Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive neorealism is mainly built on the five core assumptions. These are the core foundations of offensive neorealism. The first assumption made is that anarchy is a clearly evident aspect in the international system, which means that there is no hierarchically superior, coercive power that can guarantee limits on the behavior of states (Mearsheimer 2001, 30). The second assumption is that all great powers possess offensive military capabilities, which they are capable of using against other states (Mearsheimer 2001, 30-31). The third assumption in the theory is that states can never be certain that other states will refrain from using those offensive military capabilities (Mearsheimer 2001, 31).
Realists are attuned to the idea that the international system is anarchic and that serious threats emerge all the time, requiring states to secure resources for survival. This involves periodic use of force; security represents the unique and main goal of foreign policy. Idealism, on the other side values morality as the basis of all relations among nations. It rejects the separation between the mind and the soul in politics. Idealists see the role of power as an undesirable factor to be eliminated.
Anarchy is the absence of central authority in the international arena (Mearsheimer, 2011: 31) and because states are sovereign, there is no actor that has authority over them. Anarchy however creates the idea that the international system is then chaotic and consists of a lot of conflict but it is however an ordering principle that allows states to govern themselves internationally (Mearsheimer, 2011: 31). Structural realism assumes that great powers possess military power that gives them the ability to attack each other or other states (Mearsheimer, 2011: 32). States can be dangerous to each other, especially those that have more military capability than others. The power of a state’s military is usually measured by the particular weapons it has at its disposal (Mearsheimer, 2011: 32).
The rules of jus ad bellum serve as principles to determine when war and the use of violence are justifiable. Only when the criteria of jus ad bellum are met can the use of violent force be permitted (Maiese; 2003). o Last resort: A state may only choose to launch a war if all peaceful settlements do not work. It needs to be made certain, war is only declared when it seems like the last concrete and sensible resolution (Maiese; 2003). o Legitimate authority: The authorities have to make the decision, make it public to the citizens and the enemy, then only may a state go to war (Orend; 2005).
If nation chooses not to be a part of either group, they have no chance in being defended against the violator because they are not a part of the council and the council as whole makes all the decisions. To conclude, the only way the League of Nations would prove to be successful if everyone were to cooperate and have the same idea of peace in mind. While the League of Nations prevents some of the problems that Roosevelt brought to congress in his speech, it does not do so in an effective way. If America were to be a member in this conference, the country would have to participate in every battle or fight, even if it did not pertain to us. The same would go for other nations.
Kenneth Waltz attempted to explain a structural realist perspective about anarchic structure. He argues that due to the absence of a international governing body, states should actively pursue conflict in order to ensure their own survival. He goes on to use economic concepts to describe his viewpoint of the anarchical structure of international politics. He says, “The market arises out of the activities of separate units--persons and firms--whose aims and efforts are directed not toward creating order but rather fulfilling their own internally defined interests by whatever means they can muster”(Waltz, 52). This supports the realist argument that states operate based on self interest and, contrasting with Wendt, do not consider their identities within the international system.
The single party rule which has absolute power is able to make prompt actions and decisions, to the party such a policy appears to be beneficial Disadvantages ⦁ Totalitarianism disregards the individuals as individuals do not have rights, they have to sacrifice themselves for the well-being of the state therefore individuals are objects of the state ⦁ Power is induced , individuals are required to have complete obedience and loyalty for the state. No opposition against the state ⦁ Totalitarianism is a form of state that emphasises the spread of war, hatred and agressiveness . for example the second World War was an outcome of
Firstly, the international system’s ordering principle is anarchy. This simply means that there is no such thing as a world government; there is no higher authority above the main units that exist in the system – the states. Furthermore, this results in an international system that is essentially a self-help system consisting of states that are autonomous, functionally undifferentiated actors each of which must always be prepared to fend for itself. The main point is that, under anarchy, each and every state by and large operates on its own without having recourse to any higher authority. The second defining principle of the structure of international politics is the distribution of capabilities across the units inhabiting the international system.
It is chaotic out there. Thus, a strong state is necessary in order to bring order. With this kind of scenario the relations among nations are defined by power. Whoever has the power, rules. Since anarchy is the structure or the situation that governs the act of the state, the use of power is not a matter of morality but rather of survival.
Therefore, the reasons for the behavior of countries are to be found in the very structure of the international system defined by three parameters. The first is the organizational principle of the system, which can either be anarchic or hierarchical. What significantly separates the international system from other systems is anarchy, the absence of a global state, from which it follows that nobody is "called to command and no one is obliged to obey". Another feature is that there is no division of labor in the international system; all countries have the task of taking care of themselves. The third characteristic is that the international structure is marked by a certain number of poles, during which a struggle for domination takes place.