Structural Theory Of International Relations

1871 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Factors that influence the balance of power in a conflict situation

There are two sets of theories that provide explanations on how the international system works. The structural theory also known as realism and the institutional theory also know as liberalism are the two major theories of international relations. These two set of concepts help explain the behaviors of major powers. Both of these theories have a first premise and first deduction along with a second premise and second deduction. In order to apply structural and institutional explanations to the behavior of Austria- Hungary, it is necessary to understand each of their core values. Realists strive to understand how power, structure, and system can affect the incentives for decision makers to choose war or to choose peace. They believe that …show more content…

Any system in the world or the world as a whole is either in a state of hierarchy or anarchy. It is believed by realists that hierarchy will maintain the peace because it is in the interest of the people running it. However, anarchy may trigger war to occur. Following with the first deduction, any structural anarchy balance of power will to some extent be a balance of conflict. There will always be clashes among units or states over power maximization and/or resource scarcity. Every state will make an attempt to maximize its power to the limits of its ability. They do this in order to gain access to the resources that are critical to the security in a given system. Resources such as cyber information, territory, economic resources, army, navy, etc. With the creation of a competitive situation, instability and war can be the outcome of this conflict. Every state tries to expand its power by expanding its resources. However, resource scarcity makes the attempt of resource expansion unattainable. Any decision maker should take into account the possibility that even a stable balance of power can turn …show more content…

When it comes to actually fighting of real war, institutionalist believe that warfare has a zero or negative payoff. There is no utility and no positive outcome. However, institutionalist believe the goal of war may have some benefits. For example, when a state makes itself stronger when they are seeking another territory would count as a benefit that overcomes the negatives of war. War fighting involves the cost of combat and domestic mobilization. It is impossible to have a low cost, cheap war. The cost of war is always positive and significant. Even fighting a weaker power will result in a loss in some circumstances. It is crucial for decision makers to take into account the cost of defeat. Weighing out the cost of defeat and the cost of war is crucial for every decision maker. As opposed to realist, who very rarely talk about defeat but mainly what the cause of war is. The cause of war is talked about in general and specifically. Unlike institutionalist who mainly focus on the cost of war. The cost of termination is another factor that institutionalist focus on. This means that when a war ends, one power more or less wins but that necessarily does not eliminate the conflict. Fighting may go on even after a government has surrendered. War is not a guaranteed escape from a conflict. With all of these costs added together is why institutionalist believe the cost of war is significant. All of these costs should

Show More
Related

  • The Key Differences Between Realists, Morality of State Theorists, and Cosmopolitans

    1550 Words  | 4 Pages

    George Kennan says, “Morality in governmental method, as a matter of conscience and preference on the part of our people – yes.” He goes on to say that morality as a criterion for measuring and comparing the behavior of states is flawed. Morality is a preference, not a requirement to govern in the international anarchic system, Kennan argues. Ethics and justice in the international system are measured by how states satisfy varying moral requirements. These moral requirements are defined by a variety of schools of thought, including: Realists, Morality of States theorists, and Cosmopolitans. Realists may validate some action where morality of state theorists and cosmopolitans are fundamentally opposed. In this paper I will examine such examples and detail the key differences between realists, morality of state theorists, and cosmopolitans. I will compare and contrast realists with the other two non-realists perspectives and explore how these theories apply to an international system of states and how these theories shape the way one state acts or reacts in an anarchic system.

    Read More

  • Political Analysis

    1494 Words  | 3 Pages

    They must observe the political plans of the various states through the styles by which they execute these plans and the political manoeuvres they undertake, in order to adopt the practical style to establish their state and carry their Da'wah to the world. Therefore, it is imperative for them to acquaint themselves thoroughly with the international situation and the details related to the international situation, and recognise the stance of the states of the world which have a telling effect in the general international situation. If we were to review the international situation in the wake of the First World War, we would deduce that... ... middle of paper ... ... n if this led to occupation by force.

