Abstract
AbstractThe article refers to debates inside realism on rationality of international processes. It reveals that even a basic assumption of states calculating their interests and choosing optimal political strategies provoked contradictions among realist theories. Both prominent Cold War realists, Morgenthau and Waltz, differed in their views on the role of leaders, the impact of the international system and states’ rational response to systemic constraints. The hegemonic rivalry stream of realism took the “middle ground” in this debate. Yet, the complex international reality after the fall of the bipolar order makes the realist considerations even more difficult. It encourages a wider openness to domestic nuances of foreign policymaking but reduces a chance for more general and rational schemes of states’ international behavior. Post-Cold War realists declare a need of systemic and rational frames of their analysis but differ in their views on how much of the domestic context should be absorbed to comprehend contemporary international processes. The integration of miscalculations and misperceptions in leaders’ political decisions and the rational frames of a state’s foreign policy is a clear problem for realism.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Political Science and International Relations,Sociology and Political Science
Reference59 articles.
1. Buzan, Barry. 1996. The timeless wisdom of realism? In International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, ed. Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski, 47–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Devlen, Balkan, and Özgür Özdamar. 2009. Neoclassical Realism and Foreign Policy Crises. In Rethinking Realism in International Relations, ed. Annette Freyberg-Inan, Ewan Harrison, and Patrick James, 136–163. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
3. Donnelly, Jack. 2000. Realism and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Donnelly, Jack. 2005. Realism. In Theories of International Relations, ed. Scott Burchill et al., 29–54. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
5. Elman, Colin. 1996. Horses for Courses: Why Not a Neorealist Theory of Foreign Policy. Security Studies 6 (1): 7–53.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献