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
Chapter 5: Mainstream theories: Realism and Liberalism 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
11 Introduction to international relations 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 poweroriented 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
Chapter 5: Mainstream theories: Realism and Liberalism Stop and read section 2 of Chapter 7, pp.117 20 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? Stop and read section 3 of Chapter 5, pp.93 96 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
Chapter 5: Mainstream theories: Realism and Liberalism 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
11 Introduction to international relations 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
Chapter 5: Mainstream theories: Realism and Liberalism Stop and read section 2 of Chapter 6, pp.104 08 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
11 Introduction to international relations 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
Chapter 5: Mainstream theories: Realism and Liberalism 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? Stop and read section 3 of Chapter 6, pp.108 11 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
7 5
11 Introduction to international relations 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. Impact on Question 2 Interdependence International regimes 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 nonaggression 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. Impact on Question 3 Interdependence International regimes 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
Chapter 5: Mainstream theories: Realism and Liberalism 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. Impact on Question 4 Interdependence International regimes 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 anarchy autonomy balance of power classical Realists defensive Realism Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) great powers hard power harmony of interests interdependence interests interventionism international organisations isolationism non-state actors norms offensive Realism regimes relative gains power 7 7
11 Introduction to international relations 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.
78