Expert answer:Reading Journals I need help with
Answer & Explanation:I have 5 PDF AND ONE WORD Files that you need to read and write a Reading Journals for each one1.pdf2.pdf3.pdf4.doc5.pdfeach one in paper and half please length
1.pdf
2.pdf
2.pdf
3.pdf
3.pdf
4.doc
5.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC
International Relations: One World, Many Theories
Author(s): Stephen M. Walt
Source: Foreign Policy, No. 110, Special Edition: Frontiers of Knowledge (Spring, 1998), pp. 29-32
+34-46
Published by: Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1149275
Accessed: 03-10-2015 07:24 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Foreign
Policy.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.2.19.99 on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 07:24:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
International
Relations:
One
World,
Many Theories
M. Walt
byStephen
Why
shouldpolicymakersand practitioners
care about the scholarlystudy of international affairs?Those who conductforeign
policy often dismiss academictheorists(frequently,
one mustadmit,with goodreason),but thereis an inescapablelink
betweenthe abstractworldof theoryandthe realworldof policy.We
that bomof information
need theoriesto makesenseof the blizzard
of “theory”
who are contemptuous
bardsus daily.Evenpolicymakers
mustrely on theirown (often unstated)ideasabouthow the world
worksin orderto decidewhatto do. It is hardto makegoodpolicyif
areflawed,justasit is hardto construct
one’sbasicorganizing
principles
uses
a
without
theories
knowing lot abouttherealworld.Everyone
good
about
theories-whetherhe orsheknowsit ornot-and disagreements
about
the
rest
fundamental
basic
on
more
disagreements
usually
policy
outcomes.
forcesthatshapeinternational
Take,forexample,the currentdebateon how to respondto China.
Fromone perspective,
China’sascentis the latestexampleof the tenandmaster
science
S TEPHEN M. WALTisprofessor
ofpolitical
of thesocialscience
colleattheUniversity
He isa member
editorial
board.
giatedivision
ofFOREIGN
ofChicago.
POLICY’S
SPRING 1998
This content downloaded from 129.2.19.99 on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 07:24:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
29
Relations
International
dencyforrisingpowersto alterthe globalbalanceof powerin potentiallydangerous
ways,especiallyas theirgrowinginfluencemakesthem
moreambitious.Fromanotherperspective,the key to China’sfuture
conductis whetherits behaviorwillbe modifiedby its integrationinto
worldmarketsandby the (inevitable?)
spreadof democratic
principles.
Fromyet anotherviewpoint,relationsbetweenChinaand the restof
the worldwill be shapedby issuesof cultureand identity:Will China
see itself(andbe seenbyothers)asa normalmemberof the worldcommunityor a singularsocietythatdeservesspecialtreatment?
In the sameway,the debateoverNATO expansionlooksdifferent
dependingon whichtheoryone employs.Froma “realist”
perspective,
is
an
effort
to
influence-well
extend
Western
beyond
NATO expansion
the traditional
sphereof U.S. vital interests-duringa periodof Russian weaknessand is likelyto provokea harshresponsefromMoscow.
From a liberalperspective,however,expansionwill reinforcethe
nascentdemocraciesof CentralEuropeand extendNATO’S conflictmanagementmechanismsto a potentiallyturbulentregion.A third
viewmightstressthe valueof incorporating
the CzechRepublic,Hunand
Poland
within
the
Western
whosememgary,
securitycommunity,
berssharea commonidentitythathasmadewarlargelyunthinkable.
No singleapproachcancaptureall the complexityof contemporary
worldpolitics.Therefore,we arebetteroffwitha diversearrayof competingideasratherthan a singletheoreticalorthodoxy.Competition
between theorieshelps reveal their strengthsand weaknessesand
spurssubsequentrefinements,while revealingflawsin conventional
wisdom.Althoughwe shouldtake care to emphasizeinventiveness
over invective,we shouldwelcomeandencouragethe heterogeneity
of contemporary
scholarship.
WHERE ARE WE COMING FROM?
The studyof international
affairsis bestunderstood
as a protracted
comtraditions.
