Analysis Of Neorealist Kenneth Waltz's Idea Of Power By Hans Morgenthau

Evidently, constructivism provides a more optimistic outlook towards international politics. The static view taken by the realist theory places balance of power as an inevitable consequence of the international system wherein chaos is unavoidable, resulting in war and conflict. On the other hand, constructivists believe that conflict is not inevitable, rather threats of conflict can be extinguished through the analysis and restructuring of identities. In brief, whilst constructivists accept the presence of anarchy in the international system, they argue that its effects are dependent on the subjective meanings we place on it.

Copeland, M.A. (1970). The Game of Nations: The Amoraility of Power Politics. New York: Simon And Schuster.

Today these philosophical positions have grown and taken deeper root in the international governmental stage. The works of philosopher Martha Nussbaum has taken these understandings reached during the age of enlightenment and represented them in what is known as The Capabilities Approach. This work has gone on to influence the United Nations in the creation of the Human Development Index. Nussbaum's book _Creating Capabilities,_ she puts forth her List of Central Capabilities; the first three are of interest.

In a realist world, states have “supreme power” over its territory and population, there is an absence of a higher authority. The fact that there is no higher authority has its consequences. States become self-interested, they compete for power and security. It can lead states to continuously struggle for power “where the strong dominate the weak (Kegley, 28).” This ultimately creates a system in which each state is responsible for its own survival, making them cautious towards their neighboring states. In addition, a realist world is a self-help system; “political leaders seek to enhance national security” by building armies and forming alliances (Kegley, 28). Economic and military power are key components to a state sovereignty and to national security.

Eventually, Morgenthau was succeeded by the father of neo-realism, Kenneth Waltz. Waltz’s 1979 book, Theory of International Politics, attempted to establish and develop systematic and structural realism which ultimately divided this school of thought into two: classical realism and neo-realism. Neo-realism, also known as structural realism, can be further divided into defensive realism and offensive realism. The first part of

There are two, key conflicting theories in the study of international relations, idealism and realism, known to scholars as the ‘Great Debate’. Realism, offers an account of international affairs through four central ideas; that states are the key players in international relations, the decentralised international stage is anarchic, actors are rational and self-interested

In the collective culmination of the state of nature, individuals in society create a different state; that is, “a legal entity that possesses a permanent population, a well-defined territory and a government capable of exercising sovereignty” (Kegley & Raymond 2005, p. 47). The state, often used interchangeably with the terms ‘nation’ or ‘nation-state’, is the most important actor in the Realist international system. Possessing no superior authority (sovereignty), the respective states of the world interact in a condition of anarchy. With this provision, the state is unrestrained by the ‘social contract’ imposed on individuals at a domestic level. Thus, the actions taken

Another early realist Thomas Hobbes emphasized in the competition among states, arguing that “without order imposed by the state, humans naturally struggle against one another, driven by competition and in search of glory” (Shiraev&Zubok, 2016, pp. 44). These first thoughts are what is considered classical realism, which later developed into neo-realism also called structural realism, with the arguments of the American political scientist Kenneth Neal Waltz. Although Waltz accepted the early realist approach, he believed that the nature of the international system and power were the main determinants of the state 's behavior. Since the international system is anarchic, there is not a legal entity that dictates how a state should act or an entity that can assure a state 's safetyIf a state has the capabilities to pursue greater power, it has the ability to do so at any given time. This positions all states in a place of uncertainty where security can only be achieved by relying on the imposition of its power. Since many states lack the capabilities or power to be perceived as a potential threat, these states would seek alliances with other states which have been already established as international powers and can provide them with a greater sense of security against other powerful states. For structural

With all the aspects in mind, we shall explain what our principles are. Basically realists such as Hans Morgenthau and Reinhold Niebuhr believed that states are like human beings that have natural tendencies to dominate others, which lead them into wars. Morgenthau also believes in it virtues of classical, multipolarity, and balance of power. He sees bipolarity as very dangerous as what we saw between US and USSR during the cold war era.

