Waltz's Neorealism


The reading by Waltz points out some key points that Neorealists believe in. Neorealists view power as a possibly useful means. Neorealism contends that international politics can be understood only if the effects of structure are added to the unit-level explanations of traditional realism. It rejects the assumption that man’s innate lust for power constitutes a sufficient cause of war in the absence of of any other.

Specifically, we need to look at the causal link interacting units and international outcomes. We’ve established before with Hobbes that the system we live in is anarchy. States are rational actors that at their basest level want to survive. Neorealism states that within an anarchy, states need to provide their own security to protect themselves from threats. This security dilemma is a problem, war occurs. This depends on situations and characteristics of states, not because states want to have war.

The more important question then becomes what started the war, not who. Waltz believes it is the anarchic structure of international politics that can account for wars. There is no authority to regulate the struggle for power as it happens within individual states. The only way to protect the world from system-wars is to maintain the balance of power. The changes occurring among the states doesn’t matter since their behavior is to a high extent determined by the structure. This is why the what rather than the who matters.

Comments

  1. AnonymousJune 4, 2018 at 6:56 AM

    This is a good summary of Waltz's contribution to Neorealist theory. I kept forgetting how he emphasizes unit level factors in the explanation of conflict. Waltz is a clear proponent of a bipolar world because he sees it as a proper balancing of powers. He makes these assumptions looking at the whole and considering overall world stability. Certainly the nations involved in the proxy wars which decimated their countries may not agree. Do you think bipolarity is the safest international system?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnknownJune 10, 2018 at 2:25 PM

      That's a great question. I think that in a bipolar world conflict is inevitable. Two powers cannot remain in equilibrium indefinitely. Going back to the "struggle for power" theory brought up by neorealism, these two rival powers will continuously strive against one another to maintain the balance of power. There will be this cyclic rise and fall of power, that is resolved through conflict. Though Waltz argues that bipolarity is less war-prone than multipolarity, I still believe there is room for miscalculation between two powers that could lead to war.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anarchy in the USA

           While discussing realist motives and intentions, it seems that the United States is headed down a curious path worth looking at. Clearly a powerful nation, the United States should be in a unique position to latch onto globalization in order to secure a stable future. Calm, cool, collected domination is a much better look than ramping up rhetoric and perceived might, because your neighbor's interest to attack is seemingly when they are most threatened by show of force.             The United States has long taken advantage of its allies, while using economic bargaining to secure peaceful existence. The European Union is a clear ally in the spread of Democracy and Capitalism, two tenants central to the existence of the United States. It is this point that makes recent events troubling with regards to a peaceful future.             In an effort to bolster nationalism, our country has tur...
Read more

Corporations Will Run Amuck

Corporations help create domestic and global economic prosperity. However, when they grow extremely rich they can become powerful which may threaten sovereign actors’ authority, both on a national and international level. Additionally, through hefty donations their lobbying capability allows them to manipulate politicians and the political process undermining democratic processes and devaluing the voice of the people.  In order to prevent corporations from interfering with the democratic processes there needs to be an overarching system that monitors what corporations do and how they do it. To a certain extent room and flexibility may help corporations better compete against one another. Capitalist societies like the United States believe that less regulations on corporations means more incentive to be innovative. And while that may be true to some extent, there are also many abuses these companies commit in order to maximize their profits. Without strict gui...
Read more