Realismemphapetitionbetweentherealist,liberal,andradical
sizes the enduringpropensityfor conflictbetweenstates;liberalism
identifiesseveralwaysto mitigatetheseconflictivetendencies;
andthe
radicaltradition
describes
howtheentiresystemofstaterelations
mightbe
transformed.
The boundariesbetweenthese traditionsaresomewhatfuzzy
and a numberof importantworksdo not fit neatlyinto any of them, but
debateswithin and amongthem have largelydefinedthe discipline.
30
FOREIGN
POLICY
This content downloaded from 129.2.19.99 on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 07:24:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Walt
Realism
Realismwas the dominanttheoreticaltraditionthroughoutthe Cold
affairsas a struggleforpoweramongselfWar.It depictsinternational
interestedstatesand is generallypessimisticaboutthe prospectsfor
eliminatingconflictandwar.Realismdominatedin the ColdWaryears
becauseit providedsimplebutpowerfulexplanations
forwar,alliances,
obstacles
to
and
other
international
imperialism,
cooperation,
phenomena,andbecauseits emphasison competitionwasconsistentwiththe
centralfeaturesof the American-Soviet
rivalry.
Realismis not a singletheory,of course,andrealistthoughtevolved
the ColdWar.”Classical”
realistssuchasHans
considerably
throughout
Morgenthauand ReinholdNiebuhrbelievedthat states,like human
beings,hadan innatedesireto dominateothers,whichledthemto fight
wars.Morgenthau
alsostressedthe virtuesof the classical,multipolar,
systemandsawthe bipolarrivalrybetweenthe Unitbalance-of-power
ed Statesandthe SovietUnionas especiallydangerous.
By contrast,the “neorealist”
theoryadvancedby KennethWaltz
human
nature
and
focused
on the effectsof the international
ignored
For
system. Waltz,the international
systemconsistedof a numberof
greatpowers,each seekingto survive.Becausethe systemis anarchic
(i.e., thereis no centralauthorityto protectstatesfromone another),
each statehas to surviveon its own.Waltzarguedthat thiscondition
wouldlead weakerstatesto balanceagainst,ratherthan bandwagon
he claimed
with, morepowerfulrivals.And contraryto Morgenthau,
thatbipolarity
wasmorestablethanmultipolarity.
An importantrefinementto realismwas the additionof offensedefensetheory,as laid out by RobertJervis,GeorgeQuester,and
StephenVan Evera.These scholarsarguedthat warwas morelikely
whenstatescouldconquereachothereasily.Whendefensewaseasier
thanoffense,however,securitywasmoreplentiful,incentivesto expand
declined,and cooperationcould blossom.And if defensehad the
andstatescoulddistinguish
betweenoffensiveanddefensive
advantage,
then
states
could acquirethe meansto defendthemselves
weapons,
withoutthreatening
the effectsof anarchy.
others,therebydampening
Forthese”defensive”
realists,statesmerelysoughtto surviveandgreat
powerscouldguaranteetheirsecurityby formingbalancingalliancesand
choosingdefensivemilitarypostures(such as retaliatorynuclearforces).
Not surprisingly,Waltz and most other neorealistsbelieved that the
United States was extremelysecure for most of the Cold War.Their
SPRING
1998
This content downloaded from 129.2.19.99 on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 07:24:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
31
Relations
International
itsfavorable
positionbyadoptprinciplefearwasthatit mightsquander
foreignpolicy.Thus,bytheendof theColdWar,
inganoverlyaggressive
darkbrooding
abouthuman
realismhadmovedawayfromMorgenthau’s
natureandtakenon a slightlymoreoptimistictone.
Liberalism
The principalchallengeto realismcamefroma broadfamilyof liberal theories.One strandof liberalthoughtarguedthateconomicinterdependencewould discouragestatesfrom using force againsteach
otherbecausewarfarewouldthreateneachside’sprosperity.
