Neorealism in Waltz’s perspective to explore the international system in world politics is an international system is composed of a set of a structure with interacting units. A structure is the most important pattern to concern about international system and the units constituting the system. Waltz the first priority thinking of state is each state should survive and after that will try to improve their effect in the international system. Today we all know and we are witnessing nowadays U.S. is in the role of great power after cold war and China the role of rising power. The relationship between two big countries is the main focus in current debate is if China can step into be the great power what and how U.S. will react it. In this essay …show more content…
is more closing and China will be more capable power to take the role. And U.S. can not constrained power any longer especially after Iraq war, they lost a lot of money and more. From Waltzian neorealist perspectives here is the main problems between China- U.S. relation. First, the balance of power by arguing that true security can only be found atop the international system and that states will not be satisfied until they reach that point. From Waltz, his opinion is the world should be divide to bipolar so, this polar can decrease possibility of war because when two countries hold the great power and can avoid and concerned more about the effect if they make a war. But the main question is How much power is enough to maintain the bipolar? — He answered with defensive realism that state should not seek to be hegemon which is relative with peaceful architecture. Survival of the state is the point of purpose not to seek hegemony.But for China and U.S., the problem is nowadays both are trying to build many cooperations with many countries. For example,in Asia region, China and U.S. try to establish organizations such as TPP which U.S. is the main actor in this organization and China try to do bilateral relations especially with economic cooperations. The first problem is how China- U.S. weigh the balance of power between each other. China can rise peacefully or not in Waltzian indicate problem—both of China and U.S.’s intentions obvious reveal many dimension to the world of politics and this caused make many fear of them as the threats. In other hand, President Xi just visited U.S. to cool down the hot political situations. This can infer bipolar as Waltz said but in the ends no one knows and can not predicts what will
...ities as a responsible state holder. One of the consequences of the international community questioning China’s military capabilities is that the international community could potentially induce an unproductive arms race with China. If China is to participate in the race, China will have a weakened competitive position in the races of economic and intellectual strength. Secondly, China will lose the ability to use its army as a form of soft power therefore making it harder to believe that China can be a responsible state holder since it will seem like propaganda. In terms of China, the world is in a very exciting position with the promotion of the China’s model an alternative governing system is being offered. However, we need to remain vigilant and aware for just as quickly as China rose, it has the potential to fall as well if it doesn’t play it’s cards right.
On the other hand, hard-core realists predict that since China’s economy is on the rise, and United States economy is declining, it may create conflict. During World War I, a war occurred between England, a declining dominant hegemony, and Germany, a dissatisfied challenger on the rise (Wong, The Rise of Great Powers, Nov.18). However, war will not spark between China and...
What neorealism believes is fear and distrust originated from the anarchy of international system, resulting in the pursuit of power for survival. As stated by Mearsheimer (2010), power is the currency of international politics. The statement addressed a simple but important question: “why do states want power?” While “human nature” is always claimed by the classical realism, the neorealists, or the structural realists such as Mearsheimer specified the structure or architecture of the international system which forces states to pursue power. All states desire sufficient power to protect th...
The realism that will be the focus of this paper is that of Kenneth Waltz. Kenneth Waltz presents his theory of realism, within an international system, by offering his central myth that, “Anarchy is the permissive cause of war”. Kenneth Waltz’s central myth helps answer the question as to why war happens in the first place. During the cold war, there was a heightened sense of insecurity between Russia and the United States due to presence of nuclear weapons. The Movie Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb used cold war tension between the two countries to tell the story of a general who went crazy and decided to unleash his fleet of nuclear bombers onto Russian military bases.
In today's world, the international system is unipolar with the United States reigning supreme. However, in the coming years, it is predicted that the system will switch to a bipolar system with the United States and China having comparatively similar power. The United States and China, two powerful and influential countries on the international level who differ greatly from one another. China, a country which has customs and traditions deeply embedded into every corner of its systems and America, which is a new country with customs and traditions ranging greatly from family to family. The question arises, can these two powerhouses coexist in a bipolar system where both countries are relatively equal superpowers? Yes the United States and China can coexist peacefully in a bipolar system due to the three points of the Kantian Tripod: reciprocity, trade, and democracy.
For the purpose of this essay, I will assess the strengths and weaknesses of Neo-Classical Realism; focusing on the theory’s core assumptions about the International System and how it interacts with units. I will discuss the theory in relation to the international politics of the region, with particular reference to the build up to the Iran-Iraq war.
Both of these are international relations theories. International relations theories aid the individual in better understanding why states behave the way in which they do and “several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize” (Slaughter 1). That being said, to understand offensive neorealism, one must firstly be able to know the basis of realism in itself, as well as differentiate neorealism from neoclassical realism. Stephen G. Brooks argues in his article “Dueling Realisms” that both “neorealism and postclassical realism do share important similarities: both have a systemic focus; both are state-centric; both view international politics as inherently competitive; both emphasize material factors, rather than nonmaterial factors, such as ideas and institutions; and both assume states are egoistic actors that pursue self-help” (Brooks 446). Structural realism is another term for neorealism, and both will be used interchangeably in the following case study. Aside from these shared values that both reflect, the two forms of realism both present very different or conflicting views on state behaviour. For one, neorealists believe “the international system is defined by anarchy—the absence of a central authority” (Slaughter 2) and that states take action based on the possibility of conflict, always looking at a worst-case scenario, whereas postclassical realists believe that states make decisions and take actions based on the probability of an attack or act of aggression from other states (Brooks 446). To expand on neorealism’s possibility outlook, Kenneth Waltz argues, “in the absence of a supreme authority [due to anarchy], there is then constant possibility that conflicts will be settled by force” (Brooks 447). Neorealists look at the possibility of conflict due to the potential cost of war, due to
"Should international relations theory be held accountable for explaining fundamental changes in the hierarchy of international politics and the emergence of new actors?" It seems absurd to answer that international relations theory should not be in the business of explaining fundamental changes in international politics. However, this response paper will argue on both edges of the question. First, it actually does make sense to attempt to hold as many things as possible constant, or as "givens" in attempting to craft explanations for events in international politics. Jumping to an explanation that involves a fundamental shift in the structure of the international system or nature of the actors, should be a last resort, rather than the first. This is a major component of Waltz's neorealism. On the other hand, this paper will demonstrate that although it is desirable to hold some variables constant in attempts to explain great variation with few premises, one must take a broad view (to either expand scope, or break the previous "givens," of neorealism) to create better explanations. Several alternative schools of thought are in fact pursuing this goal, to include rational choice, liberalism, and regime theory. These approaches attempt to craft explanations of change, while holding different elements constant. Finally, a brief word on constructivism must be considered.
