Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
REALIST THEORY OF I.P -II (DIFFRENCE B/W KENETH WALTZ AND MEIRSHIEMER…
REALIST THEORY OF I.P -II
NEO REALISM
SCIENTIFIC OR STRUCTURAL REALISM
KENNETH WALTZ
WROTE BOOK : THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS 1979
1979: TIME OF DETENTE
IN THIS TIME SOME COOPRATIVE ACTIONS ARE TAKING PLACE IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
LIKE HELSINKI ACCORD B/W US AND USSR : SALT I AND II TREATIES
ALSO TREATIES LIKE: PTBT 1964, NPT 1968CAME
THIS TIME PERIOD PUT QUESTION MARK ON RELEVANCE OF REALISM
KENETH WALTZ WANTED TO SHOW REALISM REPRESENTS TIMELESS WISDOM AND WILL NEVER GO OUT OF RELEVANCE
HE SUGGEST THAT STRUCTURE OF I.P IS SUCH
THERE IS NO OPTION BUT TO GO FOR POWER STRUGGLE
HELD HIS APPROACH AS SCIENTIFIC: AS GIVES A STRUCTURE
FEATURES OF STRUCTURE OF I.P
ANARCHY:
SINCE ANARCHY IS THE STRUCTURE NATION HAS TO GO FOR SELF HELP FOR SURVIVAL
BECOZ OF SYSTEM OF SOVERIGN STATE.. NO AUTHORITY ABOVE ANY STATE
FUNTIONAL DIFFRENTIATION
FUNTIONAL DIFFRENTIATION EXIST IN DOMESTIC SPHERE
BUT IN I.P .. WHERE ALL STATES HAVE SIMPLE ROLE CONERNED WITH SURVIVAL AND SECURITY
CAPABILTY:
ONLY DIFFRENCE IN STATES IS IN TERMS OF CAPABILITIES
I.E AMOUNT OF POWER THESE STAES HAVE
SO KENETH WALTZ HELD
STATES ARE SECURITY MAXIMIZERS: STATES WANT POWER TO GAIN SECURITY
SO POWER IS MEANS OF IP BUT SECURITY IS THE END
(DIFFRENCE FROM MORGENTHU)
MEARSHEIMER:
AUTHORED BOOK: TRADEGY OF GREAT POWER POLITICS
BIGGEST CHALLENGE OF REALISM:
CAME AFTER END OF COLD WAR : END OF HISTORY THESIS
WHERE LIBERALISM HAS BEEN HAILED AS END OF MAN'S IDEOLOGICAL EVOLUTION
HENCE MEIRSHIEMER RE-EMPHAISE THAT RELAISM IS TIMELESS WISDOM
WHAT IS TRADEGY OF GREAT POWER POLITICS:
IT HELD THAT RELATIONS B/W NATIONS ARE INHERIENTY CONFLICTUAL:
NATIONS CAN'T ESCAPE FROM SECURITY DILEMMA
HENCE WAR IS EVITABLE FACT OF RELATIONS B/W NATIONS.. HENCE NATIONS HAVE TO CONTINOUSLY AT WAR
HENCE
STATE ARE POWER MAXIMIZERS
POWER IS MEANS AND END ALSO
DIFFRENCE B/W KENETH WALTZ AND MEIRSHIEMER
KENETH WALTZ:
DEFENSIVE REALISM:
POWER IS REQUIRED FOR SECURITY
POWER IS REQUIRED TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY FOR SECURITY
ACC. TO KENETH WALTZ:
IF STATE GO FOR MINDLESS SEARCH OF POWER. IT WILL PROVE COUNTER PRODUCTIVE AS IT WILL FORCE OTHER NATIONS TO FORM COILATION AGAINST IT.
HENCE POWER SHOULDN'T BE END IF STATE IS RATIONAL
KENETH WALTZ SUPPORT POLICY OF BALANCING: WHAT STATE SHOULD SEE THAT BALANCE IS THERE OR NOT..
