THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

CLASSICAL REALISM
This traces its origin to the works of ancient
philosophers of Greece, Rome, India, and China,
particularly that of Thucydides’ history of The
Peloponnesian War, Niccolo Machiavelli (1469–1527)
the Prince, Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and his
notion of a ‘state of nature’ , through the work of the
contemporary classical realist thinkers such as
Edward Hallett Carr’s The 20 Year’s Crisis and the
Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations: The Struggle
for Power and Peace, which became the undisputed
standard bearer for political realism (1948).
 The Basic Assumptions of the Classical Realist Theory
• Nation-states are the primary, unitary and rational actors in the International system,
who are in constant struggle with one another for securing their national interests
dominant of which is their security and survival.
• The International system is anarchic in nature resulting from human nature, as it is
characterized by inadequate and effective control by a supreme authority or order
that can restrain the behaviour of the members and dictate the rule of the game of
the system. This renders international system to be full of uncertainty and danger
while survival inevitable, but in an environment of struggle of all against all
‘perpetual conflict’.
• Human being is by nature sinful and wicked. Lust for power and dominance has
been a major, important and all pervasive fact of human nature. According to
classical realism, because the desire for more power is rooted in nature of humanity,
states are continuously engaged in a struggle to increase their capabilities at the
expenses of one another. The absence of the international equivalent of a state’s
government is a permissive condition that gives human appetites free reign, and the
human instinct for power cannot be eliminated.
• The need for security and survival dispel nation-states to acquire, maximize and
consolidate Power ( hard or soft and anything that can help it achieve its national
interests)., through: increased military and defence budget, formation of alliance
and counter-alliance, collective security, collective defence, acquisition of arms and
armaments among others. If all nation-states equipped themselves military then
they stand the capacity to survive and the equilibrium would be ensured thereby
achieving the balance of power in the international system .
 Neo-Realism
• Neo-Realism developed in 1970–1980s under the influence of the ideas and
writings of Kenneth Waltz, Robert Gilpin, Robert McNamara, Henry Kissinger,
Stephen Krasner and John Mersheimer among others. It is an offshoot of classical
realism. It argues all of what classical realism does. However, it sees the cause of
all the global power struggles and rivalries not as a function of the nature of the
human beings who are in control of the nation-states, but as a function of the nature
of the international system, in which there is absence of a higher power over the
sovereign nation states, hence, Nation-states are out there alone on their own.
• There is no world government, the world is anarchic and as such states do what
they can do in order to gain power and they do what they must do to protect
themselves.
• Power creates rivalry because it is threatening by its nature. If some other state is
more powerful than your state, this creates security dilemma, which necessitate
states to have no option but to protect themselves or attack their rival first. This
threat acts as a source of conflict, fear and power rivalries and suspicions, as well
as insecurity in the international system.
• They are broadly categorized into two namely defensive and offensive realists.
 Defensive structural realism

• Defensive Realist is a theory advances by Kenneth Waltz in

which he ignored human nature and focused on the effects
of the international system. For Waltz, the international
system consisted of a number of great powers, each seeking
to survive. Because the system is anarchic (i.e., there is no
central authority to protect states from one another), each
state has to survive on its own.
• The theory suggests that states seek security in an anarchic
international system because the main threat to their well-
being comes from other states. According to Waltz (1987)
In anarchic international system, states form alliances to
protect (defend) themselves. Their conduct is determined by
the threats they perceive and the power of others is merely
one element in their calculations.
 Offensive Structural Realism
• This is advanced by John J. Mearsheimer, and it disagrees
with the defensive structural realist position that states
look for only an ‘appropriate’ amount of power to defend
themselves.
• Mearsheimer (2001) argues that nation-states face an
uncertain; states can never be certain about other states’
intentions; in order to stop other state who can hope to be
a regional hegemon, and international environment in
which any state might use its power to harm another or to
establish hegemony. Under such circumstances, relative
capabilities are of overriding importance, and security
requires acquiring as much power compared to other
states as possible, because great powers inherently
possess some offensive military capability, and
accordingly can damage each other.
 DETERRENCE THEORY

According to Huth, P.K. (1999) Deterrence is the state’s

capability to use military threats as means of deterring
adversary or belligerent state (enemy) to refrain from initiating
any military invasion or attacks against any of its target.
Because, of the likely costs and losses that military retaliation
resulting from such target or attacks may incur, or possibility
of mutual assured destructions (MAD) in event of war.
Deterrence can be categorically divide into two types namely;
• Direct deterrence which involves the state’s capability to
prevent an armed attacks against its own territory.
• Extended deterrence which implies an attempt by the state to
prevent military attacks against another state i.e. its own ally.
 Deterrence II
The capacity of a nation-state to effectively deter any adversary or attacks as
the theory suggests revolves around three key elements:-
• Communication: this involve an articulated and clear retaliatory message
or warning signal to the adversary about the retaliatory action that may
follow his action or reaction.
• Capability: this implies the possession of the military capability both in
terms of soldiers, arms and armaments as well as other strategic means by
which to achieve the communicated and threats as promised.
• Credibility: this is the positive and active capacity to fulfil the promised
threats or warnings.
• Criticism
• Its rational basis has been questioned because some enemies can not be
deter such as suicide bombers.
• Promote arms race as each state strive to possess second striking capability.
• It fails to have concern towards human cost.
 Game Theory
• This is associated with Scholars like John Von Neumann, Emil Borel and
Anatol Rapoport and Martin Shubik it was developed in (1920). The theory
assumes that international interactions has been both friendly and
conflictive, and considered by some to be constructive and by others
destructive.
• The theory operates on the assumption that the international politics
(struggle for power among rational actors namely nation-states in order to
promote and defend their national interests) operates in a confrontational
and conflictious manners like a chess game or manoeuvres of rival
political candidates , and or the counteractions of opposed diplomats where
there is possibilities for decision-making and cooperation.
• It involves a situation where the decisions/actions of rival opponent (player
A) is contingent upon the decisions/actions of the other player (B): where
each player is striving to win the game by maximizing his gains while
minimizing his losses taking into consideration the rules and pay-offs of
each chosen strategy or tactic; with each player clearly knowing his own
strategies/tactics and their possible outcomes, as well as having necessary
knowledge of the strategies/tactics of his opponents and their possible
outcome.
Game of Identical Interests (Cooperation)

B
A
(+05)
(+20)

C D
(+10 ) (+50)
Game of Identical Interests (Cooperation)
• Payoffs
(1) AB = (+20, +05)
(2) AC = (+20, +10)
(3) BC = (+05, +10)
(4) AD = (+10, +50)
(5) BD = (+05, +50)
(6) CD = (+10, +50)
Game of opposite interests (zero sum: winner
wins all, loser loses all)

B
A
(-05)
(-20)

C D
(-10 ) (-50)
Game of opposite interests (zero sum: winner wins all, loser
loses all)
Payoffs
(1) AB = (-20, -05)
(2) AC = (-20, -10)
(3) BC = (-05, -10)
(4) AD = (-10, -50)
(5) BD = (-05, -50)
(6) CD = (-10, -50)
 Prisoner’s Dilemma (Mixed Interests)

• Example 2 prisoners were separated in different cells and

offered an options that;
• Deal I: if they both confess their crime/ they will all get five
years jail term.
• Deal II: if one confess implicating the other, the informer goes
free, while his partner goes to undertaker.
• Deal III: if both of them refuse to confess will have life
sentence
• Useful in the study of international politics, preventing
aggression and border disputes. But, premises on zero sum
assumption, while some international conflict ended-up
without winner or loser. While, most international issues goes
on endlessly.