Understanding International Relations through Neorealism

Neorealism offers a compelling framework for understanding how states behave in the international system. Rather than focusing on human nature or individual state characteristics, it draws our attention to the structure of the international system itself. Developed by Kenneth Waltz in his groundbreaking 1979 work “Theory of International Politics,” neorealism (also known as structural realism) revolutionized how scholars think about relations between states by arguing that the anarchic structure of international politics, not human flaws or domestic political arrangements, primarily shapes state behavior.

The foundations of neorealism 🔗

At its core, neorealism is built upon several fundamental principles that distinguish it from classical realism and other international relations theories. Understanding these foundations is essential to grasping how this powerful theoretical lens views global politics.

Anarchy as the defining characteristic 🔗

Neorealists begin with a crucial observation: the international system exists in a state of anarchy. This doesn’t mean chaos or disorder, but rather the absence of a legitimate central authority above states that can enforce rules and agreements. Unlike domestic politics where a government holds a monopoly on legitimate force, internationally there is no world government that can reliably protect states from one another.

This anarchic condition creates profound consequences. Without a higher authority to turn to for protection, states must ultimately rely on themselves for security and survival. Kenneth Waltz argued that this self-help system fundamentally shapes how states perceive and interact with one another, regardless of their internal political structures or leadership.

The distribution of capabilities 🔗

The second key pillar of neorealism is its emphasis on the distribution of capabilities (primarily military and economic power) across the international system. For neorealists, what matters most isn’t the absolute power a state possesses, but rather how its power compares to others-its relative power position.

States are assumed to be rational actors concerned primarily with maintaining or improving their relative power position within this anarchic system. The distribution of these capabilities across states creates what neorealists call the “structure” of the international system, which can take various forms:

• Unipolarity: When one state possesses significantly more capabilities than others (like the U.S. after the Cold War)
• Bipolarity: When two powerful states dominate (like the U.S. and Soviet Union during the Cold War)
• Multipolarity: When power is distributed among several major states (like Europe before World War I)

Neorealists argue that this structure, rather than individual state characteristics, is the primary force shaping international outcomes and state behavior.

The security dilemma: The heart of neorealist thinking 🔗

Perhaps no concept better captures the essence of neorealist thought than the security dilemma. This paradoxical situation arises directly from the anarchic structure of international relations and helps explain why conflict persists even when no state actively seeks it.

The security dilemma works as follows: when one state takes measures to increase its own security (like building up military forces or forming alliances), other states often perceive these actions as threatening to their security. These other states then respond with their own security-enhancing measures, which in turn make the first state feel less secure. This creates a spiral of insecurity where actions intended to increase security often lead to greater overall insecurity.

For example, when China modernizes its navy, neighboring countries and the United States may perceive this as threatening and respond by strengthening their own naval capabilities. China may then see these responses as confirming the need for even greater military development. The tragic result is that all parties end up less secure despite (or rather because of) their efforts to enhance their security.

Neorealists view this dilemma as an inescapable feature of international politics under anarchy. Even when states have no hostile intentions toward one another, the structure of the system creates suspicion and drives competitive behavior.

Defensive vs. offensive neorealism 🔗

As neorealism developed, scholars began to disagree about how states should respond to the anarchic international environment, leading to two major variants of the theory.

Defensive neorealism 🔗

Defensive neorealists, like Kenneth Waltz himself and scholars such as Charles Glaser and Robert Jervis, argue that states primarily seek security rather than power for its own sake. In this view, the wisest strategy for most states is to pursue moderate policies that signal defensive intentions while maintaining enough power to deter aggression.

Defensive neorealists believe states can recognize when they have “enough” power and that pursuing excessive power can be counterproductive, provoking balancing coalitions from other worried states. They argue that under many circumstances, cooperation among states is possible despite anarchy, particularly when states can clearly signal defensive intentions.

Offensive neorealism 🔗

Offensive neorealists, most notably John Mearsheimer, take a darker view. They argue that because states can never be certain about other states’ intentions, the most rational strategy is to maximize relative power. In Mearsheimer’s words, states should pursue hegemony when possible because having overwhelming power is the only reliable guarantee of security in an anarchic world.

For offensive neorealists, states are constantly looking for opportunities to gain advantages over their competitors. They see conflict as more likely and cooperation as more difficult than defensive neorealists do. From this perspective, great powers inevitably find themselves in competition with one another, not primarily because of misperceptions or aggressive intentions, but because the structure of the international system gives them strong incentives to maximize their relative power.

Neorealism vs. classical realism: Key differences 🔗

While neorealism shares classical realism’s focus on power politics, the two approaches differ fundamentally in where they locate the causes of international conflict and competition.

