CSS International Relations 2 Notes

2
CSS International Relation
Notes 1
(Created and Designed by Entireeducation.com)
Contact Us:03084293988
About Entireeducation.com
You are welcome for visiting our website which is fully composed of educational systems
including different countries university admissions which consist much essential for admitting
in University. Some university not only provides information but also ask that you can take
admission on-line so, we also provide on-line admission. We take daily update to each and
every university or other educational institute. We are now providing now daily new
university admission from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Our first objective to
give first South Asian universities then We will provide the international, worldwide
universities.

3
Entireeducation Team incorporates with professional and create a new CSS notes for
aspirants. CSS Notes are fully comprises in accordance with new syllabus updated in 2016.
Our professional stay and layout notes up to mark. Student will get an extensive hub of
knowledge regarding International Relations from these notes. The best thing of
Entireeducation notes reflects only one handbook for the students. Through which a student
can easily extract and through out the entire concepts. Fully updated notes assist student to
pulls through life career in a gleaming way with collaboration of Entireeducation notes.
Thanks
Regards, Entireeducation.com

4
Table of Content
I. Introduction
• The Definition and Scope of International Relations…………………………………...6
• The Nation-State System………………………………………………………………….7
• Evolution of International Society……………………………………………………….13
II. Theories and Approaches……………………………………………………………………15
• The Classical Approaches-Realism and idealism…………………………………….16
• The Scientific Revolution-Behavioral Approach, System Approach………………...17
• Neo-realism, Neo-liberalism. …………………………………………………………...19
• Post-modernism, Critical Theory, Feminism, Constructivism……………………….27
III. International Political Security…………………………………………………………...….46
• Conceptualization of security in the twenty-first century…………………………….49
• Power. Elements of National Power…………………………………………………...51
• Balance of Power……………………………………………………………………......87
• Foreign Policy: Determinants, Decision making and analysis………………………...90
• Sovereignty……………………………………………………………………………..91
• National Interest……………………………………………………………………....100
IV. Strategic Approach to International Relation.
• War: Causation of War, Total War, Limited War, Asymmetric Warfare, civil
war,Guerilla war…………………………………………………………………………104
• Strategic Culture: Determinants of Pakistani Strategic Culture. ……………….….115
• Deterrence: Theory and practice with special reference to Nuclear India and
Pakistan……………………………………………………………….133
V. International Political Economy……………………………………………………..….139
• Theories in IPE: Mercantilism, Economic Liberalism, and neo- Marxism…………...140
• Theories of Imperialism, Dependence and Interdependence………………..…..151
VI. International political community………………………………………………………...161
• Nationalism…………………………………………………………………..………...161
• Internationalism…………………………………………………………………….…..170
• Globalization……………………………………………………………………..……..173
VII. Approaches to Peace
• Diplomacy………………………………………………………………………..…….178

5
• International Law……………………………………………………………….……...188
• Arms Control /Disarmament and Nuclear Non proliferation Regime…………..….191
VIII. International Political Institution……………………………………………………..226
• United Nations………………………………………………………………………….227
• International Monetary Fund (IMF) …………………………………….….……..….233
• World Bank……………………………………………………………………………..236
• International Court of Justice……………………………………………………..….243

