Political_Economist
New member
...critique my analysis.? Hey guys, after my long arduous study of realism, I think i have the differences nailed down. Can someone tell me if i am correct in my assumptions? Or can anyone recommend a useful chart or diagram that summarizes this on the net? Can you guys simply critique this? I feel i am missing things out or i have got the terms wrong; defensive/offensive etc.
Here are Assumptions and theories of the realist thinkers:
Kenneth Waltz's neo-realism (distinguished primarily from classical realism). Is this also called defensive realism?
1.States as unitary actors
2.International change occurs with power shifts involving the rise/fall of great powers
3.Bipolar world systems more stable (Cold War period as period of stability)
5.States are self interested actors, always acting in their own national interest
6.States primary interest is survival
7.States differentiated primarily on the basis of their capabilities
8. States balance power against power
Waltz's conception of realism is termed defensive realism because of the idea of balance of power and the security dillemma; where states internally or externally (via alliances) form balances of power against stronger states.
The security dilemma reduces the gains made from strengthening miltary might while other states are doing the same thing, thus not leading to security. Both Waltz and Walt believe there is a threshold where a defending power may not be more advantaged or disadvantaged against an attacking power, and that military weaker states are not necessarily disadvantaged against stronger states- or something... (Very hazy on this)
Stephen Walt's defensive realism (also) accepts all the points of Waltz except:
1. States balance against threat rather than just power, because states can signal their intentions to other states.
Mearsheimer's offensive realism accepts all the above except the following:
1. Offensive realism's stopping power of water effectively deters states, divided by large bodies of water, from fighting each other.
2. States can never ever be sure of another states intentions
3. Therefore, states are driven by an endless pursuit of power to become global hegemons, but because of the stopping power of water, they settle for being regional hegemons and check other "potential" regional hegemons by off-shore balancing.
4. States balance against power rather than threat.
Here are Assumptions and theories of the realist thinkers:
Kenneth Waltz's neo-realism (distinguished primarily from classical realism). Is this also called defensive realism?
1.States as unitary actors
2.International change occurs with power shifts involving the rise/fall of great powers
3.Bipolar world systems more stable (Cold War period as period of stability)
5.States are self interested actors, always acting in their own national interest
6.States primary interest is survival
7.States differentiated primarily on the basis of their capabilities
8. States balance power against power
Waltz's conception of realism is termed defensive realism because of the idea of balance of power and the security dillemma; where states internally or externally (via alliances) form balances of power against stronger states.
The security dilemma reduces the gains made from strengthening miltary might while other states are doing the same thing, thus not leading to security. Both Waltz and Walt believe there is a threshold where a defending power may not be more advantaged or disadvantaged against an attacking power, and that military weaker states are not necessarily disadvantaged against stronger states- or something... (Very hazy on this)
Stephen Walt's defensive realism (also) accepts all the points of Waltz except:
1. States balance against threat rather than just power, because states can signal their intentions to other states.
Mearsheimer's offensive realism accepts all the above except the following:
1. Offensive realism's stopping power of water effectively deters states, divided by large bodies of water, from fighting each other.
2. States can never ever be sure of another states intentions
3. Therefore, states are driven by an endless pursuit of power to become global hegemons, but because of the stopping power of water, they settle for being regional hegemons and check other "potential" regional hegemons by off-shore balancing.
4. States balance against power rather than threat.