Topic 2: Theorizing Security 1: Realism and Liberalism

Neoclassical realism

"Offensive" Realism; anarchic system encourages military development to improve odds of survival. John Mearsheimer

Rise of China

"The most remarkable economic transformation in human history" has led to a significant 'rise of China' phenomenon, confirmed by organisations such as the United Nations (UN), which cites a profound "shift in global dynamics and evolving geopolitics" in a more "south-orientated world"

Neo-Classical Realism

1. relative power drives international politics 2. struggle for power (through "power" is broad) 3. domestic politics matter because power is translated through the state

The empirical data supporting several claims articulated by liberals

1. the world has seemingly progressed in terms of reducing levels of violent conflict 2. democratic governance has been associated with this reduction in conflict, especially between democracies 3. Open economies, trade and interdependence have also contributed to this decline in violence 4. International institutions can reduce conflict but the association is less convincing than democracy and interdependence The 3 pillars of the liberal peace are interwoven.

Realism and globalisation:

A major conceptual argument about the changed nature of international politics assets that changes in the world economy have changed traditional patterns of international politics. This argument is more sophisticated than the simple assertion that economic interdependence causes peace. It claims that the populations of most advanced societies now desire economic growth more than territorial expansion, that the globalisation of the international economy has constrained the independence and sovereignty of states, and that international institutions are playing a growing role in managing international economic relations. - Realists reply that the globalisation of the world economy is less significant than most observers realize. High levels of economic interdependence in the early 20th century did not prevent the outbreak of World War I.

Realism and terrorism:

After the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, terrorism became a much more prominent issue in international relations. For most observers, the emergence of terrorist groups as powerful transnational actors who could threaten states probably seemed to be a major anomaly for realist theory. Mearsheimer acknowledged that ´Realism does not have much to say about the causes of terrorism´. Realist theories can, however, shed light on several aspects of contemporary international terrorism, as revealed by Rober Pape in his 2005 book Dying to Win. First, the most important contemporary terrorist groups - including al-Qaeda - use violence strategically. Their attacks are not random or irrational, but are calculated efforts to achieve a goal. Second, targets of most contemporary terrorist attacks are states.

Offensive Realism (Mearsheimer)

Aggressive behaviour often increases a state´s security. States seek regional hegemony.

Realism and the new agenda of global politics:

Another challenge to the realist vision of world politics argues that global problems like environmental pollution, climate change, emerging infectious diseases, refugee flows, poverty and hunger have become more important threats to mankind than the traditional problems of military security. This argument faults realism for its narrow definition of security and its obsession with military threats.

The Realist claim that states

Are fearful and distrustful of the intention of others, and that the system is ultimately one of self-help, appears to be amply confirmed by the enduring suspicions between East and West. Moreover, the limited attempts at cooperation, such as the period of détente (slökunarstefna) in the 1970s and its subsequent collapse, appeared to confirm the realist concept of the ´security dilemma´.

Evolutionary liberals

Are more sceptical and see the organisations rather as a source of global order while states remain the leading actors

Defensive realism

Argues that the anarchical structure of the international system encourages states to maintain moderate and reserved policies to attain security.

Realists

Assume that states seek to maximize their power or their security. Realists usually assume that states generally adopt more-or-less rational policies in their pursuit of power and/or security.

Evolutionary liberals

Believe it does not work as the will must come within a state for it to work

Realists argue that realist theories

Can explain many of the most important aspects of international politics. The fact that realist theories do not explain everything does not mean that realism is fatally flawed. Critics of realism, on the other hand, continue to insist that non-realist theories offer superior explanations of many of the most interesting aspects of international politics.

Realism and contemporary security studies:

Certainly, realism is not the only theoretical tradition in the field of security studies. There are many prominent non-realist - or explicitly anti-realist - approaches to the study of security issues.

Patterns of progress: liberalism:

Charting the Decline in severity of war. There has been a decline in war which liberalists explain with the aforementioned liberal elements integrated in society. This decline is one tangible sign of progress that fits the liberal expectations

liberalism

Democratic peace and intervention - democracies are more peaceful People that divide = people avoid war and choose peace Free people will be rational, cooperative, and transparent in matters of national security.

