any challenge.
Realist assumption
Impact on
Question 5
Statism
Survival
Self-help
Activity
Read the following statements. Which ones would Realists consider true? Which would they consider false?
T/F It doesn’t matter if our neighbors are better armed, so long as we know their intentions are friendly.
T/F When it really comes down to it, states can depend only on themselves.
T/F Statesmen happily quote the law when it backs their own case, and go quiet when it doesn’t.
T/F So long as our cause is morally right, we can be confident in our ultimate victory.
T/F The main barrier to abolishing war is that there are too many bad men and bad governments in charge of states.
T/F If our goal is to be the dominant power in the world, we can expect others to oppose us regardless of our ideals.
What is Liberalism in IR?
If Realism is defined by its negative vision of lonely states trapped in a system that
locks them into hostile power-games, Liberalism serves as a useful counterpoint,
highlighting the interconnectedness of the world and the potential for successful
cooperation. While it shares some of Realism’s starting points, Liberals tend to be
more optimistic about the sort of world that can emerge out of international anarchy.
Liberals have a long intellectual history that extends back to the European
Enlightenment. Many credit the eighteenth-century German philosopher Immanuel
Kant with several important contributions to Liberal thinking about IR, particularly his
focus on the establishment of peace between states. A summary of his proposal for a
perpetual peace can be found in Box 6.2 on p.104 of the textbook. In the modern era,
notable Liberal scholars in IR have included Joseph Nye, Robert Keohane and John
Ikenberry.
7
2
Chapter 5: Mainstream theories: Realism and Liberalism
Stop and read section 2 of Chapter 6, pp.104–08
Activity:
In one or two sentences, summarise how each of the
following Liberals would establish peace within the
international system.
1. Immanuel Kant
2. Richard Cobden
3. Woodrow Wilson
4. Robert Keohane
Like Realists, Liberals do not agree on everything. Over the
spectrum of Liberal writing, however, some repetitive themes
emerge:
1. Interdependence
In its discussion of sovereign states wrestling for power,
Realism can sometimes overestimate the extent to which
states are truly autonomous. Liberals often note that – in
reality – states have become ever more connected to one
another, increasing their interdependence. As a result of the
expansion of international trade, dramatic developments in
communication across borders, and our deepening
dependence upon one another for economic, political and
social goods, states have very limited freedom of move.
States’ autonomy, and therefore sovereignty, is controlled by
the system in which they exist. This is also true for other
international actors recognised by Liberal theory: MNCs,
NGOs and IGOs. Liberals believe that these constraints have
important implications for IR insofar as actors cannot afford
to engage in aggressive behaviour towards those on whom
they rely. By limiting sovereignty, Liberals argue,
interdependence raises the costs of conflict and thereby
makes it less likely.
2. International organisations, norms and regimes
Realists see international organisations (IOs) as vehicles
through which states can pursue their own narrow self-interest.
Liberals see IOs very differently. Over time, they argue, states
get into the habit of surviving by international rules and norms
and of dealing with problems through discussion rather than the
use of force. By facilitating cooperation and reinforcing
mutuality, international organisations and the shared norms
they support are capable of influencing states’ actions. This can
happen on a global level as is the case with the rules that shape
the global economic system or among subgroups of states who
can develop security communities within which the use of
force is unthinkable because of the extent to which they have
involved shared norms. Combinations of formal international
organisations and their associated norms are called regimes.
These are often thought of according to the issue areas they
confront, such as the international
7
3
11 Introduction to international relations
human rights regime or the international trade regime. Regimes
therefore bear a strong resemblance to the institutions of
international society described by the ES in Chapter 2 insofar
as they regularise relations between international actors,
bringing some level of order to the anarchic international
system. For example, the contemporary international trade
regime includes formal organisations (e.g. the WTO) and the
rules by which the regime operates (e.g. the removal of trade
restrictions and state aids).