6
Introduction
The Definition and Scope of International Relations:
International relations (IR) or international affairs, depending on academic institution, is either
a field of political science or an interdisciplinary academic field similar to global studies, in
which students take a variety of internationally focused courses in social science and
humanities disciplines. In both cases, the field studies relationships among countries, the
roles of sovereign states, inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), international non-
governmental organizations (INs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and multinational
corporations (MNCs). International relations is an academic and a public policy field, and so
can be positive and normative, because it analyzes and formulates the foreign policy of a
given State.
As political activity, international relations dates from the time of the Greek historian
Thucydides (c. 460–395 BC), and, in the early 20th century, became a discrete academic
field (No. 5901 in the 4-digit UNESCO Nomenclature) within political science. In practice
International Relations and International Affairs forms a separate academic program or field
from Political Science, and the courses taught therein are highly interdisciplinary.[3]
For example, international relations draws from the fields of: technology and engineering,
economics, history, international law, demography, philosophy, geography, social work,
sociology, anthropology, criminology, psychology, gender studies, cultural studies,
culturology, and diplomacy. The scope of international relations comprehends globalization,
diplomatic relations, state sovereignty, international security, ecological sustainability,
nuclear proliferation, nationalism, economic development, global finance, as well as terrorism
and organized crime, human security, foreign interventionism, and human rights, as well, as,
more recently, comparative religion.
The Nation-State System
A nation state is a geographical area that can be identified as deriving its political legitimacy
from serving as a sovereign nation.[1] A state is a political and geopolitical entity, while a
nation is a cultural and ethnic one. The term "nation state" implies that the two coincide, but
"nation state" formation can take place at different times in different parts of the world.
The concept of a nation state can be compared and contrasted with that of the multinational
state, city state,[2][3][4] empire, confederation, and other state formations with which it may
overlap. The key distinction is the identification of a people with a polity in the "nation state."
History and origins
Main article: Nation

7
The origins and early history of nation states are disputed. A major theoretical question is:
"Which came first, the nation or the nation state?" Scholars such as Steven Weber, David
Woodward, and Jeremy Black[5][6] have advanced the hypothesis that the nation state didn't
arise out of political ingenuity or an unknown undetermined source, nor was it an accident of
history or political invention; but is an inadvertent byproduct of 15th-century intellectual
discoveries in political economy, capitalism, mercantilism, political geography, and
geography[7][8] combined together with cartography[9][10] and advances in map-making
technologies.[11][12] It was with these intellectual discoveries and technological advances
that the nation state arose. For others, the nation existed first, then nationalist movements
arose for sovereignty, and the nation state was created to meet that demand. Some
"modernization theories" of nationalism see it as a product of government policies to unify
and modernize an already existing state. Most theories see the nation state as a 19th-century
European phenomenon, facilitated by developments such as state-mandated education,
mass literacy and mass media. However, historians[who?] also note the early emergence of
a relatively unified state and identity in Portugal and the Dutch Republic.[citation needed]
In France, Eric Hobsbawm argues, the French state preceded the formation of the French
people. Hobsbawm considers that the state made the French nation, not French nationalism,
which emerged at the end of the 19th century, the time of the Dreyfus Affair. At the time of
the 1789 French Revolution, only half of the French people spoke some French, and 12-13%
spoke it "fairly", according to Hobsbawm.
During the Italian unification, the number of people speaking the Italian language was even
lower. The French state promoted the unification of various dialects and languages into the
French language. The introduction of conscription and the Third Republic's 1880s laws on
public instruction, facilitated the creation of a national identity, under this theory.[citation
needed]
Some nation states, such as Germany or Italy, came into existence at least partly as a result
of political campaigns by nationalists, during the 19th century. In both cases, the territory
was previously divided among other states, some of them very small. The sense of common
identity was at first a cultural movement, such as in the Völkisch movement in German-
speaking states, which rapidly acquired a political significance. In these cases, the nationalist
sentiment and the nationalist movement clearly precede the unification of the German and
Italian nation states.
Historians Hans Kohn, Liah Greenfeld, Philip White and others have classified nations such
as Germany or Italy, where cultural unification preceded state unification, as ethnic nations
or ethnic nationalities. However, 'state-driven' national unifications, such as in France,
England or China, are more likely to flourish in multiethnic societies, producing a traditional
national heritage of civic nations, or territory-based nationalities.[13][14][15] Some authors
deconstruct the distinction between ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism because of the
ambiguity of the concepts. They argue that the paradigmatic case of Ernest Renan is an
idealisation and it should be interpreted within the German tradition and not in opposition to
it. For example, they argue that the arguments used by Renan at the conference What is a

