Discuss the accuracy of this statement using neo-realistic based international relation theories and highlight the problems that such an approach faces.

The neo-realist theory in International Relations is often simplistically defined as a state-centric theory, specially if considered relatively to other theories. So, the assumption that I am going to focus on – that states are the heart of International Relations – is apparently the basis of this theory whose father is commonly recognised in Kenneth Waltz. My first step will be to explain what is actually meant by the word ‘state’, which can easily be misunderstood and which can therefore capsize the whole theory. In fact I am going to clarify how the neo-realist theory needs to be regarded solely as a theoretical view, and how it could be wrongly interpreted if used strictly empirically. I am going to point out how the concept of ‘state’ is actually the basis of neo-realism, according to which the existence of the state is a necessary condition for any international stage. Nevertheless, by analysing some of the po

Some theorists, named post-positivists, argue that the theory of the state of anarchy among the units has stopped to be applicable with the end of World War II. Before the war, in fact, the international landscape was quite homogeneous, all the units used to play an equal role, and the inter-state relations were not so complex, following simple rules. The balance of power abruptly changed straight after the war, when all the European states were literally destroyed by the conflict, both economically, politically and socially. The process started from the economy, with the irreversible enter of United States in Europe through the European Recovery Program (ERP), which comprised also the political sector. Europe was neutralised under all aspects, and only US were able to play actively, together with the Soviet Union. The menace of communism was becoming more insisting, with the result that the weak states had to decide whether to stick to one side or to the other. Thus, anarchy was apparently swept way by bipolarity. The threat of nuclear weapons kept the situation steady despite the slow but significant recovery from the war devastation, until the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. At this point multipolarity seemed to be still valid, but the international system showed itself to be profoundly different from the pre-war one. Here the question of globalisation arises, playing a crucial role in the game up to the current time.

In other words, states are all passive and obey to a metaphysical low or system from which they will never be able to escape.

As mentioned above, according to neo-realism, International Relations never change: purpose, means and settings of the game remain the same as ever. Thus, the theory claims to be successfully applicable to International Politics “through all the centuries that we can contemplate” (Waltz, cited in Søresen 1998: 85). Unsurprisingly this claim has sounded a bit pretentious to many ears and has caused not few polemics, concerning mainly the last fifty years of history, during which the apparently consolidated power setting has undergone drastic changes.

Neo-realism is one of those that Popper would call ‘holisms’ or ‘storicism’. A holism is a theory that offers a view of history from which one could derive the outcome of history itself. Any theory that claims to be able to grasp the profound meaning of history goes against the ‘criterion of controllability’, and is therefore unacceptable, since there is no way to disprove it as well as to prove it (Popper 1986: 56). To read and interpret history in its totality, from an omni-comprehensive point of view is far from anyone’s capability: it is possible to control only single portions of reality, and singularity is exactly what Waltz and neo-realism exclude.

The shift towards a globalised economy and society is a matter of fact. The question is: does globalisation put in jeopardise the whole neo-realist view of the sovereign state as the centre of International Relations? Does the idea of states giving up part of their sovereignty and autonomy towards a more globalised society constitute a setback to the theory of alike-units in a state of anarchy?

Some topics in this essay:
International Relations, International Politics, Neo-realism Popper, Kenneth Waltz, Viotti Kauppi, James A1986, Europe Economic, War II, Popper’s Hobson’s, Cold War, international relations, neo-realist theory, søresen 2001, heart international, søresen 1998, hobson 2001, own survival, international stage, international politics, influence effect clash, power gap, heart international relations, billiard table balls, fight own survival,