Neoclassical realism in international relations theory: Searching for its own path
https://doi.org/10.48015/2076-7404-2023-15-4-84-106
Abstract
Neoclassical realism emerged as part of the neorealists’ response to the criticism of their core theoretical provisions, intended to adapt the latter to the challenges of post-bipolar international relations. However, with further elucidation and formalization of the key ideas and premises of neoclassical realism it started to assert itself as an independent research approach, and even more so, as a special, metasynthetic theory. In order to assess the validity of these claims and, in general, to better understand the place of neoclassical realism in the theory of international relations, this paper considers it within the context of the evolutionary logic of the realist paradigm and neorealism, in particular. The first section identifies the origins and main theoretical provisions of neoclassical realism. The second section covers modern theoretical debates on the essence of and prospects for further development of analytical and methodological aspects of this approach. In order to provide a better understanding of the epistemological potential of the neoclassical realism, the third section examines empirical researches carried out within its framework. The author concludes that at the moment neoclassical realism can hardly qualify for the status of an independent theoretical position, let alone a meta-theory. It is more appropriate to consider it as a peculiar form, specific research model within the framework of the (neo)realist paradigm. As such, it allows putting forward verifiable hypotheses based on the analysis of the relationships between the independent, dependent and interfering variables, and also opens up new opportunities for conducting empirical research on a wide range of subject matters. At the same time, there is still a lot of work to be done to overcome the eclecticism inherent to neoclassical realism and to better define its ontological, epistemological and methodological foundations.
About the Author
A. V. Levchenko
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alla V. Levchenko — PhD Candidate
76, Prospect Vernadskogo, Moscow, 119454
References
1. Godovanyuk K.A. 2015. Rossiya vo vneshnepoliticheskoi strategii Velikobritanii na sovremennom etape [Russia’s place in the UK’s foreign policy strategy at the present stage]. PhD Thesis. Moscow. (In Russ.)
2. Konyshev V.N. 2020. Neoklassicheskii realizm v teorii mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii [Neoclassical realism in the theory of international relations]. Polis. Political Studies, no. 4, pp. 94–111. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2020.04.07. (In Russ.)
3. Kosorukov A.A. 2014. Strategiya Kitaya v nachale XXI veka: vykhod na global’nyi uroven’ [China’s strateg y at the beginning of the 21st century: Reaching the global level]. Voprosy bezopasnosti, no. 4, pp. 31–69. DOI: 10.7256/2306-0417.2014.4.13390. (In Russ.)
4. Kun T. 1996. Ob’ektivnost’, tsennostnye suzhdeniya i vybor teorii [Objectivity, value judgement, and theory choice]. In: Pechenkin A.A. (ed.). Sovremennaya filosofiya nauki: znanie, ratsional’nost’, tsennosti v trudakh myslitelei Zapada [Modern philosophy of science: Knowledge, rationality, values in the works of Western thinkers]. Moscow, Logos Publ., pp. 62–83. (In Russ.)
5. Leonov Yu.I. 2021. Ekspertnaya diplomatiya analiticheskikh institutov FRG i RF v period s 2014 g.: formy i napravleniya vzaimodeistviya [Expert diplomacy of analytical institutes of Germany and the Russian Federation since 2014: Forms and directions of interaction]. In: Matyashova D.O., Smirnov E.V., Popov D.I. et al. (eds.). Rossiya v global’nom mire: novye vyzovy i vozmozhnosti: Sbornik rabot IX mezhdunarodnoi studencheskoi nauchnoi konferentsii [Russia in the global world: New challenges and opportunities. Proceedings of the 9th International Student Scientific Conference]. Saint-Petersburg, Skifiya-print Publ., pp. 312–322. (In Russ.)
6. Mikeshina L.A. 2005. Filosofiya nauki. Sovremennaya epistemologiya. Nauchnoe znanie v dinamike kul’tury. Metodologiya nauchnogo issledovaniya [Phi losophy of science. Modern epistemology. Scientific knowledge in the dynamics of culture. Methodology of scientific research]. Moscow, Progress-Traditsiya Publ. (In Russ.)
