Type author

Dunne, Kurkinames
& Smith:
hereInternational Relations Theories 4e

Chapter 3
Structural Realism
 Learning outcomes

After this lecture you should be able to:

Know the defining features of structural realism,
especially the role of power
Understand the key differences between offensive
and defensive realism
Debate how various structural realists read the rise of
China
Know why proponents believe structural realism to be
a better explanation of the dynamics of the
contemporary system

Dunne, Kurki & Smith: International Relations Theories 4e

 Realism and Power

Realists believe that power is the currency of international

politics. It is based on the material capabilities that a state
controls
States compete for power, and do all they can to shift the
balance of power in their favour
Classical realists believed conflict was hardwired into
human nature
Structural realists believe the international system forces
states to pursue power politics, as a means to ensure their
survival

Dunne, Kurki & Smith: International Relations Theories 4e

 Five Assumptions

1. Great powers are the main actors and they operate in an

anarchic international system
2. All states possess offensive military capability this
varies over time
3. States can never be certain about other states
intentions. A defensive military doctrine espoused by
one state can look like an offensive threat to another
4. The main goal of states is survival
5. States are rational actors operating with imperfect
information: they sometimes make serious mistakes

Dunne, Kurki & Smith: International Relations Theories 4e

 Offensive vs. Defensive Realism

Offensive realists argue that states should always be

looking for opportunities to gain more power, with the
ultimate prize being hegemony, thus ensuring
survival
Defensive realists argue that unrelenting expansion is
imprudent conquest is often costly and troublesome
Defensive realists such as Kenneth Waltz, argue that
states should seek an appropriate amount of power
(1989: 40)

Dunne, Kurki & Smith: International Relations Theories 4e

 Which is less war-prone:
Bipolarity or Multipolarity?
Bipolarity Multipolarity

there is less opportunity More great powers is better in

for great powers to fight
part because deterrence is
each other in a bipolar
world easier
equality between great In multipolarity, more states
powers tends to be more can join together to confront
even, and balancing an aggressive state
behaviour is easier There is less hostility among
there is greater potential the great powers as their
for miscalculation in attention is more diffused
multipolarity

Dunne, Kurki & Smith: International Relations Theories 4e

 Is Unipolarity less war prone?

With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the
Soviet Union, many realists argue that unipolarity has
arrived
Such a world is likely to be more stable than either
bipolarity or multipolarity
Logically, there can be no war or security competition
among great powers; minor powers will not cause
any trouble for fear of offending the unipolar power
The dangers of a unipolar world is that the absence
of security competition encourages the great power
to withdraw from outer regions
Or a hegemon uses its overwhelming power to
engage in ideological engineering, causing instability

Dunne, Kurki & Smith: International Relations Theories 4e

 Case Study: Can China Rise
Peacefully?
What will China do with its military muscle?
How will others (e.g. the USA and Chinas neighbours) react?
Defensive Realism
Offensive Realism
Consolidate its power by
Rise as regional hegemon. retaining its positionality in the
Remove all local threats status quo system.
(including US forces out of Asia) Neighbours as Nuclear Weapon
Will be faced with counter-force States aid to restrain Chinese
by USA; no toleration for peer advances.
competitors. Danger of conquest in the age
of nationalism.
Given these differences among structural realists, there is no overall consensus
among them in answering the above question, though they all agree that the
structure of the international system forces great powers to compete among
themselves for power.
Dunne, Kurki & Smith: International Relations Theories 4e
 9/11 and Realisms Return

After 9/11, realism has made a stunning comeback.

Liberal optimism of the 1990s now deflated
Giddy predictions of globalizers about the end of the
state have proved to be premature
War again appears to be a regular feature of the
international system
Structural realists were right to predict that the 2003
Iraq War was a significant strategic error on the part
of the US and its partners
Security competition in West, South and East Asia
reminds us that the world remains a dangerous place

Dunne, Kurki & Smith: International Relations Theories 4e