CLASSICAL REALISM: 

Main Scholar: 

Ontological assumption:

Systemic assumption: 

Systemic conditions: 

Agents: 

Exogenous variable: 

Intervening Variables: 

Type of Theory: 

Policies and Strategies: 

Objectives: 

Outcomes: 

CLASSICAL REALISM:

Main Scholars: E. Carr, Hans Morgethau “Politics Among Nations” 1948

Ontological assumption: Anarchy

Systemic assumption: IR as a zero sum game.

Systemic conditions: Security, Dilemma-relative gains

Agents: States

Exogenous variable: National Interest & Power Distribution

Intervening Variables: Values and Domestic Politics

Type of Theory: No theoretical formulation, based on observation.

Policies and Strategies: Hegemony, Balance of Power, Bandwagoning.

Objectives: Survival, Security, Power

Outcomes: Mixed Outcomes, though “History Repeats Itself”

STRUCTURAL REALISM:

Main Scholar: 

Ontological assumption:

Systemic assumption: 

Systemic conditions: 

Agents: 

Exogenous variable: 

Intervening Variables: 

Type of Theory: 

Policies and Strategies: 

Objectives: 

Outcomes: 

STRUCTURAL REALISM:

Main Scholars: John Mearsheimer “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” 2001.

Ontological assumption: Structural Anarchy (international system as a “jungle”)

Systemic assumption:  IR is a ‘zero sum’ game (PTT Theory) Power Transition Theory, we can predict war when a rising hegemon has 80% of the benign hegemon’s power.

Systemic conditions: Security Dilemma & Offense-relative gains.

Agents: States: (Lions, Wolves, Lambs, Jackals)

Exogenous variable: Structural Anarchy

Intervening Variables: None

Type of Theory: International Politics

Policies and Strategies: Balance of Interest (gains) & Offensive strategies

Objectives: Security, Survival, Power

Outcomes: “Back to the Future” and “Tragedy of Great Power Politics”

DEFENSIVE REALISM:

Main Scholar:

Ontological assumption:

Systemic assumption: 

Systemic conditions: 

Agents: 

Exogenous variable: 

Intervening Variables: 

Type of Theory: 

Policies and Strategies: 

Objectives: 

Outcomes: 

DEFENSICE REALISM: Kenneth Waltz (1970’s-1980’s)

Ontological assumption: Structural Anarchy

Systemic assumption: IR as a zero sum game

Systemic conditions: Security Dilemma, Defensive-relative gains

Agents: States, (Revisionist and Status-Quo)

Exogenous variable: Structural Anarchy

Intervening Variables: None

Type of Theory: International Politics

Policies and Strategies: Defensive, Balance of Threat.

Objectives: Survival, Security, Power

Outcomes: Prolonged Balance of Power, Stability, (Cold War, MAD)

NEO-CLASSICAL REALISM

Main Scholar: _

Ontological assumption:

Systemic assumption: 

Systemic conditions: 

Agents: 

Exogenous variable: 

Intervening Variables: 

Type of Theory: 

Policies and Strategies: 

Objectives: 

Outcomes: 

NEOCLASSICAL REALISM: Gideon Rose (1990’s, THIRD DEBATE)

Ontological assumption: Anarchy

Systemic assumption: IR as a zero sum game, some win and some lose.

Systemic conditions: Security Dilemma-Defense-relative gains

Agents: States, possibility of other actors (conceptual stretching, too many variables)

Exogenous variable: Structural Anarchy & Power Distribution

Intervening Variables: Values and Domestic Politics

Type of Theory: International Politics and Foreign Policy

Policies and Strategies: Hegemony, Balance of Power, Bandwagoning.

Objectives: Survival, Security, Power

Outcomes: Mixed Outcomes, same, but domestic policy does start to count.

CLASSICAL LIBERALISM (IDEALISM)

Main Scholar: _

Ontological assumption:

Systemic assumption: 

Systemic conditions: 

Agents: 

Exogenous variable: 

Intervening Variables: 

Type of Theory: 

Policies and Strategies: 

Objectives: 

Outcomes: 

CLASSICAL LIBERALISM (IDEALISM): John Locke (FIRST DEBATE)

Ontological assumption: Anarchy

Systemic assumption: Positive-sum, win-win.

Systemic conditions: Prisoner’s Dilemma- collective gains

Agents: Individuals, States, Markets, IGOs, NGOs, pressures groups, lobbies.

Exogenous variable: Utilitarian preferences of individuals.

