- 6. Main Directions in the Theory of International Relations

Lecture

Это окончание невероятной информации про политического реализм.

...

became an axiom
of realist theory.

national interest is the accumulation of power that allows the realization of an ever wider
and more far-reaching range of interests in the international environment. A key element of H. Morgenthau's
political theory was his assertion that "...a foreign policy that is guided
by universal moral principles and pushes national interest into the back-
ground, G. Kennan developed H. Morgenthau's ideas, based on the assertion that the moral
principles of an individual, transformed by official duties within state power
structures, take on a fundamentally different character.
Like H. Morgenthau, he categorically rejected the notion that the interests of one
nation (state) could be moral, and those of another — immoral. Politics, like human
nature, in his opinion, is irrational, selfish, stubborn, and inclined toward the use
of violence in one form or another; it is an endless struggle for power.

H. Kissinger, from the standpoint of historical analysis of the political processes of the 19th century and extensive
use of analogy, examined the international system of the 20th century. One of the first among
realists, he employed the concept of "international system," which he understood as a particular pattern of relations
that persists between states for a long time. In his opinion, the achievement of peace in the sphere of
foreign policy is not an end in itself, but arises as the result of a stable, as opposed to a
revolutionary, international system.

R. Aron combined old and new ideas of realism in an original way. Operating with the concept of power,
he simultaneously links it to the international system, which he views as "a totality made up of
individual political entities that maintain regular relations with one another and may
be drawn into a general war."

R. Aron considers the main task of any state (a political unit,
an element of the system) to be ensuring its own security, and ultimately — survival in an environment
where the ultima ratio (that is, the final argument) in a dispute is always the use of armed
force.
The most important characteristic of international systems is the configuration
of the balance of power, that is, polarity, understood as the number of global
superpowers and the way they relate to one another.
According to the criterion of the number of poles, he divided systems into: bipolar and
multipolar. However, R. Aron considered the most important criterion to be the way the poles
relate to one another, according to which international systems are divided into homogeneous
and heterogeneous.

A homogeneous system unites "states belonging to the same type, professing
the same concept of politics." In such a system, hostility between the poles does not generate
hatred and antagonistic perceptions of each other, and struggle, or even wars, never
take on extreme forms. The ruling political elites of hostile states show restraint,
given the solidarity they maintain toward one another.

A heterogeneous system consists of "states organized according to different
principles and holding conflicting values."
Rivalry and struggle in such a system take on features of antagonism, in which the defeat
of one side affects not only the interests of the peoples but also the interests of the ruling elite. The classic
conflict of interests is intensified by an ideological conflict, defined by circumstances
"in which each camp advertises a certain idea and in which both camps are internally divided,
since a certain number of fellow citizens, on both sides, do not sincerely want, from the
heart, the victory of their homeland if it means the defeat of the idea to which they
are devoted and which is embodied by the enemy." The theoretical concepts of H. Kissinger and R. Aron were
fairly close in their authors' understanding of the essence of international relations as a system
of interconnections between states, governed by a certain order. Although these
concepts are traditionally considered elements of classical realist theory, there are grounds
to argue that they actually preceded the emergence and development of neorealism.

The classical theory of political realism rests on the following propositions:
1. International relations, like any other type of social relations, follow
from human nature, which is selfish and inclined, under certain conditions, to display instinctive or
pathological malice. Human activity is always directed toward the realization of personal
interests, and only these determine its activity. Man is not capable of fundamentally changing
in the course of development; he can only limit his own aspirations or give them a certain
ideological meaning.
2. The state, as a form of political organization of people, is the principal subject of
international relations, whose most important interest is the struggle for power, which
is achieved by means of force.

International organizations, reflecting the convergence of states' interests, act as
effectively as the strongest of them are interested in.
The essence of international relations is the struggle for power (influence) between states in
an anarchic international environment. Norms of international law and morality cannot
be a universal instrument for regulating relations between states, since
they are subjective in nature and function only where there is consensus among states. At the same time,
in foreign policy they often serve as slogans used by ruling
political elites to justify and legitimize their own actions or to mask
pragmatic interests.
3. The interests of states are objective and contradictory in nature, which is connected with
their unequal potential, resources, geographic position, and also the ruling political elites'
striving for power.

4. Peace and stability have nothing to do with the manifestation of will or reason, but are only a
function of the balance of power and the coincidence of interests (which is always temporary in nature),
maintaining which is the primary task of foreign policy. International conflicts
arise from the disruption of the balance of power between states and the contradictions of their objective
national interests.

