REALISM AND NEOREALISM

ENGLISH II
Msc. Carme Lucero Novillo

Integrantes

Cristian Farfán Cruz

Jenny Pinto López
Miguel Márquez Sánchez
Xavier Peña Lara
Christian Murillo Delgado

Maestría en Relaciones Internacionales

 THEORY OF REALISM

Introduction

The main objective of International Relations is to try to explain the behavior patterns that the
actors of the world follow when interacting with each other.
By "patterns of behavior" we refer to the aspects that interest a State, such as diplomatic
relations, the image that is projected abroad, etc.

Developing
The Theory of Realism provides us with the functioning of the International Order.
The authors of this theory are, among others:
 Classic authors:
o Thucydides
o Machiavelli
 Contemporary Authors:
o Henry Kissinger
o Hans Morgenthau

The Theory of Realism focuses on all countries in the world coexisting in a scenario where the
main characteristic is the eternal struggle for power and the action of States according to their
own interests to be able to survive as autonomous entities and satisfy the needs of its inhabitants.
The States adopt the characteristics of the individuals that conform them, and this is reflected
in their Foreign Policies; therefore, power will never be distributed in the international system
in an equitable manner, there will always be States that submit to others.

In summary, I will quote some of the principles of Realistic Theory, according to Hans
Morgenthau:
1. States will adopt the desire for power that is what characterizes human nature.
2. The interests of States are defined in the form of influencing other nations for their own
benefit.
3. The foreign policy of a State will depend on the historical, political and cultural context
that surrounds it.
4. Identify the selfish acts and aspirations of the States with the purposes of universal
morality.

1
 THE NEOREALISM

The term neorealism or structural realism refers to the evolution of political realism within the
field of international relations.

According to the book of Esther Barbé International Relations, it is presented as the most
appropriate paradigm or mental map for the analysis of current international society from a
Realpolitik point of view; but, unlike the first realism, focuses its analysis on the structure of
the international system, to understand the mechanisms of change and continuity in the system
itself.

Neorealism or structural realism, shares the utilitarian of social action. From the paradigmatic
study of neorealism or structural realism, neoclassical offensive and defensive approaches have
emerged. Neorealist and institutionalist conceptions of institutions, consider that these are
functional needs to generate order.

However, neither the neo-realist nor the institutionalist theory adequately deals with the
variations of time and space.

 For the neorealists, the institutions are reflections of the power of the State and the
relative distribution of their capacities, which makes them linked to the interests of the
State in the first place and by virtue of this the structure of the anarchy of international
systems.
 Neorealists have to explain the growing strength and density of institutions in global
issues. Neorealism is static, denying changes in the deep structure of the international
system in time and space.
 For the neorealists, the policy represents a prisoner's dilemma that evades cooperation,
except in a few exceptions, as in the case of formulating alliances against a common
threat.
 Neorealists claim that there is a dual structure for political relations at the primary level
of constant anarchy that promotes processes of socialization, emulation, competition
and a sphere of secondary polarity, which affects the quality of balance.

2
 NEOREALISM IN THE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Neorealism or structural realism is a theory of international relations that says power is the most
important factor in international relations. Kenneth Waltz first outlined it in his 1979 book
Theory of International Politics.

Neorealism is one of the two most influential contemporary methods to international relations;
the two viewpoints have dominated international relations theory for the last three decades and
emerged from the North American discipline of political science, and reformulates the classical
realist tradition of E. H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau, and Reinhold Niebuhr.

Origins

Neorealism is an ideological retreat from Hans Morgenthau's writing on classical realism.

Classical realism originally explained the machinations of international politics as being based
on human nature, and therefore subject to the ego and emotion of world leaders. Neorealist
thinkers instead propose that structural constraints not strategy, egoism, or motivation will
determine behavior in international relations.

John Mearsheimer made significant distinctions between his version of offensive neorealism
and Morgenthau in his book: The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.

Theory

Structural realism holds that the nature of the international structure is defined, by its ordering
principle, anarchy, and by the distribution of. The anarchic ordering principle of the
international structure is decentralized, meaning there is no formal central authority; every
sovereign state is formally equal in this system.

These states act according to the logic of self-help, meaning states seek their own interest and
will not subordinate their interest to the interests of other states.

States are assumed at a minimum to want to ensure their own survival as this is a requirement
to pursue other goals. This motivating force of survival is the primary factor influencing their
behavior and in turn ensures states develop offensive military capabilities for foreign
interventionism and as a means to increase their relative power.

States can never be certain of other states' future intentions, there is a lack of trust between
states which requires them to be on guard against relative losses of power which could enable
other states to threaten their survival. This lack of trust, based on uncertainty, is called the
security dilemma.

3
States are deemed similar in terms of needs but not in capabilities for achieving them. The
positional placement of states in terms of abilities determines the distribution of competences.
The structural distribution of competences then limits cooperation among states through fears
of relative gains made by other states, and the possibility of necessity on other states.

