What makes a theory good is that is universal and multi-applicable.

Which theory is good for these times?

REALISM

The security dilemma describes a situation where actions taken by one state to increase its security (such as building up its military, forming alliances, or developing new weapons) cause other states to feel less secure.

In response, those other states take similar measures, which in turn makes the first state feel threatened again.

This creates a cycle of mistrust, arms races, and potential conflict, even when no side actually wants war.

Why do security dillema appears?

narchy — No World Government

• The international system is anarchic, meaning there’s no central authority (like a police or court) to enforce peace.

• Every state is responsible for its own survival — this is called a self-help system.

• When there’s no trusted authority, fear and uncertainty naturally arise.

  • A state can never be sure what others might do tomorrow.

Result: Even defensive actions (like buying weapons) look threatening because there’s no one to guarantee that those weapons won’t be used offensively later.

2. Uncertainty About Others’ Intentions

• States can see others’ capabilities (e.g., number of tanks or missiles) but not their intentions (whether they’ll use them peacefully or aggressively).

• Because intentions can change overnight (a new government, leader, or crisis), trust is risky.

Result: It’s safer for states to assume the worst — and prepare for it.

3. Indistinguishability Between Offensive and Defensive Measures

• Many military capabilities (like missiles or aircraft) can be used for both defense and attack.

• So when a state builds up arms to defend itself, others can’t tell if that buildup is meant for protection or aggression.

Result: What one side calls defensive, the other sees as offensive.
This perception gap creates tension and arms races.

4. Desire for Survival and Power

• Realism assumes that survival is every state’s top goal.

• To survive, states seek power — because power provides security.

• But power is relative — if one state gains more, others feel weaker.

Result: Every gain by one state looks like a loss for another. Even peaceful moves can seem threatening.

5. Fear and Misperception

• States often misinterpret others’ actions due to fear, stereotypes, or lack of communication.

• These psychological and informational limits worsen the dilemma.

2. Strategies Small States Use to Stay in Power

A. Alliances and Balancing

• Small states often ally with powerful states or join coalitions to balance against threats.

• By doing so, they “borrow” security from stronger partners.

Examples:

• NATO’s smaller members (e.g., Estonia, Latvia) rely on U.S. and European military power.

• During the Cold War, small states aligned with either the U.S. or the Soviet Union to gain protection.

Theoretical link:
👉 Balance of Power Theory (Realism)

B. Bandwagoning

• Instead of balancing against power, some small states choose to align with the strongest power to gain protection and benefits.

Offensive realism

Offensive Realism is a theory within the Neorealist (Structural Realist) tradition, developed most prominently by John J. Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) in his book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001).

It argues that:

Because the international system is anarchic, and no state can ever be sure of others’ intentions, the best way for a state to ensure its survival is to maximize its power — ideally becoming the hegemon (the dominant power) in its region.

So, while Defensive Realism (Kenneth Waltz) says states seek enough power for security, Offensive Realism says they seek as much power as possible — because in an uncertain world, more power means more safety.

⚙️ 2. Core Assumptions of Offensive Realism

Mearsheimer identifies five key assumptions about how the world works:

From these assumptions flows the “tragedy”:
Even if states want peace, the structure of the system forces them to compete for power.

🦅 3. The Logic of Offensive Realism

Because of anarchy and uncertainty, states cannot trust others to remain peaceful.
Therefore, the safest way to survive is to become as powerful as possible — even to the point of dominating others.

Key points:

• States are power-maximizers, not just security-maximizers.

• The ultimate goal is regional hegemony — total dominance within one’s region (e.g., U.S. in the Western Hemisphere).

• Global hegemony is impossible due to geography and logistics, but regional dominance is achievable.

• Balance of power emerges when rising powers threaten existing hegemons.

📈 4. Key Predictions of Offensive Realism

1. Power competition is inevitable.
   Even peaceful states are forced into rivalry.

2. States fear one another.
   No one can be certain of others’ future behavior.

3. Great powers seek regional hegemony.
   Once dominant in one area, they prevent others from rising elsewhere.
   → E.g., U.S. prevents China from dominating Asia.

4. Balancing occurs.
   Other states will align to prevent a hegemon from emerging.

5. The international system is tragic.
   Conflict is not caused by evil intentions but by the structure of the system itself.

🧠 5. Difference Between Offensive and Defensive Realism

🌍 6. Real-World Examples of Offensive Realism

A. U.S. Regional Hegemony

• The U.S. achieved dominance in the Western Hemisphere (Monroe Doctrine).

• It has consistently sought to prevent peer competitors in Europe or Asia.

  • Contained the Soviet Union.

  • Now seeks to limit China’s rise.

