#mearsheimer

John J Icemer was an optimistic soul with a love for bombs nukes and war and opinions so bold John J Icemer was a tactics mastermind but when pleading came  he was quite sane  most merciful and kind They say he got his scars down  in the middle of the fray but give him an m16  and suddenly he will save the day John J icemer has some pretty ragged arms Well, I should’ve picked  up bigger sticks But that would’ve taken all the charm

Pictured above is John Joseph Mearsheimer. He’s known for his work on offensive realism. He has written multiple publications, including the noted book “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.

Background of John Mearsheimer

John Joseph Mearsheimer was born in 1947 in Brooklyn, New York. He’s known as the founder of offensive realism. Mearsheimer was heavily influenced by Kenneth Waltz, who is known as the founder of the paradigm of international relations called realism (Munro, Britannica). Much like Waltz, Mearsheimer believes that within international politics, there is anarchy. As Mearshimer defines it, there is “no government above governments.” Essentially, there is no supreme power that rules over states’ actions. This anarchy results not in a constant state of war, but of a state of “relentless security competition” between states, often leading to war (Mearsheimer, 1994:10). Additionally, according to Mearsheimer, nation-states all have offensive military capabilities, however, different states have different military capabilities. This gives states the ability to use their military capabilities to destroy each other if need be (Mearsheimer, 2002:17). With the military capabilities that states have, mixed with the anarchy within the international political system, states are unable to be certain of other states’ intentions. A state’s main motive is survival, which causes the security dilemma.

Differences Between Mearsheimer and Waltz

Unlike Waltz’s defensive realism, Mearsheimer claims that a state’s need for security to survive will drive it to act as aggressive power maximizers instead of having defensive tendencies (Mearsheimer, 2002:19-20). Meaning, when a state sees another state building up its military capabilities, Mearsheimer concludes, “it is rational for [states] to attempt to preempt possible acts of aggression by increasing their military might and adopting an assertive position whenever their core security interests are at stake”(Munro, Britannica). This vicious cycle will reach its boiling point when states feel threatened enough by each other that it may force their hand to go to war. Anarchy causes states to act aggressively toward each other as a means of gaining more power in order to reach ultimate hegemony, which ensures ultimate security. By becoming the hegemon, or the strongest state, other states won’t attack

Mearsheimer on International Institutions

Much like the paradigm of realism, liberalism states that the international system contains anarchy. However, liberals believe that a way to solve the issue that anarchy brings is to create an international institution that can serve as the power above governments to hold states accountable for their actions. Realists think that this solution is not only unrealistic but will likely make the issue of competition for security even worse. Mearsheimer believes that institutions aren’t solving the issues that anarchy creates. Although states are supposed to be held accountable, there is no real higher authority that will enforce consequences for their actions (Mearsheimer, 1994:11). Additionally, Mearsheimer believes that every state is trying to reach hegemony. States will do whatever it takes to reach ultimate power, and in doing so it may lead to states trying to taking advantage of other states. Additionally, Mearsheimer believes that states are less likely to cooperate with each other because of relative gains. This means that no state believes in equal gain, rather that one state will always gain more than the other. He disagrees that International organizations like the UN will promote peace through cooperation because “cooperation is more difficult to achieve when states are attuned to relative gains logic”(Mearsheimer, 1994:12). This plays into the freeriding dilemma within international institutions. There is no accountability when humanitarian aid is asked for among other states. The priority of each state is to gain as much as possible. If all states were to cooperate some would be less likely to participate, therefore benefiting gains from the other participating states without any type of inputs. This is why states don’t see international institutions as a realistic option for promoting peace. Additionally, Mearsheimer mentions that institutions such as the UN reflect only the great powers’ interests, therefore it is not used to promote peace, but rather for nation-states to use their power for personal gain and control of lesser states.

Example of Mearsheimer’s Theory

A historical example that supports Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism is Germany between the years 1871 and 1903. During the period of 1871 to 1900, Germany was not an aggressive state because if they tried to expand any further beyond its boundaries, they would have “triggered a great power war that Germany would lose” (Snyder, 2002:159). At that point Germany accepted that they were not powerful enough to challenge the status quo of the hegemon at the time. However in 1903, Germany had the potential to become the hegemon as Germany had both more “Wealth and more power than any other European state” (Snyder, 2002:159). Much like Mearsheimer’s theory suggests, when Germany had enough military capabilities to challenge other European states, it started to act aggressively toward the European states. This reached the point where the great powers of Germany and its allies became such a threat to Germany’s rival countries of England, France, and Russia that World War I resulted in order to prevent Germany from becoming the regional hegemon of Europe. These aggressive actions of the European countries were a means to ensuring survival by aligning with as many states as possible. 

Questions to think about:

—————————————The Tragedy of Great Power———————

How might Mearsheimer explain World War One?

————————————International Security———————————

According to Mearsheimer, what are international institutions? How do realists view international institutions?

According to the author, what are the limitations of liberal approaches to international institutions?

—————————————General Questions———————————

Why do nation-states go to war?

Can international institutions promote peace?

Additional Info Resource:

If you would like to read more about Mearscheimer’s work, his website provided here is the perfect resource https://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/ 

Works Cited: 

Munro, André. “John J. Mearsheimer.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 30 May 2019, www.britannica.com/biography/John-Mearsheimer.