Intervening Variables: Other non-state actors (IGOs, NGOs can be variables)

Type of Theory: International Politics and Foreign Policy, Domestic Politics

Policies and Strategies: Balance of Power, and cooperation

Objectives: Interstate co-operation

Outcomes: Cooperation and Collective security.  (League of Nations, United Nations)

DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY

Main Scholar: 

Ontological assumption:

Systemic assumption: 

Systemic conditions: 

Agents: 

Exogenous variable: 

Intervening Variables: 

Type of Theory: 

Policies and Strategies: 

Objectives: 

Outcomes: 

DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY: (FIRST-FOURTH)

Ontological assumption: Anarchy

Systemic assumption: Positive-sum, win-win.

Systemic conditions: Prisoner’s Dilemma- collective gains

Agents: Individuals and States

Exogenous variable: Kantian Constraints: Democratic Rule

Intervening Variables: Other non state actors (IGOs, NGOs can be variables)

Type of Theory: International Politics and Foreign Policy, Domestic Politics

Policies and Strategies: Just War Theory, Dydadic and Monadic, Democratic Peace Theory

Objectives: Spread of Liberal-Democracy

Outcomes: ‘Perpetual Peace’, ‘End of History’, “Wilsonian’ foreign policies.

NEO-LIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM:

Main Scholar: _

Ontological assumption:

Systemic assumption: 

Systemic conditions: 

Agents: 

Exogenous variable: 

Intervening Variables: 

Type of Theory: 

Policies and Strategies: 

Objectives: 

Outcomes: 

NEO-LIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM: THRID DEBATE

Ontological assumption: Anarchy

Systemic assumption: Positive-sum, win-win.

Systemic conditions: Prisoner’s Dilemma- collective gains

Agents: Individuals, States,

Exogenous variable: Kantian Constraints: Trade and International Institutions.

Intervening Variables: Other non-state actors (IGOs, NGOs can be variables)

Type of Theory: International Politics, Institutional and Foreign Policy, Domestic Politics,

Policies and Strategies: Complex interdependence and Regime Theory (International Organizations will be come so power that they can overthrow the states)

Objectives: Consolidation of IGOs

Outcomes: “Golden Arches Theory’, ‘Dell Theory’, Historical Institutionalism.

International Society/English School/Traditionalists:

Main Scholar: _

Ontological assumption:

Systemic assumption: 

Systemic conditions: 

Agents: 

Exogenous variable: 

Intervening Variables: 

Type of Theory: 

Policies and Strategies: 

Objectives: 

Outcomes: 

INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY:

Main Scholars: R. Jackson N. Wheeler.

Ontological assumption: International Society (distinction between legal and political anarchy)

Systemic assumption: Positive-sum, win-win.

Systemic conditions: Societal Strength- societal gains.

Agents: States International Society, World Society

Exogenous variable: Societal cohesion

Intervening Variables: Law, Values, and Perceptions

Type of Theory: No rigorous theoretical formulation

Policies and Strategies: World Society action (consolidation of ‘settled norms’)

Objectives: Plurality or Solidarity (restrictive or permissive interpretation art 2.7 of UN charter)

Outcomes: Sovereignty or Solidarity across international boarders.

Communitarianism:  

When we extend ethical values, we prioritize people that are from the same community.  An ethical perspective that sees obligations and allegiances to be defined with reference to distinct and discrete political communities, rather than with the reference to the universal category of human kind. (Realism)

Cosmopolitanism: 

An ethical perspective from which all individuals have equal moral standing, and obligation and allegiances are defined with reference to the universal category of human kind.  (Liberalism)

Consequentialism: 

A class of moral decision-making according to which the right thing to do is understood in terms of its likely consequence. 

Utilitarianism: is one prominent type of consequentialist position.

Deontology:

A class or moral decision-making according to which some acts are wrong in themselves, regardless of their consequences.  One of the most famous deontological arguments was out forward by Immanuel Kant.

Wolves: 

1.     Great Power.  Rising hegemonic power, revisionist aggressive country.

Lions:  

1.     Great Power.  Hegemonic power attempting to be a status-quo country. Or a mature great power.  (USA, Interwar France, 19^th C., Interwar UK, 19^th C. Austria-Hungarian Empire, Modern Germany)

Jackals: 

Weak, revisionist. Balance of Interest, balance to make gains. (North Korea.) 

Lambs

Weak, status-quo preference. Bandwagoning on Balance of threat only. 

Balance of Threat: 

Countries tend to ally themselves with the biggest threat to their own security, because it ensures survival. Defensive strategy.  Ex: Ukraine with Russia.  Austria and Nazi Germany.  Cuba and the US.

Balance of Interest: 

(Schweller) When countries are revisionist, are looking for gains and expansion. Offensive strategy. Ex: Italy and Nazi Germany.  Syria and Iran. Venezuela and Cuba.

What does the acronym NPT refer to and which states have not adhered to this treaty?

Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, signed in 1968.  Most states have joined in the last three decades, except: India, Israel, Pakistan, South Sudan

Which country never revealed its alleged nuclear capabilities?