The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249 9/12/2013 1

International Organizations

PLO 3513 – Fall Term 2013

Thursday, 8:30-9:45 am

Week 3: IR theories I: (Neo-)Realism and IOs

Dr. Matthias Hofferberth – matthias.hofferberth@utsa.edu

The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249 9/12/2013 2

Session plan

1. Introducing neorealism as an IR theory

2. Core assumptions of the theory

3. Neorealism & IOs

4. Assessing the theory & conclusion

The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249 9/12/2013 3

1. Introducing neorealism as an IR theory

Realist thinking as a long tradition in IR theory: • Ever since the discipline was founded, political realism influenced it • Focus on realist theory: order, stability & the dilemma of power • Basic explanatory assumption: human nature is

evil & humans strive for security, power, dominance • Problem of that assumption: to some extent

unscientific as one cannot really prove or disprove human nature

Neorealism (or Structural Realism) as attempt to give realist tradition a more scientific foundation

The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249 9/12/2013 4

1. Introducing neorealism as an IR theory

Emergence of a new paradigm: • From individual explanation to systemic / structural explanation:

Kenneth N. Waltz and his Theory of International Politics

Arguably the most influential / most often quoted book in recent IR history

• Structural account of international politics & it’s polarity, published at a time when the Cold War dominated world politics

• Theoretical ideals: parsimony & abstraction in order to generalize

The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249 9/12/2013 5

1. Introducing neorealism as an IR theory

The success story of neorealism in IR: • Neorealism as of the ‘main contenders’ in IR theory – all other

theories refer to or criticize neorealism: the so-called ‘neo-neo-debate’ with institutionalism liberalism opening the realist ‘black box’ constructivism & ‘anarchy is what states make of it’

• Some of IR’s ‘big shots’ labeled as neorealists:

The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249 9/12/2013 6

1. Introducing neorealism as an IR theory

The success story of neorealism in IR (cont’d): • Dominance of neorealism questioned by the

end of the cold war – inability to explain change • Neorealism challenged by „recent wave of academic interest in

institutions“ – reading today a response to that ‘false promise‘ • Spoiler alert: neorealism still present if not the hegemonic theory

in today‘s IR thinking, at least within the US but also abroad

The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249 9/12/2013 7

2. Core assumptions

Neorealism as an IR theory: • painting a grim picture of world politics • international system as a brutal self-help arena with states looking

for opportunities to take advantage of others • state interaction as a constant power struggle • possibility of war always looming in background

realist world view derived from five parsimonious assumptions

The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249 9/12/2013 8

2. Core assumptions

Five core assumptions of Neorealism (according to Mearsheimer): • “the international system is anarchic” • “states inherently possess some offensive military capability” • “states can never be certain about the intentions of other states” • “the most basic motive driving states is survival” • “states think strategically about how to survive in the int. system”

The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249 9/12/2013 9

2. Core assumptions

1. Anarchy of the international system: • anarchy not meant in common sense to describe chaos / disorder • anarchy as an ordering principle:

lack of central (global) authority • structure of world politics composed

out of independent & sovereign units • individual state behavior determined by international structure

• individual state characteristics (i.e. type of government) irrelevant

• states imagined as ‘like units’ whose security is not guaranteed by the system

The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249 9/12/2013 10

2. Core assumptions

2. States and their possession of offensive military capabilities • capabilities defined in material terms:

population & territory, resources, industrial potential, military and economic power, etc.