A second
often
associated
with
President
Woodrow
strand,
Wilson, saw the
of
as
the
to
world
spread democracy
key
peace,basedon the claimthat
democraticstateswere inherentlymorepeacefulthan authoritarian
states. A third, more recent theory argued that international
institutionssuch as the InternationalEnergyAgencyand the InternationalMonetaryFundcouldhelp overcomeselfishstatebehavior,
statesto foregoimmediategainsforthe greater
mainlybyencouraging
benefitsof enduringcooperation.
Althoughsomeliberalsflirtedwiththe ideathatnew transnational
actors, especially the multinationalcorporation,were gradually
on thepowerof states,liberalism
sawstatesasthe
encroaching
generally
centralplayersin international
affairs.All liberaltheoriesimpliedthat
wasmorepervasive
thaneventhe defensiveversionof realcooperation
ismallowed,buteachviewoffereda differentrecipeforpromoting
it.
RadicalApproaches
Until the 1980s,marxismwasthe mainalternativeto the mainstream
realistand liberaltraditions.Whererealismand liberalismtook the
statesystemforgranted,marxismofferedboth a differentexplanation
forinternational
conflictanda blueprintforfundamentally
transformorder.
ing the existinginternational
Orthodoxmarxisttheorysawcapitalism
asthe centralcauseof internationalconflict.Capitaliststatesbattledeachotheras a consequence
of theirincessantstruggleforprofitsandbattledsocialiststatesbecause
they saw in them the seeds of their own destruction.Neomarxist
“dependency”theory, by contrast, focused on relations between
advancedcapitalistpowersand lessdevelopedstatesand arguedthat the
former-aided by an unholy alliance with the ruling classes of the
developing world-had grown rich by exploiting the latter.The solu32
FOREIGN
POLICY
This content downloaded from 129.2.19.99 on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 07:24:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Relations
International
tion wasto overthrowtheseparasiticelitesandinstalla revolutionary
development.
governmentcommittedto autonomous
beforethe ColdWar
Bothof thesetheorieswerelargelydiscredited
even ended.The extensivehistoryof economicandmilitarycooperation amongthe advancedindustrial
did
powersshowedthatcapitalism
not inevitablylead to conflict.The bitterschismsthat dividedthe
communistworldshowedthat socialismdid not alwayspromoteharmony. Dependencytheorysufferedsimilarempiricalsetbacksas it
clearthat,first,activeparticipation
in the world
becameincreasingly
a
to
was
better
route
than
autonomous
socialist
economy
prosperity
countries
development;and,second,manydeveloping
provedthemselvesquitecapableof bargaining
with
corsuccessfully multinational
porationsandothercapitalistinstitutions.
As marxismsuccumbedto its variousfailings,its mantle was
assumedby a groupof theoristswho borrowedheavilyfromthe wave
of postmodernwritingsin literarycriticismand social theory.This
“deconstructionist”
approachwas openly skepticalof the effortto
devise generalor universaltheoriessuch as realismor liberalism.
Indeed,its proponentsemphasizedthe importanceof languageand
discoursein shapingsocialoutcomes.However,becausethesescholars
focusedinitiallyon criticizingthe mainstream
but did not
paradigms
offerpositivealternativesto them, they remaineda self-consciously
dissidentminorityformostof the 1980s.
DomesticPolitics
Not allColdWarscholarship
on international
affairsfit neatlyintothe
In particular,
a numberof imporrealist,liberal,or marxistparadigms.
tantworksfocusedon the characteristics
of states,governmental
orgastrandof liberaltheory
nizations,orindividualleaders.The democratic
fits underthis heading,as do the effortsof scholarssuch as Graham
AllisonandJohnSteinbruner
to use organization
theoryandbureaucraticpoliticsto explainforeignpolicybehavior,and thoseof Jervis,
IrvingJanis,andothers,whichappliedsocialandcognitivepsychology.Forthe mostpart,theseeffortsdidnot seekto providea generalthebehaviorbut to identifyotherfactorsthat might
oryof international
lead states to behave contraryto the predictionsof the realistor liberal approaches.Thus, much of this literatureshould be regardedas a
complement to the three main paradigmsrather than as a rival
approachfor analysisof the internationalsystemas a whole.