The desire and relative abilities of each state to maximize relative power restrain each other,
resulting in a 'balance of power', which shapes international relations. It also gives rise to the
'security dilemma' that all nations face.

There are two ways in which states balance power: internal balancing and external balancing.
Internal balancing occurs as states grow their own competences by increasing economic growth
and increasing military spending. External balancing occurs as states enter into agreements to
check the power of more powerful states or agreements.

Neorealist contend that there are essentially three possible systems according to changes in the
distribution of competencies, defined by the number of great powers within the international
system.

A unipolar system contains only one great power, a bipolar system contains two great powers,
and a multipolar system contains more than two great powers.

Neorealist conclude that a bipolar system is more stable than a multipolar system because
balancing can only occur through internal balancing as there are no extra great powers with
which to form alliances.

Because there is only internal assessment in a bipolar system, rather than external assessment,
there is less opportunity for miscalculations and therefore less chance of great power war.

Defensive realism

Structural realism has become divided into two branches, defensive and offensive realism,
following the publication of Mearsheimer's 'The Tragedy of Great Power Politics' in 2001.
Waltz's original formulation of neorealism is now sometimes called Defensive Realism, while
Mearsheimer's modification of the theory is referred to as Offensive Realism.

Both branches agree that the structure of the system is what causes states to compete, but
Defensive Realism posits that most states concentrate on maintaining their security as an
example: states are security maximizers, while Offensive Realism claims that all states look for
to gain as much power as possible as an example: states are power maximizers.

4
Offensive realism

Offensive realism, developing by Mearsheimer differs in the amount of power that states desire.
Mearsheimer proposes that states maximize relative power ultimately aiming for regional
hegemony.

Neorealist determine that because war is an effect of the anarchic structure of the international
system, it is likely to continue in the future. Actually, neorealist often argue that the ordering
principle of the international system has not fundamentally changed from the time.

The view that long-lasting peace is not likely to be achieved is described by other theorists as a
basically pessimistic view of international relations. One of the main challenges to neorealist
theory is the democratic peace theory and supporting research, such as the book Never at War.

Neorealist answer this task by arguing that democratic peace theorists tend to pick and choose
the definition of democracy to achieve the desired empirical result.

As an example, the Germany of Kaiser Wilhelm II, the Dominican Republic of Juan Bosch, and
the Chile of Salvador Allende are not considered ”democracies of the right kind" or the battles
do not qualify as wars according to these theorists.

In addition, they claim only other than ones covered by democratic peace theory has averted
several wars between democratic states.

5
 TYPES OF REALISM AND NEOREALISM

OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE REALISM

John Mearsheimer has been the main proponent of offensive realism, while Kenneth Waltz of defensive
realism. The debate within realism during this era was expressed in a way that the descendants of the
Morgenthau and Waltz intellectuals were divided into two camps: the defensive realists who prioritize
the maximization of security and the offensive realists who prioritize the maximization of power and
the influence.

This debate has led to the emergence of a theory related to the balance between defensive and offensive
strategies. This theory, developed in the 70s, has been used exhaustively to explain the different
scenarios of cooperation and conflict, arms races or arms control, the formation of alliances or optimal
forms of deterrence, and also to study whether states they look for absolute or relative gains.

OFFENSIVE REALISM

The main representative of this approach is John Mearsheimer, who maintained that States will always
try to maximize power, based on the following premises:

 The anarchy of the international system is the root cause of competition among states.
 Great powers, by their very nature, have offensive military capabilities.
 There is uncertainty regarding the intentions of other States and these intentions can change
rapidly; nevertheless, the States are not guided by the intentions of their potential adversaries,
but by their offensive capabilities.
 The first objective of a State is its survival as such, and its priorities, the integrity of its territory
and internal autonomy, key elements of national security.

DEFENSIVE REALISM

Kenneth Waltz considered as the main representative of this current, a difference of Morgenthau,
proposes that States are not prone to the constant search for power and influence, based on the following
premises:

 The structure does establish limitations to the maximization of power by the States;
 The search or maximization of security in order to maintain its relative position in the system,
as the main objective of the States for the conservation of their survival.
 States seek first of all to maintain the status quo and, therefore, seek to balance power within
the international system.
 A relatively optimistic view of the international system. The international context prescribes
that States must pursue limited external interests, maintain reduced armed forces and carry out
moderate foreign policies.

6
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 http://catarina.udlap.mx/u_dl_a/tales/documentos/lri/franchini_h_r/capitulo1.pdf

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neorealism_(international_relations)

 MORGENTHAU, H., 1961, Politics among Nations, Knopf, New York

 WALTZ, K., «Structural Realism after the Cold War» in International Security, Vol. 25, Nº1

(Summer 2000)

 https://es.scribd.com/doc/66185062/Realismo-Ofensivo-y-Realismo-Defensivo-El-debate-

Intrarrealista

 https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/4264/426439540006.pdf