NEOREALISM Power in International Relations

Structural Realism
Summarising Realism
• Realism is concerned with the world as it actually is rather than how it ought to
be.
→ empirical rather than normative paradigm.
• Pessimistic – recurrent patterns (reoccurring conflicts)
• Balance of power and security dilemma: the main realist analytical tools.
• The state as the principal actor (all strands)
• National interest drives state behaviour → rationally egoistic.
• Distribution of power determines international outcomes.
Kenneth Waltz and
neorealism
• 3 levels – the individual, the state and
international system
• Structure must be defined entirely free of the
attributes and the interactions of the units
• Looking at the attributes of the units is
reductionism
• Instead look at arrangements of the system’s
parts
• IR is about repeatable patterns at the system
level
Kenneth Waltz and neorealism
1) the organising principle of a system – either anarchy or hierarchy
What gives international structure its causal power is its anarchical
nature
2) specification of functions of differentiated units
No allocation, under anarchy this doesn’t apply, every state must take
care of functions itself
3) structure defined by distribution of capabilities across units, pattern
according to which power is distributed.
 • Classical realism – power comes from
the state, our desire to maximise our
Classical standing, human nature
• Neorealism – power is structural – not

realism from the units but from the place of the

units in the system

and
• Some states have more power because
of their structural position
• Cold War – powers equal because

neorealism similar structural position

→ Classical realism – unit-based, states

on power
the main actors
→ Neorealism – structuralist – the
structure of anarchy forces states to
maximise either their power (offensive
realism) or security (defensive realism)
Morgenthau and Waltz on power
• Both see the international arena as a competitive and hostile stage where power is the main
currency.
• Morgenthau (1965) “Power may comprise anything that establishes and maintains the power of
man over man …. from physical violence to the most subtle psychological ties by which one mind
controls another”
→ Most important: armed forces; but even more significant: a nation’s character, morale and quality
of governance.
• Waltz’s components of power: “size of population and territory, resource endowment, economic
capability, military strength, political stability and competence”
WHY DO STATES
WANT POWER?
Classical realism vs. Neorealism
• Classical realism supposedly emphasizes human nature while neorealism locates
causation in the anarchic international system.
• According to Morgenthau, the struggle for power at the international level is
largely the result of animus dominandi, the ‘political mans’ urge to dominate
others (Peterson, 1999)
• The state as a collective reflection of political man’s lust for power and the unit
which carries out its impulses at the international stage → the agent pursuing
power in international affairs → unit-level
• Anarchy is not the deep cause of power competition but a vital permissive force
→ no constraints on man’s basic desires
Classical realism vs. Neorealism
• Waltz: The anarchical international system inevitably leads to the logic of self-
help and power politics.
• Waltz attempts to locate causation at the systemic level.
• Waltz tries to restrict himself to the systemic level and avoid ‘reductionism’.
• Both scholars make use of other levels of analysis as well (bottom-up and top-
down approaches).
 Great powers are the main actors in world
politics and they operate in an anarchic system.

All states possess some offensive military

Five capability to to inflict some harm on others.

assumptions
States can never be certain about the
intentions of other states → conceptions of
revisionist and status quo states.
of
Neorealism The main goal of states is survival.

John Mearsheimer States are rational actors → coming up with

strategies that maximize their prospects for
survival.
Why do states want power?
• Great powers fear each other (another state might have the capability as well as
the motive to attack them)
• This danger is compounded by the fact that states operate in an anarchic system.
• Self-help world makes them rely on themselves.
• They can form alliances to help them survive, but put their own interests ahead
of the interests of other states.
• Fearful of other states + operate in a self-help world → the best way to survive
is to be especially powerful.
→ intentions as a consequence of anarchy.
Political intentions are unpredictable.
HOW MUCH POWER IS
ENOUGH?
Offensive realism vs. defensive realism
• Defensive realists like Kenneth Waltz (1979): it is unwise for states to try to
maximize their share of world power, because the system will punish them if they
attempt to gain too much power. The pursuit of hegemony is especially foolhardy.

• Offensive realists like John Mearsheimer (2001): it makes good strategic sense for
states to gain as much power as possible and, if the circumstances are right, to
pursue hegemony.
Defensive Realism
• An ‘appropriate amount of power’ (Kenneth Waltz, 1979)
• If any state becomes too powerful, balancing will occur, through
building up militaries + forming coalition.
• Offence–defence balance.
• Would conquest be a good strategy for survival?
Offensive Realism
• Balancing is often inefficient, especially when it comes to forming balancing
coalitions → opportunities for a clever aggressor to take advantage of its
adversaries.
• Threatened states might attempt to get other states to assume the burden of
checking a powerful opponent while they remain on the sidelines.

Consider nuclear weapons for offensive purposes.

THE POLARITY OF THE
SYSTEM
 BIPOLARITY AND
MULTIPOLARITY
WHICH IS PRONE TO WAR?
CAN CHINA RISE
PEACEFULLY?
Mearsheimer’s theory
5 assumptions of structural realism lead to the behaviours
of states:
• Fear each other
• Understand of living in a self-help world
• Attempt to maximise power
These lead to ultimate goals of Great Powers:
• Regional hegemons
• Prevent peer competitors
 The US pursued regional hegemony from
the start.

How US That led to continental expansion to make

the US the most powerful in the Western

became
Hemisphere.
Pushing European great power out of

hegemon Western Hemisphere.

It achieved regional hegemony by the end of

19th century.
HOW CHINA WILL
OPERATE
 China will imitate the US to
become hegemon in Asia.

How It will push the US out of the

China will East Asia if it can.

operate China might want to interfere in

Western Hemisphere the way
the US does to Asia.
HOW WILL THE US
REACT?
How the US will react
• The US will go to the great lengths to prevent China from dominating
Asia as Mearsheimer’s theory predicts.
• When Hillary Clinton enunciated the pivot to Asia, she was saying
what the US was doing is beginning to move to contain China.
→ Security competition between two countries, and there is going to
be a real possibility of war.
 HOW WILL CHINA’S
NEIGHBOURS REACT?
How China’s neighbouring states will react
• Almost all China’s neighbours will ally with the US to form a balancing
coalition again China.
• The Quad, which has been formed to bring Australia, Japan, India, and
the US close together.
• All of this will lead to an intense security competition in Asia.
• Proxy war: North Korea – South Korea
• There’s all sorts of potential for trouble in East Asia, and this is what
Mearsheimer’s theory predicts.