Pol 348 - Journal #1

docx

School

Simon Fraser University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

348

Subject

Political Science

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ChancellorMusic12489

Journal #1 February 15th, 2022 Introduction and Conventional Wisdom on Neorealist Theory In Paul Shroeder’s article, “Historical Reality vs. Neo-realist Theory” the academic’s main argument is that Neo-realist theory of state function

cannot be broadly applied to international state interactions and conflicts in the historical context. Shroeder outlines the conventional wisdom in his article, highlighted by Neo-realist theory being composed of multiple core tenants, most importantly, that Neo-realists like Kenneth Waltz argue that the broad outcomes of international political activity are shaped more by the structural constraints of the states system rather than state to state unit behavior. This is because state units are autonomous, and because of this the international system is composed of anarchy instead of a hierarchy system, with leading hegemonic powers at the top, middle-grade states, and finally weak states that lack the military strength to pose significant power. For Neo-realists, this is the way the international system runs because the states’ primary goal is survival, which is upheld by security and independence in order for each unit to remain part of the system. Furthermore in Neorealist perspective, there is a necessity for practices that promote “self-help,” the act of doing whatever must be done in order to aid the survivability of the state, and because of this mandate of self-help, we see competition amongst state units, and the continued presence of balances of power across the history of state conflict. Further, based on these principles the champion of modern Neorealist theory Kenneth Waltz makes two assertions that apply broadly to state function throughout history. First, that the conduct of states in international political relations have been relatively similar throughout history, in that all states are guided along by structural constraints, and the necessary processes of anarchy, self-help, and balances of power, in order to maintain survival and to actually prosper. Second, that all states are not functionally different from each other within the structure of international politics, in that their underlying, unified goal which has been structurally determined is to survive and to keep independence through self-help. Shroeder composes his article questioning Neo-realist theory and its core arguments, as he looks to see whether it is adequate and useful to be used to explain the historical cases of the broad scope of international politics. Shroeder’s Historical Arguments and Concepts of State Behavior For Schroeder Neo-realist theory is flawed in a historical context, because it makes four general assumptions about the nature of state function, that states generally tend to take balancing measures against a particular power or threat; that states are not functionally differentiated in

international politics; that potential state hegemons are countered and defeated by the balancing efforts of foreign states; and finally that unipolar periods motivate Other states to elevate themselves to powerful status, which is part of the general tendency to balance and to emulate successful military and organizational development. Shroeder argues these four general assumptions in the scheme of recent history do not hold up to historical cases of conflict and interaction over his chosen period. This is because from a historical perspective, four Moreover, the historical period Shroeder puts his emphasis on is over the Westphalian era, from 1648-1945. Shroeder points out that there are a few different tenants of historical state interaction that realism does not account for. The Neorealist framework does not bode well for explaining multiple state attributes over history such as: the operation of modern European states at the end of the Cold War, the continued utility of nuclear weapons, the usage of deterrence practices, the difference between state balancing versus bandwagoning and finally, the presence of a hegemony, all of which have been present in the Westphalian Era that Shroeder looks to challenge. These are just a few of his examples, which are very numerous throughout history. Taking these points into account, Shroeder argues that a historical perspective of state action is characterized, regardless of ideology, domestic structure and individual aims, have claimed exclusive sovereignty over their territory and have established their sole right to legitimate use of force within its borders. In doing so, the state sets four parameters, setting high value on independence and security, upholding its right to use force in self-defense, its ability to provide the necessities for a defense (i.e. military strength) and conduct their foreign policy with the goal of maintaining security and independence. Empirical Cases Shroeder uses a number of cases to convey his points, starting with the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. These wars, Shroeder states, were considered by Neorealists to be a classic case study of balancing behavior. In these wars, allied coalitions were repeatedly formed to balance France’s goals of hegemony, restoring an equilibrium of power. However, this does not ring true for Shroeder as the states involved in these coalitions abandoned their pacts and went into hiding once France’s revolutionary power became significant from 1793 onwards, and the same

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

thing happened from 1798-1801, where a coalition was again disbanded and states bandwagoned to France’s side as they had become more powerful than the allied side. This was again seen as the main response to the Napoleonic hegemony, in which states opted to not balance but rather to hide or bandwagon to preserve their security. Another example Shroeder highlights is the Crimea War, in which the Neorealist perspective was another case of balancing against the Russian domination of Europe, displayed through the stronger allied coalition of Britain, France and the Ottoman Empire. However, other surrounding states such as the German ones, Prussia, the German Confederation and also Austria saw the allied coalition as an even graver threat than that of Russia, and bandwagoned with Russia to preserve security. The First World War is another example Shroeder uses to convey his arguments, as in this case at first glance, the theme seemed to be balancing for both sides of the conflict, instead of pursuing hegemony. However, once the war began, states again displayed the notion to either hide to avoid the conflict and promote security (examples being Spain, Holland, Denmark and others) or bandwagon with the victorious state to defeat their own enemies and to benefit from the hegemon's power. Finally, Shroeder turns to World War Two as a case. In this example even before the war began, Germany’s growing power and political success pushed various hiding and bandwagoning practices in Europe, as examples being Belgium dropping its ties to France in 1936 and turning to neutrality, and Poland and Hungary joined with Germany to name a few instances. However once the battle turned to the side of the allies in 1941-42, states began bandwagoning to the new hegemony, with examples being Spain and Argentina.