Explanatory theory 1

Describes and explains how politics is - and why a problem exists.

Structural Realism (Neorealism)

Developed by Waltz and similar to classical realism, structural realism focuses on the preponderance of power. Neorealists emphasize that the structure of the international system should be the focus of the analysis and that the main motive of states is survival.

There is empirical literature that strongly supports the 3 liberal claims. Claim 1: democracy reduces military conflict

Empirical research on behaviour of democracies seemed to confirm the realist predictions that states will balance against all stronger states because these powerful agents represent a threat. Democracies will behave just like autocracies.. The realist consensus came under attack Doyle found that no 2 democracies had engaged in a full scale war against one another Empirical analysis suggests that when a dispute erupts between 2 democracies, each side knows that the other faces domestic constraints on the use of force. Some claim that democracies are less likely to engage in disputes and attack (also non-democracies), as political leaders will be held responsible for actions and are more risk-avers. Policy failures can be politically costly. Recent empirical data has supported this hypothesis. Some criticize this claim by saying that economic interdependence plays a bigger role in peacekeeping. But this critique has been challenged by showing all the empirical data

Classical liberals

Evolutionary vs revolutionary liberalism

Kenneth Waltz

Exemplifies the view that power is only a means to the end of security.

Normative theory

Explaining how things are to provide a convincing case for how things should be, given certain moral assumptions about the proper conduct of IR along with a realistic assessment of the possibilities for change.

The conflation of the Cold War and Neo-Realism

Had certain professional benefits for security analysts. It provided them with an elevated public profile and access to generous research funding, while also giving them the scientific credibility of a theoretical framework which promised predictive insights on how to identify threats and how to avoid war and preserve peace.

China's unprecedented economic growth

Has been coupled with the "world's largest military build-up" via a huge expansion of military spending and technological advancement. This would superficially adhere to Realist interpretations of a China that wants to "change the international system" and "obtain global hegemony". Statistics compiled by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) confirm China's dramatic increase in military expenditure; during the period 2003-2012, its military expenditure increased by 175 per cent, significantly more than any other state listed in SIPRI's Yearbook. In monetary terms, SIPRI states that China's annual defense spending rose from over $30 billion in 2008 (when it became the second largest military spender) to almost $170 billion in 2010.

Mearsheimer

He is the most prominent advocate of the ´offensive realist´ school, arguing that IR, according to neo-realist principles, is an arena where states constantly fear one another and seek to alleviate this fear through maximizing their power and domination. The leading offensive realist, Mearsheimer argues (e.g., in "The False Promise of International Institutions") that institutions have little effect on state action or stability.

Constructivism

Highlights the critical subjective and intersubjective dimension of security.

In IR liberalism focuses on:

How human relations, progress, freedom and individual rights can contribute to peace and security.

For Mearsheimer and other realists

IR is a pitiless contest where states ceaselessly seek to maximise their power and are continually ready to engage in aggression and initiate wars because this continues to provide political and economic advantage.

Realism and the purported obsolescence of war:

If the world became much more peaceful, the influence of realist theories would almost certainly diminish. Realism has tended to become more prominent and more persuasive in times of increasing international tension. This pattern has been striking in the US since WWII. Realists deny that international politics has changed fundamentally. They point out that the initial post-Cold War euphoria over a potential new age of peace and harmony was shattered by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the ensuing Gulf War. This pattern of violent conflict continued with massacres in Rwanda, US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. REALISTS argue that the absence of war does not mean that peace has broken out. Statecraft continues to follow Frederick the Great's comment that ´diplomacy without force is like music without instruments´. The events of the first decade of the 21st century provide ample evidence that war can easily come to the fore.

Neorealism or structural realism

Is a theory of international relations that says power is the most important factor in international relations. It was first outlined by Kenneth Waltz in his 1979 book Theory of International Politics.

Cosmopolitanism

Is essential for reminding us of the sufferings of the poor, the excluded, and the marginalized and of the multiple ways in which state behavior has often been a principal source of global insecurity.

