Neorealism

Introduction to Structural Realism

Structural realism emerged from classical realism as an approach to understanding international relations that emphasizes the competitive nature of the international system. Whereas classical realists focused on human nature as the root cause of conflict between states, structural realists highlight the anarchic structure of the international system as the key driver of state behavior.

Specifically, structural realists argue that in an anarchic system where there is no overarching authority, states operate in a self-help environment and compete for power out of self-interest and the motivation for survival. The lack of a central global authority means states cannot rely on institutions for protection but must provide for their own security. This encourages states to accumulate material capabilities and engage in power politics to shift the balance of power in their favor.

Neorealists think that power is what matters in world politics. It depends on the material capabilities that a state can do. States fight for power and do everything they can to tip the scales of power in their favor.

Classical realists thought that conflict was built into people, but modern structural realists (neorealist) say that states have to play power politics because of how the international system is set up (i.e. the chaotic order of the international system).

Core Assumptions

Structural realism is based on five core assumptions about the international system:

• Great powers are the main actors and they operate in an anarchic international system. By anarchy realists do not mean chaos, but simply the absence of a centralized global authority that can enforce rules on states.
• All states possess offensive military capabilities, although this varies over time. States build up military power for offensive and defensive purposes.
• States can never be certain about other states’ intentions. A defensive military stance by one state can look offensive and threatening to another state. This links to the debate between offensive and defensive realists on whether states aim to revise the status quo or maintain it.
• The main goal of states is survival. Their primary motivation is to ensure their continuing existence as sovereign entities.
• States are rational actors operating with imperfect information - they aim to make calculated decisions to maximize their interests, but sometimes make mistakes due to limited information.

Offensive vs Defensive Realism

There is an important debate within structural realism between ‘defensive’ and ‘offensive’ camps.

Offensive realists argue that states should always be looking for opportunities to gain more power, with the ultimate prize being hegemony, as this is the best means to ensure survival.

Defensive realists argue that unrelenting expansion is imprudent as conquest is often costly and troublesome. For this reason, defensive realists believe that states should seek an ‘appropriate amount of power’ rather than maximum power.

Structural realists also recognize a debate around revisionist states vs status quo states. Revisionist states aim to alter the balance of power in their favor, while status quo states are satisfied with the current order. This leads to the ‘security dilemma’ where defensive military postures can appear aggressive to other states.

Bipolarity vs Multipolarity

Structural realists have an important debate on whether a bipolar system (two great powers) or a multipolar system (three or more great powers) is more stable in international relations.

Bipolarity More Stable?

Realists who believe bipolarity leads to greater stability offer three main arguments:

1. There are fewer opportunities for great powers to fight each other compared to a multipolar system. With only two major powers, the possibilities for conflict are more limited.
2. The relative balance of power between the two superpowers tends to be more even in terms of wealth, population, and other resources that build military might. This makes balancing behaviors between the two easier and more stable.
3. There is greater potential for miscalculation and mistrust in a multipolar system with more great powers. The dynamics between two powers are simpler to understand and anticipate.

Multipolarity More Stable?

Realists who argue multipolarity produces more stability provide two key rationales:

1. More great powers create more deterrence. In a multipolar world, multiple states can join together to deter an aggressive power.
2. Attention and hostility is more diffused with more major powers. Rather than intense bipolar competition, realists believe multipolarity leads to less directly confrontational postures between the great powers as they focus on diverse threats.

Unipolarity

With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, many realists argue that unipolarity has arrived. Such a world is likely to be more stable than either bipolarity or multipolarity. Logically, there can be no war or security competition among great powers; minor powers will not cause any trouble for fear of offending the unipolar power. One danger in a unipolar world is that the absence of security competition encourages the great power to withdraw from outer regions thus increasing the likelihood of war breaking out. Or a hegemon might use its overwhelming power to engage in ideological engineering, causing insecurity and triggering ideologically driven counter-balancing behavior.

However, other realists argue that it is not polarity that is the key variable explaining war, rather it is the amount of power each great power controls. The question is whether preponderance generates relative peace (such as in the era of Pax Britannica between Napoleon’s defeat in 1815 and the outbreak of World War 1), or if it incentivizes the preponderant power to use force to establish hegemony.

Power Concentration

Another key debate within structural realism focuses on the distribution of power between states (balance of power). Specifically, whether relative peace emerges when one state has clear preponderance, or if conflict is more likely when a rising challenger confronts an established power.

On one side, some argue that preponderance of power generates stability, as evidenced by the era of Pax Britannica from Napoleon’s defeat in 1815 to World War I. When one state has clear military and economic superiority, it can deter challenges through strength alone.

However, others contend that rising challengers are the most dangerous dynamic, pointing to Germany confronting Russia in 1914 and the Soviet Union in 1939. As Bismarck consolidated power for Germany, stability prevailed. But when Wilhelmine and Nazi Germany sought rapid expansion, it led directly to devastating wars.

Case Study: China’s Rise

China’s rapid economic growth and military modernization has led realists to debate the implications of China’s rise for international stability.

• Offensive realists predict that China will pursue regional hegemony in Asia as its power grows. This means removing threats to its security and displacing the United States as the dominant military power in Asia. The United States will resist this challenge to its unipolar power. Conflict is likely according to offensive realists.
• Defensive realists argue China will be deterred from pursuing hegemony by nuclear rivals like India and the high costs of conquest. They predict China will consolidate power but avoid aggressive expansion.

China’s rise also has implications for neorealist views on unipolarity and the stability it brings. If China’s power shifts the structure to bipolarity, some argue the Cold War showed this can be stable. However, those who see unipolarity as uniquely peaceful will be concerned about China threatening the United States’ preponderant power.

In conclusion, neorealists disagree on whether China can rise peacefully. Their diverging views on power balances and causes of war lead to different predictions about China’s trajectory. Its actual path will be an important test of neorealist theories.