34
FOREIGN
POLICY
This content downloaded from 129.2.19.99 on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 07:24:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Walt
NEW WRINKLES
IN OLD PARADIGMS
Scholarshipon internationalaffairshas diversifiedsignificantlysince
the end of the Cold War.Non-Americanvoices are moreprominent,a
wider range of methods and theories are seen as legitimate,and new
issuessuch as ethnic conflict, the environment,and the futureof the
state have been placed on the agendaof scholarseverywhere.
Yetthe senseof dejavu is equallystriking.Insteadof resolvingthe struggle betweencompetingtheoreticaltraditions,the end of the Cold Warhas
merelylauncheda new seriesof debates.Ironically,even as manysocieties
embracesimilaridealsof democracy,freemarkets,and humanrights,the
scholarswho studythese developmentsaremoredividedthan ever.
Realism Redux
Although the end of the Cold War led a few writersto declare that
realismwas destined for the academicscrapheap,rumorsof its demise
have been largelyexaggerated.
A recent contributionof realisttheoryis its attentionto the problem
of relativeand absolutegains.Respondingto the institutionalists’claim
that internationalinstitutionswould enable states to foregoshort-term
advantagesforthe sakeof greaterlong-termgains,realistssuchasJoseph
Grieco and Stephen Krasnerpoint out that anarchyforces states to
worryaboutboth the absolutegainsfromcooperationand the way that
If
gainsare distributedamongparticipants.The logic is straightforward:
one state reapslargergains than its partners,it will graduallybecome
stronger,and its partnerswill eventuallybecome morevulnerable.
Realistshave alsobeen quickto explorea varietyof new issues.Barry
Posen offersa realist explanationfor ethnic conflict, noting that the
breakupof multiethnicstatescouldplace rivalethnic groupsin an anarchic setting,therebytriggeringintensefearsand temptingeach groupto
use force to improveits relativeposition. This problemwould be particularlyseverewhen each group’sterritorycontainedenclaves inhabited by their ethnic rivals-as in the formerYugoslavia-because each
side would be tempted to “cleanse”(preemptively)these alien minorities and expand to incorporateany othersfromtheir ethnic groupthat
lay outside their borders.Realists have also cautioned that NATO,
absent a clear enemy, would likely face increasingstrains and that
expandingits presenceeastwardwouldjeopardizerelationswith Russia.
Finally,scholarssuch as Michael Mastandunohave arguedthat U.S.
SPRING
1998
This content downloaded from 129.2.19.99 on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 07:24:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
35
Relations
International
Waiting
for
Mr.
X
The post-ColdWarworldstill awaitsits “X”article.Althoughmany
have tried,no one hasmanagedto pen the sortof compellinganalysis
the
foranearlierera,whenhe articulated
thatGeorgeKennanprovided
the
most
of
a
new
of
containment.
Instead
vision,
imporsingle
theory
in post-ColdWarwritingson worldaffairsisthe contantdevelopment
tinuingclashbetweenthosewhobelieveworldpoliticshasbeen (oris
andthosewhobelievethatthefuture
transformed
being)fundamentally
will looka lot likethe past.
fallinto
Scholarswhoseetheendof theColdWarasa watershed
two distinctgroups.Manyexpertsstillsee the stateas the mainactor
butbelievethatthe agendaof statesis shiftingfrommilitarycompetitionto economiccompetitiveness,
domesticwelfare,andenvironmental protection.Thus,PresidentBill Clintonhas embracedthe view
self-interest
that”enlightened
[and]sharedvalues.., willcompelusto
cooperatein moreconstructiveways.”Some writersattributethis
othersto the nuclearstalemate,
changeto the spreadof democracy,
andstillothersto changesin international
norms.
