The typologies of realism

Chinese Journal of International Politics

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 109-134

  Feng, Liu ^a   Ruizhuang, Zhang ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954494792     PISSN: 17508916     EISSN: 17508924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/cjip/pol006     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. For a detailed discussion of the different branches of thought or on comparisons between them, see: Stephen Brooks, 'Dueling Realism,' International Organization, Vol. 51, No. 3 (1997), pp. 445-77;
2. Gideon Rose, 'Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy,' World Politics, Vol. 51, No. 1 (1998), pp. 144-72;
3. Jeffrey W. Taliaferra, 'Security Seeking under Anarchy,' International Security, Vol. 25, No. 3 (2000/01), pp. 128-61;
4. John A. Vasquez and Colin Elman, eds, Realism and the Balance of Power: A New Debate (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002).
5. For a complete analysis of the realist school, see: John A. Vasquez, The Power of Politics: From Classical Realism to Neotraditionalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
6. Jeffrey W. Legro and Andrew Moravesik, 'Is Anybody Still a Realist?' International Security, Vol. 24, No. 2 (1999), pp. 5-55.
7. Chinese scholarship that introduces the realist school includes: Yu Tiejun, 'Jingongxing Xianshi Zhuyi, Fangyuxing Xianshi Zhuyi he Xingudian Xianshi Zhuyi' ('Offensive Realism, Defensive Realism, and Neo-Classical Realism'), Shijie Jingji yu Zhengzhi (World Economics and Politics), Vol. 5 (2000);
8. Tang Xiaosong, 'Lun Xianshi Zhuyi de Fazhan ji qi Mingyun' ('A Discussion of the Development and Destiny of Realism'), Shijie Jingji yu Zhengzhi (World Economics and Politics), Vol. 7 (2004);
9. Hu Zongshan, 'Xianshi Zhuyi de Neibu Fenqi yu Waibu Pipan' ('Realism: Internal Diversities and External Critics'), Shijie Jingji yu Zhengzhi (World Economics and Politics), Vol. 8 (2005).
10. Glenn H. Snyder, 'Mearsheimer's World-Offensive Realism and the Struggle for Security,' International Security, Vol. 27, No. 1 (2002), pp. 149-50.
11. Michael W. Doyle, Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1997), pp. 41-8.
12. For the most detailed discussion of classification of liberalist theories in international relations, see: Mark W. Zacher and Richard A. Matthew, 'Liberal International Theory: Common Threads, Divergent Strands,' in Charles W. Kegley, ed., Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge (New York: St. Martin's, 1995), pp. 107-50.
13. Qin Yaqing and Alexander Wendt, 'Jiangou Zhuyi de Fazhan Kongjian' ('The Development Space of Constructivism'), Shijie Jingji yu Zhengzhi (World Economics and Politics), Vol. 1 (2005).
14. John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: W. W. Norton, 2001), pp. 18-22.
15. Brooks, 'Dueling Realism,' pp. 445-77.
16. Rose, 'Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy,' pp. 144-72.
17. Neo-realism is generally considered identical to structural realism. In this article, these two terms are interchangeable.
18. Kenneth N. Waltz, Man, the State, and War (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959).
19. State-centric realism and system-centric realism are borrowed from Gilpin, see: Robert Gilpin, Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001), Chapter 1.
20. Jack Donelly, Realism and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p.11.
21. Hans Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 3rd edn. (New York: Knopf, 1973), pp. 4-5;
22. Martin Griffiths, Fifty Key Thinkers in International Relations (New York: Routledge, 1999), p.37.
23. For an explication of this type of view, see Legro and Moravesik, 'Is Anybody Still a Realist,' pp. 5-55.
24. Gilpin, Global Political Economy, p.18.
25. Scholars have pointed out that realist thinking has developed in two distinct directions. Human nature realism is based on the central notion that human nature is intrinsically evil, while structural realism is theoretically grounded in an international system characterized by anarchy. In our view, however, the concept of 'structure' was asserted by Waltz, and it not only incorporates the objective reality of anarchy in the international system, but even more so it emphasizes the distribution of power among states. Because of this it is appropriate to classify all theorists that emphasize the state of anarchy as system-centric realists.
