QUESTION ANSWERS OF CHAPTER 3

QUESTION 1: Realists are pessimistic about human progress and cooperation beyond the
boundaries of the nation-state. What are the reasons given for that pessimism? Are they good
reasons?
Ans: Realism is a school of thought in international relations that tends to be pessimistic about
human progress and cooperation beyond the boundaries of the nation-state. Realists base their
views on several key assumptions and observations, and whether these reasons are considered
"good" or not depends on one's perspective:

1. Human Nature: Realists argue that human nature is inherently self-interested, competitive, and
power-seeking. They believe that individuals and states are primarily motivated by the pursuit of
their own interests, including the acquisition and preservation of power. This view leads to skepticism
about the ability of states to cooperate effectively on a global scale.
2. Anarchy in International System: Realists contend that the international system is anarchic,
meaning there is no overarching authority to enforce rules or mediate disputes between states. In
this environment, states are left to fend for themselves, leading to a competitive and often conflict-
prone world order.
3. Balance of Power: Realists emphasize the importance of the balance of power as a mechanism for
stability in international relations. They argue that states will naturally seek to maintain or gain power
to protect their own security and interests, often through the formation of alliances. This focus on
power politics can undermine cooperative efforts.
4. National Interest: Realists believe that states prioritize their own national interests over the
common good. While international cooperation may occur when it aligns with these interests, realists
are skeptical of the durability of such cooperation, particularly in situations where sacrifices may be
required.
5. History and Evidence: Realists often point to historical conflicts and power struggles as evidence of
the difficulties of achieving lasting international cooperation. They argue that, throughout history,
states have often acted in their self-interest, even at the expense of international cooperation.

Whether these reasons are considered "good" depends on one's perspective and the specific
context. Critics of realism argue that it can be overly pessimistic and overly deterministic, as it tends
to downplay the potential for diplomacy, international institutions, and norms to mitigate conflicts
and promote cooperation. They also argue that realist assumptions do not account for the role of
non-state actors, transnational issues (like climate change or pandemics), and the changing nature of
power in the modern world.

Others may find realist reasoning compelling, particularly in cases where states have conflicting
interests and where historical examples of conflict and competition appear to support realist
predictions. In any case, the debate over the validity of realist pessimism continues to be a central
issue in the study of international relations
 QUESTION 2: Why do realists place so much emphasis on security? Does that make sense? How
important is security in world politics?

Ans: Realists place a significant emphasis on security because they believe that the international
system is inherently anarchic, characterized by the absence of a central authority that can enforce
rules and maintain order among sovereign states. Given this anarchic nature, states must prioritize
their own security to ensure their survival and protect their national interests. Here's why realists
emphasize security and its importance in world politics:

1. Survival Imperative: Realists argue that the primary goal of any state is to ensure its survival.
Security is the foundational condition for a state to pursue other objectives, such as economic
prosperity, social well-being, and the promotion of its values. Without security, a state may be
vulnerable to aggression, coercion, or even extinction.
2. Competitive Environment: Realists contend that the international system is competitive and
conflict-prone due to the absence of a higher authority. In this context, security is essential because
states must protect themselves from potential threats and ensure they have the means to deter or
defend against aggression.
3. Balance of Power: Realists view the balance of power as a key mechanism for maintaining stability
in international relations. States seek to maintain or increase their power relative to potential rivals,
as this can act as a deterrent against aggression. Ensuring security is vital to achieving and preserving
this balance.
4. Self-Help System: Realists argue that states must rely on self-help in the absence of a central
authority. This means they must build and maintain their own military capabilities, form alliances, and
adopt policies that prioritize their own security.

While realists' emphasis on security is a central feature of their perspective, it has its critics. Some
argue that this emphasis can lead to a focus on military solutions and a neglect of other important
aspects of international relations, such as economic cooperation, diplomacy, and the promotion of
global public goods. Critics also contend that an excessive preoccupation with security can
perpetuate a cycle of insecurity and conflict.