STATES CAN ESCAPE SECURITY DILEMMA
FOR EG: ARM'S AGREEMENT
MEIRSHIEMER:
OFFENSIVE REALISM
POWER REQUIRED NOT JUST FOR SECURITY
NO AMOUNT OF POWER IS ENOUGH
NATIONS ACQUIRE POWER NOT JUST FOR SECURITY BECOZ:
CONDITIONS (ANARCHY) IS SUCH THAT NATIONS CAN'T OVERCOME SECURITY DILEMMA
THE ONLY WAY TO ENSURE SURVIVAL:
IS BY GAINING PREPONDEREED POWER WHICH CAN'T BE CHALLENGED
IT IS ADVISABLE THAT A POWER GAP IS MAINTAINED B/W HEGEMON AND CHALLENGER
STATE WANT TO BECOME HEGEMON
IT WILL NOT JUST GAURENTEE DEFENSE SECURITIY
BUT IT WILL OTHER ADVANTAGE ALSO
IT WILL DICATE THE RULE OF THE GAME
OWN POSITION CAN BE STRENGTHED
MEIRSHIEMER WROTE: ABOUT HOW TO TACKLE CHINA IN CONTEXT OF USA:
RISE OF CHINA:
IT IS EXCEPTIONABLE RISE .. THERE IS NO SUCH EXAMPLE
WHERE ANY COUNTRY HAS ACCQUIRED POWER IN ALL DIMENSION IS SUCH A SHORT SPAN OF TIME
REGARDING CHINA: NAPOLEAN HELD THAT:
CHINA WILL COME OUT OF ITS SLUMBER AND ASTONISH THE WORLD
USA SHOULD ENSURE THAT GAP B/W CHINA AND USA SHOULD BE SUCH THAT FOR CHINA IT IS NOIT RATIONAL TO CHALLENGE USA
GIVES STARATEGIES:
BAITH AND BLOOD LETTING:
ENGAING CHALLENGER (CHINA) IN A WAR OF ATTRITION WITH SOMEONE ELSE(INDIA) WHERE CHINA DRAINS ITS RESOURCES
BUCK PASSING:
PASSING ITS HEADACHE(BURDEN )TO OTHER LIKE INDIA AND JAPAN: INDIA AND JAPAN SHARING DEFENSE BURDEMN OF USA
THIS IS DONE JUST BY BUILDING PIVOT TO ASIA POLICY
BANDWAGONING:
ENCIRCLEMENT OR FORGING ALLAINCE WITH A SUPER POWER
CHINA IS USING THIS POLICY AGAINST INDIA:
LIKE PAKISTAN FOR BAITH AND BLOOD LETTING , BUCK PASSING
STRING OF PEARLS OR OBOR(LURING INDIAN NEIGHBOUR TO GET ECONOMICALLY ALIGN WITH CHINA) FOR BANDWAGONING
ALSO HE HELD THAT DEFENSE MAY NOT BE OPTIMAL POLICY IN ALL SITUATIONS
YET THERE MAY BE MISCALCULATIONS : IN MOST OF THE SITUATIONS OFFENSE PROBES TO BE BETTER POLICY
FOR EG: ARMS RACE
DIFFRENCE IS WRT:
1: POWER FOR WHAT
HOW MUCH POWER
INDIA NUCLEAR DOCTINE
IN THIS DEBATE:
2ND STRIKE CAPACITY: CREDIBLE DETERRANCE:
DEFENSIVE REALISM: SHOWS INDIA HAS OVERCOME SECURITY DILEMMA
BUT ACC. TO SOME SCHOLARS THIS DOCTRINE IS OUTDATED
AS IT IS UNABLE TO DETER PAKISTAN BUT INSTEAD PAK IS DETERING INDIA
INDIA SHOULD HAVE A DISTINCTIVE EDGE : LIKE PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE CAPACITY... (OFFENSIVE REALISM)
NEO CLASSICAL REALISM: CRITICISM OF STRUCTURALIST
NEO CLASSICAL ARE CRITICAL OF METHODLOGY OF STRUCTURALIST
AS STRUCTURALIST ELIMINATE AGENTS AND ACTORS
STRUCTURALIST ARE OF VIEW WHOSOEVER IS THE THE ACTOR FOREIGN POLICY WILL REMAIN SAME
NEO CLASSCIAL SUGGEST THAT:
IT MAKES DIFFRENCE WHO IS DECISION MAKER : DUE TO DIFFENCE IN PERSONALITY
HENCE FORIGN POLICY REFLECT CONTINUITY BUT CONTINUITY WITH CHANGE
CRITICISM OF REALISM
FEMINIST CRITISM
FEMIN9IST HELD THAT OUT OF ALL DISCIPLINES : I.P IS THE MOST MASCULANIST
THEY HELD THAT REALIST PRESPECTIVE WHICH IS PROJECTED AS SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS
IS ACTUALLY GUIDED BY CULTURE OF PATRIARCHY
CYNTHIA ENLOE : IN HER BOOK "BANANAS, BEACHES & BASES"
QUESTIONS: :"WHERE IS WOMEN?"
ACC. TO HER
PERSONAL IS INTERNATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL IS PERSONAL
SHE HELD THAT WOMEN ARE PRESENT IN SUBORDINATE ROLE: LIKE HOSTING DINNERS AS WIFE OF DIPOMATS BUILDING SOFT POWER
BECOZ FIELD OF I.P DOMINATED BY REALIST ...
