Structural Realism

Today, world politic affects each and every individual. World politics
is shape by the decision of political forces and the decisions affect
pattern of international trade, investment and production. To
understand the complexities of securities In nuclear age, there demand
emerge for the myriad of international theory of world politics.
Robert o Keohane believe that theory have implications for practice
and it should be studied by the policymaker.

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Theory would be useful, nevertheless it is necessary for any
practitioner using international relations theory to remain skeptical;
indeed, the more seriously the maxims are taken, the more important is
the task of critical analysis. If the maxims apply only under certain
conditions, or if the theory underlying them is fundamentally erroneous
in its understanding of the forces affecting cooperation and discord,
peace and war, they will be dangerously misleading. Critical
reevaluation is continually important in international relations-more
so than copybook learning.

Keynes Said” practitioners are prisoners of "academic scribblers;'

whose views of reality profoundly 'affect the contemporary actions of
practical people.”

Political Realism: contained three key assumptions:

(I) states (or city-states) are the key units of action;

(II) they seek power, either as an end in itself or as a means to

other ends; and

(III) they behave in ways that are, by and large, rational, and
therefore comprehensible to outsiders in rational terms

E.H. Carr stated in the second edition ( 1946) of The Twenty Years'
Crisis, 1919-1939, "in the international order, the role of power is
greater and that of morality less".

Morgenthau did not aspire to be a value-free scientist, detached from

the world of power. On the contrary, he viewed realism largely as an
interpretive guide, which would help us to "look over the shoulder" of
a statesman, enabling us "to read and anticipate his very thoughts".
Yet Morgenthau also sought to use Realism to create what he called
a "science" of international politics.
Like all realists, Morgenthau relied heavily on the concepts of power,
rationality and the balance of power.

Morgenthau characterized international politics as a struggle for power

and argued that it could be understood by assuming that statesmen
"think and act in terms of interest defined as power "International
politics is a struggle for power not only because of the inherent logic
of a competitive realm such as world politics, but also because of the
"limitless character of the lust for power [which] reveals a general
quality of the human mind". As Waltz points out, Morgenthau is not
content to see power as an instrument for the attainment of other ends
in a competitive world, but regards it also as an end in itself, due
to the nature of human beings

such theories fail to explain variations in warfare over time and

space: if human nature is constant, why shouldn't warfare be constant
as well?
Morgenthau's third major concept was that of the balance of power,
which he referred to as a "necessary outgrowth" of power politics
The balance of power is for Morgenthau a "universal concept”.

WaltZ:
Structural realists concur that international politics is essentially a struggle for power but they do not
endorse the classical realist assumption that this is a result of human nature. Instead, structural
realists attribute security competition and inter-state conflict to the lack of an overarching authority
above states and the relative distribution of power in the international system.

Waltz defined the structure of the international system in terms of three elements:—
organizing principle,------------Anarchy(Int. order) and hierarchy(domestic order)
differentiation of units, --------units of the international system are functionally similar sovereign states.
and distribution of capabilities.---- According to structural realists, the relative distribution of power in the
international system is the key independent variable to understanding important international outcomes such as war and
peace, alliance politics, and the balance of power.

According to Waltz, power is a means to the end of security.

He argued that ,rather than being power maximizers, states, according to Waltz, are security maximizers.
He argued that power maximization often proves to be dysfunctional because it triggers a counter-
balancing coalition of states.

For Waltz, a good theory will not merely point to the importance of power and the balance of power, as
Morgenthau did, but will account for the recurrent formation of balances of power in world politics, and
tell us how changing power configurations affect patterns of alignments and conflict in world politics.
From the anarchic nature of the international system, and the assumption that states "are unitary actors
who, at a minimum, seek their own preservation and, at a maximum, drive for universal domination;'
Waltz deduces that balances of power must necessarily emerge. Furthermore, as states compete with
each other "they will imitate each other and become socialized to their system.
waltz contends that military power remains as useful as ever-even that its usefulness has increased-and
that military bipolarity is remarkably stable.

Criticism:

John Gerard Ruggie: By truncating his own concept of structure, Waltz

has made it impossible for his theory to account for major changes in
world politics.
Ruggie criticizes Waltz for overlooking Durkheim's concept of “dynamic density"-the
quantity, velocity, and diversity of transactions- as a determinant of
change in world politics. Such changing patterns of interdependence
could affect world politics even without changes in the structure of
the system.

Robert o Keohane: Waltz's theory of the balance of power is inconsistent

with his assumption that states seek to "maximize power”. He argues
that Waltz's theory does not explain change well and agrees with Ruggie
that more attention needs to he paid to connections between the internal
attributes of states on the one hand, and the international system on
the other.