Realism, as J. Dougherty and R. Pfaltzgraff rightly noted, is conservative,
empirical, cautious, and suspicious toward idealist principles and slogans,
respectful of the lessons of history, yet, like utopianism, normatively and politically
oriented. Despite the fact that its assessments are diametrically opposed to
idealist theory, political realism has remained part of the classical school of the theory of
international relations, since it is based on the same principles of understanding them
(although interpreted differently). Proceeding from principles of understanding international relations
that are identical to those of the idealists, the realists interpreted them in terms of force and power,
which prevailed in the theory of international relations in the 1950s—1970s.

Neorealism and Neoliberalism.

At the end of the 1970s, following a major theoretical and methodological crisis of
classical realism, connected with the sharp criticism of its principles and research methods
by representatives of modernist theory, its renaissance began, manifested in a revival of
interest in the classic works of the realists, and this became the harbinger of neorealism.
Neorealism, which developed above all thanks to the works of K. Waltz, Gilpin, and K.
Kindermann, J. Grieco, and J. Mearsheimer, set out to unite the principles of
classical realism with the theory of international systems. The international system
is viewed as a structure of relations among states — the central category of
neorealism, from which derive the concepts of: conflict, cooperation, norm,
supremacy, interest, perception, reality, and decision. This is precisely why neorealism is also sometimes
called structural realism, the formation of whose foundations is associated with the name of
University of California professor K. Waltz.

In the theory of international relations, K. Waltz is known for his works: "Man, the State,
and War: A Theoretical Analysis" and "Theory of International Politics." The first was written under considerable
influence of classical realism, yet it demonstrates a considerably broader understanding of international
relations. Examining the problem of states' use of military force, he asserts that
"a state uses force if, upon assessing the prospects of success, it finds
that the desired goals are more attractive than the tranquility of peaceful life."
K. Waltz develops this idea in the work "Theory of International Politics," where he places at the center
the problem of studying the structure of the international system, which reveals the
balance of power among states and the manner of interaction between them. In this interaction, states
strive minimally for self-preservation, and maximally for predominance, and the result of their
uncoordinated activity is the emergence of an international system, which is formed
through stable political interactions between the governments of states and is transformed by
changes in the distribution of their power capabilities. The international system combines two
diametrically opposed qualities: anarchy and a fairly rigid structural conditioning
of states' policies. The system's persistent tendency toward war is a dependent variable (on the policy of
states), but it becomes reality only under a particular arrangement of power among the most powerful
states (polarity), which K. Waltz defines as the independent variable.
He distinguishes three types of polarity in international systems: bipolar,
multipolar, and unipolar. A country's position in the hierarchy of international systems
symbolizes the power potential it has accumulated, which it can wield and which
obliges it to certain behavior, as well as determining the functions the state performs in the
international environment.

"The fundamental contribution of the founder of neorealism, K. Waltz, to the theory of international
relations was the formation of the theory of international politics as systemic, i.e.
in its main features not so much through the concrete actions of states as through the very principle
of the absence of an organizing authority in international relations (the principle of international
anarchy)... Under conditions of international anarchy... the main role belongs to material power
factors, or polarity, rather than to how the implementation of a state's foreign policy
course is organized."

An enormous contribution to the development of neorealist theory was made by R. Gilpin, who, in his work
"War and Change in World Politics" set out three
essential postulates of neorealism:
1. States remain the most important subject of international relations, although
alongside them non-state actors (international organizations and TNCs) act autonomously.
2. States, seeking to maximize their own benefit, act rationally, i.e.,
of the many possible solutions in any situation, they choose the optimal one.
3. As a result of numerous interactions among states, an equilibrium of power arises in the system,
which is a guarantee of stability.

Unlike K. Waltz, he considers this equilibrium a dynamic concept, because
the status and hierarchy of states in the system are in a continuous process of change, since
world history is an endless series of cycles consisting of three phases:
hegemony — decline. In this triad, the balance and imbalance of the
distribution of power in the global international system are constantly changing, that is, it constantly tends to move
out of a state of equilibrium, yet constantly returns to it.
R. Gilpin believes that the stability or instability of the international system
is determined by a country's optimal relationship to the state of the system.
1. The system is stable when states are satisfied with their status and see no
benefit in changing it.
2. States seek to change the system when they expect that the benefit gained
from doing so will exceed the possible losses.
3. Changes in the system are carried out by various means, for example through
territorial expansion or economic dependency.
4. Reaching a state of equilibrium between the losses and gains of further expansion
leads to its cessation and an attempt to maintain the existing status quo.
5. The system is transformed if states are unable to maintain its equilibrium,
resulting in a new distribution of power and, accordingly, a new structure of the system.
R. Gilpin's theoretical concept is one of the most significant achievements of neorealism,
since he "constructed a broad set of research tools, which made it possible
to go beyond mere description.

