On Systemic Paradigms and Domestic Politics: A Critique of the Newest Realism

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Narizny

Both Gideon Rose's neoclassical realism and Andrew Moravcsik's liberalism attempt to solve the problem of how to incorporate domestic factors into international relations theory. They do so in very different ways, however. Liberalism is a “bottom-up” perspective that accords analytic priority to societal preferences; neoclassical realism is a “top-down” perspective that accords analytic priority to systemic pressures and treats domestic factors as intervening variables. These two approaches are not equivalent, and the choice between them has high stakes. Although it has gained rapidly in popularity, neoclassical realism is fundamentally flawed. Its intellectual justification is weak; it is logically incoherent; and it induces the commission of methodological errors. Realism can incorporate certain domestic factors without losing its theoretical integrity, but it does not need and should not use neoclassical realism to do so.

1977 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 286-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Kubálková ◽  
A. A. Cruickshank

The title of the article is intended to focus the attention of Western writers on international relations theory upon two aspects of this rapidly growing research area. Rather than meeting with an incomprehensible neglect it is our argument that the aspects referred to might well be accorded one of the key places. Failure to do so, it our contention, when transferred from considerations of theoretical efficiency into the no less precarious realm of practical policy, might well have proportionately hazardous implications. We would beg forbearance, however, if within the necessarily limited scope of this article only a very perfunctory and sketchy outline of the meaning and implications of the omissions can be given. The sole purpose of this article is to provoke interest in these particular areas rather than to supply the deficiencies – a task which clearly could only be undertaken in the expanded context of a major work.


2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Álvaro Vicente Costa Silva

Este trabalho resenha a obra Neoclassical Realist Theory of International Politics, de Norrin Ripsman, Jeffrey Taliaferro e Steven Lobell, publicado em 2016. O intuito dos autores é construir um modelo teórico realista neoclássico, indo além do ideário neorrealista focado apenas em fatores sistêmicos enquanto determinantes da política exterior de um Estado. Assim, alguns fatores domésticos são elencados enquanto variáveis intervenientes capazes de influenciar a resposta de um Estado aos estímulos vindos do sistema internacional.ABSTRACTThis paper aims to review Neoclassical Realist Theory of International Politics, a book written by Norrin Ripsman, Jeffrey Taliaferro e Steven Lobell and published in 2016. The authors goal is to construct a neoclassical realist model, as a further advance in comparison to neorealist appraisal of International Politics, whose claim that systemical restraints and dictates the foreign policy of states. Hence, some domestical factors are placed as intervening variables that can influence a state’s reaction to the stimulus emanated from the international system. Palavras-chave: Realismo, Teoria das Relações Internacionais, análise de política externa.Keywords: Realism, International Relations theory, Foreign policy analysis.Recebido em 13 de Maio de 2018 | Aceito em 22 de Maio de 2018.Received May 13, 2018 | Accepted on May 22, 2018. DOI


Politik ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ezio Di Nucci

If drones make waging war easier, the reason why they do so may not be the one commonly assumed within the philosophical debate – namely, the promised reduction in casualties on either side – but a more complicated one. One that has little to do with the concern for one’s own soldiers or, for that matter, the enemy, but rather one that is embedded in the political intricacies of international relations and domestic politics. This article will utilize the example of the Obama Administration’s drone policies to illustrate this argument. This analysis is also meant to have a wider methodological significance; that philosophy can make an important contribution in analyzing drone warfare. However, philosophy will not help to simplify realities and provide easy solutions. 


Author(s):  
Jonathan Cristol

Liberal international relations (IR) theory is related to, but distinct from, the Utopianism of the interwar period. The utopians believed that war could be eliminated either by perfecting man or by perfecting government. The roots of modern liberal international relations theory can be traced back farther than utopianism to Immanuel Kant’s essay “To Perpetual Peace” (1795) (and arguably farther; see Kant 2003, cited under Immanuel Kant). In that essay Kant provided three “definitive conditions” for perpetual peace, each of which became a dominant strain of post–World War II liberal IR theory. Neoliberal Institutionalism (also called “neoliberalism” or “institutional liberalism”) emphasizes the importance of international institutions (Kant’s “federation of free states”) in maintaining peace. Commercial Liberalism emphasizes the importance of economic interdependence and free trade (Kant’s “universal hospitality”) in maintaining peace. Democratic Peace Theory argues that democracies rarely, if ever, go to war with each other, and thus an executive accountable to the people or the parliament is important to maintain peace (Kant’s call for all states to have “republican constitutions”). There are other forms of liberal IR theory that are not explicitly dealt with in this article, such as functionalism and neofunctionalism, for example. For the purposes of a broad overview of the theory, only the predominant strains of liberal IR theory are included. Earlier generations of scholars refer to liberalism as “idealism.” More recent scholarship uses “idealism” to refer to “utopianism” or even “constructivism.” However, all postwar liberal theories share a few basic concepts that allow them to be called “liberal”: (1) states are the primary actors in the international system, but they are not unitary—domestic politics matters; (2) there are factors beyond capabilities that constrain state behavior; and (3) states’ interests are multiple and changing. The key concepts found in liberal theory are absolute gains, international institutions, free trade, and democracy. International Law is also important in liberal IR theory as it is seen as forming a major constraint on state behavior. Particular international institutions are also important in the development of liberal IR theory, but they are not explicitly dealt with in this article. Liberal IR theory is a particularly Western-focused theory that deals with the advantages, limitations, and exportability of typically Western forms of government. Thus, American and English sources dominate this article. It could be argued that the “English school” belongs here, but the placement of the English school in solely a realist, liberal, or constructivist framework could be considered quite controversial, as its locus within IR theory is contested. Therefore, the English school is dealt with in the “International Relations Theory” article, and more extensively in the “International Society” article.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 161-183
Author(s):  
Scott L. Kastner