Robert W.Cox's: view, Morgenthau and Waltz infelicitously(anjanae mein)

transformed realism from the category of historically based critical
theory to "problem-solving theory,' which regards contemporary
institutions and power relations as permanent. Such a theory is flawed
by the error of "taking a form of thought derived from a particular
phase of history and assuming it to be universally valid.”
Cox argues that neorealism does not sufficiently take account of human
ideas and practices, and that its search for general laws prevents it
from accounting for change.
Richard K. Ashley: he sharply distinguishes neorealism from the
classical realism of Morgenthau and Herz.
Dialectical competence model.

according to the critics, neorealism does not rest on the solid rock
of a coherent epistemology but rather is sinking into a swamp of a
state-as-actor theory contradicted by its utilitarian premises.

BURCHILL
Neo-realism emerged in the 1970s, partly as a response to the challenges
posed by interdependency theory and partly as a corrective to
traditional realism's neglect of economic forces. Waltz's 'neo-realism'
or 'structural realism' is both a critique of traditional realism and
a substantial intellectual extension of a theoretical tradition which
was in danger of being outflanked by rapid changes in the contours of
global politics.

The key question which Waltz poses and then proceeds to answer is: why
do states exhibit similar foreign policy behavior despite their
different political systems and contrasting ideologies? Ex. Behavior
of USA and USSR during Cold war was similar despite their different
political system.
The explanation, to this, can be found in the systemic constraints on
each state rather than their internal composition. These systemic forces
homogenize foreign policy behavior by interposing themselves between
states and their diplomatic conduct. Waltz advances beyond 'traditional
realism' by arguing that international politics can be thought of as a
system with a precisely defined structure.
Waltz believes the international system has a precisely defined
structure with three important characteristics. These are

(1) the ordering principle of the system,

(2) the character of the units in the system, and
(3) the distribution of the capabilities of the units in the system.

In domestic political systems the ordering principle is hierarchic,

with power and authority exerted through the compulsory jurisdiction
of political and legal processes. The ordering principle of the
international system is anarchic, with an absence of any overarching
authority regulating the behavior of nation-states towards each other.

Nation-states, unlike individuals in domestic society, exist in a self-

help environment where the quest for survival requires them to seek
security through the accumulation of military power. This security
dilemma is common to all states, regardless of their domestic cultural
or political complexions. In other words, the ordering principle of the
international system forces states to perform exactly the same primary
function regardless of their capacity to do so.

According to Waltz, all states in the international system are made

functionally similar by the constraints of structure.
In an anarchic realm, they are all required to pursue security
before they can perform any other functions.

However, although they are functionally similar, states differ vastly

in their capabilities. There is an unequal and constantly shifting
distribution of power across the international system. States 'are
alike in the tasks that they face, though not in their abilities to
perform them. The capacity of each state to pursue and achieve their
common objectives varies according to their placement in the
international system, and specifically their relative power.

Criticisms:

As Linklater points out, a major problem with Waltz's unit-structure

relationship is that it leaves little or no room for systemic change
induced by the units themselves. Waltz is convinced that states are
virtually powerless to alter the system, though he concedes that under
certain conditions Virtuosos' can resist the constraints of structure.

Michael Doyle argue that though the international system is anarchial

but it does not necessarily mean that state remains skeptical about
other states. Now sates are not behaving like earlier one because
states are becoming democratic which suggest that states can limit the
influence of structure by changing their internal disposition. The
pacification of a core of liberal-democracies and the increasing number
of states choosing liberal democratic orders poses a challenge for neo-
realism's contention that the units can do little to alter the structure
of the system.

Rosecrance’s claim that the 'trading state' is displacing the 'military

state' in the contemporary world because competition for global market
shares has become more important than territorial conquest.

The epistemological critiques of neo-realism is produced by Ashley and

Robert W. Cox, both adopt a critical approach to neo-realism,
highlighting the extent to which it naturalizes the international
system by treating structures as it they were permanent, normal or
given, political fixtures. It not only legitimizes the status quo; it
also occludes(bandkrna) arguments for alternative forms of political
community which are more sensitive to changing social and ethnic
identities and the exclusionary character of political boundaries. Cox
places neorealism in the category of 'problem-solving theory' which
'takes the world as it finds it, with the prevailing social and
political relations and institutions into which they are organized, as
the given framework for action. For Cox, neorealism reduces
international relations to great power management by legitimating a
political order which favors the powerful and is hostile to change.