Realism: Major Actors and

Assumptions
Based on four key assumptions :

1.States are the principal actors and most important actors.

States are the key unit of analysis. The study of IR is the
study of relations among these units.
Why? Because only the state, given its claim to sovereignty,
possesses the monopoly of legitimate force to resolve
conflicts between individuals and groups within its territory and
also between itself and other states and international actors.
Non-state actors like international organizations (UN), Multi-
National Corporations, and transnational actors are
acknowledged by realists, but they are of secondary
importance. States are the dominant actors.
Kenneth Waltz and Robert Gilpin argue that states are the
basic actors in the international system by arguing that the
behavior of other actors is conditioned and delimited by
state decisions and state power.
Second Assumption of
Realism
State is viewed as a unitary actor. For realists a
country faces the outside world as an integrated unit. A
common assumption among realists is that political
differences within the state are ultimately resolved,
namely the government speaks with one voice for
the state as a whole.
On any particular issue, realists assume that state as a
unitary actor has one policy. Of course there may be
exceptions, but realists support the argument that state
is an integrated actor. For instance, when a foreign
ministry expresses policies different from ministry of
defense, action is taken to bring these alternative
positions to a common position.
If the issue is not so much important, alternative views
can remain, but if it is important, higher authorities
will intervene to prevent alternative views.
Second Assumption of
Realism
States have sufficient autonomy from
their national societies to recognize
and pursue the interests of the nation
as a whole, not just those of particular
powerful groups and they may devise goals
and strategies that run counter to the
preferences of important parts of society.
Decision-makers respond on behalf of the
nation state to the opportunities and
dangers engendered by the international
system.
Third Assumption of
Realism
State is a rational actor. States are goal
oriented and their goals are consistent. Also,
states are assumed to derive strategies to
achieve their goals and they are cost sensitive.
States make cost-benefit analysis of every
alternative, they evaluate alternatives and select
the ones that maximizes their benefits. Thus,
states can change their strategies in the face of
changes in external constraints and opportunities.
Realists are aware of the limit of this claim:
Practically, governmental decision- makers may
not have all the information and knowledge they
will need for achieving their objectives.
State as a Rational Actor
As states are rational and
define their interest in terms of
their power, realists assume that
all states behave in a standard
manner. Based on the rationality
assumption, international sistem
is composed of states that have
the same patterns of behavior.
Fourth Assumption of
Realism
the context of action: the anarchy
States coexist in a context of international
anarchy which refers to the absence of a
centralized authority to protect states from
one another, each state has to survive on
its own. Thus, states are by definition self-
help agents.
They assume that within the hierarchy of
international relations issues, national
security tops the list. For them, military and
related political issues dominate world politics.
Balance of power
mentality
For realists, the tendency of states to
balance against challengers through
the formation of defensive alliances is
a strong behavioral expectation about
the effects of anarchy on states.
All states, according to realists, are
then obliged to pursue a balance of
power strategy
The History of the European
States Illustrates the Balance
of Power
18th Century: Principal states were Britain,
France, Austria, Prussia, and Russia which
often changed sides to preserve the
balance
Napoleonic France (1789-1815) attempted
to destroy the European balance and
establish French hegemony only to be
defeated by a European coalition
The Concert of Europe (1815-1914)
maintained peace through flexible and
overlapping alliances to ensure a balance of
power as a deterrent to war
The Focus on Power
They focus on actual or potential conflict between
state actors, and the use of force. They examine how
international stability is attained or maintained, how it
breaks down, the utility of force as a means to resolve
conflicts. Thus, power is a key concept.
The principal aim of states is to gain power

They call military, security or strategic issues as high

politics, whereas economic and social issues are
viewed as less important or low politics. For them,
high politics dominate and set the environment for low
politics
Realist Description of IR
Interstate politics is a permanent bargaining game over the
distribution of power, thus it describes world politics as a
state of war, and a struggle for power and is generally
pessimistic about the prospects for eliminating conflict
and war.

Best description for world politics is a state of war, the constant

possibility of war, because the nature of humanity or the
structure of international order allows wars to occur.

