1.2 Structural realism (neorealism)

Structural realism, or neorealism, focuses on how the international system's structure shapes state behavior. It emphasizes anarchy and power distribution as key factors influencing international relations. This theory builds on classical realism but shifts attention from human nature to systemic forces.

Neorealism argues that states prioritize survival in an anarchic world lacking central authority. It explores concepts like the balance of power, security dilemma, and polarity. Critics argue it overlooks domestic factors and challenges the rational actor model.

Key assumptions of structural realism

• Structural realism, also known as neorealism, is a theory of international relations that emphasizes the role of the international system's structure in shaping state behavior
• Neorealism emerged as a response to the limitations of classical realism, which focused primarily on human nature and the internal characteristics of states
• The theory posits that the international system's structure, characterized by anarchy and the distribution of power among states, is the primary determinant of state behavior and international outcomes

Anarchy in the international system

Absence of central authority

Top images from around the web for Absence of central authority

• 

  Political Theory of Societal Association: Case of the Failed State of Syria—Part 3 ISIS View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  On the Ontology of Structural Realism View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Brian Patrick Mitchell - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Political Theory of Societal Association: Case of the Failed State of Syria—Part 3 ISIS View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  On the Ontology of Structural Realism View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Absence of central authority

• 

  Political Theory of Societal Association: Case of the Failed State of Syria—Part 3 ISIS View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  On the Ontology of Structural Realism View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Brian Patrick Mitchell - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Political Theory of Societal Association: Case of the Failed State of Syria—Part 3 ISIS View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  On the Ontology of Structural Realism View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Anarchy refers to the lack of a central governing authority above sovereign states in the international system
• Unlike domestic politics, where governments maintain order and enforce laws, the international system lacks a supreme authority to regulate state behavior
• The absence of a central authority means that states must rely on self-help to ensure their survival and pursue their interests

Self-help system for states

• In an anarchic international system, states are responsible for their own security and well-being
• States cannot rely on others to protect their interests or guarantee their survival, leading to a self-help system
• The self-help nature of the international system compels states to prioritize their own security and power, often leading to competition and conflict

Structure as the key determinant

Distribution of power among states

• Structural realism emphasizes the distribution of power among states as a crucial factor in shaping international outcomes
• Power is often measured in terms of military capabilities, economic strength, and political influence
• The relative power of states determines their ability to pursue their interests and shape the international system

Polarity and its implications

• Polarity refers to the number of great powers in the international system (unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar)
• The polarity of the system influences the behavior of states and the stability of the international order
• Bipolar systems, such as during the Cold War, are considered more stable than multipolar systems due to the balance of power between two major powers

State behavior and motivation

Survival as the primary goal

• Structural realism posits that the primary goal of states is to ensure their own survival in an anarchic international system
• States are driven by the imperative to maintain their security and protect their sovereignty
• The pursuit of survival shapes state behavior, leading to the prioritization of military capabilities, alliances, and strategic decision-making

Relative gains vs absolute gains

• Structural realism emphasizes the importance of relative gains over absolute gains in international relations
• States are concerned not only with their own gains but also with how their gains compare to those of other states
• The focus on relative gains can lead to competition and conflict, as states seek to maximize their power and influence relative to others

Balance of power theory

Internal balancing through military buildup

• Balance of power theory suggests that states respond to threats by engaging in internal balancing
• Internal balancing involves increasing military capabilities, such as expanding armed forces or developing new weapons systems
• By strengthening their own military power, states aim to deter potential aggressors and maintain their security in an anarchic system

External balancing through alliances

• External balancing involves forming alliances with other states to counter threats and maintain the balance of power
• States may align with others to pool their resources and capabilities, increasing their collective power and deterrence capacity
• Alliances, such as NATO during the Cold War, serve as a means of balancing against potential adversaries and preserving regional or global stability

Security dilemma

Uncertainty about intentions of others

• The security dilemma arises from the uncertainty states face regarding the intentions of other states in an anarchic system
• States cannot be certain whether the military buildup or actions of others are defensive or offensive in nature
• This uncertainty can lead to misperceptions and escalating tensions, as states seek to protect themselves against potential threats

Spiral model vs deterrence model

• The spiral model suggests that states' efforts to increase their security can be perceived as threatening by others, leading to a cycle of escalating tensions and conflict
• The deterrence model, in contrast, argues that states can maintain stability by demonstrating their military capabilities and resolve to deter potential aggressors
• The effectiveness of deterrence depends on the credibility of threats and the ability to communicate resolve to potential adversaries

Offensive vs defensive realism

Maximizing power vs maintaining security

• Offensive realism argues that states should seek to maximize their power and influence in the international system, even at the expense of others
• Defensive realism, in contrast, suggests that states should primarily focus on maintaining their security and avoiding conflicts that could threaten their survival
• The debate between offensive and defensive realism has implications for understanding state behavior and the likelihood of conflict in the international system

Implications for state behavior

• Offensive realism predicts that states will actively seek opportunities to expand their power and influence, potentially leading to more aggressive foreign policies
• Defensive realism suggests that states will prioritize maintaining the status quo and avoiding actions that could provoke counterbalancing coalitions
• The adoption of offensive or defensive strategies depends on factors such as the distribution of power, geographic location, and the perceived intentions of other states

Critiques of structural realism

Neglect of domestic factors

• Critics argue that structural realism overlooks the importance of domestic factors, such as political institutions, ideology, and public opinion, in shaping state behavior
• Domestic considerations can influence a state's foreign policy decisions and its ability to respond to international pressures
• The theory's focus on systemic factors may not fully capture the complexity of international relations and the role of domestic politics

Challenges to the rational actor model

• Structural realism assumes that states are unitary, rational actors that make decisions based on cost-benefit calculations
• Critics argue that this assumption overlooks the role of individual leaders, bureaucratic politics, and other decision-making processes within states
• The rational actor model may not adequately explain instances of seemingly irrational or suboptimal state behavior in international relations

Empirical applications and case studies

Cold War era international politics

• Structural realism has been applied to explain the dynamics of the Cold War, characterized by the bipolar competition between the United States and the Soviet Union
• The theory highlights the role of the balance of power, deterrence, and the security dilemma in shaping the behavior of the two superpowers
• The Cold War provides a historical case study for examining the explanatory power and limitations of structural realism in understanding international outcomes

Post-Cold War world order

• The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union presented new challenges for structural realism
• The emergence of the United States as the sole superpower and the rise of non-state actors, such as terrorist organizations and multinational corporations, have prompted debates about the relevance of structural realism in the contemporary world order
• Scholars have explored the applicability of structural realism to issues such as globalization, international institutions, and the changing nature of security threats in the post-Cold War era