CHAPTER ONE
How to Think about International Relations

Study
In international relations, a story from game theory called the "prisoner's dilemma" is often used to illustrate the motivations and actions of actors. This prisoner's dilemma presupposes that captives, when faced with the option of cooperating with or squealing on one another, will always choose the latter. Realists use this example to illustrate what they see as basic truths: The international system is anarchic, forcing states to rely on self-help and the balance of power for protection. Since states exist in a security dilemma, they, like the prisoners, cannot trust one another enough to "cooperate." Liberals, in contrast, believe that the world is not purely anarchical. If the prisoners are able to build a relationship in jail, for example, they might be willing to trust each other. They believe that a number of factors, such as technological change, trade, and diplomacy, are able to substantially alter the nature of the prisoner's dilemma, thus making cooperation the most reasonable alternative. The identity perspective, meanwhile, is interested in the ideas that define the identities of the prisoners. If, let us say, both prisoners are members of the same gang, then perhaps they would be compelled to cooperate; likewise, states with shared identities might have an incentive to act cooperatively in international affairs. The reverse also holds: If the prisoners or states have greatly diverging identities, the chances for cooperation are slim.

Study Questions

1. How does the prisoner's dilemma correspond to international affairs?
   



2. What is meant by "shadow of the future"? How do liberals argue it can be extended?
   



3. What is polarity? Why is it so important to realists?