Theory of International Politics by Kenneth Waltz - Essay Example

Book Review: Theory of International Politics by Kenneth Waltz Kenneth Waltz’s “Theory of International Politics” (1979) is often cited as a leading authority in the theory of international politics and this paper critically reviews the central arguments of the book. Waltz’s theory of international politics effectively redefines what he views as the deficiencies of classic realism in international politics theory. For example, in the introduction to the book, Waltz comments that the central purpose of the book is to “examine the theories of international politics and approaches to the subject matter that make some claim to being theoretically important; to construct a theory of international politics that remedies the defects of present theories” (p.1). On this basis, in Chapter 1, Waltz addresses pre-existing theory pertaining to the correlation between laws and international behaviour. Whilst he acknowledges that legal compliance and laws may provide a correlation to state behaviour and international politics, Waltz feels that is theory that explains them and to this end attempts to reconstruct classic realism through a somewhat scientific approach. On this basis, Waltz’s book seeks to go beyond the classic realist position of politics in terms of state characteristics and state interaction with each other and he argues that “the idea that international politics can be thought of as a system with a precisely defined structure is neorealism’s fundamental departure from traditional realism.” Therefore Waltz’s central theory of neorealism in international politics is underpinned by Waltz’s proposition that the system of international politics is inherently dependent on a system of anarchy. This system of anarchy according to Waltz effectively creates the international order of hierarchy, which is further defined by states who are unitary rational actors on the one hand and rational actors on the other. To this end, Waltz’s discussion of the Cold War, highlights his propensity towards viewing the international political order from a systemic perspective as opposed to considering the intentions of individual states and human behaviour, which is arguably the inherent weakness of the book in context of contemporary international politics. For example, in focusing on the international politics as a whole state system as opposed to individual state level factors, Waltz avoids assumptions about human nature and morality and power in international politics. Waltz’s neo-realist paradigm proposes that the central factor in international politics is security and whilst gathering power, often results in destructive effects. Therefore, in propounding the idea that state survival is imperative in international politics, Waltz suggests that gathering power isn’t prominent however the goal of survival necessarily results in power being obtained by default. To this end, Waltz’s theory posits that the international system is the dominant factor. If we further consider this in light of the Waltz’s neo-realist “anarchy” presumption, Waltz’s book suggests that states are motivated by security issues, which in turn dictates the power hierarchy in international politics. To this end, Waltz appears to denounce reductionism as explaining the “behaviour of parts” (p.65). In Chapter 4 for example, Waltz comments that “it is not possible to understand world politics simply by looking inside of states”. On this basis, Waltz challenges the concept of international political balance being achieved through an variances in state level factors and instead focuses on the impact of the international system as a whole. To this end, Waltz asserts that “the international structure emerges from the interaction of states and then constrains them from taking certain actions while propelling them towards others” (p.66). Accordingly, the essence appears to be the system as the central factor in shaping behaviour among states in international politics. Moreover, Waltz posits that it is the structural frameworks and distribution of power which is the determinant factor in international politics and to this end negates the importance of bipolarity and individual unitary factors. As such, Waltz comments that “the enduring anarchic character of international politics accounts for the striking sameness in the quality of international life” (p.66). Additionally, Waltz appears to create subjective variables and to support the lack of individualist perspective Waltz posits that whilst triggers in international politics will invariably change, international politics inherently breeds similar patterns. Indeed, Waltz comments that “if the same effects follow from different causes, then constraints must be operating on the independent variables in ways that affect outcomes” (p.68). Moreover, in supporting this line of argument, Waltz argues that a systemic theory of world politics enables understanding of why dissimilar states behave similarly in the international political order. As such, Waltz posits that political structures behave “through socialisation of the actors and through the competition among them” (p.74). This is further developed in chapter 5, where Waltz asserts the importance of considering the system within which states interact. On this basis, Waltz considers the order of the system, the functions of each unit in the system and the capability of each unit (such as president v parliamentary) to operate as being of primary importance. Waltz further utilises this to posit that microeconomic theory aids understanding of state behaviour in international systems creating the analogy of states behaving like businesses in a domestic economy. In further considering structures, Waltz’s anarchy paradigm eschews authority and thereby forms the foundation of his explanation of the ordering system within international politics. Waltz extrapolates that “international systems emerge from “the co-action of self regarding units”. Moreover, Waltz assumes that an overriding desire for security dominates the international order: “internationally, the environment of states’ action, or the structure of their system, is set by the fact that some states prefer survival over other ends obtainable in the short run and act with relative efficiency to achieve that end” (p.93). In further considering the anarchy paradigm, Waltz argues that “anarchy entails relations of co-ordination among a system’s units, and that implies their sameness….so long as anarchy endures, states remain like units” (p.93). However, whilst not without merit, Waltz effectively denounces the importance of non-state actors and posits that the international political system is defined by states: “students of international politics make distinctions between international political systems only according to the number of their great powers. The structure of a system changes with changes in the distribution of capabilities across a system’s units” (p.97). Moreover, Waltz’s anarchy paradigm suggests that the international system is rooted in self help security and multi-layered. For example, Waltz posits that the anarchy framework inherently limits cooperation under the international system: “the condition of insecurity – at least, the uncertainty of each about the other’s future intentions and actions – works against their co-operation… A state worries about a division of possible gains that may favour other more than itself” (pp.105-106). Additionally Waltz argues that the necessity of state survival inherently creates worry about becoming dependent on others through trade or alliances, which thereby intrinsically limits cooperation with other states (p.106). Moreover, Waltz proposes that “states do not willingly place themselves in situations of increased independence. In a self-help system, considerations of security subordinate economic gain to political interest” (p.107). This therefore correlates to Waltz’s balance of power theory, which in essence puts forward to the following: 1) States essentially seek self preservation and domination; 2) States seek to achieve these goals through economic and military strength or alliances; 4) For the balance of power theory to work, two or more states must operate within a self-help system with no superior authority. In testing his theory, Waltz acknowledges that internal conditions may impact states from displaying balancing behaviour consistently and contrasts the position of strong and weaker states by arguing that “because power is a means not an end, states prefer to join the weaker of two coalitions” (p.126). Again, Waltz argues that it is the inherent structure of the international system and the innate need for survival that creates the framework for this balance of power paradigm. In Chapter 8, Waltz further evaluates how the international system influences alliances and concentrates on the multi-polar and bipolar systems. To this end, Waltz proposes that the central difference between the two is that multi-polar balancing of power creates uncertainty whereas bipolar balancing creates less opposition in the international system. With regard to the latter, Waltz argues that major powers in a bipolar alliance do not have to make as many concessions to alliance partners as in multi-polar systems. As such, the multi-polar system clearly creates risk for shifting alliances and instability. Nevertheless, it is arguable that Waltz’s reliance on anarchy and the survival preservation is inherently limited by the contemporary political framework. However, Waltz’s book ignores individual factors and arguably the rejection of this notion explains the flaw in the contemporary relevance of the theory of international relations. In conclusion, Waltz’s theory of international relations is contextually relevant in terms of the Cold War backdrop and the international political order at the time. Additionally, the balance of power theory and triggers suggested by Waltz are undoubtedly important and have influenced international relations theory significantly. However, the inherent weakness of Waltz’s theory in the book is the failure to consider the individual perspective and importance of non-state sectors and to this end, Waltz’s book provides a mixed bag of important international relations theory on the one hand, followed by generalisations on the other. Bibliography Kenneth Waltz (1979). Theory of International Politics. Addison Wesley Read More