• capabilities determine state position within the international structure

• one’s capabilities always a threat to others

The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249 9/12/2013 11

2. Core assumptions

3. No certainty about intentions of others • state intentions not necessarily malign but no certainty about this • intentions subject to change – mutual uncertainty • international competition & armament as the

only way to maintain some sort of security • logical consequence: security dilemma & arms race

as means of self-defense can be perceived as means to attack

The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249 9/12/2013 12

2. Core assumptions

4. Primary state preference is survival • all state action oriented towards the simple aim of survival –

welfare, ethical considerations, improvement of society secondary • emphasis on relative not absolute gains / fear of defection • sovereignty as the expression of state independence which is

constantly threatened by other sovereign states • ways towards state extinction: war & economic collapse

The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249 9/12/2013 13

2. Core assumptions

5. States as strategic & rational actors • natural selection among states: those who do not act instrumentally

rational & maximize their advantage are punished by the system • states constantly looking for opportunities to exploit

the weaknesses of others & take advantage • international cooperation brought down to

free-riding, cheating, defection & back-stabbing • miscalculations due to bounded rationality & imperfect information

The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249 9/12/2013 14

2. Core assumptions

Summary – neorealism in IR: • states (and only states!) as like-units maximizing the preferences

rationally in a structure characterized by the absence of authority • international relations best described as a billiard ball model:

states focused on survival bumping into each other mechanistically • international system marked by self-help not interdependence • fear as a constant factor of consideration for state action • international cooperation reduced to power politics:

balancing & band-wagoning

The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249 9/12/2013 15

3. Neorealism & IOs

Open question: what does this theory has to say about IOs? • defining organizations as a “set of rules that stipulate the ways in

which states should cooperate and compete with each other“ (p. 8) • organizations understood as rules agreed upon by states Three basic questions that we need to asnwer: • When do IOs emerge / come into existence in neorealism? • How are IOs understood / conceptualized within neorealism? • How much influence do IOs have within neorealism?

The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249 9/12/2013 16

3. Neorealism & IOs

“I believe when it's all said and done, free nations will not allow the United Nations to fade into history as an ineffective, irrelevant debating society.”

George W. Bush

The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249 9/12/2013 17

3. Neorealism & IOs

“To see to it that the concord of the world in the future with regard to objects of justice should not be subject to doubt or uncertainty; that the cooperation of the great body of nations should be assured in the maintenance of peace upon […] international obligations.”

Woodrow Wilson

The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249 9/12/2013 18

3. Neorealism & IOs

“There's no such thing as the United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that´s the United States, when it suits our interests, and when we can get others to go along. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.”

John Bolton, US ambassador to the UN under George W. Bush

The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249 9/12/2013 19

3. Neorealism & IOs

International organizations & their minimal influence on states: • International cooperation limited by two factors:

relative-gain considerations fear of being cheated

• Organizations always reflect international distribution of power: hegemonic states create & shape IOs to maintain their share

• International organizations without any influence on state behavior limited cooperation in a world that is competitive at its core

The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249 9/12/2013 20

3. Neorealism & IOs

“[I]nstitutions are essentially ’arenas for acting out power relationships’”

(Mearsheimer 1994: 13)

The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249 9/12/2013 21

3. Neorealism & IOs

Neorealism & IOs in practice: Mearsheimer & his account of NATO • NATO basically understood as a security / defensive alliance • explanation for NATO: bipolar distribution of power in Cold War:

are you with us or against us? • Not NATO itself but the balance of power it was part of provided

stability in Europe and prevented the Cold War from turning hot • NATO essentially ‘an American tool for

managing power in the face of Soviet threat’ NATO as an expression of American hegemony

kept alive to serve US foreign policy interests

The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249 9/12/2013 22

4. Conclusion

Neorealism as the dominant IR theory with little to say about IOs • International anarchy & struggle for relative power as factors of world politics • Because of limited cooperation, international organizations do not exercise any

influence & are only maintained as long as they serve state interests

Next session: IR theories II: (Neo-)Institutionalism and IOs Mandatory readings: Keohane, Robert O. 1989: Neoliberal Institutionalism. A Perspective on World Politics, in: Keohane, Robert O. (Ed.): International Institutions and State Power. Essays in International Relations Theory, 1-20

The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249 9/12/2013 23

Ticket to class: Use the Blackboard Learn forum to post one sentence on what you consider as the biggest strength / biggest weakness of neorealism

Thanks for class participation & see you next week!