7. Ruzavin G.I. 1978. Nauchnaya teoriya: logiko-metodologicheskii analiz [Scientific theory: Logical and methodological analysis]. Moscow, Mysl’ Publ. (In Russ.)
8. Stepin V.S. 2003. Teoreticheskoe znanie. Struktura, istoricheskaya evolyutsiya [Theoretical knowledge. Structure and historical evolution]. Moscow, Progress-Traditsiya Publ. (In Russ.)
9. Strel’tsov D.V., Lukin A.L. 2017. Rossiiskoyaponskie otnosheniya cherez prizmu teorii. Realizm, konstruktivizm i dvukhurovnevye igry [Russian-Japanese rapprochement through the lens of IR theory: Neoclassical realism, constructivism and two-level games]. International Trends, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 44–63. DOI: 10.17994/IT.2017.15.2.49.3. (In Russ.)
10. Entina E.G. 2020. Osobennosti i predely integratsionnoi politiki ES v Yugo-Vostochnoi Evrope (na primere gosudarstv post’yugoslavskogo prostranstva) [Features and limits of the EU integration policy in South-Eastern Europe (on the example of states of the post-Yugoslav space)]. Doctoral Thesis. Moscow. (In Russ.)
11. Blagden D. Roleplay, realpolitik and ‘great powerness’: The logical distinction between survival and social performance in grand strategy // European Journal of International Relations. 2021. Vol. 27. No. 4. P. 1162–1192. DOI: 10.1177/13540661211048776.
12. Christensen T.J. Useful adversaries: Grand strategy, domestic mobilization, and Sino-American conf lict, 1947–1958. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996.
13. Christensen T.J., Snyder J. Chain gangs and passed bucks: Predicting alliance patterns in multipolarity // International Organization. 1990. Vol. 44. No. 2. P. 137–168. DOI: 10.1017/S0020818300035232.
14. Dunne T., Hansen L., Wight C. The end of international relations theory // European Journal of International Relations. 2013. Vol. 19. No. 3. P. 405–425. DOI: 10.1177/1354066113495485.
15. Fiammenghi D., Rosato S., Parent J. et al. Correspondence: Neoclassical realism and its critics // International Security. 2018. Vol. 43. No. 2. P. 193–203. DOI: 10.1162/isec_c_00332.
16. Foulon M. Neoclassical realism: Challengers and bridging identities // Internationa l Studies Rev iew. 2015. Vol. 17. No. 4. P. 635 – 661. DOI: 10.1111/misr.12255.
17. Foulon M., Meibauer G. Realist avenues to global international relations // European Journal of International Relations. 2020. Vol. 26. No. 4. P. 1203–1229. DOI: 10.1177/1354066120926706.
18. Götz E. Neoclassical realist theories, intervening variables, and paradigmatic boundaries // Foreign Policy Analysis. 2021. Vol. 17. No. 2. P. 1–13. DOI: 10.1093/fpa/oraa026.
19. He K. Explaining United States-China relations: Neoclassical realism and the nexus of threat-interest perceptions // The Pacific Review. 2017. Vol. 30. No. 2. P. 133–151. DOI: 10.1080/09512748.2016.1201130.
20. Juneau T. Squandered opportunity: Neoclassical realism and Iran’s foreign policy. Redwood City: Stanford University Press, 2015.
21. Juneau T., Lobell S.E., Ripsman N.M., Rubin L.P. Neoclassical realism: Domestic politics, systemic pressures, and the impact on foreign policy since the Arab Spring // Routledge handbook of international relations in the Middle East / Ed. by S. Akbarzadeh. Abingdon: Routledge, 2019. P. 8–22.
22. Kaufman R.G. To balance or to bandwagon? Alignment decisions in 1930s Europe // Security Studies. 1992. Vol. 1. No. 3. P. 417–447. DOI: 10.1080/09636419209347477.
23. Kitchen N. Systemic pressures and domestic ideas: A neoclassical realist model of grand strategy formation // Review of International Studies. 2010. Vol. 36. No. 1. P. 117–143. DOI: 10.1017/S0260210509990532.
24. Korolev A., Portyakov V. Reluctant allies: Systemunit dynamics and China-Russia relations // International Relations. 2019. Vol. 33. No. 1. P. 40–66. DOI: 10.1177/0047117818812561.