Neorealists formulate two theses fundamental to understanding international relations:
1) in the contemporary world, states, using force, are not fighting for physical
existence, but for raising the level of their own well-being;
2) states are more independent in their behavior when they possess greater power
potential (in the broad sense).

In the 1980s, the theory of international relations saw the beginning of the so-called
inter-paradigm debates1, in which the main opponent of neorealism was
neoliberalism, and these two theories remain the most influential paradigms today.
Neoliberalism as a distinct theory should not simply be derived from the idealism of I. Kant and H.
Grotius, or the views of the classical idealist concepts of the 1920s—1930s; quite
important sources for it were also the economic theories of the 18th-19th centuries, especially those of A.
Smith and D. Ricardo, as well as representatives of contemporary political philosophy such as J. Habermas, M.
Bernardo, R. Dahrendorf, and B. Barber. Neoliberalism, unlike neorealism, is not
a single theory, but rather a combination of a number of theoretical concepts built
on similar principles. In neoliberal theory two main interpretations can be distinguished:
pluralism and world society theory.

The program for the pluralists became the work of J. Nye and R. Keohane, "Transnational
Relations and World Politics."
J. Nye and R. Keohane identify four types of transnational global
interaction occurring outside traditional interstate relations under conditions of
indirect control by state bureaucracy. These correspond to the spheres of:
1) information, in which messages, religious beliefs, ideas, and doctrines move;
2) transport, moving material objects, including weapons, private
property, and goods;
3) finance, that is, the movement of money and credit;
4) tourism, in which people move.

In all these spheres, the role of the state may be to facilitate interactions, but
even in this case it cannot fully realize them without the participation of non-state
actors in international relations. But in many cases the state limits itself only to
acknowledging transnational interactions or is even forced to change its foreign
and domestic policy under their influence. J. Nye and R. Keohane also identify five
ways in which transnational relations influence the content and character of interstate policy.
These are:
1. International pluralism, that is, the interaction of national interests in
transnational structures, in which transnational actors take part in order to
coordinate their activity.
2. Change in relations between states under the influence of the interests of non-state actors.
3. The development of restraint mechanisms through the dependence and interdependence of countries.
4. An increase, through the activity of non-state organizations, in the possibilities
for the governments of some states to influence the policy of others.
5. The emergence of autonomous actors with their own foreign policy, capable of
standing up to the state and even encroaching on its policy.
This influence leads to a situation in which "states become dependent on forces that none
of them controls. This dependence becomes even greater when any states
create new instruments for influencing other states.

Consequently, contemporary international relations are characterized by pluralism, consisting in
the equivalence of interstate and non-state relations and even a growing dependence of the
former on the latter. From the pluralists' point of view, the hostile interests of states, which used to determine
rivalry and struggle — the content of international relations in previous eras —
are giving way to cooperative interests and, accordingly, to the development of international
cooperation and to the political elites of states striving to seek compromise
solutions even when certain contradictions between states do arise.
Among neoliberals, the most radical position is held by F. Fukuyama, who, in his
concept of the so-called end of history, argues that after the end of the "Cold War,"
the democratic orientation of states became the defining variable in the formation of international
relations. He notes that "the most important change of events in the last quarter century
(the 20th — author's note) was the discovery of the incredible weakness... of what appeared to be the world's strongest
dictatorships, whether military-authoritarian or communist-totalitarian... and although they did not
always give way to stable liberal democracies, liberal democracy nonetheless
remains the only logically consistent political aspiration, and it is taking hold
across different regions and cultures worldwide." In his opinion, democracy has a
universal character and holds absolute priority in determining the foreign and
domestic political interests of contemporary states. (Fukuyama F. The End of History and
the Last Man. – Moscow, 2005. – P. 11).