Mearsheimer, John J. “The False Promise of International Institutions.” International Security, vol. 19, no. 3, 1994, pp. 5–49.JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2539078.

Mearsheimer, John J. “Tragedy of Great Power Politics.”  WW Norton & Co, 2002, pp. 1–37.

Snyder, Glenn H. “Mearsheimer’s World-Offensive Realism and the Struggle for Security: A Review Essay.” International Security, vol. 27, no. 1, 2002, pp. 149–173. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3092155.

#stillAlive #OffensiveRealism #Realist #realism #SecurityDilemma

By Isabelle H, Gabriel and Diego

Realism:

[Image Description: The image above is a depiction of one of the main international relations theorists, John J. Mearsheimer. Mearsheimer is a professor at the University and Chicago and has dedicated his life to scholarship. Link to image source]

Overview of Realism: In international theories of relations, realism is centered around the concept of the importance of the role of the state, military interests, and unitary national interests. The main aspect of international relations according to realists is the idea that the drive for nation-states is to gather power, specifically military power in order to become the hegemon. This is the classical route of realism, theorists believe that states in the international system exist to gain power and military capabilities, and the main actors that exist in this system are nation-states specifically the “great powers”. Great powers refer to the most powerful actors in the system primarily those with significant military capabilities. Realism can be applied to recent international relations between countries, in particular, twentieth-century responses to a particular set of events: the world wars, the rise of totalitarianism, the advent of systematic and bureaucratized mass murder and the threat of nuclear annihilation (Hall 2011:49). This is an argument for the ongoing relevance of realism in modern international relations. 

Structural and Offensive Realism, and Comparison of Liberalism: Structural realism is a school of international politics that asserts the reasons that nation-states go to war are due to the overarching international order. Realists and liberals both believe in an anarchic international order, meaning there is no overarching international power keeping the great powers and other nation-states in check. Structural realism can be divided into two sub-categories, offensive, and defensive realism. Offensive realism asserts that there is no limit to how much power a nation-state will seek to gain, while defensive realism asserts that nation-states want no more power than they need to maintain their position in the international order. This can be seen with the security dilemma and international arms races. In the international order, there are three main types of systems multipolar, bipolar, and unipolar or hegemonic. Historical examples would include the pre-WWI state system as a multipolar system, the Cold War as an example of a bipolar system, and the post-Cold War United States as a liberal hegemony as an example of a unipolar/hegemonic system. Realist scholar John Mearsheimer explains that a “powerful state can pursue liberal hegemony only in a unipolar system in which it need not worry about threats from other great powers” (Mearsheimer 2019:13) suggesting the United States can only remain a liberal state as long as it is a hegemon. 

Arguments For/Against Realism: A theory that debates realism is liberalism, both acknowledge that anarchy exists in international relations the difference lies in realism believing the cause of war is anarchy itself and liberalism believes that war is caused by the uncertainty that comes from anarchy. Liberalism argues that international institutions can create peace between actors. The establishment of an international court system and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, passed in 1948, can be used as an example to argue against realism, as most UN member countries voted in favor of the declaration despite the fact that it went against their national interests. Including all the “great powers”. Those who argue against realism says that the Universal Human Rights Declaration shows that, within the scope of international relations, individual countries can value the promise of human rights above their own power and military interests. The reaction of the UN security council to the genocide in Rwanda can be used to argue in favor of realism. It would have gone against the interests of the great powers to intervene in Rwanda as they stood to lose soldiers and money without any gain for themselves. A realist would argue that the US and other great powers didn’t intervene in the genocide because it went against their military interests. This can also be used to argue against liberalism because the great powers, as signatories of the UN Human Rights Declarations, would have intervened if they had any true intentions of upholding Human Rights.

The image above is of billiard balls, which are a symbol of the relationship between independent nation-states and anarchic world in which they exist. States are independent and have the ability to manipulate each other but through force. Similar to the manner in which billiard balls interact with each other on the table is how Realists describe nation-state cohabitation in the anarchic world. Image Link: https://clipground.com/images/billard-clipart-1.jpg

Discussion Questions:

Is realism a useful theory to study when discussing international relations?

Does Realism provide an explanation for how World War One started?

What are the criticisms of realism and what are the key concepts used in the scholarly debate between realists and liberalists?

Is the world a dangerous place and is conflict really inevitable?

Citations:

Hall, I. (2011), The Triumph of Anti‐liberalism? Reconciling Radicalism to Realism in International Relations Theory. Political Studies Review, 9: 42-52. doi:10.1111/j.1478-9302.2010.00225.x

O Lugar da China no “Realismo Ofensivo” de John Mearsheimer e na Teoria do “Universo em Expansão” de José Luís Fiori, por Maria Rita V. Cintra

 Na teoria de Mearsheimer o objetivo central dos Estados é maximizar sua parcela do poder mundial, é ser o hegemon, a única potência global.  Não há potências status quono sistema internacional, uma vez que raramente as grandes potências estão satisfeitas com a distribuição de poder. Elas usarão a força para alterar o equilíbrio de poder a seu favor se considerarem que isso possa ser feito a um…