An evenmoreradicalperspective
questionswhetherthe stateis
still the mostimportantinternational
actor.JessicaMathewsbelieves
that “theabsolutesof the Westphalian
fixed
system[of]territorially
states. . . areall dissolving,”
andJohnRuggiearguesthatwe do not
even have a vocabulary
that can adequately
describethe new forces
that (he believes) are transforming
world politics.
contemporary
Althoughthereis still no consensuson the causesof this trend,the
view that statesare of decreasingrelevanceis surprisingly
common
andpolicywonks.
amongacademics,
journalists,
Prominent
realistssuchasChristopher
LayneandKennethWaltz
continueto givethe stateprideof placeandpredicta returnto familiar
RobertKeohaneand
patternsof greatpowercompetition.Similarly,
otherinstitutionalists
alsoemphasize
the centralroleof the stateand
arguethat institutionssuch as the EuropeanUnion and NATO are
becausetheyprovidecontinuityin themidstofdraimportant
precisely
maticpoliticalshifts.Theseauthorsallregardthe endof the ColdWar
asa far-reaching
shiftin the globalbalanceofpowerbutdo notseeit as
a qualitative
transformation
in the basicnatureof worldpolitics.
Who is right?Toosoon to tell, but the debatebearswatching
in the yearsto come.
-S.W.
36
FOREIGN
POLICY
This content downloaded from 129.2.19.99 on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 07:24:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Walt
insofarasits
foreignpolicyis generallyconsistentwithrealistprinciples,
andto shapea
actionsarestilldesignedto preserveU.S. predominance
postwarorderthatadvancesAmericaninterests.
withinthe realistparThe mostinteresting
conceptualdevelopment
the
“defensive”
and”offenhas
been
the
between
adigm
emergingsplit
sive”strandsof thought.Defensiverealistssuchas Waltz,VanEvera,
andJackSnyderassumedthatstateshadlittleintrinsicinterestin militaryconquestand arguedthat the costs of expansiongenerallyoutweighedthe benefits.Accordingly,
they maintainedthat greatpower
warsoccurredlargelybecausedomesticgroupsfosteredexaggerated
perceptionsof threatandan excessivefaithin the efficacyof militaryforce.
Thisviewis nowbeingchallengedalongseveralfronts.First,asRandallSchwellernotes,the neorealistassumption
thatstatesmerelyseek
to survive”stackedthe deck”in favorof the statusquobecauseit precludedthe threatof predatory
revisioniststates-nationssuchasAdolf
Francethat “valuewhat
Hitler’sGermanyor NapoleonBonaparte’s
far
and
covet
more
than
what
they
theypossess” arewillingto riskannihilationto achievetheiraims.Second,PeterLiberman,in his book
DoesConquest
Pay?,usesa numberof historicalcases-such astheNazi
of
occupation WesternEuropeand Soviet hegemonyover Eastern
Europe-to showthatthe benefitsof conquestoftenexceedthe costs,
therebycastingdoubton the claimthatmilitaryexpansionis no longer
cost-effective.Third, offensive realists such as Eric Labs, John
and FareedZakariaarguethat anarchyencouragesall
Mearsheimer,
statesto tryto maximizetheirrelativestrengthsimplybecauseno state
can everbe surewhena trulyrevisionistpowermightemerge.
Thesedifferences
helpexplainwhyrealistsdisagreeoverissuessuch
as the futureof Europe.FordefensiverealistssuchasVanEvera,waris
rarelyprofitableandusuallyresultsfrommilitarism,
hypemrnationalism,
or someotherdistortingdomesticfactor.BecauseVanEverabelieves
suchforcesarelargelyabsentin post-ColdWarEurope,he concludes
that the regionis “primedfor peace.”By contrast,Mearsheimer
and
otheroffensiverealistsbelievethatanarchyforcesgreatpowersto comof theirinternalcharacteristics
andthatsecuritycompete irrespective
will
return
to
petition
Europeassoonasthe U.S. pacifieris withdrawn.
New Life for Liberalism
The defeatof communismsparkeda roundof self-congratulationin the
West, best exemplified by Francis Fukuyama’sinfamous claim that
SPRING
1998
This content downloaded from 129.2.19.99 on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 07:24:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
37
International
Relations
COMPETING
PARADIGMS
MainTheoretical
Proposition
REALISM
Self-interested
states
for
compete
constantly
orsecurity
power
MainUnitsof Analysis States
MainInstruments
Economic
and
especially
military
power
Modern
Theorists
Hans
Morge …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades