Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Neorealist Debate
February 24, 2013
Jervis
Most important difference in general is that:
Neorealists believe that the existing levels of conflict
in the world are insurmountable because states a) are
cooperating as much as they can, b) in that they are
already at their Pareto Optimal position
Neoliberals argue that conflict can be further reduced
because cooperation is now impeded by problems of
information and trust, problems that could be
resolved through the operation of international
institutions (just as they were resolved domestically
through national institutions that created selfreinforcing norms that promote trust and
cooperation)
Jervis
Also differ in their understanding of institutions:
Neoliberals see institutions as having a life of their own in the sense that
they can act independently of states and facilitate cooperation among
states that is not available due to the bare existence of overlapping or
mutual interests. Institutions can create new opportunities for
cooperation.
Neorealists: institutions are just tools of states that provide the platform
by which cooperation dictated by overlapping or mutual interests is played
out.
Empirically, it is not clear what institutions can do. It could be that they
can be innovative (create opportunities for cooperation that statesmen
cannot see) and transformative (can change preferences), though the
latter so for have only arisen in circumstances in which such
transformations were neither foreseen nor intended.
Jervis
However, there is a difference among realists:
Offensive realists tend to see the level of
conflict as irreduceable. The problem isnt
information or absence of norms (as indicated
in Prisoner Dilemma situations) but
incompatible interests particularly the
presence of countries willing to go to war to
expand, or the presence of countries with
incompatible security requirements.
Jervis
Defensive realists are more like neo-liberals in
seeing many current conflicts as being
describable by the Prisoners Dilemma, and
thus accepting that a more optimal position is
available through cooperation facilitated by
information and trust-forming conditions.
However, they also accept that some
situations are not so describable, involving
aggressors and incompatible security needs.
Mearshiemer: EH Carr
There is no difference between current
conditions and when Carr wrote in the 1930s:
States and power are the most important
factors in explaining international affairs
Predominance of idealists, who do not accept
that these factors are decisive.
Carrs Views
Statesmen misunderstand world politics
Are utopian, in that they hope
To change the nature of international politics
Create an international order not built on balance
of power
Believe in the efficacy of individuals to change the
nature of states and their actions
Carr
Argued for the importance of military power
But did not say why states pursue power and only
hinted at how much power states want observes
they always want more
Recognized that statesmen must pay attention to
international norms in both peace and war, and
that populations in states tend to embrace those
norms and expect statesmen to follow them.
But also seemed to argue that power and the
following of norms are incompatible
Carr
Thus, despite some gaps, Mearshiemer suggests
that Carr created the basis for powerful way of
explaining international politics that was free of
nave moralizing and encompassed at least part
of the types of analysis that modern liberal
internationalists engage in.
But discarded after WWII with the re-emergence
of idealists (liberal internationalists, English
School, constructivists, post-modernists)
Carr
Move to marginalize the type of analysis that Carr
articulated a mistake; even more of a mistake to
try to eliminate all traces of realism in academia.
Current analysis:
Argue by changing discourse rather than convince
through rational argument
Replace state as the unit of analysis with the
individual
Set up academic idealists as the principal actors.
Nye
However, realism and liberalism are not as different as
they are often depicted; instead, they are often
complementary:
Realism provides essential discussions regarding the
role of states, power and the international system.
Liberalism provides important discussion regarding:
How states define their interests through the workings of
domestic politics
How states can learn, particularly in terms of cooperation
Pluralistic security communities (NATO)
Regional cooperation (integration of Europe)