What extent does neo-realism provide a satisfactory account of world politics - Essay Example

? Extent to which neo-realism has satisfactory account to world politics Neorealism and world politics According to research, neorealism is a theory of international relations, which was originally outlined by Waltz Kenneth as a feedback to the famous realism theory. It was also an attempt to modernize and amend the theory of realism to international politics. Research shows that realism theory had the belief that the political order and the manner in which countries conduct themselves concerning international ground are projected by the nature of human beings (Dickinson 2006, p.63). Its foremost supposition originates from a human aspect; for instance, ambitions and aspirations are the main driving forces of international or world politics (Craig 2009, p. 45). On the contrary, neorealism declared that the current global system is a revolutionary setting with no dominant power directing and amending relationships among countries. It is not a social nature but rather a universal nature of the entire world that explains world politics. To a small extent, neo-realism provides satisfactory account to world politics. Every nation is in a search of individual benefit and its activities on a worldwide ground rely on its personal welfares. Therefore, in order to accomplish its individual benefits nations can establish coalitions, although even within such coalitions every nation is only interested in attaining its own goals. Revolution of the global system is a command in itself. Accordingly, every nation continues to be in competition with other nations because of concern with its security and development (Craig 2009, p.50). Supremacy is dominant in understanding the affairs among nations. Therefore, search for authority makes countries to develop their resource, boost up economies, as well as develop skill and society as well. According to neorealism theory, the tougher the nation, the less susceptible it is on the global ground. Martial and fiscal greatness are the main measures for safety and growth, and thus accomplishment of these measures is performed through all ways possible. According to studies, conflict in neorealism is unavoidable. Nonetheless, in a nuclear period, conflicts among the nuclear nations are not likely to happen certainly, because such nations with nuclear weapons understand the effects of such conflict. Thus, they use nuclear resources as a way of discouragement and balance of supremacy. In fact, neo-realism is a system of balance, and the anarchy of global setting, as well as an order instead of chaos (Van 2009, p. 80). This is because steadiness of supremacy is the only way to reservation harmony. Therefore, with such standards in place, neo-realism provides a satisfactory to the world politics. Neo-realism provides satisfactory account to world politics because it offers a well-organized explanation concerning the global political structure. It is a trial to explain international relations in technical terms through the mention of imbalanced capacities of nations. It also explains the revolutionary structure of the nation system, as well as the emphasis on great supremacies whose affairs regulate the most vital results of world politics (Krasner 2005, p.78). Neo-realism provides satisfactory account to world politics because it promotes peace and security among nations. Researchers view the best international relation theory as one that emphasizes mainly on the structure of the system because structures regulate the actions the country. Foreign policy is led by the structure, and the nation officials are thus prisoners of the revolutionary system` structure and its determinist’s reasoning commands what they must carry out in the behavior of overseas rule (Jacques 2007, p. 106). Therefore, neo-realism offers a powerful explanation of the structure of the system of a nation much different from other theories because it takes the structure as the key tool of analysis. From studies, it clear that international relations has fallen inline more with neo-realism premise than the other way round (Schmidt 2008, p.46). During pre- World War II, the worldwide system was in a continuous condition of multi-polarity and it was only after this war that the international system was in a position to change into a new model. This new model of the bipolar scheme established the idea behind the neo-realist attitude that, certainty results into peace. Therefore, rather than having a push for power, nations started to make moves that reinforced safety. Whether it was the establishment of armaments in the west and the east, the political fighting in the United Nations or bilateral negotiation amid the NATO supremacies and the Warsaw Pact, or even economic development with the philosophy of entrepreneurship contending against communism, nations were pushing for safety. Thus, it is because of such issues that demonstrates how neo-realism provided satisfactory account to world politics. Accordingly, neo-realism has provided satisfactory account to world politics by creating tremendous change among the nations. For instance, it is noted that the United States is so nice that, despite the threats of unstable supremacy, others do not sense the fear that this would spur them to accomplishment. In addition, it is believed that officials of states have learned that playing the game of supremacy politics is expensive and irrelevant. After earlier great wars, the resources for developing a new balance were readily accessible (Keohane 2009, p.507). Past conflicts left a sufficient number of great supremacies standing to permit a new balance to be rather easily developed. Therefore, neorealism resulted into peace between nations thus creating more security among various international states. Neorealism theory does not forecast consistency of behavior amid countries, but instead the solid tendency of main countries in the organization, or in county subsystems, to remedy balancing when they have to (Robert 2009, p.39). The recurrent occurrence of balancing behavior and the appearance of the patterns the behavior develops should even more be viewed as remarkable evidence supporting the theory. Neorealism