Realism, Prediction, and Foreign Policy

Abstract

Attempts by some contemporary realists to both claim that international politics are objectively predictable and at the same time prescribe particular foreign policies cannot hold together logically, because they are internally contradictory. The core argument of this article is that these attempts not only fail to fulfill their goal, but that the attempt to be scientific, to see the world as predictable, is ontologically incompatible with the core insight of classical realism, that we must see the world as it is, rather than as we want it to be. There are two ramifications of this observation for a realism that is not internally contradictory. The first is that a prescriptive realism must be a theory of foreign policy, not a theory of systems structure. And the second is that a realism that works as a theory of foreign policy prediction needs to be reflexive, needs to examine its own assumptions and biases as an integral part of the process of studying international politics.

A Foreign Policy Analysis Perspective on the Domestic Politics Turn in IR Theory

“…First, not all IR theory relates to general, systemic patterns. As Elman has demonstrated in detail, neorealists (including Waltz) consistently offer foreign policy explanations and predictions (Elman ; see also Fearon ; Barkin ). Mearsheimer clearly states that his brand of neorealism is a theory of international outcomes and a theory of states’ foreign policy (Mearsheimer :422, footnote 60).…”

“…This turn is ironic since realism was instrumental in advancing the division between the international and domestic realms of politics. Rejecting neorealist arguments that unit‐level characteristics are unimportant and that IR theory is separate from foreign policy theory, neoclassical realists have sought to create a coherent realist perspective on foreign policy (for overviews, see Brooks ; Wivel ; Barkin ; Lobell, Ripsman, and Taliaferro ). NCR places primacy on the international system and relative material capabilities, but see these as filtered through the state.…”

Analysis of Proxy Wars from a Neorealist Perspective; Case of Syrian Crisis

“…The structure of the international system, the geographical distance and the threat of nuclear war were a warning system in the realist perspectives of the US and the Soviet Union. The US and the Soviet Union's failure to engage in a nuclear conflict TESAM TESAM Akademi Dergisi/ Turkish Journal of TESAM Academy pushed these two forces into reckoning in different regions (Barkin, 2009;James, 1995, s. 192-196). From past to present, the international system is both in a dilemma with this aspect and peace process from the neorealist perspective.…”

Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis

“…Although various approaches to realism can capture important aspects influencing state foreign policies-the primacy of security interests and the drive for power among all statesthey do have some noted limitations. Neorealism, or 'structural' realism, for example, has been critiqued for focusing on structures and anarchy, which are relatively constant, while at the same time trying to account for variations in individual states' foreign policy behaviors (Barkin 2009;Elman 2007). Indeed, it is not entirely clear whether or not Neorealism is a theory of foreign policy at all: Offensive realists, such as Mearsheimer clearly claim to explain the power-seeking propensities of states 2001, while defensive realists like Waltz explicitly deny this represents a theory of foreign policy (Waltz 1979).…”