The importance of security in world politics is a subject of ongoing debate. In the realist view,
security concerns are paramount and often override other considerations. However, other schools of
thought, such as liberalism and constructivism, argue that international politics can be more
cooperative and that security can be enhanced through mechanisms like international institutions,
diplomacy, and normative frameworks. The role and significance of security in global politics vary
depending on the specific context and the perspectives of the actors involved.

QUESTION 3: Identify the major differences between the classical realism of Hans Morgenthau
and the neorealism of Kenneth Waltz. Which approach is best suited for analysing
international relations after the Cold War?

Ans: Classical realism, as articulated by Hans Morgenthau, and neorealism, as developed by Kenneth
Waltz, are two prominent theories within the broader field of realism in international relations. While
 they share some core assumptions, they also have significant differences. The suitability of each
approach for analyzing international relations after the Cold War is a matter of debate, and different
scholars and policymakers may have varying perspectives on this.

Classical Realism (Hans Morgenthau):

1. Emphasis on Human Nature and Morality: Classical realism places a strong emphasis on human
nature and morality. Morgenthau argued that states' behavior is influenced by the inherent qualities
of leaders and decision-makers, including their pursuit of power and their moral considerations.
2. Power Politics and National Interest: Morgenthau contends that states are primarily motivated by
their own national interests, particularly the pursuit and preservation of power. He views international
politics as a struggle for power and influence.
3. Skepticism of International Institutions: Classical realists are generally skeptical of the
effectiveness of international institutions and law in maintaining order and resolving conflicts. They
believe that power considerations ultimately drive state behavior.
4. Historical and Case-Specific Analysis: Morgenthau's approach often involves examining historical
cases and relying on a qualitative analysis of specific events to understand international relations.

Neorealism (Kenneth Waltz):

1. Structural Approach: Neorealism, also known as structural realism, focuses on the international
system's structure and the distribution of power among states. Waltz argues that it is the system,
rather than individual leaders, that shapes state behavior.
2. Anarchy and Self-Help: Neorealism posits that the international system is anarchic, and states are
primarily concerned with their security. States engage in self-help by seeking to maximize their
security and ensure their survival in a competitive environment.
3. Reduction of Human Nature: Neorealism minimizes the role of human nature and moral
considerations in state behavior, focusing more on systemic constraints and imperatives.
4. Quantitative and Predictive Analysis: Neorealism often employs quantitative and structural
analyses to make predictions about state behavior. It emphasizes the distribution of power and the
balance of power as determinants of outcomes in international relations.

The choice between classical realism and neorealism for analyzing international relations after the
Cold War depends on the specific context and research question. Some argue that neorealism's
structural approach is better suited to understanding the dynamics of the post-Cold War world,
especially in the absence of a bipolar power structure. It provides insights into the role of great
powers and the balancing behavior of states in a multipolar or unipolar system.

However, others contend that classical realism's attention to human nature and moral factors
remains relevant, as non-state actors, transnational issues, and ethical considerations have become
increasingly important in the post-Cold War era. The choice between these approaches also depends
on the level of analysis, the specific case or issue under consideration, and the researcher's
theoretical and methodological preferences.
 In practice, scholars often draw from both classical and neorealism, as well as other theoretical
perspectives, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of complex international relations
issues.
QUESTION 4: Outline the main arguments for and against NATO expansion. State your own
position including supporting arguments.

Ans: NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) expansion, especially in the post-Cold War era, has
been a subject of debate among policymakers, scholars, and the public. Here are the main
arguments both for and against NATO expansion:

Arguments for NATO Expansion:

1. Enhanced Security: Proponents argue that NATO expansion has enhanced the security of member
countries and those aspiring to join. Expanding the alliance is seen as a way to deter potential
aggressors, as an attack on any member would trigger a collective defense response under Article 5
of the NATO treaty.
2. Stability and Democracy Promotion: Expansion can contribute to regional stability and the spread
of democracy. Many Central and Eastern European countries that joined NATO have undergone
political and economic transformations, aligning themselves with democratic values and institutions.
3. Preventing Isolation and Vulnerability: Countries in Eastern Europe have sought NATO
membership to avoid isolation and potential vulnerability to coercion from Russia. Membership
provides them with a security umbrella, helping to ensure their independence.
4. Solidifying Western Unity: Some argue that NATO expansion strengthens the unity of Western
democracies and reinforces the broader transatlantic relationship. It sends a message of commitment
to collective security and shared values.

