Structural realism – John J. Mearsheimer

Résumé du document

The text we have is an extract from the Mearsheimer's book about International relations theories. In this extract, he presents the structural realism: he states the structural realist theory about international politics and conflicts. Hence, he also explains there are differences among the structural realists themselves: offensive realists do not have the same conception of the State's behavior as the defensive realists have. Structural realists think that States compete for power and that they are forced by international structures to pursue power (they do not really set store to human nature as the classical realists did). The power is first characterized by a military force; it also comprises latent power such as State's wealth, size of population…

Structural realists base their analysis on five assumptions: states are the main actors in an anarchic system (no centralized authority); they all possess some offensive military capacity; there are a lot of uncertainties about State's incentives; their major goal is to survive; they are rational actors. In my opinion, we may critique certain aspects of the structural assumptions. Firstly, it seems to be a bit simplistic to consider States as unitary elements which are the main actors in international politics. Indeed, such conception simplifies the state's organization which is in reality much more complicated: there are in fact many actors behind each decision. Structural realists do not take into account the role lobbies play in order to influence policy makers (even if this role is not always institutionalized). Moreover, certain States are really decentralized and local actors also have an influence power over the State even if I think that structural realists are right to consider States as the main actors.

Extraits

[...] Once again, structural realists do not share the same theory: ones think that a powerful state facilitates peace whereas others think that it generates wars because this State wants to be hegemonic. The third key aspect that interests realists is the dynamics of the balance of power. Indeed, if a state is rising to challenge the preponderant power, it creates a dangerous situation: the declining power often sparks war. Finally, the last variable is used by the defensive realists: it is the offense-defence balance which is generally in favour of defence (peace). [...]

[...] However, they could act in a foolish way as other great powers did it before. Other perspectives are envisaged by realists: for instance, they think that the rise of China will lead to the end of unipolarity and hence a more dangerous world. In my opinion, the USA is going to remain the hegemonic State for many years and I am not sure China is going to overtake it one day. In terms of military expenditures, the USA is far above Chine: it spends around 711 billion dollar every year for its army (only 143 for China). [...]

[...] Indeed, decisions are taken by political leaders who do not have all the same ideas about international politics (for example, in the presidential American campaign, Romney does not side with Obama about the management of Middle- East troubles). Moreover, these aspects do not take into consideration the importance of economic considerations in current circumstances (e.g. natural resources such as oil). The last part of the text is a case study about the rising of China as a powerful State in international politics. This country is particularly characterized by a high economic growth and a huge population, which are the essential means to build a military force. Realists cannot predict what is going to happen with this rise. [...]

[...] Structural realists do not take into account the role lobbies play in order to influence policy makers (even if this role is not always institutionalized). Moreover, certain States are really decentralized and local actors also have an influence power over the State even if I think that structural realists are right to consider States as the main actors. Another important critique we can make about this theory is that structural realists do not take into consideration the cultural differences among different countries. [...]

[...] This Mearsheimer's text is a really good summary of structural realism which is a really relevant theory about international relations. However, I think their oppositions (in particular between defensive and offensive realists) about many dimensions discredit them a bit. And in my opinion, they do not take into account many essential aspects such as the domestic influence. References J.J. Mearsheimer, "Structural Realism" in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, eds., International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, Oxford, Oxford University Press pp.71-88. [...]