Putting the ‘Classical’ in Neoclassical Realism: Neoclassical Realist Theories and US Expansion in the Post-Cold War

Abstract

This paper tests the explanatory power of the main strands of neoclassical realism in accounting for US foreign policy after the Cold War. According to the emphasis they place on the relevance of structural versus non-structural variables in foreign policy making, three schools can be identified. The first school restricts the role of non-structural factors to accounting for anomalous behavior; the second school argues that non-structural variables should also be included in order to understand the policy’s timing and style, and, in times of security plenty, its content; while the third school contends that it is international structural factors, i.e. a state’s strategic interactions with other polities, that shape most foreign policy. Following the test of their forecasts versus the historical record, the third school emerges as providing the most accurate account and as the most promising avenue of research for neoclassical realism.

Balancing with Jokowi’s Characteristics: A Neoclassical Realism Approach to Indonesia’s Foreign and Security Policies in the South China Sea

“…In addition to the works reviewed by Rose, a number of important works employing neoclassical realism have been published (Brown et al, 1995;Christensen, 1996;Schweller, 1998;Wohlforth, 1993;Zakaria, 1998). The neoclassical realism framework had been applied to explain cases ranging from the US expansion in the post-Cold War era (Onea, 2012), Iranian foreign policy (Juneau, 2015), EU and NATO relations with Russia (Diesen, 2016), Taiwan's cross-strait relations (Chen, 2015), the North Korean nuclear test (Nakato, 2012), Japan's security policy (Saltzman, 2015), Japan and South Korea's security policy (Yoo, 2012), US-China relations (He, 2017), Australian foreign policy (McLean, 2016) and small states' behaviour (Gvalia et al, 2019). (Ripsman et al, 2016) was probably the most ambitious neoclassical realism project so far.…”

Neorealism, neoclassical realism and the problem(s) of history

“…52 To overcome the limitations an ahistorical neorealism imposes on the study of state behaviour, many neoclassical realists return to writers like Machiavelli, Carr and Morgenthau. 53 Here, they quickly re-discover historical sensitivity, and insights on the importance of context and contingency. For Machiavelli, while fortune and necessity narrow the range of alternatives, they still require statesmen to apply their wisdom to grasp contextual opportunities.…”

Realist avenues to global International Relations

“…In response, NCR's advocates order their intervening variables in two ways: One is to systematize the intervening variables' likely interaction and influence on state behavior (Ripsman et al, 2016). Another is to categorize the different intervening variables, which highlights the differences and richness within NCR (Onea, 2012;Quinn, 2013;Rathbun, 2008;NR Smith, 2018;Taliaferro, 2000;Wivel, 2005). It is this richness that allows neoclassical realists to speak and contribute to global IR.…”

“…Critics argue that NCR lacks theoretical consistency, employs intervening variables ad hoc, and theorizes in a regressive and degenerative manner (Legro and Moravcsik, 1999; Narizny, 2017; Rathbun, 2008; NR Smith, 2018; Wivel, 2005: 367–370). In response, NCR’s advocates order their intervening variables in two ways: one is to systematize the intervening variables’ likely interaction and influence on state behavior (Ripsman et al, 2016); another is to categorize the different intervening variables, which highlights the differences and richness within NCR (Onea, 2012; Quinn, 2013; Rathbun, 2008; NR Smith, 2018; Taliaferro, 2000; Wivel, 2005). It is this richness that allows neoclassical realists to speak and contribute to global IR.…”