Kenneth Waltz talks about the balancing of power and its importance especially when there is a threat or a state of war. In his article, Anarchic Orders and Balances of Power, Waltz discusses why states do not cooperate, the consequences (balance of power, alliance formation) and finally, some examples to support his argument. He starts by discussing anarchy which is the central principal that defines the structural system within a state. Structure is a condition in a system, because firstly, it’s what defines a state and the international system is one he describes as anarchic because of it’s behavior on how it limits corporation amongst states. One of the ways is security. Many states feel uncomfortable and uncertain of their alliance
This theory can only work within an anarchic system. In an external balance, states are usually faced with a prisoner’s dilemma. In order for the theory to work, states have to play the game by the rules, that is, ‘accepting the system of the balance of power as the common endeavor for their frameworks’. He gives an example of the period after WWII and how international stability was achieved as a result of the theory. Again, playing by the rules may not necessarily work because; conforming may lead to lack of gain of power and also, insecurity as a result. Although Walt is keen on his argument, he argues that states in the international system are like firms in a domestic economy and have the same fundamental interest: to survive. His theory helps only to explain why states behave in similar ways despite their having different structural systems and ideologies, and his idea is not based on the moral aspect, which is structure and how it is constantly changing. Walt expands Waltz’s argument in his article, ‘The Origin of Alliances” by expanding on balance of power and bandwagoning in a quest to achieve international
In the article, Offense, Defense, and the Security Dilemma, Robert Jervis argues that the security dilemma is more lethal and that the international conflict is more likely to occur when the offense has an advantage over defense. Robert Jervis also maintains that, when a defense is prominent the chance of war and conflict decreases exponentially. Throughout the article, Jervis makes multiple compelling arguments regarding the offense-defense balance and the security dilemma. The security dilemma exists when "many of the means by which a state tries to increase its security and decrease the security of others. " Security dilemma provides a rational foundation referred to as the ‘spiral model’, which is a term used in international
...dens the understanding of international relations and correspondingly broadens the understanding of security. Built on Thayer’s and Waltz’s theory, the paper suggests that structure of the international system is central to international security and to achieve peace, suitable strategies are necessary to balance the power relations. While it should not be ignored that the Evolution theory still falls within realism realm with many other forms of complex security problems unexplained.
According to realist view ordering principle of the international system is based on anarchy. There is no higher authority other than the states themselves to check and balance their actions. Consequently, nation-states are the main players in this system. In other words, sovereignty inheres in states, because there is not a higher ruling body in the international system. This is known as state centrism. Survival is an obligation continuing to be sovereign. On the other hand, sovereignty is the characteristic feature of states and its meaning is strongly tied to use of force. According to the most of the realist variants, states are “black boxes”; the determinative factor is states’ observable behavior, not their leaders’ characteristics, their decision making processes or their government systems.
Wendt, A. (1992). “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization, 46(2), pp. 391-425.
Kenneth Waltz, the founder of structural realism, conveys a theory that favors the systemic structure of a state rather than the behaviors of individuals within. He posits states as black boxes where cultural and regime differences have no bearing behind their ultimate pursuit for survival. In the Theory of International Politics, Waltz elucidates three principles of state behaviors that govern their interaction in the anarchic international system. However, in this paper I will only discuss two, ordering principle and character of units.
The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of Realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power would be the UN’s ability to influence the actions of states within the UN but the state itself has the power to determine how they act. Morgenthau goes on to his next level of analysis in which he explains the difference in force and power in the international realm. Force is physical violence, the use of military power but power is so much more than that. A powerful state can control the actions of another state with the threat of force but not actually need to physical force. He believed that the ability to have power over another state simply with the threat of force was likely to be the most important element in analysis the power of as state (Kleinberg 2010, 33-34).
In conclusion realist and liberalist theories provide contrasting views on goals and instruments of international affairs. Each theory offers reasons why state and people behave the way they do when confronted with questions such as power, anarchy, state interests and the cause of war. Realists have a pessimistic view about human nature and they see international relations as driven by a states self preservation and suggest that the primary objective of every state is to promote its national interest and that power is gained through war or the threat of military action. Liberalism on the other hand has an optimistic view about human nature and focuses on democracy and individual rights and that economic independence is achieved through cooperation among states and power is gained through lasting alliances and state interdependence.