Overall, Waltz’s argument of the three images is extremely persuasive. The logical underpinnings of the models and the ways in which they collaborate are, for the most part, concrete and well thought-out. His theory provides for three basic ideas through which the origins of all conflict can be distilled. First, Waltz (1959) provides that thinkers such as Spinoza place the responsibility of violence at the feet of human imperfection and lack of reason. Secondly, he postulates that domestic policy of a state will lead to conflict (Waltz 1959). Finally, the theorist channels Rousseau’s The Social Contract to explain warfare as a symptom of international relations (Waltz 1959). The ways in which these three ideas correlate are what make Waltz’s explanation so compelling. The first two of these images, the man and the state, explain how a country behaves internally. The

The final level of analysis Morgenthau considers to be important is whether or not the power is legitimate and moral or if it is illegitimate and immoral. Legitimate and moral power carries considerable weight in the international community. However, if the power of a state is derived from illegitimate sources such as a dictatorship the international community will be less responsive to that state, weakening its power. Weak or small states may enter into alliances with stronger states to increase their power and influence within the international community (Kleinberg 2010, 33-34). Morgenthau also believed that the charisma and personality of a leader was very important when reviewing the balance of power and understanding a state’s self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32).

Social constructivism emerged in the mid-1990s, after the end of Cold War. Although it has been seen as a 'young ' theory in International Relations, it has challenged the two dominant theories – realism and liberalism. It also provided new theoretical openings to understand the International Relations. Social constructivists tried to establish a “middle ground” between rationalism and poststructuralism. Unlike realism, social constructivism claims that material capabilities of states, such as military power, is not the only essential factor in International Relations. It also concentrates on other non-material factors, including identity, culture, ideas, norms, institutions and interests. Moreover, it believes that the interaction of structures and agency is a key in explaining the international politics. However, not every social constructivists agree with the same themes of the theory. There is contestation. According to Ted Hopf (1998), social constructivism can be divided into two categories. The first type is the conventional constructivism, in other words, the 'weak ' constructivism. The second type is the critical constructivism, which is also called poststructuralism. In this essay, I am going to discuss the limitations of the weak form of social constructivism from the perspectives of other approaches, such as the critical constructivism and rationalism. The other approaches can indicate the deficiency of the weak form of social constructivism.

Realism is one of the main theories within International Relations. It provides the view that all actors within the international system act on their own self-interests to gain power. This essay intends to discuss its usefulness as a theory and the reasons for and against it being used to analyse world affairs. Firstly, it shall discuss how the theory is advantageous as it explains how shifts in the balance of power can lead to conflict however it is unable to explain why the distribution of power changes. Second, it will portray how it is useful because states do not need to be labelled as good or bad to fit the theory although it disregards the idea of Natural law and gives a cynical view of human morality. Finally, it will suggest that as the theory is very parsimonious, it can be applied to multiple situations within the world system. On the other hand, it will be said that it fails to look at individuals within a state and their influence on the actions of the state. These costs and benefits will be conveyed through the current tensions between the USA and North Korea to link the theory in with current world politics.

In “Structural Realism...” Waltz defends his theory of Structural Realism against criticism that its tenets are no longer valid in a post-Cold War world. The international system, he writes, is still anarchic, even though that system is unipolar instead of bipolar as it was during the Cold War, and that states still seek hegemony and power. A nation 's ideals and internal factors may count for something (he posits that the US intervention after the collapse of Yugoslavia was the result of such pressures),3 but they certainly shouldn 't. States should make decisions based on the idea of maintaining their own security and maintaining a balance of power in the international system.

In this text, Keohane and Nye try to shape and define a new concept of power applied on international relations based on the notion of interdependence, which is a concept broadly used and misunderstood in the discipline. Interdependence is getting more and more important in defining international affairs, inter-state relationships and worldwide behaviors; for a good understanding of the issue, we should now define the cornerstone, the backbone of the whole topic. Interdependence means, in Keohane and Nye's words, the situation of “mutual dependence [...] characterized by reciprocal effects among countries or among actors in different countries”. Although it is certain