Arguments Against NATO Expansion:

1. Provoking Russia: Critics contend that NATO expansion has provoked Russia and contributed to
increased tensions between the alliance and Moscow. They argue that it undermines opportunities
for cooperation and diplomacy.
2. Strategic Overextension: Expanding NATO can lead to strategic overextension, as the alliance takes
on more commitments and responsibilities without a commensurate increase in capabilities. This
could strain resources and weaken the alliance's effectiveness.
3. Security Guarantees: Critics suggest that NATO expansion might create unrealistic expectations
among new member states, potentially leading to complacency or irresponsible behavior if they
believe they are unconditionally protected by the alliance.
4. Risks of Enlargement: Some argue that the inclusion of new members with historical disputes or
complex relations with neighboring countries can introduce security challenges and entangle the
alliance in conflicts that are not directly related to the security of existing members.

My Position (Neutral):
 I do not hold a definitive position on NATO expansion, as the issue is complex and context-
dependent. Whether NATO should expand or not should be considered on a case-by-case basis,
taking into account several factors:

1. Security and Strategic Interests: Expansion should align with the security interests of both existing
NATO members and aspiring member states. If it enhances overall security and stability, it may be
justified.
2. Geopolitical Context: The geopolitical context and relations with Russia are crucial. Expansion
should not be pursued in a confrontational manner but rather through diplomacy and dialogue.
3. Member Commitments: New members must be committed to NATO's principles, democracy, and
defense capabilities. They should not create additional security risks for the alliance.
4. Support and Unity: Any expansion should have strong support within NATO and maintain the
alliance's unity. Consensus among existing members is essential.
5. Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution: NATO should also promote diplomacy and conflict resolution,
working alongside expansion efforts, to address potential conflicts and disputes.

In conclusion, my position is that NATO expansion should be approached cautiously and

strategically, considering the unique circumstances of each potential new member and the potential
consequences for the alliance as a whole. Expansion should not be pursued as a one-size-fits-all
approach but should be guided by a comprehensive assessment of the benefits and risks in each
case.

QUESTION 5: How does the new bipolarity differ from Cold War bipolarity?

Ans: The concept of "new bipolarity" refers to a scenario in which the world is characterized by the
dominance of two major powers or blocs, similar to the bipolar structure of the Cold War. However,
there are significant differences between the new bipolarity and the Cold War bipolarity. Here are
some key distinctions:

1. Nature of the Bipolarity:

 Cold War Bipolarity: The Cold War was characterized by the ideological and political rivalry
between the United States (representing the Western bloc) and the Soviet Union
(representing the Eastern bloc). The conflict was largely based on the ideological differences
between capitalism and communism.
 New Bipolarity: The new bipolarity is not defined by an ideological struggle like the Cold
War. Instead, it often revolves around the competition for economic, technological, and
strategic dominance. The primary focus is on the relative power and influence of two major
states, such as the United States and China.
2. Economic Interdependence:
 Cold War Bipolarity: During the Cold War, there was limited economic interdependence
between the two blocs. Economic exchanges were minimal, and both blocs had largely self-
contained economic systems.
 New Bipolarity: In the new bipolarity, there is a high degree of economic interdependence
between the two major powers. The United States and China, for example, maintain extensive
 economic ties, including trade, investment, and supply chains. This economic
interdependence complicates the dynamics of the bipolar relationship.
3. Military Confrontation:
 Cold War Bipolarity: The Cold War featured a significant military buildup and the threat of
nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union. Proxy conflicts and military
alliances were common, leading to direct confrontations in some instances.
 New Bipolarity: While there is competition between major powers in the new bipolarity, it
has not escalated to the same level of direct military confrontation seen during the Cold War.
Conflicts are more likely to manifest through non-military means, such as cyber warfare,
economic coercion, and geopolitical competition in regions like the South China Sea.
4. Multipolarity Influence:
 Cold War Bipolarity: The Cold War was characterized by a clear bipolar structure, with the
United States and the Soviet Union as the dominant superpowers. There were few major
powers that could challenge this bipolar order.
 New Bipolarity: In the new bipolarity, there is a more complex international landscape with
multiple significant players. While the United States and China are the primary contenders,
other countries, such as Russia, the European Union, and emerging powers like India,
maintain influence and can play roles in shaping global politics.
5. Information and Technology: Information and technology play a more central role in the new
bipolarity. States like China and the United States are engaged in technological competition,
including issues related to cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and 5G technology, which were not as
prominent during the Cold War.
6. Global Issues: In the new bipolarity, global issues such as climate change, pandemics, and cyber
threats require cooperation between major powers. Unlike the Cold War, where ideological conflict
often hindered collaboration, the new bipolarity calls for engagement on shared global challenges.

In summary, the new bipolarity differs from the Cold War bipolarity in terms of the nature of the
rivalry, the role of economic interdependence, the absence of direct military confrontation, the
influence of multipolarity, the significance of information and technology, and the need for
cooperation on global issues. While both periods are characterized by bipolar power structures, the
specific dynamics and challenges are distinct.

QUESTION 6: Does the concept of a soft balance of power make sense?

Ans: The concept of a "soft balance of power" is a term sometimes used in international relations
theory and strategic studies, but it is not as well-defined or widely accepted as the traditional notion
of a "balance of power." The idea of a "soft balance of power" implies a state of equilibrium or
stability in international relations achieved through non-military means or strategies that do not
involve direct military confrontation. Whether this concept makes sense or is practical depends on
the context and how it is applied. Here are some considerations:

1. Non-Military Power: The concept acknowledges that power in international relations is not limited
to military capabilities but also includes economic, diplomatic, and soft power elements. In this
 sense, it recognizes that states can compete and influence one another through various non-coercive
means.
2. Complexity of International Relations: In the modern world, international relations are
multifaceted and characterized by a wide range of interdependent issues. Soft power, diplomacy,
economic influence, and global governance play significant roles in shaping state behavior.
Therefore, the concept recognizes the complexity of international relations.
3. Practical Challenges: While the idea of a soft balance of power acknowledges the importance of
non-military power, it faces practical challenges. Achieving and maintaining such a balance is difficult
because power dynamics often involve a mix of hard and soft power elements, and it's challenging to
quantify and compare these diverse forms of power.
4. Cooperation and Competition: A soft balance of power may involve cooperation in some areas and
competition in others. States can collaborate on global issues while also vying for influence and
dominance in certain regions or domains. The effectiveness of this approach depends on how well
states can manage this dual dynamic.
5. Economic and Technological Dimensions: In the modern era, economic and technological power,
including areas like cyber capabilities and control over critical technologies, can be just as influential
as military power. Soft power and economic influence can shape a state's strategic position in the
international system.
6. Applicability: The concept of a soft balance of power may be more relevant to some regions and
issue areas than others. It may be more suitable for addressing specific challenges, such as economic
competition, environmental concerns, or international cooperation on global governance.

In conclusion, while the traditional balance of power concept primarily focuses on military
capabilities, the idea of a soft balance of power acknowledges the importance of non-military
aspects of power in international relations. Whether this concept makes sense or is effective depends
on the specific context and the willingness of states to engage in diplomatic, economic, and soft
power strategies to influence international dynamics. It is a concept that reflects the evolving nature
of international relations in the 21st century, where non-military elements of power are increasingly
significant.

QUESTION 7: Does the argument of neoclassical realism contain a basic contradiction?

Ans: Neoclassical realism, a theory within the broader field of international relations, attempts to
bridge the gap between classical realism and structural realism (neorealism). While neoclassical
realism provides a valuable framework for analyzing international politics, some scholars have argued
that it contains potential contradictions or tensions. These perceived contradictions primarily stem
from the attempt to integrate individual, state, and systemic levels of analysis. Here are some key
points of contention:

