Neorealism (international relations)
International relations theory |
---|
Politics portal |
Neorealism or structural realism is a theory of international relations that emphasizes the role of power politics in international relations, sees competition and conflict as enduring features and sees limited potential for cooperation.[1] The anarchic state of the international system means that states cannot be certain of other states' intentions and their security, thus prompting them to engage in power politics.
It was first outlined by
Neorealism emerged from the North American discipline of
Origins
Neorealism is an ideological departure from
Theory
Structural realism holds that the nature of the international structure is defined by its ordering principle (anarchy), units of the system (states), and by the distribution of capabilities (measured by the number of
States are assumed at a minimum to want to ensure their own survival as this is a prerequisite to pursue other goals.
States are deemed similar in terms of needs but not in capabilities for achieving them. The positional placement of states in terms of abilities determines the distribution of capabilities. The structural distribution of capabilities then limits
Neorealism sees states as "black boxes," as the structure of the international system is emphasized rather than the units and their unique characteristics within it as being causal.[11]
Neorealists contend that there are essentially three possible systems according to changes in the distribution of capabilities, defined by the number of great powers within the international system. A
Neorealists argue that processes of emulation and competition lead states to behave in the aforementioned ways. Emulation leads states to adopt the behaviors of successful states (for example, those victorious in war), whereas competition leads states to vigilantly ensure their security and survival through the best means possible.[15][16] Due to the anarchic nature of the international system and the inability of states to rely on other states or organizations, states have to engage in "self-help."[7][17]
For neorealists, social norms are considered largely irrelevant.[18][19] This is in contrast to some classical realists which did see norms as potentially important.[20] Neorealists are also skeptical of the ability of international organizations to act independently in the international system and facilitate cooperation between states.[7][19]
Defensive realism
Structural realism has become divided into two branches, defensive and offensive realism, following the publication of Mearsheimer's The Tragedy of Great Power Politics in 2001. Waltz's original formulation of neorealism is now sometimes called defensive realism, while Mearsheimer's modification of the theory is referred to as offensive realism. Both branches agree that the structure of the system is what causes states to compete, but defensive realism posits that most states concentrate on maintaining their security (i.e. states are security maximizers), while offensive realism claims that all states seek to gain as much power as possible (i.e. states are power maximizers).[17] A foundational study in the area of defensive realism is Robert Jervis' classic 1978 article on the "security dilemma." It examines how uncertainty and the offense-defense balance may heighten or soften the security dilemma.[21] Building on Jervis, Stephen Van Evera explores the causes of war from a defensive realist perspective.[22]
Offensive realism
Offensive realism, developed by Mearsheimer differs in the amount of power that states desire. Mearsheimer proposes that states maximize relative power ultimately aiming for regional hegemony.[17]
In addition to Mearsheimer, a number of other scholars have sought to explain why states expand when opportunities to do so arise. For instance,
Scholarly debate
Within realist thought
While neorealists agree that the structure of the international relations is the primary impetus in seeking security, there is disagreement among neorealist scholars as to whether states merely aim to survive or whether states want to maximize their relative power.[26][17] The former represents the ideas of Kenneth Waltz, while the latter represents the ideas of John Mearsheimer and offensive realism. Other debates include the extent to which states balance against power (in Waltz's original neorealism and classic realism), versus the extent to which states balance against threats (as introduced in Stephen Walt's 'The Origins of Alliances' (1987)), or balance against competing interests (as introduced in Randall Schweller's 'Deadly Imbalances' (1998)).
With other schools of thought
Neorealists conclude that because war is an effect of the anarchic structure of the
Advocates of democratic peace theory see the spreading of democracy as helping to mitigate the effects of anarchy.[28] With enough democracies in the world, Bruce Russett thinks that it "may be possible in part to supersede the 'realist' principles (anarchy, the security dilemma of states) that have dominated practice ... since at least the seventeenth century."[29] John Mueller believes that it is not the spreading of democracy but rather other conditions (e.g., power) that bring about democracy and peace.[30] In consenting with Mueller's argument, Kenneth Waltz notes that "some of the major democracies—Britain in the nineteenth century and the United States in the twentieth century—have been among the most powerful states of their eras."[30]
One of the most notable schools contending with neorealist thought, aside from neoliberalism, is the constructivist school, which is often seen to disagree with the neorealist focus on power and instead emphasises a focus on ideas and identity as an explanatory point for international relations trends. Recently, however, a school of thought called the English School merges neo-realist tradition with the constructivist technique of analyzing social norms to provide an increasing scope of analysis for international relations.
Criticism
Neorealism has been criticized from various directions. Other major paradigms of international relations scholarship, such as liberal and constructivist approaches have criticized neorealist scholarship in terms of theory and empirics. Within realism, classical realists[31] and neoclassical realists[32] have also challenged some aspects of neorealism.
Among the issues that neorealism has been criticized over is the neglect of domestic politics,[33][34] race,[35][36] gains from trade,[37] the pacifying effects of institutions,[38] and the relevance of regime type for foreign policy behavior.[39]
David Strang argues that neorealist predictions fail to account for transformations in sovereignty over time and across regions. These transformations in sovereignty have had implications for cooperation and competition, as polities that were recognized as sovereign have seen considerably greater stability.[40]
In response to criticisms that neorealism lacks relevance for contemporary international policy and does a poor job explaining the foreign policy behavior of major powers, Charles Glaser wrote in 2003, "this is neither surprising nor a serious problem, because scholars who use a realist lens to understand international politics can, and have, without inconsistency or contradiction also employed other theories to understand issues that fall outside realism's central focus."[41]
Notable neorealists
- Robert J. Art
- Richard K. Betts
- Robert Gilpin
- Robert W. Tucker
- Joseph Grieco
- Robert Jervis
- Christopher Layne
- Jack Snyder
- John Mearsheimer
- Stephen Walt
- Kenneth Waltz
- Stephen Van Evera
- Barry Posen
- Charles L. Glaser
- Marc Trachtenberg
See also
- Foreign interventionism
- International relations theory
- Mercantilism
- Neofunctionalism
- Neoliberalism
- Realpolitik
Notes
- S2CID 57572295.
