Introduction
This is the framework developed by Kenneth Waltz to understand the causes of war, identifying three different perspectives or lenses
Levels of analysis
He viewed human nature as fundamentally competitive
Hobbes
Neorealists view this as a primary cause of war
Anarchy
This approach assumes actors make choices based on logical self-interest and are goal-oriented
Rational choice theory
Over the past 150 years, the number of these entities has significantly increased due to, e.g., decolonization
States
This characteristic of war has generally decreased over time, as advancements in diplomacy and technology have reshaped warfare
Length of war
The powerful do what they can and the weak suffer what they must
Thucydides
Fundamental tension between states in an anarchic system due to each focusing on self-help and arming oneself for security
Security dilemma
This analytical tool helps predict potential conflict scenarios
Game theory (or decision-making game tree)
Following the Cold War, the global order shifted to this type of structure
Unipolarity (US)
The weapon John Mearsheimer suggested should be moderately proliferated to strategic allies
Nuclear weapons
Interactions where both parties can benefit, leading to a situation where the total gains exceed the total losses
Positive-sum
Differences in perceived location in the international hierarchy of states shapes their behavior and interactions on the global stage
Status discrepancy theory
___ means that an actor can control their actions but not what follows
Part of the assumption of rationality
This level of analysis in international relations focuses on the distribution of power or the anarchic nature of the international system
System level
Kenneth Boulding: a state's capabilities is directly related to proximity
Loss of strength gradient
In classical realism, power is viewed as
Describes how repeated interactions can generate cooperation
Shadow of the Future
Zelenksyy being hesitant to sign a peace deal without a firm security guarantee is an example of
Commitment problem
Represents the set of deals that both parties prefer over going to war
Bargaining range
A state could replace one tool in its policy with another to achieve similar outcomes
Foreign policy substitutability
Blainey argues that peace is more likely when one nation has this relative to its rival
Preponderance of power
The stability of the international system is largely maintained through the dominance of a single, powerful state, whose interests shape global order
Hegemonic stability theory (HST)
The US bluffing and not showing its strongest card before Desert Storm
Information asymmetry (or resolve)
Making irreversible commitments to engage in war
Tying hands (--> audience costs)