The purpose of this state-of-the-field article is to take stock of the use of international relations theory in the study of cross-Strait relations since 2000. To what degree have studies of cross-Strait relations made use of international relations theory since 2000, and to what degree has international relations theory provided useful insights for understanding Beijing–Taipei relations? I focus my attention on five topics in particular: the prospects for armed conflict in the Taiwan Strait; alliance/alignment politics and the u.s.–China–Taiwan triangular relationship; interactions between domestic politics (in Taipei and Beijing) and the cross-Strait dyadic relationship; cross-Strait economic integration in the shadow of political conflict; and the role of psychology, emotion, and identity in shaping cross-Strait interactions. For each topic, I survey recent studies that apply rigorous international relations theory to the cross-Strait relationship, and where appropriate I make suggestions for further development.


Author(s):  
Joslyn Barnhart

This chapter provides a conclusion by placing the findings into the broader context of international politics and international relations theory. It demonstrates the utility of the theory for understanding the contemporary foreign policies of China and Russia and sheds light on why the effects of humiliation may linger in some states longer than others. The chapter draws key distinctions between the theory and predictions of humiliation and more material and security-based explanations of international behavior. It addresses questions on what can be done to ameliorate or even prevent national humiliation and why are the ameliorative strategies often not employed by other states, much to the detriment of international stability and cooperation. It emphasizes how national humiliation affects world affairs in crucial ways and how it led important periods of international competition within the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and will continue to do so in the future.


Author(s):  
Norrin M. Ripsman

Neoclassical realism is an approach to foreign policy analysis that seeks to understand international politics by taking into account the nature of the international system—the political environment within which states interact. Taking neorealism as their point of departure, neoclassical realists argue that states respond in large part to the constraints and opportunities of the international system when they conduct their foreign and security policies, but that their responses are shaped by unit-level factors such as state–society relations, the nature of their domestic political regimes, strategic culture, and leader perceptions. Neoclassical realists have identified a number of important limitations to the neorealist model—for example, states do not always perceive systemic stimuli correctly, or the international system does not always present clear signals about threats and opportunities. Adherents of neoclassical realism insist that their approach represents a significant improvement on existing approaches to international relations and foreign policy, including “Innenpolitik” approaches. Nevertheless, neoclassical realism faces a host of criticisms, such as the claim that it is comparatively inefficient and that it is impossible to separate international and domestic variables. To overcome these challenges, neoclassical realists need to consider a few key avenues for future research, such as generating well-specified neoclassical realist theories of foreign policy and devoting more attention to the domestic politics of international cooperation in order to shed the “competition bias” of neoclassical realism.


2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 543-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Thaddeus Jackson ◽  
Daniel H. Nexon

Concerns about the end of International Relations theory pivot around at least three different issues: the fading of the ‘paradigm wars’ associated with the 1990s and early 2000s; the general lack of any sort of ‘great debate’ sufficient to occupy the attention of large portions of the field; and claims about the vibrancy of middle-range theorizing. None of these are terribly helpful when it comes to assessing the health of International Relations theory. We argue that international theory involves scientific ontologies of world politics: topographies of entities, processes, mechanisms, and how they relate to one another. Understood this way, the state of International Relations theory looks strong: there is arguably more out there than ever before. Ironically, this cornucopia helps explain concerns regarding the end of International Relations theory. In the absence of a ‘great debate,’ let alone ways of organizing contemporary International Relations theory, this diversity descends into cacophony. We submit that three major clusters of international theory are emerging: choice-theoretic, experience-near, and social-relational. These clusters map onto two major axes of contention: (1) the degree that actors should be treated as autonomous from their environment; and (2) the importance of thickly contextual analysis. These disputes are both field-wide and high-stakes, even if we do not always recognize them as such.


Author(s):  
Mark Kramer

Drawing on theories of international relations (IR) and comparative politics, this article explains why the cold war ended in 1989 rather than 1953. Numerous scholars have used IR theory to discuss the end of the cold war, but most of the circumstances they highlight were also present in the spring of 1953, right after the death of Joseph Stalin. This article presents three broad theoretical approaches that deal with the connection between domestic politics and international relations, and it then shows how these approaches can help us understand the similarities and differences between 1953 and 1989. In particular, the article emphasises the importance of time. In the spring of 1953, the window of opportunity was very brief—only a few months, which was insufficient for the two main cold war antagonists to overcome their deeply entrenched suspicions and make far-reaching adjustments in their policies. In the latter half of the 1980s, by contrast, the sweeping reorientation of east–west relations occurred over several years, giving policy-makers on both sides sufficient leeway to adapt and to ‘learn’ new ways of interacting.


1998 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 144-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gideon Rose

Although international relations theory has been dominated for two decades by debates over theories of international politics, recently there has been a surge of interest in theories of foreign policy. These seek to explain, not the pattern of outcomes of state interactions, but rather the behavior of individual states. The author surveys three prominent theories of foreign policy and shows how the works under review set out a compelling alternative, one that updates and systematizes insights drawn from classical realist thought. Neoclassical realism argues that the scope and ambition of a country's foreign policy is driven first and foremost by the country's relative material power. Yet it contends that the impact of power capabilities on foreign policy is indirect and complex, because systemic pressures must be translated through intervening unit-level variables such as decision-makers’ perceptions and state structure. Understanding the links between power and policy thus requires close examination of both the international and the domestic contexts within which foreign policy is formulated and implemented.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document