According to Kenneth Waltz in his "The
origins of war in Neorealist theory theory cannot
explain the accidental or account for unexpected events; it deals in
regularities and repetitions and is possible when these can be identified. A
theory indicates that some factors are more important than others and those
define the relations around them.
Neorealism maintains, while defining a theory, the
tenets of realpolitik, but is sees different causes, ends and effets. Where
realists view power as an end, neorealists see it as possibly useful means.
They say that in ultimate situations, when wars are threatening for example,
states choose for security over power. This is an important revision.
Also important is the shift in causal relations.
Realism thinks as causes moving in only one direction, from the interaction of
individuals and states to the outcomes that their acts and interactions
produce. Morgenthau acknowledges that power arises when people want things, not
because it is in their evil human nature.
Neorealism contends that international politics can
understood only if the effects of structure are added to the unit-level
explanations of traditional realism. By emphasizing how structures affect
actions and outcomes, neorealism rejects the assumption that man’s innate lust
for power constitutes a sufficient cause of war in the absence of any other. It
reconceives the causal link interacting units and international outcomes.
To compose a theory: states are unitary actors wanting
at least to survive, and are taken to be the system’s constituent units. The
essential structural quality of the system is anarchy. It deals with an
international focus (black box thinking). Systems theories are theories that
explain how the organization of a realm acts as a constraining and disposing
force on the interacting units within it. We can predict how units will act
within the system.
System theories explain why different units behave
similarly and, despite their variations, produce outcomes within expected
ranges. Conversely, theories at the unit level tell us why different units
behave differently despite their similar placement in a system.
Neorealism states that within an anarchy, states need
to provide their own security to protect themselves from threats. The security
dilemma is a good example of how this goes. Wars occur. This depends on situations
and characteristics of states. Not because states want to have war.
Multipolar vs.
bipolar.
Multipolar.
-alliances are made and allies need to appeal to the other allies.
- alliances are made because there is some common interest.
- Interest is most of the time fear of the others.
- Competing blocks. One state can not let his weaker ally be destroyed
(WOI).
- In alliances among equals, the defection of one member threatens the
security of the others.
- Dangers are diffused, responsibilities unclear and definitions of vital
interests are easily obscured.
Bipolar.
- More flexibility of strategy and greater freedom of decision
- Alliance leaders can design strategies in their own interests.
- The only have to cope with the other.
- Never doubt about who brings danger to who.
- Loss for one, is gain for the other.
- Action leads to reaction.
- Miscalculation is greater evil because it can lead to worse unfolding
events that threatens the status quo.
- Economies are less interdependent.
Multipolar:
diffusion of dangers, interdependence of partners and confusion of responses.
Bipolar: self
dependence, clarity of dangers, certainty about who has to face them.
Another great force in a bipolar world is of course
nuclear weapons. War becomes less likely because the costs are not less than
the benefits of it. The accumulation of power by conquest is no longer possible
because of nuclear weapons. With states wanting to have security, a war won’t
happen with nuclear weapons. Since the US and Russia can encounter a second
strike attack. War still happens, but involvement of states with nuclear
weapons is less likely.
In a bipolar world each of the two great powers is
bound to focus its fears on the others, to distrust its motives and to impute
offensive intentions to defensive measures. The proper question is what started
the cold war, not who. Cold war remained cold because of nuclear weapons and
this creates an uneasy peace.