3. Structural Realism

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
John J. Mearsheimer
Keyword(s):  
Structural Realism ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
Security Dilemma ◽  
Causes Of War ◽  
Offensive Realism ◽  
Defensive Realism ◽  
Theoretical Issues ◽  
Buck Passing ◽  
The Way

This chapter examines why states pursue power from the perspective of structural realism. It considers a body of realist theories that argue that states have deep concern for the balance of power and compete among themselves either to gain power at the expense of others, or at least to make sure they do not lose power. This competition for power makes for a dangerous world where states sometimes fight each other. There are, however, important differences among structural realists. The chapter first explains why states want power and how much power they want before discussing the causes of war. These theoretical issues are illuminated with a case study that assesses whether China can rise peacefully according to offensive realism vs. defensive realism. Along the way, concepts such as the security dilemma, offence–defence balance, central war, buck-passing, unipolarity, bipolarity, and multipolarity, and deterrence are analysed.

3. Structural Realism

2020 ◽  
pp. 50-67
Author(s):  
John J. Mearsheimer
Keyword(s):  
Structural Realism ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
Security Dilemma ◽  
Causes Of War ◽  
Offensive Realism ◽  
Defensive Realism ◽  
Theoretical Issues ◽  
Buck Passing ◽  
The Way

This chapter examines why states pursue power from the perspective of structural realism. It considers a body of realist theories that argue that states have deep concern for the balance of power and compete among themselves either to gain power at the expense of others, or at least to make sure they do not lose power. This competition for power makes for a dangerous world where states sometimes fight each other. There are, however, important differences among structural realists. The chapter first explains why states want power and how much power they want before discussing the causes of war. These theoretical issues are illuminated with a case study that assesses whether China can rise peacefully according to offensive realism vs. defensive realism. Along the way, concepts such as the security dilemma, offence–defence balance, central war, buck-passing, unipolarity, bipolarity, and multipolarity, and deterrence are analysed.

Offensive versus Defensive Realism

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 21-40
Author(s):  
Dmitry Grafov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
Security Dilemma ◽  
The West ◽  
Offensive Realism ◽  
Defensive Realism ◽  
Syrian Conflict ◽  
Buck Passing

This article approaches Russia’s strategy of countering the United States indirectly by way of intermediate states. It is concerned with the reasons why Russia decided to engage in the Syrian conflict in 2015 and, from this perspective, the real goals of Russia’s policy in the region. These questions cannot be considered without taking account of how they are linked with the all-out confrontation between Russia and the West in Ukraine. The Syrian conflict merely represents an external platform for Russia in countering the United States. Russia is testing her own power to force the United States out of Syria and seeks any opportunity to demonstrate American vulnerability. There is a triangle of interests for the key regional actors—Turkey, Iran, and Russia—that oppose US interests. The rising confrontation with Washington in Syria triggered Moscow to seek ways of using other potential rivals of the United States, given that there are numerous areas of tension and conflict with Washington beyond the Middle East. The author’s analysis of the actors’ behavior is based on the “security dilemma” and the “balance of power” approaches. There are well-known disputes between “defensive” and “offensive” realism in the theory of international politics concerning which of these approaches is more reliable and reasonable when considering costs and results, as well as the risk of tensions spiraling out of control (“security spiral”). The aim of this research is to make a comparison between America’s offensive strategy with Russia’s defensive approach and evaluate the efficiency of both policies. Following a particular scholarly approach, this article presumes that Moscow acquires power via the indirect, “low-cost strategies,” using any opportunity available to counterbalance US power via other countries. It is concluded that offensive or defensive behavior depends on the situation and available resources. The United States has sufficient resources to implement an offensive strategy, and Washington may raise the stakes in confrontation. Russia’s defense approach of a “buck-passing” strategy is more efficient, but Moscow suffers from a lack of resources and chooses indirect countering, using any means necessary to counterbalance US power in Syria and beyond.