8
nation? are not consistent with his thinking. This alleged civic conception of the nation would
be determined only by the case of the loss gives Alsace and Lorraine in the Franco-Prussian
War.[16]
The idea of a nation state was and is associated with the rise of the modern system of states,
often called the "Westphalian system" in reference to the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). The
balance of power, which characterized that system, depended on its effectiveness upon
clearly defined, centrally controlled, independent entities, whether empires or nation states,
which recognize each other's sovereignty and territory. The Westphalian system did not
create the nation state, but the nation state meets the criteria for its component states (by
assuming that there is no disputed territory).
The nation state received a philosophical underpinning in the era of Romanticism, at first as
the 'natural' expression of the individual peoples (romantic nationalism: see Johann Gottlieb
Fichte's conception of the Volk, later opposed by Ernest Renan). The increasing emphasis
during the 19th century on the ethnic and racial origins of the nation, led to a redefinition of
the nation state in these terms.[15] Racism, which in Boulainvilliers's theories was inherently
antipatriotic and antinationalist, joined itself with colonialist imperialism and "continental
imperialism", most notably in pan-Germanic and pan-Slavic movements.
The relation between racism and ethnic nationalism reached its height in the 20th century
fascism and Nazism. The specific combination of 'nation' ('people') and 'state' expressed in
such terms as the Völkische Staat and implemented in laws such as the 1935 Nuremberg
laws made fascist states such as early Nazi Germany qualitatively different from non-fascist
nation states. Minorities were not considered part of the people (Volk), and were
consequently denied to have an authentic or legitimate role in such a state. In Germany,
neither Jews nor the Roma were considered part of the people, and were specifically
targeted for persecution. German nationality law defined 'German' on the basis of German
ancestry, excluding all non-Germans from the people
In recent years, a nation state's claim to absolute sovereignty within its borders has been
much criticized.[15] A global political system based on international agreements and supra-
national blocs characterized the post-war era. Non-state actors, such as international
corporations and non-governmental organizations, are widely seen as eroding the economic
and political power of nation states, potentially leading to their eventual disappearance.
Before the nation state:
Dissolution of the multiethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire (1918)
In Europe, during the 18th century, the classic non-national states were the multiethnic
empires, the Austrian Empire, Kingdom of France, Kingdom of Hungary,[18] the Russian
Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire and smaller nations at what would now be
called sub-state level. The multi-ethnic empire was a monarchy ruled by a king, emperor or
sultan. The population belonged to many ethnic groups, and they spoke many languages.
The empire was dominated by one ethnic group, and their language was usually the

9
language of public administration. The ruling dynasty was usually, but not always, from that
group.
This type of state is not specifically European: such empires existed on all continents, except
Australasia and Antarctica. Some of the smaller European states were not so ethnically
diverse, but were also dynastic states, ruled by a royal house. Their territory could expand by
royal intermarriage or merge with another state when the dynasty merged. In some parts of
Europe, notably Germany, very small territorial units existed. They were recognised by their
neighbours as independent, and had their own government and laws. Some were ruled by
princes or other hereditary rulers, some were governed by bishops or abbots. Because they
were so small, however, they had no separate language or culture: the inhabitants shared
the language of the surrounding region.
In some cases these states were simply overthrown by nationalist uprisings in the 19th
century. Liberal ideas of free trade played a role in German unification, which was preceded
by a customs union, the Zollverein. However, the Austro-Prussian War, and the German
alliances in the Franco-Prussian War, were decisive in the unification. The Austro-Hungarian
Empire and the Ottoman Empire broke up after the First World War, and the Russian Empire
became the Soviet Union after the Russian Civil War.
A few of the smaller states survived: the independent principalities of Liechtenstein, Andorra,
Monaco, and the republic of San Marino. (Vatican City is a special case. All of the larger
Papal State save the Vatican itself was occupied and absorbed by Italy by 1870. The
resulting Roman Question, was resolved with the rise of the modern state under the 1929
Lateran treaties between Italy and the Holy See.)
Characteristics of the nation state:
"Legitimate states that govern effectively and dynamic industrial economies are widely
regarded today as the defining characteristics of a modern nation-state."[19]
Nation states have their own characteristics, differing from those of the pre-national states.
For a start, they have a different attitude to their territory when compared with dynastic
monarchies: it is semisacred and nontransferable. No nation would swap territory with other
states simply, for example, because the king's daughter married. They have a different type
of border, in principle defined only by the area of settlement of the national group, although
many nation states also sought natural borders (rivers, mountain ranges). They are
constantly changing in size and power because of the limited restrictions of their borders.
The most noticeable characteristic is the degree to which nation states use the state as an
instrument of national unity, in economic, social and cultural life.
The nation state promoted economic unity, by abolishing internal customs and tolls. In
Germany, that process, the creation of the Zollverein, preceded formal national unity. Nation
states typically have a policy to create and maintain a national transportation infrastructure,
facilitating trade and travel. In 19th-century Europe, the expansion of the rail transport