Another interpretation of neoliberalism, closely tied to F. Fukuyama's ideas, is called
the theory of global governance. It represents a concept that, on the one hand, is
a kind of continuation of the ideas of world (international) society, but on the other —
of the neo-idealist theory of "world government," or so-called global governance. its vision
of international relations unites the views of many scholars who believe that a new
universal international order must be founded on a specially created (or
transformed from the structures of the present-day UN) universal political organization, whose activity
would take place outside the system of nation-states. (Fukuyama F. The End of History and
the Last Man. – Moscow, 2005. P. 350.)
American researchers G. Clark and L. B. Sohn, in their work "World Peace Through
World Law. Two Alternative
Plans," put forward a concrete plan for achieving general peace through the implementation
of gradual universal disarmament and the creation of a global system of collective security.
The main instrument for achieving such a state should be a "world government," created on the
basis of a reformed UN, which would operate under an amended and thoroughly elaborated Charter,
which would function as a world constitution. their plan is intended to gain the support
of many states, especially the 12 largest by population, and to be implemented in
practice on the understanding that "states that have not ratified the amended Charter (of the UN —
author's note) must nonetheless submit to the prohibitions and obligations of the
disarmament plan."

The theory of neoliberalism logically continued the intellectual tradition of idealism,
although, like neorealism, it was not a mechanical repetition of theories of the past. It
is more appropriately interpreted as an attempt to create a new explanatory model of international
relations (which is especially characteristic of pluralism) based on the principles of classical
idealist theory. However, in the formation of neoliberalism a fundamental role was played by so-called new
facts of international life, to which representatives of this theory appealed. This refers,
above all, to:
—the process of transnationalization of international relations, through which the role of the sovereign
nation-state in many spheres of international relations is constantly declining;
—the growing role of economic cooperation under the globalization of the second
half of the 20th century, leading to the economization of states' foreign policy;
—the collapse of totalitarian dictatorships in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, and the substantial
expansion of the number of states in which liberal democracy prevails;
—the growing role of international organizations, as well as the unprecedented growth in their
number in the contemporary world.

In general, neorealists have been rather skeptical of these arguments, since, in
their opinion, they fundamentally change nothing in international relations. The polemic between
the representatives of neorealism and neoliberalism, which began in the early 1980s,
has become, according to many scholars, the most important debate in the entire history of the theory of
international relations. It concerns a number of questions of understanding international relations,
on which representatives of these two dominant scholarly theories hold fundamentally
opposed positions:
1. The problem of assessing the consequences of the anarchic nature of international relations, in the neorealist
interpretation, comes down to the assertion of the rigidity of the environment's structural constraints,
tied to the polarity that determines states' policy, while neoliberal theory
perceives these constraints as temporary "barriers" that are overcome through growing
cooperation.
2. Neorealist theory remains statist, insisting on the determining role of the
state in the international system, whereas neoliberal theory (and especially pluralism)
relies on transnationalism.
3. Neorealist theory postulates the priority of nation-state interests, which consist in ensuring security, stable development, and growing influence
within the structure of the international system. Neoliberal theory treats the state as a political
organization whose activity is directed toward promoting the realization of the interests of sub-national
actors, and reduces those interests themselves to the pursuit of economic prosperity.
4. Neorealists are characterized by interpreting the state of conflict as a situational
manifestation of the balance of power among the leading actors in the international system, whereas
neoliberals consider it an anachronism, remaining a thing of the past, thanks to
growing international cooperation (above all, economic), the pluralism of
actors, and democracy.
5. Representatives of neorealist theory regard international cooperation as an
unstable manifestation of shared interests, which can exist and develop only on the basis of a balance
of the benefits derived from it. That is, if in the course of cooperation one side begins
to obtain a greater benefit, the other side will seek to restore the balance or will end its
participation in it.
Neoliberals consider the driving force of international cooperation to be the parties'
achievement of absolute gain from it, regardless of which side gains more.
6. In both theories, the problem of international regimes occupies a significant place, but
neorealists perceive them as a universal desire of states to order and regulate
relations among themselves, while neoliberals attribute constructive significance to them, considering
them a means of regulating international cooperation and avoiding conflicts.
Neoliberalism and neorealism differ fundamentally from one another only in their assessment
of the likelihood of close international cooperation between states on a global scale, and
in their interpretation of the dilemma of agency. In fact, these theories, despite the sharp polemic between
their representatives, could become the foundation of a new theory of international relations.

Self-preparation questions:

1. Outline the evolution of idealist concepts of international relations.
2. Analyze the problem of classifying scientific concepts.
3. Describe the formation of realist theories of international relations.
4. Identify and describe the principles of the classical school of international relations theory.
5. Explain the theory of idealism.
6. Analyze political realism.
7. Describe neorealism and neoliberalism.