Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Traditional & Critical approaches (CSS (Copenhagen School, Aberstywyth…
Traditional & Critical approaches
Liberalism
CSS
Copenhagen School
Aberstywyth School
Realism
Thus, realism tries to explain the security strategy a country should choose
A family of different strains of thought
Basic shared elements
International system is anarchic - no international authority that can enforce agreements and prevent the use of force
Power is a defining feature of hte international environment - traditionally, power = military capability (composed of wealth, population and technological sophistication)
State's are self-reliant, because there is not an international authority to protect them
States are unitary actors
States are rational actors and their leaders only seek to maximize the benefit of the state - states are also strategic as they consider other states' reaction
Not all realits subscribe to this thinking, but it is suficcially widespread
States assess each other in terms of their power and capabiltiies - not in terms of the variaton that exists wihtin states (regime type, nature of leadership, ideology and so forth)
States are the key actors in the international system - international institutitons are not regarded as important enough
Possibility of war is always present and this drives state behaviour
Structural realism (Waltz)
The anarchic system of international world is what drives state behavior
Survival is the first key consideration
Anarchic system --> self-help condition
Offensive realism (Mearsheimer)
Defensive realism
Security Dilemma - an increased appetite for security may create more insecurity and as such, sometimes states are better off cooperating with each other
Motivational realism (classical realism + neo-classical realism)
The international system is not the source of state behavior - rather it is the aspiration to expand territory even though they are secure in the status quo