To conclude, indeed there are veracities in Waltz arguments, but also there are limitations which cannot totally explain how the international system interacts with actors from different levels. The features of the world after the Cold War do not resemble what the world is today. Phenomenon such as integration, interdependence among states and the creation of international instruments are the result of states' behavior which are constantly shaping the world politics. Therefore, one theoretical ideology by itself will not fully explain the progressive changes in the international system, taking into account that states do influence in the international system.
The discipline of international relations (IR) contains several theories that contain theoretical perspectives to the idea of power. Within the realist perspective there are two approaches that help paint the portrait of the realist theory, the classical approach to realism and the neo-realist approach. Classical realism and neorealism both have been subjected to criticism from IR scholars and theorists representing liberal and constructivist perspectives. The key tenets to realism contain three essential characteristics of international relations which are the state, anarchy and the balance of power. This essay will closely analyse all three characteristics with special regards to power being central to the realist perspective.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
...e power with which powerful states can rule the weak preserving their status as a regional and global hegemony. Finally, it is incorporated the democratic system. Although debatable for some people, democracy serves to spread the altruistic and moralistic rhetoric of a free and peaceful world. Additionally, Western states do not hesitate about the rice of new powerful nations or the threats of the mass destruction weapons, they are constantly monitoring their menaces and evaluating what is the most accurate strategy to maintain at least the status quo in this respect. The Western states need the realist approach in order to be well prepared to cope with any threat. In a final conclusion, all of these reasons have been assimilated by Western states in order to restructure a strategic doctrines with the purposes of counteract any possible threat before they emerge.
The security dilemma literatures suggest that cooperation with the other states could be a best solution to deal with the dilemma, and the states should decide when they need to enforce some strategies, such as enforce arms control and one sided defensive strategy to arms racing (Brown, Lynn-Jones, Miller 1995: 380).
The international system is an anarchical system which means that, unlike the states, there is no over ruling, governing body that enforces laws and regulations that all states must abide by. The International System in today’s society has become highly influential from a number of significant factors. Some of these factors that will be discussed are Power held by the state, major Wars that have been fought out in recent history and international organisations such as the U.N, NATO and the W.T.O. Each of these factors, have a great influence over the international system and as a result, the states abilities to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development”.
Collective security is one type of coalition building strategy whether global or regional in which a group of nations agree not to attack each other and to defend each other against an attack from one of the others, if such an attack is made. The principal is that "an attack against one is an attack against all." It differs from "collective defense" which is a coalition of nations which agree to defend its own group against outside attacks. It can also be described as a system where states attempt with its use to prevent or stop wars. Examples of Collective defense are NATO and the Warsaw Pact .The United Nations (UN) is the best example at an attempt at collective security. Many nations enter into such an agreement in an effort to maintain the status quo and to secure their best interests. Collective security is achieved when states come to an agreement on the need for same. As a result an international organization is formed under the rules of international law. The collective security organization then becomes an arena for diplomacy, balance of power and exercise of soft power. The use of hard power by states, unless legitimized by the Collective Security organization, is considered illegitimate, reprehensible and needing remediation of some kind. This idea of collective security was posited by people such as Immanuel Kant and Woodrow Wilson. There are a few basic assumptions as it relates to collective security, including , In an armed conflict, member nation-states will be able to agree on which nation is the aggressor another basic assumption is that each member state has freedom of action and ability to join in proceedings against the aggressor. Also of great importance is the fact that all member nation-states are e...
"The nation-state system has proven to be an enormously successful construct" (Smallman and Brown 37). Nation-states being when its citizens think similarly and live harmoniously under one government. "Security was defined in terms of the survival of the nation-state, and its ability to maintain its sovereignty" (Smallman and Brown 37). Basically, nations deserve to keep the authority and power to lead itself. In a democracy, the citizens of the nation are able to make more decisions for the nation. For example, when voting on who will lead the nation, voters are able to take into account many different aspects of the candidates. Citizens are then by an extent able to decide things along the lines of whether to engage or not engage in war. This is an example to how politics impact state security. This is important because "the first task of every government is to ensure the security of its citizens from outside threats" (Smallman and Brown 36). This is why an enforcement of peace by the United Nations is ideal because the fact is that "at the current mo...