What can neorealism explain - Essay Example

?Introduction In order to comprehensively understand as to what neorealism explains, it is important to understand the underlying concepts ical realism and how it evolved over the period of time. Realism or political realism is based upon the notion that the individual as well as security concerns of a nation should be superior to the ideology as well as moral concerns. This concept is therefore based upon the notion of competitive self-interest for the nations where the concerns for security and individual interests are superior to any other ideology. Classical realism outlines that it is the essential and basic nature of the man and the states to put the self-interest above any ideology therefore it is dominated by the will to dominate and gain power. This is considered as necessary in order to maintain the status where a state remains in same position to always safeguard its interests. Neorealism though is driven by the classical realism but goes one stage above that and put more priority on the international system as a whole. The international system therefore is considered as the structure above the states and the individuals are considered as agents below the stage. The neorealism therefore does not view the human nature as essential but maintains that international structure actually works as a constraint over the motivations and interests of the agents. This paper will therefore comprehensively discuss and explain as to what neorealism actually is and how it can be viewed within the perspective of international politics and relations. Classical Realism Classical realism is often associated with what is called power politics because both the terms outline priority of the national interests over moral obligations of a State. As such any considerations for moral obligations, social reconstruction as well as ideology does not hold any preference over the national interest. Based on the economic concept of competitive self-interest, classical realism advocates that it is the basic human nature and that of state that they pursue their self-interest first. This nature therefore forces states and the man to remain in dominating position and creates the drive for the power. One of the key assumptions of the classical realism is fundamentally based upon the notion that there is no actor above the states therefore the relationships between the states cannot be controlled by a higher authority. As such each state therefore moves in a direction which suits its national interests and without any coercive influence of other states or actors. (Donnelly, 2000)  It is however, important to understand that the overall relationships between the states are dominated by the military and economic powers of each state. The extent of power of each state therefore is mainly dominated by the way each state holds the economic as well as military power without having any reference to the moral obligations. It is therefore maintained that the maintaining moral obligations unnecessarily put commitments on the States which may be undesirable for the relationships between states in longer term. Neorealism Neorealism is a relatively different concept than the classical realism as it views layers above the states which may be in dominating position. While departing from the realism’s basic postulate of human nature, neorealism sees States facing structural constraints which can actually limit their strategies as well as motivations. Neorealism is also different from classical realism due to the assumption that the international politics can be considered as a defined and precised structure. This view was not held by the classical realists who view the international politics based upon the individual behaviors of the States at the international level. The focus on the system level thinking therefore has allowed theorists of neorealism to avoid from making any assumptions about the human nature, power and self-interests as well as the moral obligations. It was because of this reason that the Neorealists were able to see power in an entirely different manner. (Waltz, 1979)  Major theoretical background on neorealism comes from the work of Kenneth Waltz who outlined the basic underlying principles of neorealism. According to Waltz, the structure of the international system is actually the best and primary determinant of the State behavior. This view was radically different from the views outlined in the classical realism which outlined that the states in their own-self are the basic determinants of their own behavior and actions. (Harrison, 2002) Neorealism is considered as a holistic approach in international politics and relations because its analytical focus is on the state systems as a whole. This therefore requires a systematic view of the states rather than taking a view which was outlined under the classical neorealism. Under neorealism states therefore are considered as the key units of the international system and they are critically defined based on the strength of their power due to which they are often compelled to act in a certain manner. This is therefore based upon the notion that the balance of power between the states actually determines their behavior Anarchy The international system as such has been defined as consisting of three basic elements of ordering principle, functional specification and distribution of capabilities. Neorealism’s basic assertion is based upon the assumption that the fundamental ordering principle of the international structure is that of anarchy. The concept of anarchy in neorealism has been borrowed from the classical