Russia and the Ukraine Crisis: An Analysis of Trade Expectations Theory

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Evan Kerrane ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
Liberal Theory ◽  
Security Dilemma ◽  
State Action ◽  
Novel Theory ◽  
Defensive Realism ◽  
Nuanced Understanding ◽  
Ukraine Crisis

A debate between liberal and realist international relations theories centres on the influence of trade interdependence on state action. While liberal theorists tend to see interdependence as only a mechanism for peace, realists view trade dependency as a potential for state vulnerability. Dale Copeland’s trade expectations theory offers a bridge to this divide by arguing perception of future trade accounts for whether states perceive trade as a vulnerability or mechanism for cooperation. Copeland’s novel theory argues when states possess a positive expectation of future trade, they will continue to pursue trading relationships, as argued in liberal theory. However, once these expectations turn negative, states may face a trade-security crisis stemming from the trade vulnerabilities. This thesis applies Copeland’s theory the Russian experience leading up to the 2013 – 2014 Ukraine Crisis. The application of the theory addresses two key criticisms of trade expectations theory: first, the question of what constitutes “reasonableness” within the expectations of trade, and second, grounding the theory within the broader international relations literature. Copeland’s reliance on a “reasonable man” test of trade expectations lacks a nuanced understanding of what a reasonable perception of a state is. Through the addition of militarism as a state bias and belief, this thesis shows the theory’s logic developing within a defensive realist framework. The thesis applies the case study to a two-level security dilemma, grounding the theory’s core contribution, the trade-security dilemma, within defensive realism. Placing Copeland’s theory within this framework reveals trade expectations to be an intervening variable within a balance of power competition. Finally, the application of trade expectations theory to Russia and the Ukraine Crisis gives greater depth in understanding Moscow’s dilemma. Framing a trade-security dilemma within the broader balance of power dynamic exposes the Russian trade crisis which occurred as Kyiv shifted towards the West.

Structural Realism/Offensive and Defensive Realism

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven E. Lobell
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
Structural Realism ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
State Expansion ◽  
Offensive Realism ◽  
International Structure ◽  
Defensive Realism ◽  
The One

Structural realism, or neorealism, is a theory of international relations that says power is the most important factor in international relations. First outlined by Kenneth Waltz in his 1979 book Theory of International Politics, structural realism is subdivided into two factions: offensive realism and defensive realism. Structural realism holds that the nature of the international structure is defined by its ordering principle, anarchy, and by the distribution of capabilities (measured by the number of great powers within the international system). The anarchic ordering principle of the international structure is decentralized, meaning there is no formal central authority. On the one hand, offensive realism seeks power and influence to achieve security through domination and hegemony. On the other hand, defensive realism argues that the anarchical structure of the international system encourages states to maintain moderate and reserved policies to attain security. Defensive realism asserts that aggressive expansion as promoted by offensive realists upsets the tendency of states to conform to the balance of power theory, thereby decreasing the primary objective of the state, which they argue is ensuring its security. While defensive realism does not deny the reality of interstate conflict, nor that incentives for state expansion do exist, it contends that these incentives are sporadic rather than endemic. Defensive realism points towards “structural modifiers” such as the security dilemma and geography, and elite beliefs and perceptions to explain the outbreak of conflict.

3. Realism

2021 ◽  
pp. 66-102
Author(s):  
Georg Sørensen ◽  
Jørgen Møller ◽  
Robert Jackson
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
Research Programme ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The Past ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Offensive Realism ◽  
Classical Realism ◽  
Defensive Realism ◽  
Power Concept

This chapter examines the realist tradition in international relations (IR), which is best seen as a research programme with several approaches using a common starting point. It highlights an important dichotomy in realist thought between classical realism and contemporary realism, including strategic and structural approaches. After describing the elements of realism, the chapter discusses the international thought of three outstanding classical realists of the past: Thucydides, Niccolò Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes. It then analyses the classical realist thought of Hans J. Morgenthau, along with strategic realism, neorealism, and neoclassical realism. Special attention is devoted to the defensive realism of Kenneth Waltz and the offensive realism of John Mearsheimer. Furthermore, the chapter looks at the recent theoretical debate among realist IR scholars concerning the relevance of the balance of power concept and it shows that realists often disagree among themselves. The chapter concludes with an overview of how the different realist theories treat international and domestic factors.

3. Realism

2018 ◽  
pp. 69-106
Author(s):  
Robert Jackson ◽  
Georg Sørensen ◽  
Jørgen Møller
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
Research Programme ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
Neoclassical Realism ◽  
The Past ◽  
Offensive Realism ◽  
Classical Realism ◽  
Defensive Realism ◽  
Power Concept

This chapter examines the realist tradition in international relations (IR). It highlights an important dichotomy in realist thought between classical realism and contemporary realism, including strategic and structural approaches. After describing the elements of realism, the chapter discusses the international thought of three outstanding classical realists of the past: Thucydides, Niccolò Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes. It then analyses the classical realist thought of Hans J. Morgenthau, along with strategic realism, neorealism, and neoclassical realism. Special attention is devoted to the defensive realism of Kenneth Waltz and the offensive realism of John Mearsheimer. Furthermore, the chapter looks at the recent theoretical debate among realist IR scholars concerning the relevance of the balance of power concept and it shows that realists often disagree among themselves. The chapter concludes with an overview of the prospects for the realist tradition as a research programme in IR.