The outcome of an interstate bargaining is determined

by the power of states at their disposal. Control over
material resources in world politics lies at the core of realism.
For them, material resources determine state behavior.
They define IR as relations between states. Individuals, NGOs,
IOs are less important.
Classic Realists
The realist worldview was shaped by the
ancient Greek historian Thucydides,
Niccolo Machiavelli in the 16th century,
Thomas Hobbes in the 17th century.
They focused on national security and
state survival and portrayed international
politics as power politics: an arena of
rivalry, conflict and war between states
Defending the national interest and
ensuring the survival of the state
repeat themselves permanently
Thucydides (471-400 BC)
Greek historian. He is considered as the
founding father of realism.
Focused on the competitions and conflicts
between Greek city-states.
In Peloponnesian War (431 to 404 BC) , he
analyzes the war between Athens and Sparta in
the 5th century BC. He dealt with the nature of
war and why it continually recurs. For him, the
past was the guide for the future. His work is a
study of the struggle for military and political
power.
He emphasizes the limited room for manoeuvre
available to statesmen.
Thucydidess Explanation
of War
Why did war occur between Athens and Sparta? For him,
the reason was the fear associated with a shift in
the balance of power. Although fear may lead to war,
power and capabilities relative to others determine the
outcome.
Sparta was afraid of losing its pre-eminent role in the
Hellenic world thus took counter measures to build up
its military strength: Balance of power mentality.
When leaders perceive that balance of power is shifting
to their disfavour, they try to change the situation due
to suspicion, fear, distrust they feel for their rivals.
The Peloponnesian War reshaped the Ancient Greek
world. Athens, the strongest city-state in Greece prior to
the war's beginning lost its power, while Sparta became
the leading power of Greece.
Melian Dialogue
The Melian Dialogue is an account of the
confrontation between the people of Melos, a
colony of Sparta, and the Athenians in 416-
415 B.C.
The Athenians wanted to conquer the island
to impose a greater threat over the
Spartans.
Before doing any harm to the island,
Athenians sent representatives to the Melos
island to negotiate the Melian surrender to
Athens.
Melian Dialogue
The Melians appealed to the strong Athens
for the principle of justice and demanded
that they should be respected as an
independent state.
Athenians replied that: The standard
of justice depends on the equality of
power. Justice is not about equal
treatment, it is about knowing your
place. The strong do what they can,
and the weak accept what they have
to.
Melian Dialogue
Athenians stated that: you will save
yourselves from disaster if you surrender
us.
Melians: We want to remain neutral, we
can be friends instead of enemies.
Athenians: It is not your hostility that hurt
us. If we were on friendly terms with you,
our subjects would regard that as a sign of
weakness of us, but your hatred is evidence
of our power. by conquering you we shall
increase not only the size but the security
of our empire.
Melian Dialogue
Melians:We will establish an alliance with the
Spartans. It is their own self-interest to protect us.
We are of the same race and share the same
feelings.
Athenians: Do not trust Spartans, where danger
is concerned, Spartans are not venturesome.
The Melians refused to surrender to the Athenians
because of their strong sense of independence.
They also did not want to be regarded as cowards
for surrendering so easily. The Melians argued
that an invasion will alarm the other neutral
Greek states, who will become hostile to Athens
for fear of being invaded themselves.
Melian Dialogue
Melians:We are not prepared to give up in a
short moment the liberty which our city has
enjoyed from its foundation for 700 years.
After this response, the Athenians occupied
Melos and killed the men and enslaved the
women and children.
The irony of the Melian Dialogue: "The
Athenians look at the present and can see
nothing will save Melos. They are right. The
Melians look to the future. They are right too.
Athens is also destroyed. The decline of Athens
reflects the justification of the Melians.
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-
1527)
He wrote about power, balance of power,
formation of alliances, causes of conflicts. His
primary focus was on national security.
Survival of the state is crucial. The main
responsibility of the rulers is always to defend
the interests of the state and ensure its survival.
Power (Lion) and deception (Fox) are two
essential means for the conduct of foreign
policy. If necessary, a ruler must be ruthless and
deceptive while defending self-interest.
His famous work The Prince deals with how to
gain, maintain and expand power.
Suggestions of Machiavelli
World is a dangerous place, and also full of
opportunities. One should take necessary
measures against dangers.
If states want to enrich themselves, they should
exploit opportunities. One should calculate
rationally his interests and power against those
of rival groups.
A responsible ruler should not follow
Christian ethics such as be peaceful, avoid
war, share your wealth... If states follow
these values, they will disappear in the
end.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-
1679):
He had a pessimistic view of human nature. He
emphasizes the necessity of having a
powerful, centralized political authority.
Human beings lived in a condition of war
every one against every one.
He tried to show in order to escape from this
situation, he suggested placing all power to a
sovereign state or Leviathan (a state authority
or supreme ruler) that would maintain order
and end anarchy. Without order, no economic
development, art, knowledge
Hobbes and Security
Dilemma
Achievement of personal security and domestic security
through the creation of a state leads to international
insecurity that is rooted in the anarcy of the state system:
security dilemma