B. China’s Rise

• Mearsheimer predicts China will seek to dominate Asia just as the U.S. dominates the Americas.

• The U.S. and its allies will balance to prevent Chinese hegemony (e.g., AUKUS, QUAD).

C. Napoleonic France / Nazi Germany

• Historical examples of powers seeking regional dominance — consistent with offensive realist logic.

7. Criticisms of Offensive Realism

1. Too Pessimistic:
   Critics (like Liberals and Constructivists) argue it underestimates cooperation and overstates conflict.

2. Ignores Domestic Politics:
   Internal factors like regime type, leaders, and public opinion can constrain aggression.

3. Empirical Challenges:
   Some states (e.g., Canada, Japan, Norway) don’t pursue power maximization despite having means to do so.

4. Normative Issues:
   It can justify aggressive policies — “might makes right” thinking.

LIBERALISM

Core Assumptions of Liberalism

🧭 3. Historical Roots of Liberalism

Liberalism has philosophical origins in Enlightenment thought — belief in reason, progress, and individual rights.

Key thinkers:

• Immanuel Kant (1795) – Perpetual Peace: proposed that republican (democratic) states, free trade, and international law create lasting peace.

• Woodrow Wilson (1918) – promoted the League of Nations after World War I (the “Wilsonian idealism” of collective security).

• Modern liberals: Robert Keohane, Joseph Nye, Michael Doyle.

🏛️ 4. Main Strands of Liberalism

A. Neoliberal Institutionalism

• Developed in the 1970s–80s by scholars like Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye.

• Argues that international institutions (e.g., UN, WTO, NATO) help states cooperate by:

  • Providing information

  • Reducing uncertainty

  • Establishing rules and norms

  • Punishing defectors

💡 Key idea: Even under anarchy, institutions can make cooperation rational and sustainable.

B. Democratic Peace Theory

• Advanced by Michael Doyle, Bruce Russett, and others.

• Claims that democracies rarely (if ever) fight each other.

• Why?

  • Shared norms and values

  • Institutional checks and balances

  • Public accountability

  • Economic interdependence

💡 Implication: Spreading democracy helps promote peace.

C. Economic Interdependence Theory

• Based on the idea that trade and globalization reduce incentives for war.

• When countries trade, they depend on each other for prosperity — war becomes too costly.

Example:
EU members are deeply economically integrated, making war between them almost unthinkable.

D. Collective Security

• The idea that peace can be maintained if states agree to act together against aggressors.

• Institutionalized in the League of Nations (after WWI) and later the United Nations.

• “An attack on one is an attack on all.”

🔑 5. Key Differences Between Liberalism and Realism

🌐 6. Real-World Examples of Liberalism

A. European Union (EU)

• Built on the liberal idea that economic and political integration prevents war.

• Former rivals (France and Germany) became partners through trade and shared governance.

B. United Nations (UN)

• Promotes collective security, diplomacy, and global norms.

• Helps resolve conflicts through dialogue and peacekeeping.

C. World Trade Organization (WTO)

• Encourages free trade and economic interdependence — making war economically irrational.

D. U.S. Foreign Policy (Wilsonian Liberalism)

• Promoting democracy, free markets, and international institutions to build global stability.

⚖️ 7. Criticisms of Liberalism

🧩 8. Summary Table

💬 Famous Liberal Ideal

“Commerce and democracy bind nations together more tightly than armies ever could.”

Would you like me to show a comparison between Liberalism, Realism, and Constructivism (in a table or chart) to see how they differ in explaining international politics?

NEOLIBERALISM

At its core, Neoliberalism means a belief in the power of free markets, open trade, and limited government intervention — updated for the modern, globalized world.

But in International Relations, the term usually refers to Neoliberal Institutionalism, a theory that explains how states can cooperate under anarchy through institutions, rules, and mutual benefits.

So, we can look at it in two main dimensions:

Let’s look at both in turn 👇

🧭 2. Neoliberalism in International Relations (Neoliberal Institutionalism)

🔹 Core Idea

Even in an anarchic international system (no world government), states can cooperate because institutions help them do so.
States are still rational and self-interested (like Realism says), but they realize cooperation can yield mutual benefits.

This version of Neoliberalism evolved as a response to Neorealism (Kenneth Waltz) in the late 1970s–1980s.

Can two different ideologies have good relations?

Constructivism

Constructivism argues that the key structures in international politics are social, not just material.
That means the world isn’t shaped only by military might or economic strength — but also by beliefs, values, norms, identities, and shared understandings among states.

In short:

“It’s not just what states have, but what they think and believe that shapes what they do.”

🌍 2. Core Assumptions of Constructivism

🔑 3. Key Thinkers and Texts

FEMINISM