Introduction to International Relations: Theories of Realism From Morganthau to Waltz

[Music] [Music] [Music] moving forward I want to now look at the next sub theory neoclassical there's not much it's not much to go on deal classical realism except for what I'm about to really emphasize so you can extract a lot of the stuff from the textbook the first and probably most important thing is that the philosophies of classical realism that we talk baki belli who soudanese thomas hobbes are now kind of brought into the 20th century okay the 20th century which the witnessed two world wars weapons of mass destruction and warfare to a degree that people never thought imaginable and what does that do for us it means that neoclassical realism is far more pessimistic than classical realism initially observed it is also based on a response to the next theory that we'll be looking at liberalism liberalism for the sake of just moving the argument forward is far more optimistic liberalism is come up guys let's give peace a chance come on guys we can do better than that and the old classical realism is like yeah you want to know what that happened Hitler that's what happens okay you give peace a chance reality is dictated by what most insane person in the room and guess who was that insane mofo Hitler okay pizza of our time Chamberlain what the do you mean peace in our time okay check he wasn't even invited to the conference that dissolved its own sovereignty - seriously who are you trying to get hey and if you don't believe me on that organs now basically voice the concerns of us occurred well before Kissinger came in I guess if it was also good video classical realism or without was reading the progenitor of Kissinger both of them were pessimistic wait until that the wait until you get to Pho wait until you recall right after the midterm cars work on the 20-year crisis between one one and one more so is basically the idea that collective security things under Wilsonian liberalism okay you can have all the best intentions out there that's all fine and good if there still are illiterate states in the arena that necessitates you two people literate as but we would like to change but a world is run by idiots so mean classical realism is kind of like a aha moment to some of the ideas of liberalism which by the way I'm not debunking liberalism but when we get to it lots of important things that come out of the school of liberalism the neoclassical realism is kind of saying yeah you know what give me take a seat okay and that's largely because Liberty and personal freedoms that liberalism school or death logs can only come up with security and power I think I need to mentioned this last time to this worth repeating again Jack Nicholson's very famous new and the true speech in if you would been Thanks you want the freedom to say what you want to say you want the rights to do what you feel that you shouldn't be entitled to do you can't do that when you have no army you can't do that when you don't have your gated community to meet that wall and you need that army and you need those people on that war to basically be the pessimistic people to defend your sorry ass so you totally buying them hell yeah okay okay oh okay so if you don't take care of yourself those gonna do it for you that's the bottom line if you don't take care of yourself no one just like to do it for you one of the big reasons behind them again we're gonna talk about this in greater detail is there was an attempt in the early 20th century had created the first attempt the first honest-to-god effort at collective security it's an organization that go longer exists we know it and permit now this what is the name of that organization believe nations have all the best intentions out there and look leave nations does does did successes before it resulted in Chamberlain's peace in our time the point is is that that type of collective security work if and only if those working for it are determines minute then you switch gears and go from a stop I know what I'm tired of the world I'm just going to defend myself a minute that you start thinking about yourself again is the minute we default to really leave default to this us alliances are matters for convenience no different from before foreign policy may be evil but they are necessary evils so laureen's now can look at someone like Neville Chamberlain and say okay now one level I can see what nobody likes you what was Chamberlain's rationale what was Chamberlain's rationale for throwing the Czechoslovakia under the bus for it was right basically to avoid a larger war and you know again and to justify the means peace in our time effective late in 1938 was their war in 1938 thank you 30 1939 when they said there was no war in Europe 1938 did Chamberlain achieve his goal yes at the cost of what a country okay but the important thing is that British Empire was secure these refused and if you're thinking about all my god what movie well then you're gonna love gage color wait until you get to however LD have another newcomer hey Riley what a drag Great Britain into a conflict with Germany over sex a lot however was okay takes yeah whatever you know take it and go a small price to pay to avoid a larger set speaking of art in this case car is more of a Marxist then a realist when some people can say if you are Marxist and I are theory you're just a really really really pessimistic realist you're really upset Hey but the imposition of one state ideology on another is both dangerous and flaw party why is that because a good number of countries put their trust in the League of Nations they put their trust in the promise and guaranteed by other countries that their sovereignty could be defended and that works in and holding if that promise remains the minute that these countries decide that you're not worth it guess what your security is compromised so the impossible realism basically says don't buy into this stuff you will be used as collateral for a large event hence the cynicism that more though and car tech way towards the League of Nations and later on Kissinger and way towards the United Nations what's also interesting about neoclassical realism is that their greatest criticism comes not the Western countries themselves neoclassical realism is very very fertile about Western foreign policy of democratic spread that if you're going to intervene on behalf of some human rights being violated in one country well if you don't want to be seen as hypocritical you die gone to all your gonna do what do you do do you have the money for that you have the resources for that oh you don't well then that's the reason why we stay at home okay oh look at weight being made by Barack somebody should do something about this Hey Oh looking for Ukraine being invaded by Russia all about that oh look at the poor people in Bosnia being subjected to all those crimes against humanity somebody do so Oh what kind is that Rwanda that well black ball cap like if you play that car just go you hypocrite okay and you're only going to get scored for the rest of the world saying still a national system is the national policies of the hegemonic Staters neoclassical realism acknowledges that our and morality do have into play and that's a really bad thing because morality in this case is one sometimes linked off this justice here's where I want me to really think of those morality from the power of the state is linked up to Ethel Ducks now the where the car is saying is that any country that has the public edge whether its Great Britain the first half of the twentieth century with the United States in the second half of the 20th century and foremost the 21st century oftentimes one has the final say on international law and international morality was good for the hegemonic country is good for the rest of the world therefore in a country another state has its sovereignty violated if that state slaves in certain interests or the geostrategic houses of a larger state they may be blessed with the benefit of intervention but if they are peripheral and have little to no value for