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay On The Mexican American War

    2541 Words  | 6 Pages

    Some americans say that nations hinge on each other, while others say they also compete with one another. This gives rise to rivalry, which sometimes leads to war. Some wars emerge from differentiation in race, religion and culture. Due to the evolution of technology in an accelerated pace, highly sophisticated weapons are now available for use in wars. Wars also bring about widespread destruction, disrupt communication and hamper commerce. Thus, they cause heavy financial loss and great suffering to people. The effects of wars often affect countries that are not involved in the conflict. The threat of war can pressure a nation to waste immense amounts of money on defense instead of spending on developmental works like creating roads, hospitals, schools, and much more. War can halt a countries development. Some countries try to achieve political desires by using terrorism as a weapon against other countries. Terrorism spreads fear in civilians through acts of violence like killings and hostages. This intimidation has transformed into worldwide threat.

    Read More

  • The Cold War: An Inspiration for Years to Come

    1755 Words  | 4 Pages

    All throughout time and history people have been at war with each other at one point or another. War can, truthfully, at times be inescapable and considered by some historians as a natural instinct, an instinct that every human being possess. Throughout history mighty empires and governments have collapsed due to the damages inflicted on by a war, yet in spite of this, some have managed to face the odds and make it through, staggering along as if nothing happened. War is a true test of an empire or government’s determination to move forward, adapting using the knowledge and intellect they have acquired to their own advantage. Nevertheless, not all wars lead to fighting by physical means but instead it can lead to fighting mentally by opposing sides. One such example would be the non-traditional Cold War fought between the United States and Soviet Union. The Cold War was a time that caused an immense fear in the lives of many, and inspired novels such as 1984 by George Orwell, Alas, Babylon by Pat Frank, and essays such as “You and the Atomic Bomb” by George Orwell, which are just some of the voices from this terrible time.

    Read More

  • Why Do States Go to War?

    793 Words  | 2 Pages

    According Evera, a state is more likely to engage in war if they will have the upper hand between the states if they engage in warfare. ( Evera 5) There are several reasons why a state would consider going to war according to Evera, they look at the decision making of the state. The state will go to war if they are able to gain the upper advantage in a war. According to Evera Offensive and Defensive balance have their own advantages when they are used in the right situation. ( Evera p16-18) If a shift between offense and defense balance has occurred between the states, than there is a high risk of war according to Evera. ( Evera p6). The problem that might be overlooked is realism in this case only looks the state as a unitary actor. It’s hard to see the state as a whole to determine what a state is thinking when it goes to war, because it doesn’t look at the different levels of analysis within the government. It only sees the state in wanting a few things only which is power and security. Realism is the main idea behind the article, because it views the state as a rational actor and it looked at states only looking to engage in war and the reasoning why they do go to war.

    Read More

  • The Realism of Kenneth Waltz

    2320 Words  | 5 Pages

    The realism that will be the focus of this paper is that of Kenneth Waltz. Kenneth Waltz presents his theory of realism, within an international system, by offering his central myth that, “Anarchy is the permissive cause of war”. Kenneth Waltz’s central myth helps answer the question as to why war happens in the first place. During the cold war, there was a heightened sense of insecurity between Russia and the United States due to presence of nuclear weapons. The Movie Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb used cold war tension between the two countries to tell the story of a general who went crazy and decided to unleash his fleet of nuclear bombers onto Russian military bases.

    Read More

  • fog of war

    1454 Words  | 3 Pages

    According to realist view ordering principle of the international system is based on anarchy. There is no higher authority other than the states themselves to check and balance their actions. Consequently, nation-states are the main players in this system. In other words, sovereignty inheres in states, because there is not a higher ruling body in the international system. This is known as state centrism. Survival is an obligation continuing to be sovereign. On the other hand, sovereignty is the characteristic feature of states and its meaning is strongly tied to use of force. According to the most of the realist variants, states are “black boxes”; the determinative factor is states’ observable behavior, not their leaders’ characteristics, their decision making processes or their government systems.