draws attention that there are positive effects concerning the state welfares and the anarchy. For instance, according to research, every nation puts into consideration the risk and the cost of irrational actions and subsequently a form of stability that can be maintained. Neorealism puts into consideration the differences between internal system and global system; where in internal system, there is usually a central power that monopolizes power and the application of force. The similarity amid ways in which nations make a choice does not require that there is one form of systems in international schemes (Waltz 2001, p.12). Not all nations thrive in attaining their objectives of empowering themselves; this implies that only dominant nations affect global system. It is noticed that despite the fact that Union of socialist soviet of Russia and United States of America have had different political structures on the interior level and also diverse philosophies, both nations in their fight for attaining more and more authority go through similar ways and behave in similar way. Neorealism declares that human beings have little to do with the reasons behind why nations desire supremacy. Relatively, it is the organization or planning of the international system that powers countries to pursue for supremacy. For instance, in a setting where there is no higher power that sits above the great authorities, and where there is no guarantee that one will not fight another, it makes eminently good sense for each nation to be strong enough to provide protection to itself in the event it is attacked (Sagan 2004, p.56). In actual fact, great authorities are confined in an firm enclosure where they have slight choice but to contend with each other for authority if they anticipate to continue. Therefore, neorealism has provided satisfactory account to world politics because it reduces conflicts among nations thus in the event establishing peace in a nation and in the world a whole. On the contrary, neo-realism theory does not provide a satisfactory account to world politics largely. This is on the foundation that it directs the loyal burden in human environment. In addition, it ignores the extent to which global relations create an anarchical society and not merely a revolutionary system. However, as a matter of point, nations are in not only war, but they also share common welfares and observe common guidelines that converse shared rights therefore, because of such issues; neo-realism does not provide satisfactory account to world politics. In addition, neo-realism is a one-dimensional system in international relation that is too constricted. It thus does not apprehend the magnitude to which worldwide relations is a negotiation of diverse global relation expressions or standards (Devetak 2008, p.56). It is argued that in order to attain a all-inclusive comprehension of global politics, it is essential to understand the dialectical associations of the three issues, which include rationalism, realism, as well as revolutionism. In addition, neo-realism is not satisfactorily accountable to world politics because it could not account for new significant advancements in world politics. For example, it was not in a position to demonstrate the development or the establishment of new commercial and political institutions, especially in Western Europe in the 1960s. Such institutions resulted nations to supportive searches of shared benefit and away from supremacy politics and conflict that has been happening since the beginning of the nation state earlier (Waltz 2001, p. 40). A case in point of such nations involve the council of Europe that targets to provide safety to the rights of humans, pluralist democracy and the regulation of law, to pursue solutions to harms facing European society and to assist associate independent constancy in Europe by supporting political lawmaking and statutory transformation. Research shows these to be vital new actors that neorealism cannot account for because they simply emphasize on the nation as the only essential actor and do not look beyond the structure of the revolutionary setting. Neorealism theory does not provide satisfactory account to world politic because it denies the separability of agents and structure. In case agents and structure were conceptually inseparable, there are consequences that would occur as a result (Powell 2004, p.315). For instance, the two theoretical trials fundamental to the structural approach from this theory stems its descriptive control would become challenging. Furthermore, challenging the separability of units and structure makes the units an object of inquiry and directs people`s focus to systematic change and transformation. In most cases, structure acts as a means of activity that in principle can be changed through practice (Stephanie 2010, p. 89). Structures shape action and is in return shaped by action. The objective of a transformational theory is to describe the way structure and agents interrelate. Neorealism declares that human beings have little to do with the reasons behind why nations desire supremacy. Rather, it is the construction or design of the global coordination that influences countries to seek for control (Russet 2009, p. 45). For instance, in a setting where there is no higher power that sits above the great authorities, and where there is no guarantee that one will not fight another, it makes eminently good sense for each nation to be strong enough to provide protection to itself in the event it is attacked. In fact, prodigious authorities are ensnared in a robust enclosure where they have little choice but to contest with each other for control if they hope to subsist. An neorealism theory tends to overlook cultural variances amid nations as well as variances in government form, mainly because the international system develops similar basic motivations for all great powers. Therefore, whether a nation is self-governing or monocratic matters comparatively little for how it turns towards other nations. nor does it matter much who is in charge of conducting a nation`s foreign policy. Neorealism manages nations as if they were black boxes; they are presumed to be alike, given the fact that some nations are more or