Neorealism and the international order - Essay Example

neoRealism and the International Order Realism is as an explanatory theory of international relations which provides what are arguably the strongestdefinitions of what constitutes state interest, state behavior and the establishment of the international order. In fact, for Realists the desire to maximize state interest within a situation of global anarchy is the most crucial component required in the understanding of political actors and state behavior. Accordingly, Neorealism, an evolution of Realist thought, argue that states exist within an anarchic geopolitical framework and that this framework is an inherent component of international relations. For Neorealists, the structure of the international system is paramount and in turn dictates the behavior of states. Seeking to address how realism, a positivistic theory of international relations, explains the international order despite the condition of anarchy in the international system following the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, this essay will explore state interest and behavior. Although the world order is inherently anarchic, the global community has witnessed no major violent conflict between the major powers. How do Neorealists explain the absence of war between the major powers? What do Neorealists say about the prospects for war? How can Democratic Peace explain the current state of relations among major powers and what does this theory tell us about the likelihood of future war? With the aim of addressing these questions and many more as they related to the current state of international relations following the demise of the Soviet Union, the following will provide a thorough, yet concise, introduction to the international system in an era of bipolarity (BMD, CH. 4-5). Global Stability during the Cold War During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union were locked in a bitter confrontation pitting two opposite poles in the international order against one another. In this period of bipolarity, state behavior was mediated by concerns regarding the stability of the international system as well as the state interest and behavior of the other major power. If we apply the Neorealist conception of state power and apply it to the United States, state interest is a culmination of a variety of factors and is determined in terms of power politics and system-level concerns. Today, the United States operates in an era of weak unipolarity world and is arguably the world’s hegemonic state. State behavior is less constrained than it was during the Cold War but American state interest today reflects power conditions and the maintenance of overall system stability which promotes the supreme status of the United States in the international system. Power is a “hard” issue and a primary concern for survival; so called “soft issues” like human rights and democracy are far less salient. In the anarchic world of international affairs, hard or core issues always supersede soft issues and are integral to defining state interest and behavior. What role does anarchy play in the international order? (BMD, CH. 4-5). First and foremost it is important to remember that state interest operates within an anarchic environment. The international system is inherently unstable and is aptly characterized by widespread anarchy. Due to the absence of a suprastate or Leviathan authority, states are placed in inevitable and perpetual competition, described as the security dilemma. Because of the anarchic nature of international affairs, states are perpetually concerned with their survival. For realists, the international system is a “dog-eat-dog world” and ensuring survival is paramount for any and all states. Specifically, threats to states are determined by their relative power vis-à-vis one others in the international system. The structure of the system – the distribution of power and capabilities state wide - is important because threats or challenges facing a state are determined by the position of that state within the international system (BMD, CH. 4-5). State Behavior Post-Cold War How do Neorealists explain the albescence of war between major powers following the collapse of the Soviet Union? As the world’s hegemonic power, the United States has, in the post-Cold War period, resorted to unilateralism and expansive military might. Major powers within the international system have used a variety of soft-power balancing strategies to counter the influence of the United States while not harming their economic ties with the world’s dominant economic and military power. Thus, although balance of power theory has traditionally focused upon the military dimension of balancing and the Cold War remains perhaps the most poignant example of this theoretical paradigm, in a unipolar world dominated by the United States, second tier powers within the international system have used soft-power balancing strategies to restrain the global hegemon. An excellent example of this phenomenon was the united opposition of France, Germany and Russia to the United States-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Thus, American hegemony is constrained on the diplomatic front but war has not been used by major powers to keep the United States in check (Bueno de Mesquita, 2009, CH. 4-5). What do Neorealists say about the prospects for war? According to Neorealists, the propensity for war will always exist within an international system in which anarchy reigns supreme and which states are constantly aiming to ensure their survival within the international system. Presently, the international system is characterized by weak unipolarity and this makes war within the international system more likely than bipolarity. Accordingly, bipolarity was a structural political order which promoted stability throughout the world as both superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, were engaged in an ideological conflict which in turn promoted system-level stability throughout the world. Presently, we live in an era of weak unipolarity and this is inherently unstable for the international system. The United States does not have a dominant challenger within the international system and an unconstrained hegemon is perceived of as something which can lead to the outbreak of future war. Accordingly, Neorealists argue that as long as the international system remains unipolar, the prospect for war is great. Alternatively, how can Democratic Peace Theory explain the present international conditions as well as the likelihood for future war? (BMD, CH. 4-5). The Democratic Peace Theory argues that democracies never go to war against one another. This line of argument has been used to spread the vision of a global democratic community in which harmony reigns supreme and violence is a thing of the past. An important component of this theory is the fact that two liberal democratic states have yet to engage in direct war against one another. While democracies have engaged in conflict with other political systems, notably totalitarian, Marxist and fascist states, this theory is purported to have historical validity in that no two advanced, liberal democracies have fought one another. As an entrenched cultural value of the Western world, liberal democracy has paved the way for peace on a global scale and has ensured stability within the international system. Unlike Neorealism which believes that an untenable international structure will lead to more violence, Democratic Peace Theory explores the domestic factors for international peace and argues that the worldwide spread of democracy will ensure international stability despite the structure of the global political system (BMD, CH. 4-5). While power and security remain paramount in understanding state interest in an international system which is inherently unstable and menacing, Realism remains the dominant theory in international politics. Neorealism represents evolution of Realist thought and focuses on the structure of the international system. Accordingly, Realism has had to evolve dramatically in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Although Neorealists saw bipolarity as a structure of the international order in which checks and balances on the two major superpowers occurred and in which state behavior was constrained by the opposite pole, the collapse of the Soviet Union ushered in an era of weak unipolarity with United States at the helm of the international world order. Neorealists see the opportunity for conflict in an era in which the behavior of a superpower is not constrained, while Democratic Peace Theory looks at the global spread of democracy throughout the world and argues that peace and stability will reign supreme in the twenty-first century. WORKS CITED Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. Principles of International Politics. New York: CQ Press, 2009. Read More