    Read More

  • Structural Realism after the Cold War

    984 Words  | 2 Pages

    The prominent scholar of Political Science, Kenneth N. Waltz, founder of neorealism, has proposed controversial realist theories in his work. Publications such as "Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis", "Theory of International Politics” and “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate,” demonstrate how Waltz's approach was motivated by the American military power. In acquaintance of this fact, the purpose of this paper is to critically analyze Waltz theoretical argument from the journal "Structural Realism after the Cold War". Firstly, this paper will indicate the author's thesis and the arguments supporting it. Secondly, limitations found in theoretical arguments will be illustrated and thirdly, synergies between the author's thesis and this analysis will be exposed.

    Read More

  • Causes of War: Systemic vs. Domestic

    1789 Words  | 4 Pages

    The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.

    Read More

  • Understanding International Relations

    1517 Words  | 4 Pages

    To understand the international relations of contemporary society and how and why historically states has acted in such a way in regarding international relations, the scholars developed numerous theories. Among these numerous theories, the two theories that are considered as mainstream are liberalism and realism because the most actors in stage of international relations are favouring either theories as a framework and these theories explains why the most actors are taking such actions regarding foreign politics. The realism was theorized in earlier writings by numerous historical figures, however it didn't become main approach to understand international relations until it replaced idealist approach following the Great Debate and the outbreak of Second World War. Not all realists agrees on the issues and ways to interpret international relations and realism is divided into several types. As realism became the dominant theory, idealistic approach to understand international relations quickly sparked out with failure of the League of Nation, however idealism helped draw another theory to understand international relations. The liberalism is the historical alternative to the realism and like realism, liberalism has numerous branches of thoughts such as neo-liberalism and institutional liberalism. This essay will compare and contrast the two major international relations theories known as realism and liberalism and its branches of thoughts and argue in favour for one of the two theories.

    Read More

  • Realism and Constructivism

    1481 Words  | 3 Pages

    The creation of the study of international relations in the early 20th century has allowed multiple political theories to be compared, contrasted, debated, and argued against one another for the past century. These theories were created based on certain understandings of human principles or social nature and project these concepts onto the international system. They examine the international political structure and thrive to predict or explain how states will react under certain situations, pressures, and threats. Two of the most popular theories are known as constructivism and realism. When compared, these theories are different in many ways and argue on a range of topics. The topics include the role of the individual and the use of empirical data or science to explain rationally. They also have different ideological approaches to political structure, political groups, and the idea that international relations are in an environment of anarchy.

    Read More

  • Political Realism

    2261 Words  | 5 Pages

    People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.

    Read More

  • The Realist Approach to International Relations

    982 Words  | 2 Pages

    Realism is one of the important perspectives on global politics, it is a notion about the conservative society and political philosophy (Heywood 2011: 54; Shimko 2013: 36). Besides, Gilpin (1996) claims that “realism…, it is not a scientific theory that is subject to the test of falsifiability, therefore, cannot be proved and disproved.” (Frankel 1996: xiii). The components of the realist approach to international relations will be discussed.

    Read More

  • International System Essay

    926 Words  | 2 Pages

    The international system is an anarchical system which means that, unlike the states, there is no over ruling, governing body that enforces laws and regulations that all states must abide by. The International System in today’s society has become highly influential from a number of significant factors. Some of these factors that will be discussed are Power held by the state, major Wars that have been fought out in recent history and international organisations such as the U.N, NATO and the W.T.O. Each of these factors, have a great influence over the international system and as a result, the states abilities to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development”.

    Read More

  • International Relations Essay

    1095 Words  | 3 Pages

    The study of international relations takes a wide range of theoretical approaches. Some emerge from within the discipline itself others have been imported, in whole or in part, from disciplines such as economics or sociology. Indeed, few social scientific theories have not been applied to the study of relations amongst nations. Many theories of international relations are internally and externally contested, and few scholars believe only in one or another. In spite of this diversity, several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize on military power, material interests, or ideological beliefs. International Relations thinking have evolved in stages that are marked by specific debates between groups of scholars. The first major debate is between utopian liberalism and realism, the second debate is on method, between traditional approaches and behavioralism. The third debate is between neorealism/neoliberalism and neo-Marxism, and an emerging fourth debate is between established traditions and post-positivist alternatives (Jackson, 2007).

    Read More

More about Structural Theory Of International Relations

Open Document