less powerful than others are. Therefore, because of such ignorance of cultural differences among nations, the neorealism theory does not provide satisfactory account to world politics. This is because different nations have different cultures and thus it is vital that a political system promotes such cultural differences in order to promote peace and eliminate conflicts internationally. Just as it is argued that, it is not wise for a nation to attempt maximizing their share of world power because the system will punish them if they attempt to attain too much authority. Power is based on the material capacities that a nation controls. The balance of authority is mainly a role of the perceptible martial resources that countries own, including armoured separations, as well as fissile arms (Kenneth 2008, p. 628). Nevertheless, nations have another form of authority, latent authority that refers to the socio economic ingredients that go into creating military supremacy. Suppressed sovereignty is founded on a nation`s richness and the size of its over populace. Great authorities require finances, technology, as well as personnel in order to establish military forces and also to fight conflicts. Additionally, a nation`s suppressed authority refers to the raw potential it can pull on when contending with rival nations. Therefore, it should be obvious that conflict is not the only way that nations can attain authority (Mearsheimer 2001, p. 60). They can also attain authority through the increase of their populace and their share of worldwide resources, just like China did over the past few years. Neorealism has enabled nations to develop positive notions concerning how to attain power as well as develop economically without necessarily fighting each other but through creating peace and sharing resources among themselves in a harmonious way. This as a result creates nations with stable political and economic powers because each nation will work hard in order to promote peace and enhance trade and good politics. Neo-realism presumes that great supremacies are the chief players in world politics and they function in a revolutionary system. However, this does not imply that the system is characterized by conflicts or disorder. In addition, it also presumes that all nations own some offensive military ability. Every nation has authority to inflict some harm on its neighbor; although that ability differs amid nation and it can change at any time in any nation. Conversely, all these presumptions are reflected in the famous notion of the security problem. This is because the essence of that problem is that most phases a great authority takes to improve its own safety reduce the security of other nations politically (Mearsheimer 2004, p.35). A case in point is that, any nation that enhances its position in the international balance of authority does so at the cost of other nations that misplaces comparative authority. In this present world, it is hard for a nation to enhance its prospects for survival without threatening the survival of other nations. in the end, the threatened nations do whatever is necessary to ensure their survival, which in turn threatens other nations, all of which results into uninterrupted security rivalry. In conclusion, neorealism is a concept of international relations, which was formerly defined by Waltz Kenneth as a response to the eminent realism theory. It was also an effort to renovate and adjust the theory of realism to international politics. This research paper had the main objective of discussing the extent to which neorealism has provided satisfactory account to world politics. Therefore, the research noted that to a small extent, neorealism provided satisfactory accountability to world politics. However, largely, the theory failed to account satisfactorily for world politic because of its limitations just as discussed above. For instance, neorealism theory has a tendency to oversee cultural inconsistencies amid nations as well as variances in government form, mainly because the international system develops similar basic motivations for all great powers. Reference List Craig , R 2009, “NATO at 50: With Nations at Odds, Is It a Misalliance?” New York, NY: Cengage Learning. Devetak, A 2008, An Introduction to International Relations, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Dickinson, G 2006, The European Anarchy, New York: Macmillan Company. Heydarian, A 2009, "Comparing and Contrasting Classical Realism and Neorealism: A Re-examination of Hans Morgenthau's and Kenneth Waltz's Theories of International Relations, New York, NY: Routledge. Jacques, D 2007, “European Integration and Security,” Survival, 33( 1), p. 106. Kenneth, W 2008, “The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18 (4) p. 628. Keohane, B 2009, "Structural realism and beyond" in A. D. Finifter, Political Science: The State of the Discipline, American Political Science Association, Washington D .C. pages 506-8 Krasner, "Global Communications and National Power , International Organization, forthcoming. Mearsheimer, J 2004, "The False Promise of International Institutions,” International Security 19 (3): 5–49. Mearsheimer, J 2001, The Tragedy of Great Power Politic,. New York, NY: Norton. Powell, R 2004, "Anarchy in International Relations Theory: The Neorealist-Neoliberal Debate”, International Organization 48 (2): 313–344. Robert, O 2009, International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory, Boulder, Colo.: Westview. Russet, B 2009, Grasping Democratic Peace, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Sagan, S 2004, "Realist Perspectives on Ethical Norms and Weapons of Mass Destruction, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Schmidt, B. 2008, The Political Discourse of Anarchy, Albany NY: State University of New York Press. Stephanie, N 2010, International Relations Theory and the Third World, New York, NY: St. Martin’s. Van, E 2009, Causes of War: Power and the Roots of Conflict, Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press. Waltz, K 2001, Theory of International Politics, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Waltz, K 2001, "Structural Realism after the Cold War.” International Security 25 (1): 5–41. Read More