26. John H. Hertz, 'Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma,' World Politics, Vol. 2, No. 2 (1950), p.157.
27. For more on the differences between Hertz and Butterfield's conceptualization of the security dilemma, see Wu Zhengyu, 'Lun " Anquan Liangnan": Sixiang Yuanyuan, Shengcheng Jili ji Lilun Quexian' ('The Security Dilemma Debate: Intellectual Roots, Generative Mechanisms and Theoretical Pitfalls'), Shijie Jingji yu Zhengzhi (World Economics and Politics), Vol. 3 (2004), pp. 34-5.
28. Charles Glaser, 'The Security Dilemma Revisited,' World Politics, Vol. 50, No. 1 (1997), pp. 189-93.
29. Kenneth N. Waltz, Foreign Policy and Democratic Politics: The American and British Experience (Boston: Little Brown, 1967).
30. In the first chapter of Theory of International Politics, Waltz discusses in detail the basic needs for constructing such a theory; see: Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979), pp. 1-17.
31. For Waltz's distinction between 'Theory of International Politics' and 'Theory of Foreign Policy,' see Waltz, Theory of International Politics, pp. 71-2.
32. Fareed Zakaria, From Wealth to Power: The Unusual Origins of America's World Role (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998), p.14.
33. Kenneth N. Waltz, 'International Politics is Not Foreign Policy,' Security Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1996), p.52, n.1.
34. On the differences between balance, as a state of the system, and balancing, as a strategy of the states, see: Susan Martin, 'Balances of Power versus Balancing,' in Andrew K. Hanami, ed., Perspectives on Structural Realism (Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), pp. 61-82.
35. On this debate see: Colin Elman, 'Why Not a Neorealist Theory of Foreign Policy?' Security Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1996), pp. 34-7;
36. Waltz, 'International Politics is not Foreign Policy,' pp. 52-5;
37. Colin Elman, 'A Response to Waltz,' Security Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1996), pp. 56-9;
38. For a recent treatment of the relationship between neo-realism and foreign policy analysis see: Shibley Telhami, 'A Essay on Neorealism and Foreign Policy,' in Hanami, ed., Perspectives on Structural Realism, pp. 105-18.
39. Waltz, 'International Politics is Not Foreign Policy,' p.57.
40. Zhang Ruizhuang expressed this to Waltz in a letter, Zhang Ruizhuang, 'The Wall That is Unnecessary: Neo-realism and Foreign Policy Theory,' manuscript, 1997.
41. For a thorough treatment of the literature on neo-classical realism, see: Rose, 'Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy,' pp. 144-72.
42. The major works in the literature on neo-classical realism are: Thomas J. Christensen, Useful Adversaries: Grand Strategy, Domestic Mobilization, and Sino-American Conflict, 1947-58 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996);
43. Aaron L. Friedberg, The Weary Titan: Britain and the Experience of Relative Decline, 1895-1905 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988);
44. Randall L. Schweller, Deadly Imbalances: Tripoliarity and Hitler's Strategy of World Conquest (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988);
45. William C. Wohlforth, The Elusive Balance: Power and Perceptions During the Cold War (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993);
46. Zakaria, From Wealth to Power. For a recent comprehensive assessment of neo-classical realism see: Randall L. Schweller, 'The Progressiveness of Neoclassical Realism,' in Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, eds, Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003), pp. 311-47.
47. Jack L. Synder, Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991), p.12.
48. Several Chinese scholars in their critique of Mearsheimer have argued that there is a relationship between offensive realism and the foreign policy of the Bush Administration, incorrectly linking the two. For an example see: Wang Chuanxing: 'Cong Mi'ersihaimo Kan Jingongxing Xianshi Zhuyi yu Danbian Zhuyi de Guanxi' ('A View of the Relationship between Offensive Realism and Unilateralism in Mearsheimer'), Shijie Jingji yu Zhengzhi (World Economics and Politics), No. 1 (2004), pp. 52-6.