Human nature vs. system structure 🔗

Classical realists like Hans Morgenthau trace international conflict to flaws in human nature. They argue that humans have an inherent desire for power, and since states are led by humans, states naturally seek to dominate others when possible. This makes international politics an endless struggle for power rooted in human psychology.

Neorealists reject this explanation. Kenneth Waltz argued that relying on human nature to explain international politics was problematic because human nature remains constant while patterns of international politics vary. Instead, neorealists focus on how the structure of the international system-its anarchy and distribution of capabilities-shapes state behavior regardless of who leads them.

The primacy of systemic factors 🔗

Classical realism examines various factors that might influence state behavior, including domestic politics, ideology, and leadership personalities. While not dismissing these factors entirely, neorealism considers them secondary to systemic pressures.

For neorealists, states with vastly different domestic political systems, ideologies, and leadership personalities will nevertheless behave similarly when faced with similar structural constraints. This explains why democratic and authoritarian states alike form alliances, build militaries, and compete for power when placed in similar strategic situations.

Critiques of neorealism 🔗

Despite its influence, neorealism has faced substantial criticism from scholars representing different theoretical traditions.

Underestimating domestic politics 🔗

Critics argue that neorealism’s focus on systemic factors comes at the expense of understanding how domestic politics shapes foreign policy. Liberal theorists point out that democratic states behave differently toward other democracies than they do toward authoritarian regimes, suggesting that internal political structures matter more than neorealists acknowledge.

The democratic peace theory-the observation that democracies rarely if ever go to war with one another-poses a particular challenge to neorealism’s system-level focus. If democracies consistently refuse to fight each other despite anarchic pressures, perhaps domestic political arrangements matter more than systemic forces.

Overlooking non-state actors and international institutions 🔗

Neorealism has been criticized for its state-centric approach in an era when non-state actors like multinational corporations, terrorist groups, and international organizations play increasingly important roles. Liberal institutionalists argue that international institutions can mitigate anarchy’s effects by facilitating cooperation, providing information, and reducing transaction costs.

Constructivists further challenge neorealism by arguing that anarchy itself isn’t an objective fact but a social construction. As Alexander Wendt famously put it, “anarchy is what states make of it.” From this perspective, how states interpret their environment matters as much as the environment itself.

Predictive limitations 🔗

Perhaps the most significant criticism of neorealism emerged after the Cold War’s peaceful end, which many scholars argue the theory failed to predict or adequately explain. The Soviet Union’s voluntary withdrawal from Eastern Europe and subsequent collapse contradicted neorealist expectations about how great powers behave.

Critics contend that ideational factors like Mikhail Gorbachev’s “new thinking” and normative changes in how territorial conquest was viewed played crucial roles that neorealism’s materialist focus couldn’t capture.

Neorealism’s enduring relevance 🔗

Despite these criticisms, neorealism remains highly influential in both academic and policy circles. Recent developments in international politics have given new life to some neorealist insights.

The return of great power competition 🔗

The rise of China and resurgence of Russia have renewed focus on great power competition, a central concern of neorealist theory. The competitive dynamics between these powers and the United States-visible in areas ranging from military buildups to technology competition-align with neorealist expectations about how great powers interact in an anarchic system.

The ongoing security dilemmas in regions like East Asia and Eastern Europe, where military buildups by one state prompt responses from others, demonstrate the continuing relevance of core neorealist concepts.

Balancing behavior 🔗

Neorealism predicts that states will form alliances to balance against powerful or threatening states. Recent developments like the strengthening of security ties among democratic states in the Indo-Pacific in response to China’s rise, or European states increasing defense spending in response to Russia’s actions, reflect the kind of balancing behavior neorealists would expect.

Even as international institutions and economic interdependence have developed, states continue to hedge against uncertainty by maintaining military capabilities and security alliances, suggesting they haven’t escaped the logic of anarchy that neorealists emphasize.

Conclusion 🔗

Neorealism provides a powerful lens for understanding international relations by directing our attention to how the anarchic structure of the international system and the distribution of capabilities across states shape global politics. By emphasizing systemic factors over individual or state-level characteristics, it offers a parsimonious theory that explains recurring patterns in international politics.

While no single theory can capture all the complexity of international relations, neorealism’s focus on security competition, the balance of power, and the constraints imposed by anarchy continues to provide valuable insights into why states behave as they do. Even as the global landscape evolves with new actors and issues, the structural pressures Kenneth Waltz identified remain relevant for understanding how states navigate an uncertain world without central authority.

What do you think? Does the anarchic structure of the international system inevitably lead to competition among states, or can international institutions and norms overcome these structural pressures? How might rising powers like China challenge or conform to neorealist expectations about great power behavior?