To understand the international relations of contemporary society and how and why historically states has acted in such a way in regarding international relations, the scholars developed numerous theories. Among these numerous theories, the two theories that are considered as mainstream are liberalism and realism because the most actors in stage of international relations are favouring either theories as a framework and these theories explains why the most actors are taking such actions regarding foreign politics. The realism was theorized in earlier writings by numerous historical figures, however it didn't become main approach to understand international relations until it replaced idealist approach following the Great Debate and the outbreak of Second World War. Not all realists agrees on the issues and ways to interpret international relations and realism is divided into several types. As realism became the dominant theory, idealistic approach to understand international relations quickly sparked out with failure of the League of Nation, however idealism helped draw another theory to understand international relations. The liberalism is the historical alternative to the realism and like realism, liberalism has numerous branches of thoughts such as neo-liberalism and institutional liberalism. This essay will compare and contrast the two major international relations theories known as realism and liberalism and its branches of thoughts and argue in favour for one of the two theories.
The prominent scholar of Political Science, Kenneth N. Waltz, founder of neorealism, has proposed controversial realist theories in his work. Publications such as "Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis", "Theory of International Politics” and “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate,” demonstrate how Waltz's approach was motivated by the American military power. In acquaintance of this fact, the purpose of this paper is to critically analyze Waltz theoretical argument from the journal "Structural Realism after the Cold War". Firstly, this paper will indicate the author's thesis and the arguments supporting it. Secondly, limitations found in theoretical arguments will be illustrated and thirdly, synergies between the author's thesis and this analysis will be exposed.
The traditional view of world politics was Realism, this theory concentrated on security as the main factor in world politics, this meant political integration between states was believed to be slight and only viable as long as it served the national interest of the state. Transnational actors were believed to not exist or not have any political importance. The balance of power was decided militarily and needed to remain stable (Keohane & Nye, 2011: 20). With the changes the 1970’s brought and with transnationalism becoming ever more prevalent and obvious many believed realism no longer described the world.
To conclude, there are four main components of the realist approach to international relations, they are: state which includes egoism as the states are composed by the selfish people, self-help which includes balance of power as power is used to enhance the survival rate, survival which includes hegemony in order to maintain its position and anarchical system which related to lust for power and led to security dilemma.
Barely three decades later the world has developed so rapidly that theorists such as Kenneth Waltz went on to address a new model of modern or “structural" realism in his work Theory in International Politics. Waltz sees the chief characteristics of international relations through his composition approach which emphasizes the structure of the international relations system as the force of power on the state vis-à-vis vice versa. Waltz takes a closer look at the international relations arena from an outside in approach whereas traditional or classical realists took a more inside out analysis. The dangers of both proves that only having one eye open means they were missing out on a multitude of perils and assistance from each style of thoughts. This paper will attempt to address such shortcomings, or advantages as may be to post structural realism.
With the end of the Cold War emerged two superpowers: The United States and the Soviet Union. The international system then was considered bipolar, a system where power is distributed in which two states have the majority of military, economic, and cultural influence both internationally and regionally. In this case, spheres of influence developed, meaning Western and democratic states fell under the influence of U.S. while most communist states were under the influence of the Soviet Union. Today, the international system is no longer bipolar, since only one superpower can exist, and indisputably that nation is the United States. However China is encroaching on this title with their rapid growth educationally, economically, and militaristically.
During the era of the Cold War, the global power structure was “characterized by strategic bipolarity” (Sorensen 2004: 124). After the disintegration of Soviet Union, the global power structure turned into a unipolar world under the control of the United States. With the development of Germany and Japan, scholars, analysts and observers have predicted a decline in American power and a return to a multi-polar world. Recent years, the BRICs has been considered as a new power in global issue. its rapid and successful development, China has been exposed under the spotlight all the time. The world economic crisis happened in 2007 not only damaged the economy of America but also the international image. We have seen the vulnerability of American economy and the failing role of taking responsibility for the economic crisis. Simultaneously, as a huge economy, China is the only country recovers in the minimum duration. The recovery of China also contributes to the spring back of regional and global economy. After the global economic crisis, China has reduced the distance with America in economy, most importantly; China has built a “powerful” image in the world. Thus this image brings one standpoint that China is becoming another super power in the world; America cannot dictate the whole world any more. Based on this view, the global power structure is emerging “a G2 structure: China and US” (Stelzer 2009). This paper is aiming to analyze this G2 assumption. Is it the real global power structure in the world now? How does the crisis affect the state? Does the world economic crisis only bring power to China? Where will be the next stop of the power structure?