10
networks was at first largely a matter for private railway companies, but gradually came
under control of the national governments. The French rail network, with its main lines
radiating from Paris to all corners of France, is often seen as a reflection of the centralised
French nation state, which directed its construction. Nation states continue to build, for
instance, specifically national motorway networks. Specifically transnational infrastructure
programmes, such as the Trans-European Networks, are a recent innovation.
The nation states typically had a more centralised and uniform public administration than its
imperial predecessors: they were smaller, and the population less diverse. (The internal
diversity of the Ottoman Empire, for instance, was very great.) After the 19th-century triumph
of the nation state in Europe, regional identity was subordinate to national identity, in regions
such as Alsace-Lorraine, Catalonia, Brittany and Corsica. In many cases, the regional
administration was also subordinated to central (national) government. This process was
partially reversed from the 1970s onward, with the introduction of various forms of regional
autonomy, in formerly centralised states such as France.
The most obvious impact of the nation state, as compared to its non-national predecessors,
is the creation of a uniform national culture, through state policy. The model of the nation
state implies that its population constitutes a nation, united by a common descent, a common
language and many forms of shared culture. When the implied unity was absent, the nation
state often tried to create it. It promoted a uniform national language, through language
policy. The creation of national systems of compulsory primary education and a relatively
uniform curriculum in secondary schools, was the most effective instrument in the spread of
the national languages. The schools also taught the national history, often in a propagandistic
and mythologised version, and (especially during conflicts) some nation states still teach this
kind of history.[20]
Language and cultural policy was sometimes negative, aimed at the suppression of non-
national elements. Language prohibitions were sometimes used to accelerate the adoption of
national languages and the decline of minority languages (see examples: Anglicisation,
Czechization, Francisation, Italianization, Germanisation, Magyarisation, Polonisation,
Russification, Serbization, Slovakisation).
In some cases, these policies triggered bitter conflicts and further ethnic separatism. But
where it worked, the cultural uniformity and homogeneity of the population increased.
Conversely, the cultural divergence at the border became sharper: in theory, a uniform
French identity extends from the Atlantic coast to the Rhine, and on the other bank of the
Rhine, a uniform German identity begins. To enforce that model, both sides have divergent
language policy and educational systems, although the linguistic boundary is in fact well
inside France, and the Alsace region changed hands four times between 1870 and 1945.

