Is Neorealism a Deterministic Theory of International Relations

Dados Bibliográficos

ID9975751
AutoresLucas Freire (0000-0002-4072-1924, Autonomous University of Lisbon, autor correspondente), Lucas G Freire (Lucas G. Freire, Mackenzie Center for Economic Freedom, São Paulo, Brazil)
Ano2019
Volume56
Fascículo1
Páginas58-67
Data de publicação2019-01-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoInternational Studies (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0020-8817 • E-ISSN: 0973-0702
EditoraSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/0020881718824760
OpenAlexW2925599484
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas1
Referências citadas24

This article is a contribution to the clarification of the central claim of Kenneth Waltz’s neorealist international relations theory. Over the years, the notion that Waltz’s Theory of International Politics postulates a deterministic connection between the configuration of the structure of the international system and the behaviour of each of the units has gained traction in textbooks and in straw-man critiques of the neorealist approach. Two major groups of critics of neorealism’s alleged determinism have formed. The first group focuses on instances where predicted balancing behaviour did not occur in order to refute neorealism’s central claim about the link between structure and behaviour. The second group objects to any strong claims about structural features as such. In response, this article shows that a careful reading of Waltz’s writings suffices to indicate that the presupposition adopted by both groups of critics is flawed. Neorealism was never presented by its main proponent as a deterministic international relations theory

Art history · Epistemology · International relations · International relations theory · Neorealism (international relations · Political science · Politics · Presupposition · Waltz · History · International Development and Aid · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Law · Philosophy · Political Conflict and Governance