No escape from the security dilemma as there is no

possibility of forming a world government. He argues
that there is no higher authority over states to impose
order. The international system is a condition of anarchy.
States claim to be sovereign with a right to be independent
and autonomous with respect to each other. Without a
leviathan, distrust, conflict and war are inevitable: no
permanent peace between states

Due to the survival concerns in anarchy, states are

expected to act in balance of power logic.
Hobbes and Morality
Due to the anarchy assumption, there is
no fixed idea of good or bad. For realism,
might is right.
Law or morality does not apply beyond
nations boundaries.
Hobbes asserts that without a superior
authority to legislate codes of conduct,
no morality or justice can exist. where
there is no common power, no law;
where no law, no justice.
Hans Morgenthau
Hans Morgenthau was one of the leading twentieth-
century figures in the study of international politics.
Hans Morgenthau is considered one of the
"founding fathers" of realist approach.
For him, humanbeings are evil by nature. They are
born to pursue power and enjoy the benefits of
power.
The final political space within which security is
ensured is the independent state. Beyond the
state, security is impossible.
The lust for power brings people into conflict with
each other.
For Moregnthau, politics is a struggle for power.
Morgenthaus Principles of
Realism
In Politics Among Nations, Morgenthau
presents the fundamental principles of his
conception of realism, which will be referred to
as classical realism.

1. Politics "is governed by objective laws that

have their roots in human nature which is
selfish, self-interested. For him, the laws of
politics are grounded in human nature. As the
essence of the human nature never
changes, the essence of the international
system does not change, either.
Morgenthaus Principles of
Realism
2. Politics is an autonomous sphere of action, and
cannot be reduced to economics as Marxists do or
to morality as liberals do.

3. Morality for the public sphere is different than

the morality of the private sphere. A political
leader does not have the same freedom to do the
right thing that a privatize citizen has.The ruler
has the responsibility of ensuring security and
welfare.