11
Evolution of International Society:
Post-positivist/reflectivist theories:
International society theory (the English school)
International society theory, also called the English School, focuses on the shared norms and
values of states and how they regulate international relations. Examples of such norms
include diplomacy, order, and international law. Unlike neo-realism, it is not necessarily
positivist. Theorists have focused particularly on humanitarian intervention, and are
subdivided between solidarists, who tend to advocate it more, and pluralists, who place
greater value in order and sovereignty. Nicholas Wheeler is a prominent solidarist, while
Hedley Bull and Robert H. Jackson are perhaps the best known pluralists.
Social constructivism
Social constructivism encompasses a broad range of theories that aim to address questions
of ontology, such as the structure-and-agency debate, as well as questions of epistemology,
such as the "material/ideational" debate that concerns the relative role of material forces
versus ideas. Constructivism is not a theory of IR in the manner of neo-realism, but is instead
a social theory which is used to better explain the actions taken by states and other major
actors as well as the identities that guide these states and actors.
Constructivism in IR can be divided into what Ted Hopf (1998) calls "conventional" and
"critical" constructivism. Common to all varieties of constructivism is an interest in the role
that ideational forces play. The most famous constructivist scholar, Alexander Wendt, noted
in a 1992 article in International Organization —and later in his 1999 book Social Theory of
International Politics—that "anarchy is what states make of it". By this he means that the
anarchical structure that neo-realists claim governs state interaction is in fact a phenomenon
that is socially constructed and reproduced by states.
For example, if the system is dominated by states that see anarchy as a life or death situation
(what Wendt terms a Hobbesian" anarchy) then the system will be characterised by warfare.
If on the other hand anarchy is seen as restricted (a "Lockean" anarchy) then a more
peaceful system will exist. Anarchy in this view is constituted by state interaction, rather than
accepted as a natural and immutable feature of international life as viewed by neo-realist IR
scholars.
Marxism
Marxist and Neo-Marxist theories of IR reject the realist/liberal view of state conflict or
cooperation; instead focusing on the economic and material aspects. It makes the
assumption that the economy trumps other concerns; allowing for the elevation of class as
the focus of study. Marxists view the international system as an integrated capitalist system
in pursuit of capital accumulation. Thus, colonialism brought in sources for raw materials and
captive markets for exports, while decolonialization brought new opportunities in the form of
dependence.

12
A prominent derivative of Marxian thought is critical international relations theory which is the
application of "critical theory" to international relations. Early critical theorists were
associated with the Frankfurt School which followed Marx's concern with the conditions that
allow for social change and the establishment of rational institutions. Their emphasis on the
"critical" component of theory was derived significantly from their attempt to overcome the
limits of positivism. Modern-day proponents such as Andrew Linklater, Robert W. Cox and
Ken Booth focus on the need for human emancipation from the nation-state. Hence, it is
"critical" of mainstream IR theories that tend to be both positivist and state-centric.
Further linked in with Marxist theories is dependency theory and the core–periphery model,
which argue that developed countries, in their pursuit of power, appropriate developing
states through international banking, security and trade agreements and unions on a formal
level, and do so through the interaction of political and financial advisors, missionaries, relief
aid workers, and MNCs on the informal level, in order to integrate them into the capitalist
system, strategically appropriating undervalued natural resources and labor hours and
fostering economic and political dependence.
Marxist theories receive little attention in the United States, where no significant socialist
party has flourished. It is more common in parts of Europe and is one of the more important
theoretic contributions of Latin American academia to the study of global networks.
Theories and Approaches:
The Classical Approaches-Realism and idealism
Positivist theories
Realism
Realism focuses on state security and power above all else. Early realists such as E. H. Carr
and Hans Morgenthau argued that states are self-interested, power-seeking rational actors,
who seek to maximize their security and chances of survival.[10] Cooperation between states
is a way to maximize each individual state's security (as opposed to more idealistic reasons).
Similarly, any act of war must be based on self-interest, rather than on idealism. Many
realists saw World War II as the vindication of their theory.
Thucydides, the author of Peloponnesian War is considered to be the founding father of the
realist school of political philosophy.[11] Amongst others, philosophers like Machiavelli,
Hobbes and Rousseau are considered to have contributed to the Realist philosophy.[12]
However, while their work may support realist doctrine, it is not likely that they would have
classified themselves as realists in this sense. Political realism believes that politics, like
society, is governed by objective laws with roots in human nature. To improve society, it is
first necessary to understand the laws by which society lives. The operation of these laws
being impervious to our preferences, persons will challenge them only at the risk of failure.
Realism, believing as it does in the objectivity of the laws of politics, must also believe in the
possibility of developing a rational theory that reflects, however imperfectly and one-sidedly,

