Neorealism (International Relations)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The neo-realism is an influential political science theory of international relations . According to this theory, international relations are characterized by the absolute dominance of the states' security interests, their instinct for self-preservation and their refusal to cooperate. Since there is no higher authority, such as a world government that sets rules and norms that apply to all states, there is constant uncertainty about the intentions of the neighbors, which is why states must always be prepared for the worst possible conflict (war).

With these assumptions, neorealism is in the tradition of classical realism . In this, however, wars are justified anthropologically with human nature; the focus is on the human and state striving for power . The central motif in the neorealist interpretation, however, is survival .

Another difference to classical realism is that neorealism sees itself as a systemic theory of international politics, while the previous theory summed up and evaluated the foreign policy of states. This method excludes neorealism ( reductionism prohibition ). Conversely, in his analyzes he draws conclusions from the structure of the international system to the behavior of states and is therefore also referred to as structural realism .

The main exponent of neorealism is Kenneth Waltz , who laid the foundations with his book Theory of International Politics in 1979 .

Historical background

The Classical Realism was strong from the experience of the interwar period and the Second World War was coined. The neo-realism , however, is narrow in its original context with the East-West conflict connected. When a rapprochement between the Soviet Union and the USA became apparent in the 1970s , traditional realism increasingly lost its explanatory power. Other theories, such as the interdependence theory approach or the world system theory, could better analyze the stronger cooperation in international relations. With the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, however , the brief phase of détente ended. In addition, the pacifying influence of the US on international relations with the Iranian Revolution was significantly weakened. With the oil price crisis , the economic supremacy of the western leading power began to falter. It was precisely at this time of the "relative decline of the USA in the world economy that Kenneth Waltz ' Theory of international politics was published ."

The theory established with this book was first referred to as neorealism by Richard Ashley in 1984 .

Neorealism according to Waltz

Kenneth Waltz

According to Kenneth Waltz, neorealism has two central questions: Why do states tend to behave similarly to the outside world despite different constitutional systems and different ideologies? And: Why are there more wars in certain phases of history and why are other phases peaceful despite high tensions?

Waltz answers these questions based on a few basic assumptions:

  • The international system consists of two elements, the actors or units of the system ( units ), the states, and the separate structure of the system ( structure ). Both elements must be examined separately from one another. “Even if the structure requires the actors, it is no longer subject to their control. The structure of the international system exerts an independent, functional influence and causes different actors to behave similarly in terms of foreign policy. "
  • The international system is organized anarchically and not hierarchically, which means that there is no superordinate regulatory and supervisory authority (for example in the sense of a world government).
  • States are unified, uniform, homogeneous and rational actors whose “inner workings” are of no importance for neorealist theory.
  • Survival comes first in the order of preference of all states . This is expressed in the pursuit of maintaining state and geographic integrity.
  • In their foreign policy actions, states orient themselves towards the criterion of means-ends-rationality. There is always uncertainty about the intentions of other states, aggressiveness and the urge to expand are always threatening possibilities.
  • For neorealist analysis, the only difference between states is their respective power potential. Waltz interprets this as a property of the structure of the international system. Three concrete power relationships are conceivable:
    • A unipolar international system (there is a particularly powerful state, the hegemon ).
    • A bipolar international system (there are two particularly powerful states, as during the East-West conflict).
    • A multipolar international system (there are more than two particularly powerful states).

Because of the lack of a superordinate authority, all states resort to self-help strategies , which basically consist of correcting power imbalances ( balancing ). This happens either through their own armament or through the formation of alliances. From the point of view of neorealism, such alliance formation is the only variant of voluntary cooperation on an international level. In addition, no special role is assigned to supranational institutions. According to the neo-realistic view, only one form of international cooperation that goes beyond the formation of alliances is conceivable: the hegmonially indicated cooperation . In order to increase the common welfare, the hegemon forces other states to cooperate and assumes the majority of the common costs as well as military protection.

According to neo-realistic assumption, bipolar systems with two particularly powerful states are least prone to wars at the international level, because the war-inhibiting balance of power is the most likely to be established. The Cold War is an empirical example . In multipolar systems, on the other hand, it is much more problematic because every state has to feel threatened by a large number of other states. In a unipolar system, the hegemon represents a threat to all other states, whereupon counter-alliances are forged in the sense of a balance of power. This, in turn, is not in the interests of the hegemon, which increases the likelihood of armed conflicts.

