Term
|
Definition
A. Believe that the distribution of power among states is the key factor that explains much of International Politics
B. Realists and Realism can't explain everything. Can't say why a certain policy is picked over another.
C. Doesn't look at international law, domestic politics, or religion
Questions Realists ask
Who are the most powerful actors in the system?
Who is rising and who is falling in power. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Called first realist, wrote a book about the pelopolisian war.
Explains wars of Athens and Sparta
As a balance of power. Not about gods, or policy. Growth of Athenian power and Sparta saw the rise and were afraid called a war
Unsentimental about power-Athenians say "strong do what they want and the weak accept what they must"
Not about justice, it's about power. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Human nature won't change it is imperfect always has and awlays will be. Central realism idea. Having better primary education won't improve International Relations. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Most powerful realist of the 20th century.
Classical Realism
Wrote a book at the end of WWII-to counter thoughts of International Law and creation of U.N.
Thought it was nieve because
Competition/Wars beteen states is normal-always will have it .
Human nature is the source of conflict=People have an inherent lust or power. Which will be the source for power. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
See states as a rational unitary actor, bet means for a given end. That they are rational, focus on one state.
Focus on economic and military power
What distinguishes two actors
Who has the power to do what to whom
Intentions can change overnight, capabilities can't
That people lie-1989 Sadam said he wouldn't invade Kuwait
but, he did in 1991.
Can't change human nature |
|
|
Term
| Contemporary, or (Neo) Realists |
|
Definition
Gilpin developed THucydides theory of hegemonic war (aka power transition thoeory)
o 1. Differential growth rates
• a.) who is rising, who is falling
o 2. Conflict built into the international system
• b.) Great to be at the top, clean drinking water
• c.) At the bottom dirty water, pirates
• d.) Great want to be great, weak want to be great. Great say they will help, but will not sacrafice their own position. |
|
|
Term
| Debate over Human Nature and War |
|
Definition
o 1. Thucyd/Morg: people lust for power
o 2. Waltz: Not human nature,
• a.0 Human nature is not indeterminate
• b.) Intentions can be different from outcomes (sum of parts can be different from whole) |
|
|
Term
| Waltz: Not Human Nature, but the nature of the International system is a source of war |
|
Definition
o 1. People may have the best intentions, but may go sour
o 2. When dealing with complicated systems something may happen between causes and effects
• c.) Effects intervene between intention and outcome
• d.) Good people don’t cause war, not that simple |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Absence of a sovereign, absence of gov., absence of authority
o 1. International politics has no authority, U.N. can make suggestions.
o 2. Domestic government-a hierarchy
o 3. Hobbs wrote a book declaring that life without sovereignty was “brutish and short” wrote it during the 30 years war. |
|
|
Term
| In anarchy all soverign states are equal |
|
Definition
o 1. Doesn’t mean no one can influence on another. U.S. has a lot of influence over Haiti, but Haiti is still soverign
o 2. Rational differential players, set apart my economical and military abilities. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Self Help
o 1. In Hierarchy someone breaks into you apartment you call the police.
• a.) alternative is anarachy.
• b.) In international politics you are on your own. No one to call. If you are a oil rich state you may be okay, someone might help
o 2. When Hitler took over Austria and Hungry, no one did anything
o 3. You are on your own.
.) Serbs took 8,000 Muslim men and murdered them infront of the U.N.
• b.) Thought the U.N. would help them. But they didn’t
o 6. Look at Darfur. Can’t rely on anyone else, it is a self help system. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
o 1. When you are going to make a trade where one makes $60, the other makes $40. Absolute gain $60. Relative gain $20. In relation to the other person makes $20 more.
• a.) When a cutting a deal, question is not of the absolute gain, but of the relative gain. Who will have more?
•
EX. B.) Russian-German deal. G 40%, R 60%. G rather not cut the deal. Even though they would both be getting things. Would rather be poor then meaning the other would be richer. |
|
|
Term
Not human nature, but structure of the international system
(Neo-Realists) |
|
Definition
o 1. Sees two consequences self-help and relative gain. Forces all systems to behave the same.
o 2. Need to know how A. B. influence international politics. |
|
|
Term
Consequences of Anarchy
-Security Dilema |
|
Definition
o Status quo state attempts to prove its own security and creates an objective threat to its status quo neighbor.
• Ex. A is a status quo state, peaceful. Say hey we don’t have an army. Gets one for purely defensive purposes. B. Other side says hey, why do they need it. B proposes an objective threat. By getting an army pose an objective threat. Security problem. Can lead them towards war. Love peace, but nonetheless are in war together.
• Not a dilemma if one is revisionist and the other are peaceful. Like when Hitler (not status quo) was pressuring France. |
|
|
Term
Consequences of Anarchy
-Cooperation can be difficult |
|
Definition
| . Prefer relative than absolute gains. It will be hard to cut a deal. The more you are worried about who gains more. The more likely you are to not cut a beneficial deal. |
|
|
Term
Consequences of Anarchy
-Alliance politics: balancing vs. bandwagoning |
|
Definition
• Align with the most powerful. As the best way to protect your interests and securities. If states balance against power that is good for the status que
• Powerful states become more powerful. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| • Domino theory- One state becomes communist, others around them will. To bandwagon and join up with this more powerful movement. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
• A. Why has no one been able to dominate the world?-Balancing
• B. Why view dom politics differently than international politics? Hierarchy-Anarcy
• C. How can s.q. states end up a war w/ each other? Securitiy Dilema
• D. Why coop between states often so difficult? Relative Gains |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Not progress history is cynical always have war. Consequence of the international system. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| emphasizes materialst approach, focus on size of the military and size of the economy |
|
|