13
these objective laws. It believes also, then, in the possibility of distinguishing in politics
between truth and opinion—between what is true objectively and rationally, supported by
evidence and illuminated by reason, and what is only a subjective judgment, divorced from
the facts as they are and informed by prejudice and wishful thinking.
Placing realism under positivism is far from unproblematic however. E. H. Carr's "What is
History" was a deliberate critique of positivism, and Hans Morgenthau's aim in "Scientific
Man vs Power Politics" was to demolish any conception that international politics/power
politics can be studied scientifically.
Liberalism
According to liberalism, individuals are basically good and capable of meaningful
cooperation to promote positive change. Liberalism views states, nongovernmental
organizations, and intergovernmental organizations as key actors in the international system.
States have many interests and are not necessarily unitary and autonomous, although they
are sovereign. Liberal theory stresses interdependence among states, multinational
corporations, and international institutions. Theorists such as Hedley Bull have postulated an
international society in which various actors communicate and recognize common rules,
institutions, and interests. Liberals also view the international system as anarchic since there
is no single overarching international authority and each individual state is left to act in its
own self-interest. Liberalism is historically rooted in the liberal philosophical traditions
associated with Adam Smith and Immanuel Kant that posit that human nature is basically
good and that individual self-interest can be harnessed by society to promote aggregate
social welfare. Individuals form groups and later, states; states are generally cooperative and
tend to follow international norms.[13]
Liberal international relations theory arose after World War I in response to the inability of
states to control and limit war in their international relations. Early adherents include
Woodrow Wilson and Norman Angell, who argued that states mutually gained from
cooperation and that war was so destructive as to be essentially futile.[14]
Liberalism was not recognized as a coherent theory as such until it was collectively and
derisively termed idealism by E. H. Carr. A new version of "idealism" that focused on human
rights as the basis of the legitimacy of international law was advanced by Hans Köchler.
The Scientific Revolution-Behavioral Approach, System Approach:
Approaches to IRThere are several distinct approaches to the study of IR, these include: the
traditional approach, thescientific approach, the behavioural and post-behaviouralist
approaches, and the systems approach.
Traditional Approach:
In view of the complex variables influencing behaviour of states, the traditionalists focus on
the observedbehaviour of governments. They explain observable government behaviour on
the basis of concepts likebalance of power, national interest, diplomacy etc. Traditional
realists try to understand and resolve theclashing of interests that inevitability leads to

14
war.This is an approach to international relations that emphasizes the studying of such
disciplines as diplomatichistory, international law, and philosophy in an attempt to develop
better insights. Traditionalists tend to beskeptical of behaviouralist approaches that are
confined to strict scientific standards that include formalhypothesis testing and, usually, the
use of statistical analysis.Traditional theorists regard international relations as a sub-
discipline of history and political science. Thereare historical, philosophical and legal variants
to the traditional approach.
Scientific Approach
Scientific scholars challenged the traditionalist, arguing that IR is too broad and complex a
field to be a sub-discipline of political science. They began constructing conceptual
frameworks and partial models ofinternational systems, and tried to collect and analyze data
to refute of validate a formulated hypothesis.Such theorists focus on statistical correlations
between variables like incidence of war and alliance policiesfor e.g. While this approach has
brought a methodological rigor to IR, it relies more heavily on processanalysis than on
experimentation. Even obtaining data is difficult in IR and the units of analysis vary(terrorism
for e.g. is a relative term).
Behavioural Approach
In the 1960s and 70s, scholars began arguing that politics cannot be studied factually without
reference tovalues. Behavioural approach is informed by socio-anthropological and
psychological perspectives. It focuses on understanding the reasons behind the action
behaviour of states and other international actors.This approach has contributed to
understanding how people and organizations of different cultures interact,the effects of
propaganda and stereotypical views on conflict situations and international relations.It is
difficult to determine the behaviour of states, which is the aggregate behaviour of a large
number ofindividuals and of superimposing authorities.An approach to the study of politics or
other social phenomena that focuses on the actions and interactionsamong units by using
scientific methods of observation to include quantification of variables wheneverpossible. A
practitioner of behaviouraism is often referred to as a behaviouralist.Behaviorism refers to
the ideas held by those behavioral scientists who consider only observed behavior
asrelevant to the scientific enterprise and who reject what they consider to be metaphysical
notions of "mind"or "consciousness".
Post-Behaviouralist Approach
In the 1980s, an attempt was made to combine normative and empirical approaches to study
IR.This approach can be used to test the validity of the idealists' hypothesis to see if
democratic orauthoritarian states are more likely to be engaged in internal conflicts

