The 'levels of analysis' device is often employed in order to better understand and explain outcomes in international politics. Evaluate the different levels of analysis used by Classical and Neo-Realist

Résumé du document

'Man is by nature a political animal'. For every realist, Aristotle could be a respectable ancestry more than Machiavelli, who was closer to the classical realist theory. The Realist family is not the oldest, but maybe the simplest one, and the first one to formulate a real answer, and a powerful explanation about international relations. The state of war dominates the international system, even if it is possible to create common institutions. The aim of international relations theories is to understand why the state of war endures. For that, Realists drew upon many different theories to build their own. For instance, 'The Origin of Species' written by Darwin in 1859 underlines the 'struggle for existence', which is one of the key realist concepts . The oldest analysis about war was conducted by Thucydides about the Peloponnesian war (431–404 BC). This writer is often regarded as the founding father of international relations. His writing gives the key point of realist perspective 'The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must'. Though a realist perspective had already existed for a long time, the real story of Realism begins after the First World War. The Realist theory was a reaction against the Idealism of the inter-war period. Idealist thinkers, often called 'utopians', believed that states share common interests, and that it could be possible to stop the scourge of war thanks to humankind. The atrocity of WW I made research about peace necessary. The first modern thinkers in International relations were idealists. They came from England and wanted to understand why this war had happened, and how peace could be built by the power of law. The Second World War confirmed the inadequacies of the idealists' point of view, and created a debate between Realism and Idealism (often called the first debate). Realism believes in 'objective factors' , i.e. the world exists without human interpretations, and, consequently, its aim is to explain the world of international politics as it is.

Extraits

[...] The distribution of power is a key to understand the structure of the international system. This distribution can be modified, that is the way Waltz's theory is able to explain change. The system could be unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar. Waltz uses the international level to build his theory. The strucure creates a kind of hierarchy and it's the position of the state which will govern the way it acts. Finaly, Waltz argues that the best structure, the most stable one, is the bipolar one. [...]

[...] Classical and Neo-realists choose different levels of analysis to better understand and explain outcomes in international politics. The aim of that essay is to deal with these differents levels of analysis, to explain why it is so important to focus on one level. First of all, it could be interesting to explain what is a level of analysis and why it is so important. Bydoing this, it will afterwards be possible to evaluate the different levels used by Classical ans Neo-Realists. [...]

[...] The 'levels of analysis' device is often employed in order to better understand and explain outcomes in international politics. Evaluate the different levels of analysis used by Classical and Neo-Realist Introduction 'Man is by nature a political animal', for each realist Aristotle could be a respectable ancestry, more than Machiavelli who was closer to classical realist theory. Realist family is not the oldest but maybe the most simple and first one to formulate a real answer, a powerful explanation about international relations. [...]

[...] In conclusion he argues that the systemic level allows a total picture of international relations while the national level is more rich in details. Anyway, each level of analysis is crucial, each level can bring in something new. Obviously, the issue is not to choose the better level but be sure that every research project in international relations selects one level to work on it. However, even though it could be more rigorous to choose only one level it is possible to add these two approaches together. [...]

[...] However, this internal peace can't be reproduced in the international system. Any state can accepted to be controled. The international structure can be only anarchic because of the absence of a superordinate authority[5]. This explanation is one of Realism's foundations. Realism uses the individual level of analysis to explain why the national level is the most important. States are like men in the state of nature, they cannot do whatever they want to. States are rationnal actors which want to increase their power. [...]