25. Legro J.W., Moravcsik A. Is anybody still a realist? // International Security. 1999. Vol. 24. No. 2. P. 5–55. DOI: 10.1162/016228899560130.
26. Mearsheimer J.J., Walt S.M. Leaving theory behind: Why simplistic hypothesis testing is bad for international relations // European Journal of International Relations. 2013. Vol. 19. No. 3. P. 427– 457. DOI: 10.1177/1354066113494320.
27. Meibauer G. Interests, ideas, and the study of state behavior in neoclassical realism // Review of International Studies. 2020. Vol. 46. No. 1. P. 20–36. DOI: 10.1017/S0260210519000214.
28. Meibauer G., Desmaele L., Onea T. et al. Forum: Rethinking neoclassical realism at theory’s end // International Studies Review. 2021. Vol. 23. No. 1. P. 268–295. DOI: 10.1093/isr/viaa018.
29. Narizny K. On systemic paradigms and domestic politics: A critique of the newest realism // International Security. 2017. Vol. 42. No. 2. P. 155–190. DOI: 10.1162/ISEC_a_00296.
30. Quinn A. Kenneth Waltz, Adam Smith and the limits of science: Hard choices for neoclassical realism // International Politics. 2013. Vol. 50. No. 2. P. 159–182. DOI: 10.1057/ip.2013.5.
31. Rathbun B. A rose by any other name: Neoclassical realism as the logical and necessary extension of structural realism // Security Studies. 2008. Vol. 17. No. 2. P. 294–321. DOI: 10.1080/09636410802098917.
32. Ripsman N.M., Taliaferro J.W., Lobell S.E. Neoclassical realist theory of international politics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.
33. Rose G. Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy // World Politics. 1998. Vol. 51. No. 1. P. 144–172. DOI: 10.1017/S0043887100007814.
34. Schweller R.L. Deadly imbalances: Tripolarity and Hitler’s strategy of world conquest. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998.
35. Schweller R.L. Opposite but compatible nationalisms: A neoclassical realist approach to the future of US-China relations // The Chinese Journal of International Politics. 2018. Vol. 11. No. 1. P. 23–48. DOI: 10.1093/cjip/poy003.
36. Schweller R.L. The progressiveness of neoclassical realism // Progress in international relations theory: Appraising the field / Ed. by C. Elman, M.F. Elman. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003. P. 311–348.
37. Schweller R.L. Unanswered threats: Political constraints on the balance of power. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010.
38. Sears N.A. The neoclassical realist research program: Between progressive promise and degenerative dangers // International Politics Reviews. 2017. Vol. 5. No. 1. P. 21–31. DOI: 10.1057/s41312-017-0020-x.
39. Steinsson S. Neoclassical realism in the North Atlantic: Explaining behaviors and outcomes in the Cod Wars // Foreign Policy Analysis. 2017. Vol. 13. No. 3. P. 599–617. DOI: 10.1093/fpa/orw062.
40. Taliaferro J.W., Lobell S.E., Ripsman N.M. Is peaceful change in world politics always desirable? A neoclassical realist perspective // International Studies Review. 2018. Vol. 20. No. 2. P. 283–291. DOI: 10.1093/isr/viy023.
41. Walt S.M. The origins of alliance. Ithaca; London: Cornell University Press, 1990.
42. Waltz K.N. International politics is not foreign policy // Security Studies. 1996. Vol. 6. No. 1. P. 54–57. DOI: 10.1080/09636419608429298.
43. Waltz K.N. Theory of international politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1979.
44. Weitsman P.A. Dangerous alliances: Proponents of peace, weapons of war. Redwood City: Stanford University Press, 2004.
45. Wohlforth W.C. The elusive balance: Power and perceptions during the Cold War. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993.
46. Zakaria F. From wealth to power: The unusual origins of America’s world role. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998.
47.
Review
For citations:
Levchenko A.V. Neoclassical realism in international relations theory: Searching for its own path. Lomonosov World Politics Journal. 2023;15(4):84-106. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.48015/2076-7404-2023-15-4-84-106
Views:
506
Email this article 