15
Neo-realism
Neorealism or structural realism is a theory of international relations first outlined by Kenneth
Waltz in his 1979 book Theory of International Politics.[1] Alongside neoliberalism,
neorealism is one of the most influential contemporary approaches to international relations;
the two perspectives have dominated international relations theory for the last decade.[2]
Neorealism emerged from the North American discipline of political science, and
reformulates the classical realist tradition of E.H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau, and Reinhold
Niebuhr. Realists in general argue that power is the most important factor in international
relations.
Neorealism is subdivided into defensive and offensive neorealism.
Origins
Neorealism is an ideological departure 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.[3]
Neorealist thinkers instead propose that structural constraints—not strategy, egoism, or
motivation—will determine behaviour in international relations. Kenneth Waltz made
significant distinctions between his position on the three types of international relations in
defensive neorealism and that of Morgenthau in his book Man, the State, and War from the
late 1950s. John Mearsheimer made significant distinctions between his version of offensive
neorealism and Morgenthau in this co-authored book on Israel with Stephen Walt at Harvard
University titled The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.
Theory
Neorealism holds that the nature of the international structure is defined by its ordering
principle, anarchy, and by the distribution of capabilities (measured by the number of great
powers within the international system). 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
prerequisite to pursue other goals. This driving 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. Because states can
never be certain of other states' future intentions, there is a lack of trust between states

16
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.
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 capabilities.
The structural distribution of capabilities then limits cooperation among states through fears
of relative gains made by other states, and the possibility of dependence on other states. The
desire and relative abilities of each state to maximize relative power constrain 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
capabilities by increasing economic growth and/or increasing military spending. External
balancing occurs as states enter into alliances to check the power of more powerful states or
alliances.
Neorealists contend that there are essentially three possible systems according to changes
in the distribution of capabilities, 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.
Neorealists conclude that a bipolar system is more stable (less prone to great power war and
systemic change) than a multipolar system because balancing can only occur through
internal balancing as there are no extra great powers with which to form alliances.[4]
Because there is only internal balancing in a bipolar system, rather than external balancing,
there is less opportunity for miscalculations and therefore less chance of great power war.[5]
That is a simplification and a theoretical ideal.[6]
Scholarly debate
Within realist thought
While neorealists agree that the structure of the international relations is the primary impetus
in seeking security, there is disagreement among neorealist scholars as to whether states
merely aim to survive or whether states want to maximize their relative power.[7][8] The
former represents the ideas of Kenneth Waltz and defensive realism while the latter
represents the ideas of John Mearsheimer and offensive realism.
With other schools of thought
Neorealists conclude that because war is an effect of the anarchic structure of the
international system, it is likely to continue in the future. Indeed, neorealists often argue that
the ordering principle of the international system has not fundamentally changed from the
time of Thucydides to the advent of nuclear warfare. The view that long-lasting peace is not
likely to be achieved is described by other theorists as a largely 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. Neorealists answer
this challenge by arguing that democratic peace theorists tend to pick and choose the