- ^ According to Sagan 2004, p. 91 n.4, Waltz's book remains "the seminal text of neorealism".
- ^ Powell 1994, p. 313.
- ^ "Security Under Anarchy: Defensive Realism Reconsidered". ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu. Retrieved 2023-07-31.
- ^ Morgenthau, Hans J. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 5th Edition, Revised. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978, pp. 4–15)
- ^ The Tragedy of Great Power Politics
- ^ a b c d Waltz, Kenneth (2003). "The Anarchic Structure of World Politics". International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues, 6th Edition.
- ^ ISBN 978-0393020250.
Three features of the international system combine to cause states to fear one another: 1) The absence of a central authority that sits above states and can protect them from each other (anarchy), 2) the fact that states always have some offensive military capability, and 3) the fact that states can never be certain about other states' intentions. Given this fear - which can never be wholly eliminated - states recognize that the more powerful they are relative to their rivals, the better their chances of survival.
- S2CID 233588498.
- ^ Waltz 2000
- S2CID 143895142.
- ^ Waltz 1979, pp. 132–3.
- ^ Waltz 1979, p. 133.
- ^ Humphreys 2012.
- ^ Waltz 1979.
- S2CID 154935234.
- ^ a b c d Mearsheimer 2001.
- ISBN 978-0-19-538008-8.
- ^ S2CID 153472054.
- ISBN 978-0-06-131122-2.
- ^ Jervis, Robert (1978). "Cooperation under the Security Dilemma." World Politics 30 (2): 167–214.
- ^ Van Evera, Stephen (1999). Causes of War: Power and the Roots of Conflict. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
- ^ Schweller, Randall L. (1994). "Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In." International Security 19 (1): 72–107.
- ^ Labs, Eric J. (1997). "Beyond Victory: Offensive Realism and the Expansion of War Aims." Security Studies 6 (4): 1–49.
- ^ Zakaria, Fareed (1998). From Wealth to Power: The Unusual Origins of America’s World Role. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- ^ Mearsheimer 1995, p. 11 n.27, 16 n.27.
- ^ Waltz 2001, pp. 5–41.
- ^ Waltz 2000, p. 4 .
- ^ Russett 1993, p. 24.
- ^ a b Waltz 2000, p. 9 .
- S2CID 146756741.
- S2CID 154361851.
- ISBN 978-0-691-21449-8.
- S2CID 145793567.
- S2CID 244446582.
- ISBN 978-1-5017-4875-2.
- S2CID 7058364.
- ISBN 978-1-4008-2026-9.
- S2CID 144053631.
- S2CID 154734299.
- S2CID 36248283.
References
- Humphreys, Adam R. C. (2012). "Another Waltz? Methodological Rhetoric and Practice in Theory of International Politics". S2CID 144275279.
- S2CID 153472054.
- —— (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York, NY: Norton. ISBN 0-393-02025-8.
- Powell, Robert (1994). "Anarchy in International Relations Theory: The Neorealist-Neoliberal Debate". S2CID 45773252.
- ISBN 0-691-03346-3.
- ISBN 978-0-521-83671-5. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2007-06-11. Retrieved 2013-04-05.
- ISBN 0-201-08349-3.
- —— (2001). "Structural Realism after the Cold War" (PDF). S2CID 57560180. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2013-09-25. Retrieved 17 April 2013.
- Barkin, Samuel (7 September 2010). Realist Constructivism. Cambridge University Press.
Further reading
Books
- Waltz, Kenneth N. (1959). Man, The State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis ISBN 978-0231125376.
- Walt, Stephen (1990). The Origins of Alliances ISBN 978-0801494185
- Van Evera, Stephen. (2001). Causes of War ISBN 978-0801482953
- Waltz, Kenneth N. (2008). Realism and International Politics ISBN 978-0415954785
- Art, Robert J. (2008). America's Grand Strategy and World Politics ISBN 978-0415952347
- Glaser, Charles L. (2010). Rational Theory of International Politics: The Logic of Competition and Cooperation ISBN 978-0691143729
Articles
- Jervis, Robert (1978). Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma (World Politics, Vol. 30, No.2, 1978)
- Art, Robert J. (1998). Geopolitics Updated: The Strategy of Selective Engagement (International Security, Vol. 23, No. 3, 1998–99)
- Farber, Henry S.; Gowa, Jeanne (1995). Polities and Peace (International Security, Vol. 20, No. 2, 1995)
- Gilpin, Robert (1988). The Theory of Hegemonic War (The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 18, No. 4, 1988)
- Posen, Barry (2003). Command of the Commons: The Military Foundations of U.S. Hegemony (International Security, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2003)
External links
- Theory Talks Interview with Kenneth Waltz, founder of neorealism (May 2011)
- Theory Talks Interview with neorealist Robert Jervis (July 2008)
- "Neorealism in International Relations – Kenneth Waltz". POPULAR SOCIAL SCIENCE. 2013-11-06. Archived from the original on 2018-10-12. Retrieved 2018-07-13.