realism which outlines that the states live in what is called state of nature. Neorealism however, goes further and suggests that the inherent nature of the system is that of the anarchy in which there is no central power to actually guard or police the world. It is because of this assumption that this system is called a system of self-help where the only help you can get is your ability to help yourself. Furthering this argument, it is therefore believed that the States do not operate on their own but rather their foreign policy is driven by the competition between the States within an international system. As such it is assumed that the overall structure of the system is given and the states therefore have to cope with the constraints which are placed by the system on them. (Buzan, et al. 1993)  It is also argued that in an anarchic order, the overall functional distinction between different political units does not exist. In the absence of any horizontal hierarchy, all states therefore are believed to be performing the same functions and are essentially same. It is because of this reason that it is argued that in an anarchic realms, the like states often co-act. In an anarchic order, the decision of the state to strike another state is mainly based upon the capability rather than based upon the rights as argued in the classical realism. Thus the notion of war can only define what are the authorities or rights of the states but rather determine who is stronger. It is also because of this reason that it is argued that the relationships at the international level are defined by the strength and not other factors which may be relevant. This notion therefore outlines that the distribution of power is one of the key criteria against which states actually decide whether to go in war or collude with other states to avoid it. (Gilpin, and Gilpin, 1987)  Distribution of Power Distribution of power is mostly concerned with the quantitative variations among the political units. The distribution of power therefore outlines as to how the different units within the State shares the power and how it is distributed among all of them. It is however, important to understand that the distribution of power of the states can be considered as one of the most important mean to determine the international structure. Classical realists believed that the power itself is a mean and an end and for a rational state, accumulating power was the most important aspect of perusal at the international level. While neorealists recognized the importance of power but they argued that distribution of power can be the motivating factor. Since the prime motivating factor for a State is security which simple accumulation of power may not ensure as the accumulation of power can ultimately result into an arms race. What is therefore most important is distribution of power in determining the overall structure of the international system and the behavior of the states. (Waltz, 2001)  Security and Power Two of the fundamental assumptions of Neorealism are based upon the notions of security and power. States, it is believed that want to maximize their security and not the power itself however, states will continue to seek power until and unless it does not compromise their security. These assumptions therefore outline the fundamental orientation of an international political system where the relative gains in power are more important than gaining absolute power. Relative gains therefore outlines as to how states actually place each other against each other and the gains in power are considered as relative. Since security is considered as the scarce good under neorealism therefore it is argued that the gains in absolute power of the States can actually lead to the decline in security. Such decline in security therefore can often result into an arms race with other States and resultantly the overall security of a State can decline despite having higher absolute power. (Waltz, 1979) The individual security of the States and hence the fate of the international system can remain intact only if the distribution of power is balanced between the states. It is only through the balanced distribution of power which can actually ensure the security of the states rather than the absolute power. These views are radically different from that of the classical realism because these views critically outline as to what could be the shape of the international order in order to ensure safety and security at the global level. It is therefore argued that a more a state actually attempt to gain absolute power, chances are that it will further compromise its own security. Gaining more absolute power will make other states insecure and resultantly other states may collude to form a resistance against the power of the States. Neorealists call this security dilemma and suggest that the States should rather optimize their security rather than maximizing the power. Higher absolute power either through military or economic power can further weaken the security rather than strengthening it. This line of argument therefore is critically different from the classical realists who argued that the military as well as economic power can actually lead to better security for the nations. Bi-polar World versus Multipolar World Neorealism actually speaks about the international politics as a system therefore it inherently favors the stability of the system while recognizing that the anarchy is one of the essential elements of the system. This basic assumption therefore naturally makes a bi-polar world a more desirable state of the system rather than having a multi-polar