3. Rational cooperation
Realists believe that, under conditions of anarchy, states are
trapped by the security dilemma in a cycle of action and
reaction that leads to aggression, tension and conflict. Liberals,
on the other hand, tend to believe that if states can focus on the
benefits to be had from cooperation and security, they can get
beyond the Hobbesian world of Realist conflict to produce
benefits for all. To do this they need to stop focusing on the
relative gains to be had at the expense of others, and focus on
the absolute gains to be had from cooperation. Liberal’s
preference for absolute gains stands against Grieco’s neo-
Realist position, which keeps a central place for relative gains
– and therefore competition – in IR.
4. The importance of Liberal democracy
It would be an exaggeration to say that all Realists think that
states’ domestic affairs are entirely irrelevant to their foreign
policy. However, neo-Realists often argue that states operate in
response to a national interest that is unaffected by domestic
politics, and that the pressures of the international system force
states to behave according to the same rationality regardless of
whether they are democratic, authoritarian or theocratic. Many
Liberals disagree, believing that liberal democratic societies tend
to be less aggressive in their approach to IR than their
authoritarian and theocratic neighbors. This is especially true
when it comes to their relations with other democracies.
Democratic Peace Theory (DPT), discussed briefly in the
previous chapter, has roots that stretch back to Immanuel Kant’s
proposals for a perpetual peace. As we have already seen, DPT
claims that liberal democracies do not go to war with one
another, although they will fight against non-democratic states.
The implications of this argument are that:
• a fully democratic world would necessarily be a peaceful one
• The most likely crises for international conflict exist
where democratic and a non-democratic state hits.
5. ‘Soft power’
Realists tend to define power as the ability to get others into
doing things they would prefer not to do. This may involve
military force, or may take on more subtle forms of extreme
economic and political pressure. Whatever tools are used, the
key feature of power is its ability to have others do things that
they would normally be unwilling to do. This idea of power-as
pressure is often called hard power. Liberals, and some
classical Realists, often emphasise the importance of soft
power, a phrase coined by the political scientist Joseph Nye.
As we will discuss at greater length in Chapter 10, the notion
of soft power focuses less on pressure and more on the ability
of a society to be attractive to others through its culture, its
ideas, and its political and economic systems. This attraction
may lead others to emulate the
7
4
Chapter 5: Mainstream theories: Realism and Liberalism
society they admire, and ‘buy in’ to its agenda more broadly
without the need for force.
6. ‘Non-state actors’
Realism focuses almost exclusively on the state, which it
claims is the only effective actor in IR. Liberal theorists have
never denied the importance of the state. Indeed, some of the
most influential Liberals have given states an especially
important role supporting the functioning of a successful
global economy. Nevertheless, in some Liberal writing there
has been a tendency to look beyond the state to emphasize
the importance of a variety of non-state actors, including
companies, charities, citizens’ groups, religious movements
and political movements outside government. This is a major
departure from Realism, one of whose central tenets is the
unique international quality of the state.
What might Liberal ideas help explain?
Stop and read section 3 of Chapter 6, pp.108–11
Activity
In each of the subsections that follow, use the tables provided to
consider how three of Liberalism’s most important concepts
(interdependence, international regimes, DPT) influence its answers
to the questions posed below.
1. Why have other powers not done more to ‘balance’ against the USA?
Most Realist theories suggest that following the establishment
of American hegemony in the international system at the end
of the Cold War, other states should have formed alliances or
built up their own armed forces to counterbalance against US
power. Liberals have pointed out that this ignores the special
qualities of American hegemony and the mutually beneficial
world order it has promoted. The USA has usually showed
restraint (when compared with, say, the USSR or Nazi
Germany) in its conduct towards weaker powers. It is an open
society that allows outsiders to have ongoing insight into its
decisions and the processes by which it makes them. The USA
also has a great deal of ‘soft power’ thanks to the appeal of its
political system, its economic plenty and its cultural produce.
The world order it has helped to create over the past two
decades, involving relatively free trade and a Liberal
architecture of international laws and institutions, is one that
many international actors – states, firms, NGOs and so on –
find attractive. Thus, it can be argued that the USA stirs less
hostile balancing against itself because of the Liberal
character of its domestic system and of the international
regimes that it has helped to create.