17
definition of democracy to get the wanted empirical result[bias]. For example, the Germany
of Kaiser Wilhelm II, the Dominican Republic of Juan Bosch, or the Chile of Salvador Allende
are not considered to be "democracies of the right kind" or the conflicts do not qualify as
wars according to these theorists. Furthermore they claim several wars between democratic
states have been averted only by causes other than ones covered by democratic peace
theory.
Advocates of democratic peace theory see the spreading of democracy as helping to
mitigate the effects of anarchy.[10] With enough democracies in the world, Bruce Russett
thinks that it "may be possible in part to supersede the 'realist' principles (anarchy, the
security dilemma of states) that have dominated practice ... since at least the seventeenth
century."[11] John Mueller believes that it is not the spreading of democracy but rather other
conditions (e.g., power) that bring about democracy and peace.[12] Confirming Mueller's
argument, Kenneth Waltz notes that "some of the major democracies—Britain in the
nineteenth century and the United States in the twentieth century—have been among the
most powerful states of their eras."
Criticism
Arash Heydarian Pashakhanlou contends that neither Waltz's defensive neorealism nor
Mearsheimer's offensive neorealism could have had any explanatory power at all in the post-
Cold War world, if assessed on their own terms. Pashaknanlou suggests that Waltz has
consistently maintained that the United States is the global hegemon and thus the only great
power in the international system in a unipolar world in all of his publications since 1993.[13]
Furthermore, Pashakhanlou highlights that Waltz maintains that (a) there are hardly any
external forces in unipolarity and that state behaviour is instead determined by internal
forces and (b) that his defensive neorealism can only explain how external forces affect state
behaviour and has nothing to say about the effects of internal forces
Neo-liberalism.
In the study of international relations, neoliberalism refers to a school of thought which
believes that states are, or at least should be, concerned first and foremost with absolute
gains rather than relative gains to other states. Neoliberalism is not the same as neoliberal
economic ideology, although both theories use common methodologies, which include game
theory.
Activities of the international system
Neoliberal international relations thinkers often employ game theory to explain why states do
or do not cooperate;[1] since their approach tends to emphasize the possibility of mutual
wins, they are interested in institutions which can arrange jointly profitable arrangements and
compromises.
Neoliberalism is a response to Neorealism; while not denying the anarchic nature of the
international system, neoliberals argue that its importance and effect has been exaggerated.
The neoliberal argument is focused on the neorealists' underestimation of "the varieties of
cooperative behavior possible within ... a decentralized system."[2] Both theories, however,

18
consider the state and its interests as the central subject of analysis; neoliberalism may have
a wider conception of what those interests are.
Neoliberalism argues that even in an anarchic system of autonomous rational states,
cooperation can emerge through the building of norms, regimes and institutions.
In terms of the scope of international relations theory and foreign interventionism, the debate
between Neoliberalism and Neorealism is an intra-paradigm one, as both theories are
positivist and focus mainly on the state system as the primary unit of analysis.
Development
Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye are considered the founders of the neoliberal school of
thought; Keohane's book After Hegemony is a classic of the genre. Other major influences
are the hegemonic stability theory of Stephen Krasner and the work of Charles P.
Kindleberger, among others.
Contentions
Keohane and Nye
Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, in response to neorealism, develop an opposing
theory they dub "Complex interdependence." Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye explain, "...
complex interdependence sometimes comes closer to reality than does realism."[3] In
explaining this, Keohane and Nye cover the three assumptions in realist thought: First, states
are coherent units and are the dominant actors in international relations; second, force is a
usable and effective instrument of policy; and finally, the assumption that there is a hierarchy
in international politics.[4]
The heart of Keohane and Nye's argument is that in international politics there are, in fact,
multiple channels that connect societies exceeding the conventional Westphalian system of
states. This manifests itself in many forms ranging from informal governmental ties to
multinational corporations and organizations. Here they define their terminology; interstate
relations are those channels assumed by realists; transgovernmental relations occur when
one relaxes the realist assumption that states act coherently as units; transnational applies
when one removes the assumption that states are the only units. It is through these channels
that political exchange occurs, not through the limited interstate channel as championed by
realists.
Secondly, Keohane and Nye argue that there is not, in fact, a hierarchy among issues,
meaning that not only is the martial arm of foreign policy not the supreme tool by which to
carry out a state's agenda, but that there are a multitude of different agendas that come to
the forefront. The line between domestic and foreign policy becomes blurred in this case, as
realistically there is no clear agenda in interstate relations.
Finally, the use of military force is not exercised when complex interdependence prevails.
The idea is developed that between countries in which a complex interdependence exists,
the role of the military in resolving disputes is negated. However, Keohane and Nye go on to

19
state that the role of the military is in fact important in that "alliance's political and military
relations with a rival bloc."
.
For Complete CSS International
Relation 1:
Call At: 03084293988,
03314019933

20
For Complete CSS International
Relation 1:
Call At:
03084293988,
03314019933

CSS International Relations 2 Notes

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to CSS International Relations 2 Notes (20)

More from Entire Education (16)

Recently uploaded (20)

CSS International Relations 2 Notes