Offensive neorealism according to Mearsheimer

John J. Mearsheimer

John J. Mearsheimer , whose assumptions are reminiscent of those of classical realism and which he himself labels as "offensive realism", but who derives them from systemic factors and is therefore counted among the neorealists , contradicts the Waltz thesis of striving for a balance of power. In his opinion, states seek power out of uncertainty about the behavior of others until they have achieved hegemonic status or until they fail in this attempt. Once hegemony has been achieved, the striving for power ends because the impulse to help yourself is no longer relevant. With this approach, for Mearsheimer, "as with the realists of all stripes (...) only the great powers in the system count." Small states can only join a power that stands up to the emerging regional hegemon, or they wait until A state in the neighborhood relieves them of forming an opposing coalition.

Methodological weakness of neorealism

The central weakness of neorealism is the complete neglect of the internal constitution of states for the development of motives for action and preferences in international politics, which leads to empirical weaknesses in the theory. This widespread criticism and the weakness in explaining the theory led later representatives of neorealism to increasingly include subsystemic factors in the analyzes. This raised the question of “whether, in view of this neglect of systemic factors in current neorealism, anyone is still a (neo) realist, since almost all authors who call themselves neorealists include elements in their work that contradict the basic assumptions of Waltz's theory . "

Despite its methodological weaknesses, neorealism is of great practical importance, "because a (neo) realistic worldview unfolds its political influence in many foreign and defense ministries".

literature

Primary literature

  • Kenneth Waltz : Theory of international politics . McGraw-Hill, Boston 1979.
  • Kenneth Waltz: Realism and international politics . Routledge, New York 2008.
  • John J. Mearsheimer : The tragedy of Great Power politics . Norton, New York 2001.

German-language secondary literature

  • Carlo Masala : Kenneth N. Waltz. Introduction to his theory and examination of his critics . 2nd edition, Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8487-0352-4 .
  • Niklas Schörnig, Neorealism . In: Siegfried Schieder and Manuela Spindler: Theories of international relations . 3rd edition, Budrich, Opladen 2010, ISBN 978-3-8252-2315-1 , pp. 65-96.
  • Thomas Vogt: Neorealism in International Politics. An epistemological analysis . Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, Wiesbaden, ISBN 978-3-8244-4353-6 .

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ International relations as a political science discipline are to be distinguished from their object of investigation, the (lower case) international relations . In addition: Siegfried Schieder and Manuela Spindler: Theories of international relations . 3rd edition, Budrich, Opladen 2010, ISBN 978-3-8252-2315-1 , introduction, p. 9, note 1.
  2. ↑ Unless otherwise stated, the following statements refer to: Niklas Schörnig, Neorealismus . In: Siegfried Schieder and Manuela Spindler: Theories of international relations . 3rd edition, Budrich, Opladen 2010, ISBN 978-3-8252-2315-1 , pp. 65-96.
  3. ↑ Kenneth Waltz : Theory of international politics . McGraw-Hill, Boston 1979.
  4. ↑ Niklas Schörnig, Neorealism . In: Siegfried Schieder and Manuela Spindler: Theories of international relations . 3rd edition, Budrich, Opladen 2010, pp. 65–96, here p. 66.
  5. ↑ Ulrich Menzel , Idealism, Realism, Institutionalism and Structuralism - the four paradigms in the teaching of international relations . In: ders. And Katharina Varga, theory and history of the doctrine of international relations. Introduction and systematic bibliography , Deutsches Übersee-Institut, Hamburg 1999, ISBN 978-3-926953-44-5 , online version , p. 82. In a note, Menzel points out that Robert Cox used the term as early as 1981, thus but wanted to distinguish realism according to Hans Morgenthau from its precursors in the history of ideas, such as Thucydides , Thomas Hobbes and Niccolò Machiavelli .
  6. ^ Tobias ten Brink : Conflicts of States. On the analysis of geopolitics and imperialism - an overview . Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart 2008, ISBN 978-3-8252-2992-4 , p. 133.
  7. ^ A b Jürgen Hartmann : International Relations . 2nd edition, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2009, ISBN 978-3-531-16689-6 , p. 34.
  8. ↑ Niklas Schörnig: Neorealism . In: Siegfried Schieder and Manuela Spindler: Theories of international relations . 3rd edition, Budrich, Opladen 2010, pp. 65-96., P. 83.
  9. ^ Markus M. Müller (ed.): Casebook international politics . VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2011, ISBN 978-3-531-16215-7 , p. 25.
  10. ^ Jürgen Hartmann: International Relations . 2nd edition, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2009, ISBN 978-3-531-16689-6 , p. 38.
  11. ↑ Jeffrey W. Legro and Andrew Moravcsik 1999, quoted from: Niklas Schörnig, Neorealismus . In: Siegfried Schieder and Manuela Spindler: Theories of international relations . 3rd edition, Budrich, Opladen 2010, pp. 65–96, here p. 92.
  12. ↑ Niklas Schörnig, Neorealism . In: Siegfried Schieder and Manuela Spindler: Theories of international relations . 3rd edition, Budrich, Opladen 2010, pp. 65–96, here p. 68.