Realism and Liberalism in Contemporary International Relations

1
Realism and Liberalism in Contemporary
International Relations

• PO 201 Introduction to International Studies and
  Political Science

2
Modern Variants on the Traditional Views

• We have seen that the two traditional theoretical
  frameworks of IR differ mainly on three points
  human nature, the ways in which humans overcome
  the state of nature in the domestic realm, and
  the capacity of states to overcome the state of
  nature in the international realm
• Today, we expand our discussion to include the
  intricate ways in which more modern takes on
  realism and liberalism theorize about IR

3
The Neorealist Refinement

• In Theory of International Politics, Kenneth
  Waltz constructs a strictly structural view of
  action and reaction in the international system
• Centers on the classical realist state goal of
  survival
• Since survival is the ultimate goal, Waltz
  contends (unlike Morgenthau) that the quest for
  power is a means to an end, and not an end unto
  itself (what changes does this conceptualization
  result in?)
• Power is thus necessary and sufficient for
  survival it is the nature of the self-help
  system that makes this so (Hobbesian)

4
The Neorealist Refinement

• Waltzs structural formulation treats all action
  (in any system) as resulting from the necessities
  of the system
• All systems are defined by the principles
  according to which they are ordered and the
  differentiation of the composite units
• When the ordering principle of any system
  changes, so too does the system
• If there is any differentiation amongst composite
  units, there must be a hierarchy
• These last considerations, when taken together,
  are extremely important to the neorealist (or
  structural realist) study of IR
• The initial ordering principle of the
  international system is anarchy
• However, since the only important means of
  differentiation in the self-help system is
  power capabilities, anarchy is unlikely to
  persist for long
• Thus, the international system is hierarchically
  structured based on the distribution of
  capabilities when the interstate distribution of
  capabilities changes, so does the hierarchy and,
  therefore, so does the system itself

5
The Neorealist Refinement

• How does this view differ from the traditional
  realist formulation?
• Individual and national level explanations of IR
  are intriguing, but unnecessary (streamlining
  realism)
• Why would human nature matter? How would a study
  of the foreign policies of states since their
  goals are always the same lend additional power
  to a structural theory? Since the only important
  differentiation is capabilities, the nature of
  individuals (e.g., good or evil) and the nature
  of polities (e.g., democratic or autocratic) are
  not important determinants of state action in IR
• Anarchy is never truly the international state of
  affairs
• Hierarchy prevails based on capability
  distribution hierarchies can change, changing
  with it both the system and the necessities of
  surviving in it
• This means that no state seeks a unipolar,
  bipolar, or multipolar system of balanced
  capabilities such structures just emerge as a
  result of efforts to survive in a self-help
  system. The balance of power is thus not a goal
  of states, but an outcome
• Waltzs reductionist formulation leads to some
  interesting conclusions about which international
  structures are safest
• An important way by which to ensure survival is
  to use external means to acquire power
  (alliances)
• However, since others are concerned only about
  their own survival, alliances can be risky (loss
  of sovereigntydiminished capacity to survive)
• Structures that reduce the necessity of alliance
  are therefore safest since a bipolar system
  involving two very powerful states minimizes the
  need for alliances, it is safer (at least in
  terms of major power conflict) than all others

6
The Neoliberal Refinement

• Keohane and Nye begin by focusing on the role of
  complex interdependence in world affairs
• No state in the international system is truly
  independent every state has some set of
  transaction-based relationships with every other
• Power who gets what is determined by relative
  degrees of dependence and interdependence within
  relationships and the nature of what is
  transacted
• Control over outcomes is determined by a form of
  asymmetrical interdependence, based in part on
  the relative importance of what kind of
  transactions constitute the relationship (e.g.,
  if State A is dependent upon State B for oil
  imports, and State B is dependent upon State A
  for perfume imports, it is likely that State B
  enjoys a measure of power of State A Why?)
• There are also more nuanced considerations of how
  dependent and interdependent states actually are
• Sensitivity interdependence A dependent state is
  sensitive to adverse changes in the
  relationship, but is likely able to cope despite
  disruptions (e.g., State A being able to replace
  oil exports with domestic production)
• Vulnerability interdependence A dependent state
  is wholly vulnerable to adverse changes in the
  relationship (e.g., State A being unable to
  replace oil exports with domestic production)

7
The Neoliberal Refinement

• This formulation allows both for conflicts of
  interest even in mutually beneficial
  relationships (unlike classical liberalisms
  simplistic focus on the good by-products of
  trade) and the likelihood that asymmetric
  vulnerability leads to conflict would seem to
  be somewhat pro-realist
• However, Keohane and Nyes thesis of
  interdependence stipulates that the assumptions
  of realism do not stand up to scrutiny in the
  post-World War II era

8
The Neoliberal Refinement

• Realist Assumption 1 States are the dominant
  actors in world affairs
• KN Wrong! There are multiple channels of
  contact other than the state (firms, bureaucrats,
  terrorists, etc.) each has their own interests,
  and make policies in one state sensitive to
  policies in others
• Realist Assumption 2 Force is a consistently
  useable instrument in world affairs
• KN Wrong again! Social and economic forces,
  concerns of appropriateness in achieving goals,
  nuclear weapons have all diminished the
  employability of force
• Realist Assumption 3 There exists an
  international hierarchy of issues, dominated by
  security concerns
• KN Nope! There are many issues on countries
  agendas, many of which cannot today be
  subordinated to military security. This
  situation is exacerbated in democratic societies,
  where the definition of a national interest is
  made difficult by pluralism, economic concerns,
  and sensitivities to the domestic policies of
  other states

9
The Neoliberal Refinement

• Thus, interdependence, by making states
  vulnerable or sensitive to others, combines with
  the decline of traditional security concerns to
  construct an interesting IR scenario
• State goals vary by issue and are effected by
  non-state actors
• Issue-specific agendas are set by states/actors
  that have resource advantages within the issue
  the inapplicability of force usage means that
  militarily strong states will sometimes lose
  (unable to link issues to power hierarchy)
  Example US and OPEC
• International organizations benefit this setup
  they are arenas for political action by
  militarily weaker states/actors, who use them to
  set agendas and reinforce their power in specific
  issue areas

10
The Neos Recapped

• Waltz structural realism is similar in many ways
  to the classical realist view, but differs in
  that
• It renders human nature and how polities are
  formed irrelevant (contra Machiavelli and Hobbes)
  
• It systematically challenges the assumption of
  anarchy
• It reduces state action to an inherently
  individualistic attempt to survive (balance of
  power as a result, not a plan)
• It determines the relative safety and danger of
  particular structures
• Keohane and Nyes complex interdependence is
  similar to the classical liberal view in that it
  directly challenges the realist notions of state
  independence and the role of force, but differs
  in that
• It vastly refines the classical view of how
  anarchy can be overcome (more nuanced view of the
  effects of democracy)
• It systematically shows that non-violent
  interactions like trade are not simply beneficial
  to both parties they are also the basis for
  power asymmetries
• It provides an interdependence-based explanation
  for how international organizations impact
  international dealings

11
International Politics Conclusion

• Major differences in classical theoretical
  traditions
• Realism Human nature (bad) and state of nature
  (anarchy) ? mistrust and importance of power ?
  security dilemma ? war
• Liberalism Human nature (good) overcomes state
  of nature (anarchy) in social contract
  international collection of social contracts ?
  peace (reinforcing role of trade and IOs)
• Major refinements of neo theories