![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
This article is a contribution to the clarification of the central claim of Kenneth Waltz’s neorealist international relations theory. Over the years, the notion that Waltz’s Theory of International Politics postulates a deterministic connection between the configuration of the structure of the international system and the behaviour of each of the units has gained traction in textbooks and in straw-man critiques of the neorealist approach. Two major groups of critics of neorealism’s alleged determinism have formed. The first group focuses on instances where predicted balancing behaviour did not occur in order to refute neorealism’s central claim about the link between structure and behaviour. The second group objects to any strong claims about structural features as such. In response, this article shows that a careful reading of Waltz’s writings suffices to indicate that the presupposition adopted by both groups of critics is flawed. Neorealism was never presented by its main proponent as a deterministic international relations theory.
References
|
Ashley, R. K. (1986). The poverty of neorealism. In Keohane, R. O. (Ed.), Neorealism and its critics (pp. 255–300). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Buzan, B., Jones, C., Little, R. (1993). The logic of anarchy: Neorealism to structural realism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Devetak, R. (2014). Waltz, the state of international relations, and theoretical abstraction: Contextualizing a legacy. Australian Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 552–557. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Finnemore, M. (2003). The purpose of intervention: Changing beliefs about the use of force. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Goddard, S. E., Nexon, D. H. (2005). Paradigm lost? Reassessing ‘theory of international politics’. European Journal of International Relations, 11(1), 9–61. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Hollis, M., Smith, S. (1990). Explaining and understanding international relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Inwood, B. (1987). Review: ‘Agency and integrality’ by Michael J. White. Phoenix, 41(2), 200–204. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Kang, D. C. (2007). Stability and hierarchy in East Asian international relations, 1300–1900 CE. In Kaufman, S. J., Little, R., Wohlforth, W. C. (Eds.), The balance of power in world history (pp. 199–227). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Kaufman, S. J., Little, R., Wohlforth, W. C. (2007a). Conclusion: Theoretical insights from the study of world history. In Kaufman, S. J., Little, R., Wohlforth, W. C. (Eds.), The balance of power in world history (pp. 228–246). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Kaufman, S. J., Little, R., Wohlforth, W. C. (Eds.). (2007b). The balance of power in world history. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
LaRoche, C. D., Pratt, S. F. (2018). Kenneth Waltz is not a neorealist (and why that matters). European Journal of International Relations, 24(1), 153–176. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Levy, J. S. (2004). What do great powers balance against and when? In Paul, T. V., Wirtz, J. J., Fortmann, M. (Eds.), Balance of power: Theory and practice in the 21st century (pp. 29–51). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
McSweeney, B. (1999). Security, identity and interests: A sociology of international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Ruggie, J. G. (1983). Continuity and transformation in the world polity: Towards a neorealist synthesis. World Politics, 35(2), 261–285. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Waever, O. (2009). Waltz’s theory of theory. International Relations, 23(2), 201–222. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar | |
|
Waltz, K. N. (1986). Reflections on theory of international politics: A response to my critics. In Keohane, R. O. (Ed.), Neorealism and its critics (pp. 322–346). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Waltz, K. N. (1996). International politics is not foreign policy. Security Studies, 6(1), 54–57. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Waltz, K. N. (1997). Evaluating theories. The American Political Science Review, 91(4), 913–917. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Waltz, K. N. (2008). Introduction. In Waltz, K. N. (Ed.), Realism and international politics (pp. vii–xiv). London, UK: Routledge. Google Scholar | |
|
Wight, C. (2001). The continuity of change, or a change in continuity? International Studies Review, 3(1), 81–89. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Wight, C. (2006). Agents, structures and international relations: Politics as ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Wohlforth, W. C., Kaufman, S. J., Little, R. (2007). Introduction: Balance and hierarchy in international systems. In Kaufman, S. J., Little, R., Wohlforth, W. C. (Eds.), The balance of power in world history (pp. 1–21). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Google Scholar | Crossref |
