Waltz, Mearsheimer and Walt

1
Waltz, Mearsheimer and Walt

• More on Realism

2
Waltz The Anarchic Structure of World Politics

• Political Structures
• International politics as distinct from economic,
  social and other domains.
• A system is composed of a structure of
  interacting units (Art Jervis, 29).
• How the units stand in relation to one another,
  the way they are arranged or positioned, is not a
  property of the units. The arrangement is a
  property of the system (30).
• Structure defines the arrangement, or the
  ordering, of the parts of the system (30).

3
Waltz The Anarchic Structure of World Politics

• Ordering Principles
• Structure is an organizational concept (32).
• The problem is this how to conceive of an
  order without an orderer and of organizational
  effects where formal organization is lacking
  (32).

4
Waltz The Anarchic Structure of World Politics

• Ordering Principles (contd)
• International structuresprimary political units
  of the era (e.g., city states, empires, states).
• Assumptions state seek to survive
• Beyond the survival motive, the aims of state
  may be endlessly varied they may range from the
  ambition to conquer the world to the desire
  merely to be left alone (34).
• To say the structure selects means simply that
  those who conform to accepted and successful
  practices more often rise to the top and are
  liklier to stay there (34).

5
Waltz The Anarchic Structure of World Politics

• The Character of the Units
• Waltz assumes the basic sameness of the
  systems units, i.e., states.
• He notes that states are not the only
  international actors, but notes that they are the
  primary ones.
• Just as economists define markets in terms of
  firms, so I define international-political
  structures in terms of states (36).
• States are the units whose interactions form the
  structure of the internatioanl-political system
  (36).

6
Waltz The Anarchic Structure of World Politics

• The Character of the Units (contd)
• On sovereignty
• To say that states are sovereign is not to say
  that they can do what they want. Sovereign
  states may be hardpressed all around, constrained
  to act in ways they would like to avoid, and able
  to do hardly anything just as they would like to
  (36).
• To say a state is sovereign means it decides for
  itself how it will cope with its internal and
  external problems, including whether or not to
  seek assistance from others and in doing so to
  limit its freedom by making commitments to them
  (36).

7
Waltz The Anarchic Structure of World Politics

• The Distribution of Capabilities
• The units of a an anarchic system are
  functionally undifferentiated (37).
• They are distinguished, therefore, by their
  capabilities in terms of acting in the system.
• In defining international-political structures,
  we take states with whatever traditions, habits,
  objectives, desires, and forms of government they
  may have. We do not ask whether states are
  revolutionary or legitimate, authoritarian or
  democratic, ideological or pragmatic. We
  abstract from every attribute of states except
  their capabilties (38).

8
Waltz The Anarchic Structure of World Politics

• Violence at Home and Abroad
• He notes that internal violence (within states)
  happens with more frequency than system violence.
  Why?
• A government has no monopoly on the use of
  force, as is all too evident. An effective
  government has a monopoly on the legitimate use
  of force, and legitimate here means that public
  agents are organized to prevent and to counter
  the private use of force. Citizens need not
  prepare to defend themselves. Public agencies do
  that. A national system is not one of self-help.
  The international system is (40).

9
Waltz The Anarchic Structure of World Politics

• Interdependence and Integration
• When faced with the possibility of cooperation
  for mutual gain, states that feel insecure must
  ask now the gain will be divided (41).
• States do not willingly place themselves in
  situations of dependence. In a self-help system,
  consideration of security subordinate economic
  gain to political interest (42).

10
Waltz The Anarchic Structure of World Politics

• Structure and Strategies
• World-shaking problems cry for global solutions,
  but there is no global agency to problem them
  (44).
• Great tasks can be accomplished only by agents
  of great capability (44).

11
Waltz The Anarchic Structure of World Politics

• The Virtues of Anarchy
• The constant possibility that force will be used
  serves as an incentive for the settlement of
  disputes. One who knows that pressing too hard
  may lead to war has strong reason to consider
  whether possible gains are worth the risks
  entailed (47).
• Note the capability to use force does not mean
  its constant deployment.

12
Waltz The Anarchic Structure of World Politics

• Anarchy and Hierarchy
• What does he mean by the two?
• What happens if some hierarchy is imposed on
  anarchy? Does that do away with anarchy?

13
Mearsheimer Anarchy and the Struggle for Power

• Basic Assumptions
• International system is anarchic
• Great powers inherently possess some offensive
  military capability.
• States are uncertain about other states
  intentions.
• Survival is the primary goal of great powers.
• Great Powers are rational actors

14
Mearsheimer Anarchy and the Struggle for Power

• State Behavior
• Great powers fear one another
• War could be just around the corner
• States aim to guarantee their own survival
• States therefore are constantly concerned with
  the distribution of power in the system
• How much power is enough to survive now?
• What about down the road?

15
Mearsheimer Anarchy and the Struggle for Power

• Calculated Aggression
• Great powers are not mindless aggressors.
• Application of force is calculated
• States cannot be sure of their allies
• Hegemony Limit
• Hegemon defined No other state has the
  military wherewithal to put up a serious fight
  against it (56).
• Global v. Regional hegemons.

16
Mearsheimer Anarchy and the Struggle for Power

• Power and Fear
• How much states fear each other matters greatly,
  because the amount of fear between them largely
  determines the severity of their security
  competition, as well as the probability that they
  will fight a war (56).

17
Mearsheimer Anarchy and the Struggle for Power

• The Hierarchy of State Goals
• Survival is the number on goal of great powers
  (57).
• Non-security goals can be pursued, so long as
  they do not conflict with balances of power
  logics.
• Cooperation Amongst States
• Any two states contemplating cooperation must
  consider how profits or gains will be distributed
  between them (59).
• Concerns about cheating also hinder cooperation
  (59).
• cooperation takes place in a world that is
  competitive to its coreone where states have
  powerful incentives to take advantage of other
  states (60).

18
Walt Alliance Balancing and Bandwagoning

• Balancing v. Bandwagoning
• Whats what and why?
• What are the theoretical and policy implications?
• In a balancing world, policies that convey
  restraint and benevolence are best (98).
• A bandwagoning world, by contrast, is much more
  competitive (98).

19
Walt contd

• Weak States v. Strong States
• Which behavior (balancing or bandwagoning) is
  more likely?
• Role of proximity?
• Note hypotheses on 101-102