2. Realism

2018 ◽  
pp. 12-29
Author(s):  
Charles L. Glaser
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
International Security ◽  
Structural Realism ◽  
Security Policies ◽  
Realist Theory ◽  
Offensive Realism ◽  
Defensive Realism ◽  
Basic Features ◽  
International Anarchy

This chapter examines realism as a dominant explanation of why and how states have sought security. It first considers the basic features of realist theory, including its emphasis on the implications of international anarchy and the importance of power, before discussing major divisions within the realist family, along with their implications for states’ security policies and war. The most fundamental division is between structural realism and motivational realism. The chapter proceeds by looking at the debate between Kenneth Waltz’s structural realism, offensive realism, and defensive realism. In contrast to Waltz and offensive realism, defensive realism argues that the risks of competition can make cooperation a state’s best strategy. The chapter illustrates how these different arguments result in divergent predictions for how China’s continuing economic growth is likely to influence international security. It suggests that war is more likely when the offence-defence balance favours offence.

`Big and Important Things' in IR: Structural Realism and the Neglect of Changes in Statehood

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georg Sørensen
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Structural Realism ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Military Power ◽  
Weak States ◽  
Security Dilemma ◽  
Self Help ◽  
External Threat ◽  
International Threat

Structural realism has important insights to offer regarding the current balance of power and its effects on world politics. But structural realism is less ready to analyze changes in statehood and their implications for international relations. States are not `like units' and anarchy does not always mean self-help. A richer concept of structure which includes economic power, political—military power, and international norms gives us a better take on the ways in which international forces affect domestic structures of states. In particular, they help us detect the weak states in the developing world, and the postmodern states in the OECD world. In weak states the classical security dilemma has been turned on its head: instead of domestic order and international threat there is domestic threat and international order. In postmodern states violent external threat has been dramatically reduced because these states make up a security community.

2. Realism

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles L. Glaser
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
International Security ◽  
Structural Realism ◽  
Security Policies ◽  
Realist Theory ◽  
Offensive Realism ◽  
Defensive Realism ◽  
Basic Features ◽  
International Anarchy

This chapter examines realism as a dominant explanation of why and how states have sought security. It first considers the basic features of realist theory, including its emphasis on the implications of international anarchy and the importance of power, before discussing major divisions within the realist family, along with their implications for states’ security policies and war. The most fundamental division is between structural realism and motivational realism. The chapter proceeds by looking at the debate between Kenneth Waltz’s structural realism, offensive realism, and defensive realism. In contrast to Waltz and offensive realism, defensive realism argues that the risks of competition can make cooperation a state’s best strategy. The chapter illustrates how these different arguments result in divergent predictions for how China’s continuing economic growth is likely to influence international security. It suggests that war is more likely when the offence–defence balance favours offence.

scholarly journals Navigating the Security Dilemma: China, Vietnam, and the South China Sea

2012 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 79-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason J. Blazevic
Keyword(s):  
South China Sea ◽  
South China ◽  
The South China Sea ◽  
Common Denominator ◽  
The South ◽  
Security Dilemma ◽  
China Sea ◽  
Sea Bed ◽  
Offensive Realism ◽  
Defensive Realism

Competition and conflict in the South China Sea involves many nations due to its resources and vital sea lanes. However, it is China which increasingly serves as a common denominator of intensifying anxiety for its South China Sea maritime neighbours due to the aggressive scope of its claims to the sea and its islands. Among those states, Vietnam is most affected as it is first in the path of Chinese ambitions – ambitions which authorities fear would give China significant tactical military and economic advantage. For China, there are similar fears over threats to the sea lanes and sea bed resources. Leaders of both states also perceive their diplomatic and martial actions in the sea in historical terms as well. However, enforcement actions taken by either state may lead to a worsening security dilemma in which reactive security strategies could dangerously destabilise relations. This article discusses the motivations and strategies of both states as well as the consequences of such and applies realism, its tenets of defensive and offensive realism, and neoliberalism to examine their security concerns and perceptions. The article further proposes that the most valuable insights can be provided by defensive realism and neoliberalism, which together can encourage security, cooperation and conciliation in order to best promote the improvement of relations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document