Key Tenets of Major Realist International Relations Theories

Major Realist Theories in International Relations

Classical Realism

• Key Thinkers: Thucydides, Machiavelli, Morgenthau, E.H. Carr.
• Objectivity: Weak.
• Core Concepts: Anarchy, proto-scientific knowledge. IR viewed as a zero-sum game focused on power distribution.
• Dynamics: Security dilemma and relative rather than absolute gain. States are seen as arrogant and benign.
• Focus: National Interest and power distribution.
• Intervening Variables: Ethics, values, and domestic politics.
• Theory Type: Explanatory, predictive (limited normative).
• Outcomes/Interests: Hegemony, balance of power, bandwagoning. Survival, security, power. Mixed outcomes likely for war; history tends to repeat itself.
• Examples: Peloponnesian War, Peace of Westphalia, Concert of Europe.

Structural Realism (Neo-realism)

• Key Thinkers: T. Hobbes, Mearsheimer, Schweller (jungle analogy).
• Objectivity: Strong; structural anarchy; scientific knowledge.
• Core Concepts: IR as a zero-sum game; the international system is like a jungle.
• Dynamics: Security dilemma and the offense-defense balance; multipolarity and relative gains. States are categorized as status quo or revisionist (lions, wolves, lambs, jackals).
• Focus: Structural anarchy/systemic pressures and dynamics.
• Intervening Variables: None (domestic factors lead only to suboptimal behavior).
• Theory Type: Explanatory and predictive theory of international politics.
• Outcomes/Interests: Balance of power and balance of interest. Survival, security, power, hegemony. Focus on recurrence of great power politics.
• Example: US and Russian activism and post-Cold War instability.

Defensive Realism

• Key Thinkers: T. Hobbes, K. Waltz.
• Objectivity: Strong.
• Similarities to Structural Realism: All core concepts are the same as Structural Realism, except for the focus on the offense-defense balance.
• Dynamics: Bipolarity and relative gains are emphasized.
• Intervening Variables: None, but sometimes threat perceptions are considered.
• Outcomes/Interests: Survival, security, power, regional hegemony. Focus on prolonged balance of power (e.g., Mutually Assured Destruction - MAD).
• Examples: NPT, START, SALT treaties.

Neoclassical Realism

• Key Thinkers: Thucydides, Machiavelli, Rose.
• Objectivity: Weak.
• Core Concepts: Anarchy. IR as a zero-sum game; security dilemma and offense-defense balance; relative gains.
• Actors: States, but also other actors (domestic and individuals).
• Focus: Structural anarchy and power distribution.
• Intervening Variables: Ethics, values, and domestic politics.
• Theory Type: Explanatory and Predictive, incorporating international, foreign, and domestic politics.
• Outcomes/Interests: Hegemony, balance of power, bandwagoning (domestic level). Survival, security, power. Mixed outcomes.
• Example: Role of domestic politics in U.S. and Soviet Cold War strategies.