Waltz and the world: Neorealism as international political theory?

Abstract

The recent recovery of an empirically and ethically richer realist tradition involves an explicit contrast with neorealismʼs more scientistic explanatory aspirations. This contrast is, however, incomplete. Although Waltzʼs theoretical work is shaped by his understanding of the requirements of scientific adequacy, his empirical essays are normatively quite rich: he defends bipolarity, and criticizes US adventurism overseas, because he believes bipolarity to be conducive to effective great power management of the international system, and hence to the avoidance of nuclear war. He is, in this sense, a theorist divided against himself: much of his oeuvre exhibits precisely the kind of pragmatic sensibility that is typically identified as distinguishing realism from neorealism. His legacy for a reoriented realism is therefore more complex than is usually realized. Indeed, the nature of Waltzʼs own analytical endeavour points towards a kind of international political theory in which explanatory and normative questions are intertwined.

Realism and Fear in International Relations

“…Thucydides 1972, 49, 103, emphasis added. Booth 2011Buzan, Jones, and Little 1993;Cozette 2008;Elman 2004;Frei 2001;Humphreys 2013;Jütersonke 2010;Keohane 1986a;Layne 2002;Pashakhanlou 2009;Pashakhanlou 2014;Schroeder 1994;Schweller 1996;Snyder 2002;Toft 2005;Tucker 1952;Valeriano 2009;Wendt 1992;Williams 2007. Machiavelli 1988, 59, emphasis added.…”