What do
defensive and
26-3-2017
offensive neo-
realists believe?
How important
are their theories
to military
strategists?
International relations: Week 2,
question 5
Ms. Anghel
The Hague university
Word count: 1057 words
, This paper addresses the following question: What do defensive and offensive neo-realists
believe? How important are their theories to military strategists? First this paper gives a brief
description of structural or neorealism. This is because both defensive and offensive realists
branch under structural realism. Then the paper will continue by explaining what defensive
realism is, to follow it up it will further explain offensive realism as well. Moreover, this paper
will discuss the differences of the two types of structural realism and give an argument on
how it would affect military strategists and finally a personal view is given.
Defensive and offensive realism are closely related to neorealism otherwise known as
structural realism. According to Baylis et al “Structural realists concur that international
politics is essentially a struggle for power, but they do not attribute this to human nature.”
(Baylis, Smith, & Owens, 2014). It is thus argued that power is the most important factor in
international relations and power needs to be maximized however not the human nature but
the international system drives this need for power. Baylis et al further explain that the power
that is distributed plays a large part in understanding the international system and the actions
taken by the international system (Baylis, Smith, & Owens, 2014). Burchill et al argue that
structural realism highlights the anarchy and write the following “International structure
emerges from the interaction of states and then constrains them from taking certain actions
while propelling them toward others” (Burchill, et al., 2005)
Two men, Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, with opposing theories are explained. First
the theory of Kenneth Waltz is investigated, this theory is also known as defensive realism.
Feng and Ruizhuang argue that some scholars believe that the distributed power is a tool for
reaching an objective, and the objective for states is security. (Feng & Ruizhuang, 2006)
Waltz argues that the power that is distributed needs to be handled with care by the states.
Over-usage of the power could result in conflict since the other states would feel threatened
but not showing enough power could also be dangerous because other states might think
that the state showing less power is vulnerable. Waltz further argues that “In crucial
situations, the ultimate concern of states is not for power but for security.” (Waltz, 1988)
Waltz thus explains that in dire situations the ultimate goal of a state is security and hereby
agrees with Feng and Ruizhuang. To conclude defensive realism, the primary objective of
defensive realism is security. States want to maximize their power to ensure their security.
Offensive realism or sometimes called aggressive realism stems from the same branch of
realism as defensive realism, however it is different. According to Mearsheimer states need
to seek out as much power as possible, this is unlike Waltz’s approach which argues that
states need to seek out as much power as they need to in order to ensure their own security.
1
defensive and
26-3-2017
offensive neo-
realists believe?
How important
are their theories
to military
strategists?
International relations: Week 2,
question 5
Ms. Anghel
The Hague university
Word count: 1057 words
, This paper addresses the following question: What do defensive and offensive neo-realists
believe? How important are their theories to military strategists? First this paper gives a brief
description of structural or neorealism. This is because both defensive and offensive realists
branch under structural realism. Then the paper will continue by explaining what defensive
realism is, to follow it up it will further explain offensive realism as well. Moreover, this paper
will discuss the differences of the two types of structural realism and give an argument on
how it would affect military strategists and finally a personal view is given.
Defensive and offensive realism are closely related to neorealism otherwise known as
structural realism. According to Baylis et al “Structural realists concur that international
politics is essentially a struggle for power, but they do not attribute this to human nature.”
(Baylis, Smith, & Owens, 2014). It is thus argued that power is the most important factor in
international relations and power needs to be maximized however not the human nature but
the international system drives this need for power. Baylis et al further explain that the power
that is distributed plays a large part in understanding the international system and the actions
taken by the international system (Baylis, Smith, & Owens, 2014). Burchill et al argue that
structural realism highlights the anarchy and write the following “International structure
emerges from the interaction of states and then constrains them from taking certain actions
while propelling them toward others” (Burchill, et al., 2005)
Two men, Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, with opposing theories are explained. First
the theory of Kenneth Waltz is investigated, this theory is also known as defensive realism.
Feng and Ruizhuang argue that some scholars believe that the distributed power is a tool for
reaching an objective, and the objective for states is security. (Feng & Ruizhuang, 2006)
Waltz argues that the power that is distributed needs to be handled with care by the states.
Over-usage of the power could result in conflict since the other states would feel threatened
but not showing enough power could also be dangerous because other states might think
that the state showing less power is vulnerable. Waltz further argues that “In crucial
situations, the ultimate concern of states is not for power but for security.” (Waltz, 1988)
Waltz thus explains that in dire situations the ultimate goal of a state is security and hereby
agrees with Feng and Ruizhuang. To conclude defensive realism, the primary objective of
defensive realism is security. States want to maximize their power to ensure their security.
Offensive realism or sometimes called aggressive realism stems from the same branch of
realism as defensive realism, however it is different. According to Mearsheimer states need
to seek out as much power as possible, this is unlike Waltz’s approach which argues that
states need to seek out as much power as they need to in order to ensure their own security.
1