1. Unit-Level vs. System-Level Analysis: Neoclassical realism seeks to combine both unit-level (state)
and system-level (international) factors in its analysis. However, some critics argue that this synthesis
can lead to a tension between explanations that emphasize state behavior and those that emphasize
structural constraints. The challenge is to strike the right balance between these levels of analysis.
2. Linking Domestic and International Factors: Neoclassical realism aims to explore how domestic
factors, such as the role of leaders and their perceptions, influence state behavior in the international
system. Critics argue that this integration can be problematic, as it may overstate the role of leaders
and understate the structural constraints imposed by the international system.
3. Clear Boundaries: Another criticism is that neoclassical realism does not always provide clear
boundaries for when individual, state, or systemic factors are most influential. This lack of clarity can
make it difficult to determine which level of analysis is the primary driver of state behavior in specific
cases.
4. Empirical Challenges: Neoclassical realism often relies on qualitative analyses of historical cases.
Critics argue that the theory's flexibility can make it challenging to test empirically, as it allows for
multiple interpretations of the same historical events.

However, it's important to note that these perceived contradictions are not inherent flaws in the
theory itself but rather challenges that scholars and practitioners need to address when applying
neoclassical realism. In many ways, neoclassical realism attempts to offer a more nuanced and
comprehensive understanding of international politics by acknowledging the complexity of state
behavior.

Neoclassical realism's proponents argue that its integrative approach can provide a richer and more
nuanced analysis of international relations. They contend that it allows for a more sophisticated
understanding of how individual leaders, state institutions, and systemic pressures interact and shape
foreign policy. Additionally, these tensions and contradictions may be seen as opportunities for
refining and further developing the theory to better capture the nuances of state behavior in
international politics.

In summary, neoclassical realism is not necessarily contradictory, but it does require careful
consideration and refinement to effectively integrate individual, state, and systemic factors in the
analysis of international relations. It is a framework that has generated productive discussions and
research within the field of international relations.

QUESTION 8: What is the emancipatory critique of realism? Does it make sense?

Ans : The emancipatory critique of realism is a perspective within international relations theory that
challenges the traditional realist approach, which tends to focus on power politics, state interests,
and the constraints of the international system. The emancipatory critique, also known as the
"emancipatory school" or "emancipatory realism," argues that realism's pessimistic view of
international politics can be limiting and that it overlooks the potential for change, progress, and
emancipation in world affairs.

Key points of the emancipatory critique of realism include:

1. Overemphasis on Power and Constraint: Realism is often criticized for its relentless emphasis on
power, security, and the constraints imposed by the anarchic international system. Critics argue that
 this narrow focus can lead to a deterministic view that downplays the possibilities for positive change
and emancipation from oppressive or inequitable structures.
2. Neglect of Agency and Norms: Emancipatory theorists contend that realism does not sufficiently
consider the role of human agency, values, and norms in shaping international relations. They argue
that individuals, states, and non-state actors have the capacity to challenge the status quo and
promote progressive change.
3. Alternative Visions: The emancipatory critique encourages the exploration of alternative visions of
international politics, such as those informed by normative and ethical considerations. It challenges
realist assumptions by suggesting that international relations are not solely a realm of power
struggles but can also be a space for ethical and moral imperatives.
4. Progress and Transformation: This perspective suggests that international politics can evolve and
transform, leading to more just, equitable, and cooperative global arrangements. Emancipatory
scholars argue that understanding the potential for progress and change is essential for addressing
global challenges and fostering a more peaceful and just world.

The emancipatory critique of realism does make sense to some extent, especially for those who
believe that international relations should not be solely characterized by power politics and
constraints. It highlights the importance of acknowledging the role of human agency, norms, and
values in shaping global affairs. Moreover, this perspective encourages constructive and positive
approaches to addressing international challenges, rather than adopting a fatalistic outlook.

However, critics of the emancipatory critique argue that it can sometimes be overly idealistic and
neglect the harsh realities of international politics, where power struggles and conflicts are prevalent.
They contend that while it is important to aspire to a more just and cooperative world order, it is also
crucial to recognize and address the inherent challenges and limitations of international relations.

In practice, many scholars and policymakers seek a balance between realism's insights into the power
politics of international relations and the aspirations of the emancipatory critique to promote
positive change and progress in global affairs. This balance allows for a more nuanced and
comprehensive approach to understanding and addressing the complexities of international politics.