4. As individuals are self-interested, international

politics is a arena of conflicting state interests
Relation between power
and national interest
For Morgenthau, IR is a discipline which is based
on the concepts of national interest and
power.
Interests of states should be defined in
terms of their power. Statesmen should
determine and defend their interests in
accordance with the power they have.
For Morgenthau, politics is a skill of harmonizing
endless needs (interests) and scarce
resources (power)
Realists think within the framework of the
national interest defined in terms of power.
Basic Concept of
Realism:Power
No consensus even among realists how to
define it. Some understand it to be the sum of
military, economic, technological, diplomatic
and other capabilities at the disposal of states.
Others see it as capabilities relative to others.
The power of the USA is evaluated in terms of
its capabilities relative to those of others.
Alternative definition, dynamic definition of
power: a states influence is determined not
only by its capabilities, but also by its
willingness to use capabilities, and its control
and influence over other states.
How Can States Achieve
Power?
By the states own means:
Population
Industrialization
Science and Technology, etc
By alliances:
All alliances are conditional: they apply
only if they remain in the power
interests of the state.
Measurement, Indicators
of Power
Defense expenditures
Military Personnel
Iron & Steel Production
Energy Consumption
Total Population
Gross National Product (GNP)
Which is more important, military or economic power?
David Singer emphasizes military, industrial and
demographic capabilities as crucial indicators.
Power of a state is dependent on the issue involved. For
instance, Japan is economically powerful but militarily
weak. Opponents say that economic power of Japan as a
global trader is related with its military ties with the US.
This ensures Japans freedom to engage in commerce.
Do States Cooperate?
Each of the 5 individuals has to decide
whether to collaborate in hunting of a stag
necessary to meet the hunger needs of all five
or to defect from the group to capture a hare.
Deciding to capture a hare would serve ones
self interest at the expense of others. If the
individual prefers to serve the common
interest (go after stag), can he trust the others
to do so? If one cannot trust others, is not it
rational to go for the hare before the others?
Uncertainty of knowing whether the others are
good, moral and rational.
Do States Cooperate?
Anarchical, self-help system makes cooperation
difficult to achieve. What is the rational thing to do, to
promote short term and self-interest or common interests?
If a state is concerned in absolute gains, it is
indifferent to the gains of others. As long as I am
doing better, I dont care if others are also increasing their
wealth or military power.
In relative gains, it is not satisfied with simply
increasing its power or wealth but also how much
others gained.
Different assumptions about a states preferences lead to
different expectations about prospects for IR conflict and
cooperation. For neo-realists relative gains
assumptions makes international cooperation
difficult to attain.
Difficulty of Cooperation
states are unwilling to
cooperate and maintain that
cooperation due to:
fears of cheating
dependency
concerns about relative gains
Relative Gains Concerns
Prevent Cooperation
The issue of how the gains were
distributed. Here the important question is
how often has a concern for relative gains
lead states to forgo mutually beneficial
agreements.
For instance European Community concerned
about the implementation of Tokyo Round
government procurement and technical
standards would allow US to achieve
disproportionate gains resisted the US in
pressing for such an administration of those
two codes.
Interdependence and
Realism
For realists, dependent party is vulnerable to the
choices of the dominant party. Interdependence
does not mean equality. Vulnerability of one party
over another. For realists to reduce this
vulnerability, it is better for the state to be
independent.
Quadrupling of oil prices in 1973-74 did not affect
equally all oil importing countries. Vulnerability is
related with what alternatives are available. Ex:
US had to increase domestic production, create
strategic oil reserve to be drawn in emergencies,
find other foreign sources of oil.
Interdependence and
Realism
Realists argue that maintenance of access to oil
and natural resources is essential to national
security. Maintaining access to oil supplies was a
core objective of IR community to force Iraq to
withdraw from Kuwait in 1991.
If a state wants to be more powerful, it avoids
political or military dependency on other states.
For realists, interdependence may not
enhance prospects for peace. Conflicts
could easily erupt. Stability can be achieved
when a strong state assumes leadership,
even if it becomes hegemonic. The absence of
hegemony may create chaos and instability.
Is Change Possible in the
International System?
Realists stress the continuity in
international relations. Many of the insights
of Thucydides are considered as relevant
today as they were 2500 years ago.
Balance of power existed since 15th and
16th centuries. They are uninterested in
change.
Ropert Gilpin argues that it is possible to
identify recurrent patterns, common