´Security dilemma´

Leitast við að skýra hegðun ríkja við óvissuástand. Inntak öryggisklemmunnar er sú staðreynd að á milli landa ríkir stjórnleysi, þ.e. að ekkert yfirþjóðlegt yfirvald er til staðar til þess að tryggja frið. Hugtakið er nátengt kenningunni um valdajafnvægi í alþjóðasamskiptum. Öryggisklemman felst í því að jafnvel þegar tiltekið ríki vill auka öryggi sitt með því að bæta varnir sínar. Þá getur það haft þau áhrif á nágrannaríki að þau óttast um eigið öryggi, og þannig leitt af stað vopnakapphlaupi og skapað spennu ríkjanna á milli. Öryggisklemma er því staða sem kemur upp vegna óttans sem vaknar sökum þeirrar óvissu sem ríkir milli landa um ásetning annarra í garð hinna og viðheldur óttanum, svo lengi sem þetta ástand ríkir.

Liberalist on the rise of china

Liberalist ones are optimistic in that they assume human nature is fundamentally good and that conflict can be avoided. Realism and Liberalism both concur on the existence of an anarchic international system, but for Liberalists, this can be mitigated. For Liberalists, sovereign states are not the only central actors in world politics. Individuals, interest groups, and intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations all have an influence on states.

Realism and Security Studies

Lynn Jones

Realism and contemporary security studies:

Much of the analysis of contemporary issues in security policy and strategy cannot easily be placed in a single theoretical category, because it is either theoretical or its theoretical premises remain implicit. It is unlikely that these approaches will ever completely displace realism in the field of security studies.

Neo-realism and the end of Cold War

Neo-realist assumptions and contributions have been central to discussions about the implications (afleiðingar) of a unipolar international system and whether such Unipolarity is sustainable or will inevitably result in Multipolar counterbalancing.

Waltz said:

Neo-realists do not pretend to know everything but they do know some big and important things.

Realists

Normally agree that states will tend to rely on the threat or use of military force to secure their objectives in international politics. Realists recognize that the possible use of force always lurks in the background of international politics because states must depend on self-help measures.

Realism and the democratic peace:

One of the biggest challenges to realism is the democratic peace theory. This argument rests on the empirical observation that democracies have never gone to war with one another. Statistical evidence yields an impressive correlation between shared democracy and peace. The debate over the democratic peace, democratic victory, and other debates between realists and anti-realists are unlikely to be resolved in the near future. Both sides tenaciously cling to their positions and continue to offer new arguments.

Liberalists:

Peace is possible but we don't necessarily agree on the path Interdependence: Institutions, free trade and democracies Liberalism provides a set of principles and propositions that explain and predict inter-state relations

Critics of Realism

Realism cannot explain the change in the international system Realism ignores the importance of different conceptions of identity and culture in states Realism has unacceptable moral implications Realism exaggerates the importance of states and the distribution of power among them and neglects other key actors in international politics. Realism does not explain very much about specific foreign-policy decisions.

Realism

Realism focuses on explaining the behaviour of states and focuses less on individuals and transnational actors such as corporations and multinational organisations.

Realism and contemporary security studies:

Realism remains central to contemporary security studies. As realists are particularly aware of the potential for conflict in international politics, they are eager to attempt to apply realist theories to issues involving the threat, use or control of force.

Realism and contemporary security studies:

Realist theories are particularly applicable to the study of grand strategy. As defined by Barry Posen, grand strategy is a: state´s theory about how it can best cause security for itself´. Realist theory begins with the premise that states seek security.

Realism and the democratic peace, second arguement:

Realists have argued that the theories that attempt to explain democratic peace are flawed. Institutional constraints in democracies should make democracies less likely to go to war in general, but democracies often wage war against non-democracies. If liberal or democratic norms explain democratic peace, realists argue, democracies would not be expected to threaten one another with the use of force, but democracies do make such threats. The disputes and crises between Greece and Turkey in the Aegean are a prominent example. Realists argue that cases of democratic peace can be explained in realist terms. If democracies have not gone to war with one another, it is not because they are democracies. The US and the UK, for example, have not fought one another because they often have allied against common threats, as suggested by the realist prediction that states will balance against threats of power.

