By engaging in closed-off discussion, Neorealists and Neoliberals perpetuate orthodoxy rather than making gains in IR scholarship. The limitations of this debate should be acknowledged.
The ‘postpositivist’ challenge to the ‘empiricist-positivist’ orthodoxy is often considered to be international theory’s ‘Third Great Debate’. This essay investigates whether a new consensus might provide an unproblematic ‘resolution’ to the debate, or if it might (re)create practices which do violence to those silenced.
The propagation of liberal economic policies by states, particularly the US, paved the way for the globalisation of finance and production which enabled Transnational Corporations (TNCs) to share power with states and other actors. States are no longer the only important actors domestically or internationally.
Anarchy is a central concept in international relations theory. Both realism and constructivism, whilst divergent in nature, accept that the structure of the international system is anarchical. However, there is debate as to whether or not the effects of anarchy, such as self-help, can be overcome without fundamentally changing the structure of international politics.
Through analysing the Japanese memory of WWII it is clear that ethics are susceptible to unconscious limitations, often leading to denial and forgetfulness of the past.
The United Nations have gained the chair of global moral arbiter in an essentially anarchic international society and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future.
Despite the fact that there are some similarities between neo-realism and neo-liberalism, it shall be the differences between these theories that will be the focus of my attention, as it will help me to determine more rigorously which of the arguments is the more convincing. The points of comparison shall be the effects of the anarchical international system, and thus, the extent to which cooperation can be achieved, the importance of relative and absolute gains, the conflict between state capabilities and interests, and finally the importance of institutions and regimes. It is important to note that neo-realism is often also called structural realism, and neo-liberalism neo-liberal institutionalism. As the question prefers to call the theories neo-realism and neo-liberalism, this is what I shall do throughout.
This paper emphasises the importance of Morgenthau’s German-Jewish identity set against the particular social background in which he began to develop his thought. It seeks to highlight the impact which these factors had on the development and evolution of some important elements of Morgenthau’s work.
Irrespective of the occasional incompatibilities of the UN with liberal values, and its criticism from realists, the organization has invariably represented a tremendous leap forward.
Even though the clash of civilisations thesis encompasses different levels of analysis from man, civilisation, and the world at large, it concentrates on solely cultural factors. Allowing these factors to override other sectors of analysis in the discipline of international relations does not necessarily lead to enhancing our understanding of world politics.
Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.
E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!
Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.