system. According to Neorealists, the multi-polarity of the world actually leads to uncertainty, miscalculations and finally war. Though it is quite rational that despite uncertainty and miscalculations, a multi-polar world can be risk averse in nature also however, neorealism tend to avoid this line of thinking and focus on highlighting the vulnerable nature of the multi-polar world and how it may compromise the security of the States. (Waltz, 1988) In a debate on the bi-polar or multi-polar world, Neorealists argue that the minor states can either balance the power or bandwagon. A minor state therefore is considered to have an option to team up with a revisionist state and collude against other weaker states or it can support the weaker states to bring balance and parity to any dispute. It is also argued that the defense dominance of any State may provide it distinct advantage sometimes but not all of the times as higher power may lead to insecurity. In such kind of world, the foreign policy decisions of the States actually do not result into anarchy or parity in power because such decisions are often outside the control of policy makers at the domestic level. (Gilpin, 1983)  Neo-realism therefore argues that a bi-polar world is a relatively safe world because both the super-powers despite their military and economic powers will avoid the collusion with each other. A nuclear attack either of the players therefore is considered as out of question both the super powers understand the damage it can done to each. Bipolarity therefore is considered as a guarantee to the peace and the development of nuclear weapons is considered as the near guarantee that there will be no conflict at least between the super powers of the world. In a sense, nuclear capabilities are considered as the strongest deterrence against war. (Stefano, 1993) What is critical to understand however that neorealism emerged in Cold War which was dominated by the bipolar world where only superpowers i.e. USA and USSR existed? In such an era, it was therefore considered that uni-polarity as well as multi-polarity will eventually lead to war. One of the critiques of the neorealism however is based upon the arguments that the world after Cold War era has been relatively different. New states which have emerged as a result of collapse after USSR, rather than developing their own military strengths and optimizing their security are focusing on the joining of international forces. (Mearsheimer, 2003)  Humanitarian Aspects Though bi-polar world is believed to be one of the reasons as to why the wars will not happen however, it could not completely prevent war. Though no direct war took place between the super-powers during cold war era however, both of them fought proxy wars during the same time. This therefore outlines that the neo-realism may not be completely successfully in explaining as to why war will stop or end of conflict between the states. Though it is argued that the end of Cold War has resulted into the higher humanitarian efforts which are now without any political motives however, still humanitarian aid is of significant issue. According to neo-realism traditions, the humanitarian efforts conducted by the nations are often the result of the self interest of the nations. Despite the end of Cold War, the international organizations as well as the States have remained selective in providing assistance based on the humanitarian grounds.( ALIYEV, 2011)  Conclusion Neo-Realism emerged out of the classical realism and outlined that the international politics is governed by a system. As against classical realism, neo-realism suggests that there is a layer over the individual States which may govern their behavior. Classical realism outlined that the States move in their self interests however, neo-realist traditions suggest that this may not be the case. Neo-realism traditions outline three basic elements of the international political system which dominates the way States behave and act in an international political arena. Clearly, neorealism favors a world which is dominated by a bipolar world order as the existence of two super powers balances the power structure within international politics and serves as deterrence for war. Accordingly, if any state acquires nuclear power, it is certainly going to work as a guarantee for peace. References ALIYEV, H (2011) Neo-Realism and Humanitarian Action: From Cold War to Our Days, [online] Available at: http://sites.tufts.edu/jha/archives/1173 [Accessed: 11th Dec 2011]. Buzan, B. et al. (1993) The logic of anarchy: neorealism to structural realism, New York: Columbia University Press. Donnelly, J. (2000) Realism and international relations, New York: Cambridge University Press. Gilpin, R. and Gilpin, J. (1987) The political economy of international relations, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Gilpin, R. (1983) War and change in world politics, New York: Cambridge University Press Harrison, E. (2002) Waltz, Kant and Systemic Approaches to International Relations, Review of International Studies, 28(1), p.143-162 . Mearsheimer, J. (2003) The tragedy of great power politics, New York: W.W. Norton. Stefano, G. (1993) Structural Power: The Limits of neorealist power analysis, International Organization, 47(3), p.443-478. Waltz, K. (1979) Theory of international politics, New York: Random House. Waltz, K. (1988) The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory, The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18(4), p.615-628. Waltz, K. (2001) Man, the state, and war: a theoretical analysis, New York: Columbia University Press,. Read More