Realism and the democratic peace - First argument:

Realists have offered two major responses to the democratic peace is a myth. Some democracies have gone to war. Britain and the US clashed in the war of 1812. Spain was a democracy at the time of the Spanish-American War in 1898. Germany in 1914 was as democratic as Britain and France, but went to war against them nonetheless. Democratic Finland allied with Nazi Germany during WWII and found itself at war with the Western democracies.

There is empirical literature that strongly supports the 3 liberal claims. Claim 2: Economic interdependence reduces military conflict

Realists predict that economic interdependence increases the probability of conflict by expanding the number of issue areas under competition. Liberals say however: - Decision-makers will calculate the costs of escalating a dispute with trading partner - Firms and workers benefitting from international trade and investment will pressure government representatives to de-escalate disputes between states. - Empirical literature provides evidence for the interdependence claim. Some scholars say: 2 equal states in strength will be more peaceful if they engage in trade, but if 1 state is stronger there may invite manipulative behaviour on the stronger state´s side. - Expectation of future trade/negotiations is also key in peacekeeping - Interdependence should only inhibit conflict if the trade involves strategic goods which cannot be supplied form alternative source. - Some argue that the empirical relationship between trade and conflict may be spurious - Some data suggest that market openness is rather what reduces violence than trade interdependence - While there is some empirical data suggesting that economic interdependence promotes peace, the democratic peace claim has more data suggesting that it promotes peace.

There is empirical literature that strongly supports the 3 liberal claims. Claim 3: International institutions reduce military conflict

Realists say: International institutions are ineffective or instruments of powerful states. There is extensive evidence supporting predictions that international institutions reduce military conflict despite mixed results. During the Cold War international institutions helped foster a degree of cooperation. It was also found that as 2 states increase their membership in international organisations, the probability of military conflict declines. It was also found that international organistations decrease the length of international conflicts Institutions have both direct and indirect pacifying effect.

Peace through Trade

Reduces misunderstanding that might lead to conflict Kant: trade may lead to peace due to shared interest of international financiers and businessmen. The spirit of commerce cannot exist side by side with war

Revolutionary liberals

Revolutionary liberals place international law and organisation higher than evolutionary liberals and claim it vital that a law of nations be formed

Offensive Realism

Seeks power and influence to achieve security through domination and hegemony.

Realist theories used to shed light on international economic interactions

Several prominent scholars in the subfield of international political economy are realists. Stephen Krasner, for example, has employed realist theory to argue that the relative power of the countries involved is often the key to understanding international economic negotiations. He suggests that countries do not cooperate because of reciprocity but because one has superior power and can use it to persuade the other to accept an agreement.

Hegemonic Realism

Shares basic principles of structural realism, but rejects the idea that balancing prevents the emergence of a hegemonic power. The leading state determines the character of an international system. War becomes likely as a leading state declines and another rises to challenge it. Robert Gilpin, Organski are scholar of hegemonic realism.

Estimates published by The Economist in 2012 about the rise of china

Show that, if recent trends continue, China's military spending could overtake America's after 2035. In addition, China's military expansion has led it to be more confident in its military capacities and more assertive in their use.

Realism and internal conflict and ethnic war

Since the end of the Cold War, internal conflicts and ethnic wars have become more prominent in international politics. Some of these conflicts were suppressed during the Cold War, whereas others existed but were overshadowed by the US-Soviet competition. The realist Barry Posen argued that ethnic conflicts often follow the same logic of anarchy that plays a central role in realist theories of international politics. When central governments weaken or collapse, groups face a security dilemma that drives them to use force.

Some critical theorists

Some critical theorists have argued realist theories have focused excessively on the state instead of on individual humans. Others have emphasized that the discourse adopted by realists scholars - and security studies more generally - has closed off some avenues of inquiry and precluded a full understanding of contemporary security issues. Ole Wæver and other members of the Copenhagen School have argued that the definition of security is malleable and that scholars must study how some threats are defined as security threats.

Theorizing about Security after the Cold War

The argument has so far set out a challenging and demanding role for the security analyst. There is a need to sustain and balance the roles of scientist, internationalist, and moralist, while at the same time the familiar security environment of the Cold War has given way to the uncertainties and unpredictable dynamics of the post-Cold War era.