49. To offer a particularly compelling example, before the United States launched the war against Iraq, 33 US scholars of international relations posted an advertisement in the New York Times titled 'War with Iraq is not in America's National Interest.' This advertisement, which the scholars paid for themselves was signed by offensive realists such as Mearsheimer and Schweller. Further, this came at the initiative of Mearsheimer, Shibley Telhami, and Stephen Walt. 'War with Iraq is not in America's National Interest,' New York Times, September 26, 2002.
50. Randall L. Schweller, 'Neo-realism's Status-quo Bias: What the Security Dilemma Is?' Security Studies, Vol. 5, No. 3 (1996), pp. 90-121;
51. Randall L. Schweller, 'Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back in,' International Security, Vol. 19, No. 1 (1994), pp. 72-107.
52. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, p.21.
53. Schweller, 'Bandwagoning for Profit,' p.100.
54. These scholars that do not emphasize the state of anarchy or the security dilemma refer to themselves as 'Optimistic Realists,' see: Charles Glaser, 'Realists as Optimists: Cooperation as Self-Help,' International Security, Vol. 19, No. 3 (1994/95), pp. 50-90.
55. Taliaferra, 'Security Seeking Under Anarchy,' p.134.
56. For the original table, see Taliaferra, 'Security Seeking Under Anarchy,' p.135.
57. Schweller, 'The Progressiveness of Neo-classical Realism,' p.318.
58. For more on the debate between offensive and defensive realism, see: Michael E. Brown, Sean M. Lynn-Jones, and Steven E. Miller, eds, The Perils of Anarchy: Contemporary Realism and International Security (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995);
59. Stephen M. Walt, 'The Enduring Relevance of the Realist Tradition,' in Ita Katznelson and Helen Milner, eds, Political Science: State of the Discipline III (New York: W.W. Norton, 2002), pp. 204-10.
60. Tuan Y. Cheng, 'Guoji Guanxi Gongshi yu Shoushi Xianshi Zhuyi Lilun Zhenglun zhi Pingxi' ('Analytical Appraisal of Defensive vs Offensive Realism'), Wenti yu Yanjiu (Issues and Studies) (Taipei), Vol. 42, No. 2 (2003), pp. 1-21.
61. Kenneth N. Waltz, 'Neo-realism: Confusions and Criticisms,' Journal of Politics and Society, Vol. XV (2004), p.6.
62. Waltz, Theory of International Politics, p.108.
63. For a discussion of 'offshore balancing' strategy, see: Christopher Layne, 'From Preponderance to Offshore Balancing: America's Future Grand Strategy,' International Security, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 86-124;
64. Layne, 'Offshore Balancing Revisited,' The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 2 (2002), pp. 233-48;
65. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, Chapters 7 and 8; Stephen Walt, 'In the National Interest: A New Grand Strategy for American Foreign Policy,' Boston Review, Vol. 30, No. 1 (2005). Of these, Layne and Mearsheimer are both offensive realists, while Walt is obviously a defensive realist.
66. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, pp. 10-11.
67. Kenneth N. Waltz, 'The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory,' Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 18, No. 4 (1988), p.616.
68. Jack S. Levy, 'What Do Great Powers Balance Against?' in T.V. Paul et al., eds, Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century (California: Stanford University Press), p.47.
69. Jack S. Levy, 'Balances and Balancing: Concepts, Propositions, and Research Design,' in Vasquez and Elman, eds, Realism and the Balance of Power, p.128.
70. Christopher Layne, 'The War on Terrorism and the Balance of Power,' in T.V. Paul et al., eds, Balance of Power, p.105.
71. For an introduction to the balance of power and hegemonic realism see: Jack S. Levy, 'War and Peace,' in Walter Carlsnaes et al., eds, Handbook of International Relations (London: Sage, 2002), pp. 354-5;
72. Johnathan M. DiCicco and Jack S. Levy, 'The Power Transition Research Program: A Lakatosian Analysis,' in Elman and Elman, eds, Progress in International Relations Theory, pp. 109-11.
73. Waltz, Theory of International Politics, p.17.
74. Levy, 'What Do Great Powers Balance Against?' in Paul et al., eds, Balance of Power, p.41.
75. For commentary on this point see: Kenneth N. Waltz, 'The Continuity of International Politics,' in Ken Booth and Tim Dunne, eds, Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of the Global Order (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002), pp. 348-53.