chapter 5: mainstream theories: realism and...

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


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


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



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?


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


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


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



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


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


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?


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


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.


Interdependence


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.


Interdependence


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


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.


Interdependence


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


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.

chapter 5: mainstream theories: realism and...

Documents