elements, and general tendencies in the
major turning points in IR history.
Rise and Fall of Hegemons
Continuity is the dominant theme of realism as the
anarchy forces states to behave in a similar,
rational, power maximizing ways, or fail and to be
conquered. However, change is constant at the
systemic level, as powerful hegemons rise and fall.
Since 1500, 4 powers dominated the system. Portugal
(1500-end of 16th century), Netherlands (17th century),
Great Britain (18th and 19th century), and the United
States (1945-).
In each cycle, one nation state is ascending, while
another one is descending. Dynamic view of the IR
system.
Realism is critized for reducing change in the
international system to the change in the
distribution of power.
Mechanisms of Change
What has been the principal
mechanism of change
throughout history? Wars,
because wars determine which
states will govern the system. It
determines the new distribution of
power.
Focus on Continuities in
World Politics
Realisms particular strength lies in its
pointing out and explaining continuities in
world politics. Realism can also be useful in
understanding the rise and decline of major
powers, international conflict and
cooperation.
Yet, there are important unresolved questions
within the core of realist international
theory. Among the most important are whether
states are security or power maximizers,
and whether this makes a difference for
their behavior toward one another.
Defensive Realists
States maximize security
Defensive realists such as Kenneth Waltz and
Stephen Walt focuse on a structural
concept known as the offence-defence
balance. They maintain that military power
at any point in time can be categorized as
favoring either offence or defence. If
defence has a clear advantage over offence
great powers will have little incentive to
use force to gain power and vice versa.
Defensive realists respond that offence-defence
balance is usually tilted towards defence.
Defensive Realism
Jack Snyder:
states attain security in the anarchical
system by accumulating an appropriate
amount of power in balance with others
excessive amount of power may lessen
security
by setting off the dynamics of a security
dilemma
the international system rewards states
maintaining a status quo not those with
the ambition to dominate
Offensive Realists
Randall Schweller in his analysis of revisionist
states mainly opposes the neorealist
assumption that states merely seek to
survive in favor of the status quo because of
the existence of aggressive revisionist
states.
He criticizes Kenneth Waltz and Stephen Walt
for seeing the world solely through the eyes
of a satisfied status quo states. He argues that
at least some states want to change their
status in the system and will want to
advance their relative power position.
For Schweller, states maximize power not security
Offensive Realism
John Mearsheimer
power is difficult to measure:
states do not know when their power is
sufficient
are driven to accumulate as much power and
capabilities as possible
this leads them to pursue aggressive,
expansionist policies
the objective is to become a regional, if
not global, hegemon
Criticisms against Realism
For realists, continuities are more
important than changes in
interstate politics. Realists also
argue that states are engaged in
the game of power politics, and
unable to change the rules even
if they desire. Critics say they are
deterministic and pessimistic.
Criticisms against Realism
Realism is unsatisfactory in its understanding the
question of international change, it does not take
into consideration the domestic factors such as
economic and social processes) on the foreign
behavior of states.
Realists failed to foresee the dissolution of the
Soviet Union as they just focused on military aspect of
power. This limited perspective could not reflect the
social, political and economic difficulties of the Soviet
society. Realists failed to see how Soviet people
were ready for a radical change.
It is difficult for realists to understand change in the
absence of war.
The fact that Soviet Union dissolved in the absence
of war reflects the inadequacy of realist
perspective.
Ignoring Non-State Actors
Realists are obsessed with state and
ignore other actors and issues. Non-
state actors-MNCs, banks, international
terrorist organizations, International
Organizations are excluded from the
analysis. Other concerns such as the
socioeconomic gap between rich and
poor societies or international pollution
rarely make the realist agenda.
Realist respond to
criticisms
Arms race and military spending contribute to
tension in the international system. Because it
is exclusively states that spend this money to
buy or produce military capabilities, so it
makes sense to focus on states.
It is only the state, given its claim to
sovereignty, possesses the monopoly of
legitimate force to resolve conflicts between
individuals and groups over which it rules with
a defined territorial space and also between
itself and other states and international actors
Neo-realism and Kenneth
Waltz
Its theoretical premises are organized
around basic features of world politics:
anarchy, distribution of power, self-
regarding states. A rise is international
insecurity, new Cold War in 1979 and
1980 triggered its popularity.
Waltzs work as a response to
pluralism
Kenneth Waltz and
Neorealism
Waltzs Man, the State and War (1959) offered
three images of Realism:

1. war caused by the nature of man (i.e. bad

people);
2. war caused by the nature of states (i.e. bad
states);
3. war arising from the anarchic structure of
the international system (i.e. there is
nothing to stop bad people and states).
Waltzs neorealist theory:
restricts the scope of theory to
international system:
impossible to understand the international
system through unit-level theories: that
would amount to reductionism
IR theory should be focus on the systemic
level
in an anarchical system, units must be
structurally similar (although their
capabilities may vary)
Systemic Explanation of
State Behavior
The central determining cause of state
behavior is the system of nation-
states:anarchy
This anarchical system imposes an imperative of
security and survival on each state
States seek their survival, not power
States that ignore their relative power will be
subordinated to other states
no supreme authority self-help system: no other
state can be relied upon to defend another state at
the risk of its own power
Neorealist claim that their conception of international
relations achieves the level of a scientific proposition
System as Anarchy

Many realists considered anarchy and

distribution of power among states as
critical components of the international
system. They argue that anarchy and
distribution of power among states, namely the
structure constrain decision-makers.
Anarchy contributes distrust and conflict.
Anarchy: refers to violence, destruction, and
chaos. When we use this term, we are referring
to the absence of hierarchy. Due to anarchy
states must rely on power.
Polarity of the System
For neo-realists, defining feature of a system
is the distribution of power among states:
unipolar, bipolar and multipolar. They analyze
how shifts in these capabilities influence state
behaviour, interactions and possibility of war.
The bipolar system is allegedly more stable
than a multi-polar system since the power
balance between the superpowers can be
more accurately and reliably calculated
Self-help situation
It is dangerous to place the security of ones
own country in the hands of others
Security dilemma: even if a state is arming for
defensive purposes, it is rational in a self-help
system to assume the worst. How can one be
sure that a rival is arming for defensive
reasons?
Maybe all states desire peace, but anarchical
nature of the IR system makes them to be
suspicious of each other.
Security dilemma is regulated by balance-of-
power politics
Polarity and System
Stability:
Kenneth Waltz argues that uncertainty increases as the
number of international actors increase. Waltz argues that
greater uncertainty makes it more likely a decision-maker
will misjudge the intentions and actions of a potential foe.
Thus, multipolar system with higher levels of uncertainty is
less desirable

For waltz, relations in a bipolar system between

superpowers were simple and predictable. Direct conflicts
between superpowers were usually avoided.

Mearsheimer also argues that in the wake of the

collapse of the Soviet Union and the cold war, it is
likely that Europe will turn to multipolarity which
will create instability and conflict on the continent.
Hegemonic Stability
Thesis
Neo-realism also claimed a central place in
international political economy in the form of
hegemonic stability theory.
Robert Gilpin and Stephen Krasner argue that a
necessary condition for the formation and
maintenance of a liberal international economy is
that a single state should be able and willing to
invest the resources and to bear the burdens
associated with the operation of such an economic order.
John Ikenberry and Charles Kupchan supporting
hegemonic stability thesis hold that one aspect of US
hegemonic leadership after the Second World War
took the form of the US using its power to socialize the
Western European states to be inclined to economic
openness.
Is Hegemon Necessary for
the Stability?
Robert Keohane criticizes Gilpin and
Krasners structural theory that explains the
rise and decline of world economic orders.
Keohane states that the movement
toward a more liberal order requires a
hegemon, but adds that such an order
might endure for some period of time
without the continued support of a
hegemonic leader.
The Central Defects of Realist
and Especially Neorealist
Theory
Neo-realists claim that state system, anarchy
determines the behaviour of states. Statesmen
are granted too little autonomy and little
room for manoeuvre, decision-making process is
seen as devoid of human action.
The end of the Cold War presented a deep
challenge to neo-realism. Structural realism is
unable to explain the changes that
peacefully ended the Soviet Empire.
This and other events such as the acceleration of
institution-building in EU and widespread
opening to international economy by
developing countries revived interest in a
broadened liberal theory.
The Role of International
Institutions
New research focused on the role of
international institutions in facilitating
cooperation and the transformations produced
by economic integration. The explanatory power
of structural variables, as the distribution of
power, was demonstrated to be weak.
Hegemonic stability theory had been
undermined and empirically challenged. Even
the presence or absence of a liberal hegemonic
power did not seem necessary to explain the
persistence of institutions or habits of
cooperation.