Impact on Question 1
Interdependence
International regimes
DPT
7
5
11 Introduction to international relations
2. Historically Europe was one of the most war-prone
parts of the world. How has it become one of the most
peaceful?
The second half of the twentieth century has brought enormous
changes to European IR. Since the end of the Second World
War and the Cold War, commentators have noted a general
decrease in levels of state competition and conflict. Liberals
chalk this up to a number of factors. National economies have
become much more interdependent, thanks to free trade and
shared economic governance. The EU has created a set of
political organisations, legal structures and norms that have
reshaped the behaviour of European states towards one another.
Military relations between its most powerful members have
been made more entangled through NATO and the EU. Liberals
argue that Europe has become peaceful thanks to the combined
effects of these factors, creating a security regime in which
European states agree not to engage in hostile actions towards
one another.
Impact on Question 2
Interdependence
International regimes
DPT
3. Why is it now a rarity for states to use force as a tool
for advancing their self-interest?
States still go to war and national interest still plays a part in
that decision. But, whereas major powers once regarded it as
their right to declare war and use force in pursuit of territorial
gain or political advantage, they now tend to justify their
actions in terms of the rules and norms laid out in
international law. Look, for example, at the significant efforts
made by the USA to argue that its invasion of Iraq in 2003
was legally justified, or at how intensely Israel and the
Palestinian Authority struggle to portray their positions as
legally justified and refute accusations that they use
aggressive force against one another. Even when norms are
not fully pleased in practice, Liberal principles of non-
aggression have been established in the international system.
It is a norm to which states must at least appear to obey.
This, Liberals argue, shows that something has changed in
the world.
Impact on Question 3
Interdependence
International regimes
DPT
4. Why might a ‘rising China’ be managed peacefully?
Finally, Liberals have made a very distinct contribution to the
debate on China and how the West should deal with its rising
wealth and power. Realists tend to view China as a problem to
be controlled. Liberals share some of their concerns, most
obviously about China’s record on human
7
6
Chapter 5: Mainstream theories: Realism and Liberalism
rights. However, in policy terms they place more stress on
integration than containment. More optimistic Liberals even
point to at least two reasons why the West should remain
optimistic. First, so long as China is tied into the existing
economic order, it will be very difficult for it to launch an
aggressive push for domination without harming its own
economy and political stability. Second, as it becomes richer
and its young people experience contact with, or even life in,
other parts of the world, there will be irresistible pressure for
the liberalization and democratization of Chinese society.
Impact on Question 4
Interdependence
International regimes
DPT
Activity
Imagine that you have been tasked with establishing the necessary
arrangements to prevent wars between collections of neighboring
states. In a short paragraph, describe how you would go about
achieving this objective if you were a Realist. In a second paragraph,
do the same again from the standpoint of a Liberal. What are the
main differences between these ideal types?
For a closer examination of the place of the ES in mainstream IR,
visit the VLE and search for the appropriate podcast listed under
this chapter.
A reminder of your learning outcomes
Having completed this chapter, and the Essential reading and
activities, you should be able to:
• explain what a theory is and why IR scholars use them
• explain the core ideas used in Realist and Liberal theories of IR
• make use of these theories in analysing ‘real world’ examples
• define the vocabulary terms in bold.
Chapter vocabulary
absolute gains interdependence
anarchy interests
autonomy interventionism
balance of power
international
organisations
classical Realists isolationism
defensive Realism non-state actors
Democratic Peace Theory norms
(DPT) offensive Realism
great powers regimes
hard power relative gains
harmony of interests power
7
7
11 Introduction to international relations
Prisoner’s Dilemma sovereignty
security dilemma/paradox states
security communities structural Realism
soft power
Sample examination questions
1. Explain the ‘security dilemma’. Do you think it is possible for
states to get past it?
2. How convincing is ‘democratic peace’ theory?
3. What do you think are the key points on which Realists and
Liberals disagree?
4. Do international organisations have the power to change
the way nations behave?
After preparing your answers, refer to the Examiners’
commentaries on the VLE for targeted feedback on specific
questions.
78