International politics and relations remains to be a topic of immense debate for theorists and experts due to the varying descriptions and interpretations of its nature and structure. Some argue that the world order should be seen as it is and power is what leads actors to become selfish and enter war. Others argue that war or power should not be the focus of political actors, it should be progress and the will of a bureaucratic organization that represents the collective interest of its member states. Within ideologies, several schools branch out to provide their own concept of international politics while still retaining the nature of their main school. In realism, a sub-variant known as neo-realism or structural realism had been conceptualized to provide another look as to how the international political system shifts. Neo-realism focuses on three things to understand the international system: the importance of the international political system’s structure in influencing the behavior of all states, the influence of absolute and relative gains, and the nature of security threats presented by the international systems in outlining the strategies states must utilize.
According to Lamy (2011), there are at least three versions of neo-realism identified in the analysis of the international system: structural realism, neo-realism discussing absolute and relative gains, and defensive and offensive realism established in security studies. In the first version conceptualized by Kenneth Waltz, structural realism/neo-realism argues that the effects of the structure must be considered in understanding the shifts in the international system. Waltz stated that structure is defined by anarchy, and the distribution of capabilities between actors is not different from others. This structure then influences foreign policy choices, which would then cause states to try and fund strategies to make up for the lack of a common power or authority to enforce the rules and maintain order in the international system. In the example provided by Lamy to prove this point, India and Pakistan’s nuclear testing programs were their solution to survive the competitive world that lacks order and rule enforcement. The anarchic system also emphasizes that states with greater power would have a greater influence within the international system. Neo-realism under Waltz also argues that power is not just comprised of military power or their capacity to influence and control other states. Power is determined by the collective capability of the state and this would give them the position in the international system, as well as how their state would act and behave. Waltz also argues that anarchy is what influences the state and within the anarchic system, each state felt the same constraints under this system.
In the second version of neo-realism, Burchill (2009) identifies that the focus of neo-realism is focused on the concepts of relative and absolute gains. According to Joseph Grieco, states are mostly interested in increasing their power and influence (absolute gains) and would enter into agreements or cooperation to increase their capabilities and technologies to sustain their power. Aside from this, states are also focused on the capabilities of other states and how much power they would attain in cooperative agreements (relative gains). However, cooperation is hindered by cheating and the relative gains of other actors, which would then force states to back out from the cooperative endeavor due to the risks states would attain. The abandonment of states to cooperative efforts is increased when participants observe that other participants gain more from the partnership. For example, in banning the use of landmines, signatories would need to comply to all the premises of the treaty. As institutions try to establish the treaty, leaders, under neo-realism, would have to focus on the states that would attempt to cheat or gain a military advantage due to the removal of landmines as a security deterrent. Grieco and fellow scholars also questions if there is a possibility that all states would gain in cooperative agreements or would there be a possibility that someone would gain more than the other .
The final version or argument of neo-realism is concentrated on the nature of security threats to the behavior of states and their structure. In this case, neo-realists are divided into two: offensive and defensive realism. In offensive realism, they accept Waltz’ analysis that relative power is crucial in determining the capacity of states. John Mearsheimer suggests that leaders pursue policies that would ensure that their enemies would be weakened and influence their overall capacity. Leaders must also be prepared for possible expansions from states that may challenge the balance of power, and shift the stability of the international system. Defensive neo-realists, like Robert Jervis and Jack Snyder, on the other hand, argue that most leaders are aware to the consequences of war and would apply policies and strategies that would mostly concentrate on pursuing state interest. In comparison with offensive neo-realists, defensive realists are more optimistic in the sense that cooperation is possible .
Under neo-realism, states within the international arena is influenced by its structure, the possible gains available in agreements and the balance of power which would challenge their security strategies. The overall situation and structure of the international system influences state behavior and would align their policies accordingly to sustain their power. The international system also influences states in terms on their interest in attaining absolute and relative gains in international cooperation and agreements. Finally, neo-realism emphasizes the nature of power within the system and how it would impact state behavior in understanding politics. Taking into consideration these factors, it provides the image that states, within this anarchic system, remain state-centric and focused in ensuring that their interest is crucial.
References
Burchill, S., Linklater, A., Devetak, R., Donnelly, J., Nardin, T., Paterson, M., . . . True, J. (2009). Theories of International Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillian.
Lamy, S. (2011). Contemporary mainstream approaches: neo-realism and neo-liberalism. In J. Baylis, S. Smith, & P. Owens, The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (pp. 114-129). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