the major countries well then that's just life that's just like I you're shaking your head but again that's what we call it realism in this case neoclassical realists are the most depressing out of all hey so we better come up with something a little bit more optimistic and that's where cameras comes in in the remaining time that we have the neat thing about temples is that almost all of his books are standard texts within our theory his dissertation man the state and war is Greek and dissertation is one of the most important Greeks in dispute over shadow of only mind one of his major works theory of international politics why is wall so important in this case because Walt's more than anyone else before provided the far more scientific explanation for the international political system and he does so first in his dissertation man the state and Wars which then eat almost perfects in theory of international politics what is it in his dissertation it breaks the international system down into what Hubert Lawrence has three levels of analysis the systemic level the state level and the individual in so many worlds the first level of analysis the systemic level that's the international community he does not deter from anything that we've been talking about over the past power and enologist trying to see the states the international system is anarchic states operate under imperfect information and alliances can be made broken and remade again our episode nothing doing but think about it like this is the logical flow of ideas you draw a lot from occupy whether he knows it or not and he noticed you notices that the state therefore makes the actions that it does based on rational decisions if the state knows for more importanly state leadership knows that it is operating under no matter how great their surveillance network happens today they still have to err on the side of caution not remember your folks this is reality minute can make a long decision you cannot restore to a previous game and your playing and I remain focused you screw up who wants to be at the helm knowing that they were the ones that reduced the security of their own country everything must be done truly and we of course have such mistakes make decisions that they do in the systemic level not because they're rare not because they're pessimistic not because they're because they're puts into one of the Paramount decisions that is leadership the presidents prime ministers Chancellor's whether they happen to be talking about whoever wins the election next year regardless of what he or she says on the campaign trail is largely going to be from a wolf believes heroics on the international stage on the international stage guess what when you become the head of state of the United States you automatically have a number of things you have to do number one you have to maintain close ties with certain countries around the world Israel Saudi Arabia Great Britain two names for now most people are not going to be all that upset maintaining a good relationship with Great Britain Israel with some loose Saudi Arabia there's nothing good to say but the one thing that you have to do keep that government in power whether you like it or not okay you have commitments that the state previously made so what waltz is basic say is that the anarchic system of the international arena compels States and more so their leaders to act in certain ways what Waltz is saying is that this is not just simply a vicious cycle of predatory nature it's unfortunately the best system that we have and as such leaders need to make the rational decisions to move cautiously and defensively therefore in actions of certain states compel leaders to act in certain webs does Obama really not care about the refugee crisis in Syria if he had infinite resources at his disposal would we not be intervening or better yet if there never was an Iraq conflict in 2003 would we be as cash-strapped military wise and resource wise as we are today going up against Iran or better yet with Iran even be as belligerent as it is today if it weren't for the removal of Saddam Hussein the point that Waltz is making is that decisions that state leaders make are not based house-elf interests but are based out of self-preservation of the state one's responsibility for the states and then that case to finish up when we look at the world the world is not only divided by three levels of analysis international national and individual but by the different relationship with power at any given time a bipolar system a multipolar system and a unipolar system just quickly what is applying older system okay the international system is dominated by the two hegemonic powers that sort of balance each other apps right the United States so meteor prior to that you had maybe it Elizabethan England and further on space or whatever happened to me or back in the day at Romans Persia okay two major powers well there's two powers that are constantly doing it out with each other if you are in charge of one of those two hours your decisions are heavily influenced by that power relationship a multipolar system is what in that case it was like late eighteen hundreds early nineteen hundreds with like Austria Hungary Russia so how many powers roughly like freedom oh yeah so anywhere between minus 3 or 5 in this case Lions can main growth will be made whenever is everybody sort of jockeying for power again if you are a leader of any of those major powers the decisions that you make to uphold Alliance systems and to a whole commitments to lesser powers necessitate and direct one's activity rarely happens but it does one country runs the show he was this our Ottoman Empire things have to deform so you're doing basically from 1992 until we're a Michelle America's number one thanks and you there it's a dangerous situation to take but if you're Bill Clinton or any of the bushes the decisions that you make to maintain that position on power is that the international system is not as an architect as we would like to think it is somewhat structure and that structure necessitates and enforces shapes the decisions and the decisions that we make and the opinions that these theories were made one of the power about theories of contemporary I offer so much subject that neoliberalism and various strains of constructivism begin their arguments within waltzes level of analysis this is the closest that we actually have towards having the same perfect information but the most structured understanding of how the international system works today the nature of the international system anarchic as it is force the states to make the decisions that they do the decisions that states made over time necessarily influence future decisions that new individual leaders will make you can say whatever you want when you're running for office when you win that block just with much more responsibility there's a backseat driver and then there's the one with the steering wheel the backseat driver knows all the shortcuts knows every rule knows every trick of the trade when you're actually driving you have to take a compass of you you would like to do I would love to run that red light I would love to come to the gas station I would love to think that speed limits are really to serve justice for the most part they kind of are but it's you know what you break those rules and you're a risk the stretch if you hear is old I'll give you with this before we leave if you know that you are driving into town where the cops constantly take it dude are you more or less likely to follow the speed limit more do you want to follow the speed limit not really but are you going to yes so what gives us a lot worth in about [Music] you

Channel: Michael Rossi Poli Sci

Views: 9,439

Rating: 4.9775281 out of 5

Keywords: michael rossi, rutgers university, political science, international relations, global studies, realism, college lectures, academia, morgenthau, carr, waltz, kissinger, neorealism, international politics, international studies

Id: 0QhkIB_PVWQ

Length: 23min 13sec (1393 seconds)

Published: Mon Sep 24 2018