`Author:` [[John Mearsheimer]] `Availability:` > [!info] > ![[HowStatesThink.jpg]] ## Summary **Main Thesis** - States are generally rational actors in foreign policy. Rationality is defined not by perfect outcomes, but by decisions based on credible theories about how the world works, and made through deliberative processes.  - Even when their actions lead to failure, that does not imply irrationality. Errors can arise from misperceptions, limited information, or bad luck.  **Core Concepts** - _Credible theories_: A theory about international relations must be empirically grounded, logically consistent, and realistic about how states actually behave.  - _Deliberation_: Policy decisions should stem from discussions, debates, and calculations among decision-makers, even if final decisions are made by a single leader.  - _Survival & security as primary motivations_: In an anarchic international system (no overarching authority), states prioritize survival and managing threats over ideology or moral concerns.  **Critiques of Other Theories** - Liberalism, constructivism, and normative theories often emphasize ideology, norms, identity, or moral values. Mearsheimer & Rosato argue these play secondary roles.  - Critics sometimes label certain state actions as “irrational” because of their moral distaste or because outcomes are bad. The authors push back: rationality isn’t about whether you succeed, but whether you choose with reasoned theories.  **Case Studies** - The book includes many examples from world history: grand strategy decisions (e.g. pre-World War alignments), crises (e.g. Cold War, major wars, strategic misjudgments). These serve to test whether states act in the rational way the authors define.  - Important modern reference: the Ukraine-Russia conflict. The authors say that what appears “irrational” (in public discourse) may actually be rational under certain assumptions and threat perceptions.  **Strengths & Weaknesses** - _Strengths_: Clarity of argument; useful empirical cases; forces reconsideration of what we dismiss as “irrational” behaviour. Useful for policymakers to better understand adversaries.  − _Weaknesses_: 1. Overreliance on “state rationality” may downplay non-state actors, domestic politics, emotional, ideological, or moral pressures. 2. Sometimes what counts as a “credible theory” can itself be disputed. 3. Outcomes are messy and sometimes hard to fit neatly into the rational actor model. **Implications** - For analysis: when assessing foreign policy, don’t throw out rationality just because policy seems bizarre in hindsight. - For prediction: assuming rationality allows analysts to model likely state behaviour, given credible theories of threat, interest, and strategic situation. - For norms: understanding that rational states may act badly (cruelly, unjustly) yet still by their lights, which affects how you judge them—but possibly enhances one’s own strategic calculations. --- ### **Related Notes & Connections** - See also: Realism in International Relations — this links to Mearsheimer’s earlier work and helps contrast _How States Think_ with _offensive realism_.  - Also relevant: [[The Great Delusion]] by Mearsheimer — for his critique of liberal ideals in foreign policy.  --- ## Key Takeaways ## Quotes - ## Notes `Concepts:` `Knowledge Base:` [[Books index]]