structural realism

1. Structural Realism

2. Introduction
 Realists believe that power is the currency of international politics.
Great powers, the main actors in the realists’ account, pay careful
attention to how economic and military power they have relative to
each other.
 It’s important not only to have a substantial amount of power, but
also to make sure that no other state sharply shifts the balance of
power in its favuor.
 For realists, international politics is synonymous with power politics.

3. Why do states want power?
 For Structural realism, sometimes called neorealism, there is the
structure or architecture of the international system that forces states
to pursue power. In a system, where is no higher authority that sits
above the great powers, and there is no guarantee that one will not
attack another, it makes eminently good sense for each state to be
powerful enough to protect itself in the event it is attacked.

4. Why do states want power?  The first assumption is that great powers are the main actors in world
politics and they operate in anarchic system. This is not to said that
the system is characterized by chaos or disorder. Anarchy is an
ordering principle. Its simply means there is no centralized authority.
 The second assumption is that all states possess some offensive
military capability. Each state, in other words, has the power to inflict
some harm on its neighbor.
 The third assumption is that states can never been certain about the
intentions of other states. States ultimately want to know whether
other states are determined to use force to alert the balance of
power (revisionist states), or whether they are satisfied enough with it
that they have no interest in using force to change it (status quo
states).
 Forth assumption is that the main goal of states is survival. states may
pursue the goals like prosperity and protect human rights, but those
aims must always take a back seat to survival, because if a state
does not survive, it cannot pursue those other goals.
 Fifth assumption is that states are rational actors, which is to say they
are capable of coming up with sound strategies (საიმედო
სტრატეგიები) that maximize their prospects (სურვილი) for survival.
There is simple realistic
explanation for why
states complete among
themselves for power. It
is based on five
straightforward
assumption (პირდაპირი
ვარაუდი) about the
international system.
None of these
assumptions alone says
that states should
attempt to gain power
at each other’s
expense. But when they
are married together,
they depict (აღწერს) a
world of ceaseless
(უწყვეტი) security
competition.

5. How much power is enough?
Defensive realism
 defensive realists, like Kenneth
Waltz, maintain that it is unwise for
states to try to maximize their
share of world power, because
the system will punish them if they
attempt to gain too much power.
The pursuit of hegemony, they
argue, is especially foolhardy.
Offensive realism
 Offensive realists, like John
Mearsheimer, take the opposite
view. They maintain that it makes
good strategic sense for states
gain as much power as it possible
and, if circumstances are right, to
pursue hegemony.

6. Polarity of system
 Multipolarity : if there are a number of
influential actors in the international
system, a balance-of-power or multipolar
system is formed.
 Bipolarity : in the bipolar system of the
Cold War, each of the blocs ( NATO, and
the Warsaw Pact) sought to negotiate
rather than fight, to fight minor wars
rather than major ones, and to fight major
wars rather than fail to eliminate the rival
bloc.
 Unipolarity : Hegemony- one state that
commands influence in the international
system.
All realists characterize the
international system as anarchic. No
authority exists above the state, which
is sovereign. Each state must therefore
look out for its own interests above all.
system polarity refers to the number of
blocs of states that exert power in the
international system.
There are three types of polarity:

7. What causes great power war?
 Structural realists recognize that states can go to war for any number of
reasons, which is possible to come up with a simple theory that points to a
single factors as the main cause of war. There is no question that states
sometimes start wars to gain power over a rival state and enhance their
security. But security is not always principal driving force behind a state’s
decision for war. Ideology or economic considerations are sometimes
paramount.
For example, nationalism was the main reason Bismarck launched wars
against Denmark (1864), Austria (1866), and France (1870-1). The Prussian
leader wanted to create a unified Germany.

8. Conclusion
 In essence, the world remains a dangerous place, although the level of
threat varies from place to place and time to time. States will worry about
their survival, which means that they have little choice but to pay attention
to the balance of power.
 International politics is still synonymous with power politics, as it has been for
all recorded history.
 Thinking smartly about these matters is essential for developing clever
strategies, which is the only way states can mitigate the dangers of
international anarchy.

9. The End 