Classical Realism

The belief that it is fundamentally the nature of people and the state to act in a way that places interests over ideologies. The drive for power and the will to dominate are held to be fundamental aspects of human nature.

Theorizing about Security after the Cold War

The contemporary security analyst does, admittedly, have the historical luxury of needing to place less strategic attention on the threat of large-scale great power war, but this is balanced by developments empowering and radicalizing the global South, where environmental and demographic pressures, civil war, and resentment at the inequalities in North-South relations and the shifting distribution of power and its concentration in the US have resulted in a new set of urgent challenges for international security. The security analyst naturally turns for inspiration to the major theoretical traditions of the study of IR, whose role is to identify the regularities, continuities, and longer-term dynamics behind the seeming flux and randomness of international developments.

Realism and the international response to US power:

The emergence of the US as the sole superpower in a unipolar world presented an important challenge to realist theory. Most realists argue that states tend to balance against the most powerful state in the international system. The events in the years since the 2001 terrorist attacks provide some confirmations of the realist perspectives on whether countries will balance against the US. Although other countries - individually or collectively - are not capable of forming traditional military alliances to balance US power, they have reacted to the US pursuit of unilateral advantages by distancing themselves and engaging in ´soft balancing´.

Realism and predicting the end of the Cold War:

The end of the US-Soviet Cold War in the late 1980s and early 1990s stimulated many critics to argue that the vulnerability of realist theory was laid bare by its failure to predict the sudden and dramatic transformation of superpower relations and the largely peaceful dissolution of the Warsaw Treaty Organisation and the Soviet Union itself. Realists have persuasive answers to these agreements. First, they have argued that any theory - including realist theories - should be modest about forecasting the future. Second, realists have pointed out that no theory of international politics successfully predicted the events of the late 1980s and 1990s. So realism should not be singled out for predictive failure when non of its theoretical rivals fared any better. Third, at least a few realist writings did predict the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Finally, some realists have argued that realism can provide a convincing retrospective explanation of the end of the Cold War.

Hans Morgenthau

The most influential realist scholar of the 1940s and 1950s, was an early critic of American intervention in the Vietnam War.

Explanatory theory 2

The realistic expectation of the theory should offer a sufficiently robust understanding of why events have occurred in the past to provide us with an understanding when we look back of why the seemingly unexpected takes place.

Interdependence

The state of being dependent upon one another : mutual dependence.

Normative theory and Explanatory theory

This analytical distinction can help us to have a better understanding of the major recent theoretical developments and their implications for international security.

Revolutionary liberals

Want military intervention to spread democracy

Henry Kissinger

Was the architect of detente with the Soviet Union and the opening of a dialogue between the US and China.

´security dilemma´

Where anarchy and distrust undermines (grafa undan) cooperation even where the intentions of the parties concerned might initially have been harmless and non-aggressive.

A very different view promoted by the original founder of neo-realism Waltz

Whose original theoretical formulation was that states were driven not solely, as Mearsheimer contends, to ´maximise power´ but also to ´maintain their positions in the system´.

In reality, international developments:

Will be driven by a messy mix of altruistic humanitarianism and selfish national interests.

According to Mearsheimer

anarchy drives states to seek power because power is the key to survival.

Hans Morgenthau

argued that international politics is governed by objective, universal laws based on national interests defined in terms of power

States

continue to play the most important role in international politics. They create the legal and regulatory environment for multinational corporations and even the weakest states have nationalised assets of foreign corporations.

Neorealism

emphasizes how the structure of the international system determines state behavior.

Constructivism

examines how changing international norms and actors' identities help shape state interests.

According to realists, the international system

lacks a governing authority above and beyond the state. This lacuna leaves self-interested sovereign states—the central actors in world politics—competing for power and security. Since states often fail to cooperate in the Realist "self-help system", survival depends on the struggle for power and security, which can ultimately lead to conflict.

Classical Realism

places emphasis on human and domestic factors

Realism and critical security studies

realist theories also have been challenged by various scholars working under the general rubric of critical security studies. As is the case with realism, there are various schools of thought within critical security studies.

Defensive Realism

school of realism that says states seek enough power to be secure

Slökunarstefna

stefna sem leitast við að draga úr spennu í alþjóðamálum, einkum varðandi vígbúnað