WOMEN ARE MISSING FROM KEY DECISION MAKING POSITION
ANN J TICKNER
REVISED 6 PRINCIPLE OF MORGENTHU
WOMEN IS MOST VULNERABLE IN WAR SITUATION.. IF WOMEN PRESPECTIVE IS ADDED WE CAN REDUCE POSSIBILTY OF WAR
RECENTLY SWEDEN BECAME FIRST STATE TO ADOPT
FEMINIST FORIGN POLICY
FEMINNIST FOREIGN POLICY LOOK AT WOMEN NOT JUST VICTIMS BUT AGENTS OF CHANGE
IT RECOGNISES GAP IN UNDERSTANDING OF SECURITY AND EXPERIENCE OF REAL PERSON IN CONFLICT
IT AIMS TO CHECK GREATEST VOILATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS(VOILATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF WOMEN)
PROTECTION OF WOMEN HUMAN RIGHTS NOT ONLY IN TIME OF PEACE BUT IN TIMES OF WAR
HILIARY DOCTRINE:
ALSO ADVANCED NOTION THAT WOMEN RIGHTS SHOULD BE INTEGRAL PART OF FORIGN POLICY AND GLOABL SECURITY
UNSC RESOLUTION 1325
RECOGNISES TO GIVE WOMEN ESSENTIAL ROLE IN MATTERS OF PEACE AND SECURITY FROM WHERE THEY HAVE HISTORICALLY EXCLUDED
IT APPEAL TO MEMBERS TI INTEGRATE FEMINIST PRESPECTIVE IN FORGEIN POLICY
IT APPEALS STATE TO PUNISH THOSE WHOO COMMIT SEXUAL VIOLENCE DURING WARS
IT APPEALS TO CIVIL SOCIETY TO SCRUTANISE
WHETHER STATES ARE FULLFILLING THEIR COMMITMENTS OR NOT
SOCIAL CONTRUCTIVISM
DOESN'T BELIEVE ANARCHY IS THE STRUCTURE OF I.P
RATHER IT IS CONSTRUCTION OF REALIST
IDEA OF SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVEISM COME FROM ITALIAN THINKER
VICO
HELD THAT NATURAL WORLD IS MADE BY GOD BUT HUMAN WORLD IS MADE BY HUMAN
ACC. TO SOCIAL CONS. HUMAN WORLD IS MADE UP OF IDEAS , VALUES, NORMS AND INS.
IDEAS NOT ONLY SHAPE REALITY BUT THEY CAN TRANSFORM REALITY
SO IF CAN MAKE SOCIAL CONS. THAT WAR IS INEVITABLE .. WE CAN ALSO MADE ALTERBATE CONS.
SO ACC. TO ALEXANDER WENDT:
ANARCHY IS NOT A NATURAL FACT.. ITS A WAY HOW REALIST PRESENT IT
HENCE EXISTENCE OF CONFLICT IN I.P IS NOT ANARCHY BUT LACK OF COMMUNICATION
STATES ARE NOT PRISONER OF ANARCHY BUT THEY THEMSELVES HAVE CONSTRUCTED THE AMARCHY
POST MODERNISM
HELD THAT ANARCHY IN WORLD ORDER IS DISCOURSE BY REALIST
ANARCHY AS WORLD ORDER : HAS BASED ON MANY WILFULL EXCLUSION AND QUESTIONALE ASSUMPTIONS
ENGLISH SCOOL
HEADLEY BULL GAVE CONCEPT OF:
ANARCHICAL SOCIETY
CHALLENGED CONCEPT OF ANARCHY
ACC. TO HIM WE HAVE TO TAKE DYNAMIC VIEW OF I.P
IT IS TRUE THAT I.P WAS ONCE ANARCHIC AND RELATION B/W STATES WAS POWER STRUGGLE
BUT THAT IS NOT THE REALITY TODAY
TODAY RELATION ARE NOT ANARCHIC BUT THERE EXIST AN ANARCHIACAL SOCIETY
ANARCHICAL SOCIETY
I.P IS NEITHER A COMPLETE SOCIETY OR ANARCHICAL AS SUGGESTED BY KENETH WALTZ
SOME WHAT B/W ANARCHY AND SOCIETY
IT IS ANARCHY TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS NO WORLD GOVERNANCE
BUT WITH GROWTH OF INTERNATIONAL INS.AND CONCVENTIONS : HAVE LIMITED POWER POLITICS
THIS DOESN'T MEAN POWER POLITICS HAS LOST ITS RELEVENCE... BUT IT SUGGEST SOCIETY IS CHANGING BECOZ HUMAN NATURE IS CHANGING
SO THERE IS ALWAYS A POSSIBILTY THAT STATE CHANGES IN A SUBSTANTIAL WAY