I.

Structural Realism
Neorealism (structural realism) derives from classical realism except that instead of human nature, its
focus is on the anarchic structure of the international system.

Neorealism was established by Kenneth Waltz, an American political scientist. Waltz’s theory maintains
that structure determines the behaviour of the units within it. If we want to consider how actors will
interact, we must look at the system in which they interact. Under the scope of this theory, international
relations should be approached and explained through Structure rather than human nature (Classical
realism). Waltz’s claim that the anarchical nature of the international system causes major powers to
pursue their own interests, in a self-help system in which each state has to take care of itself.

Waltz wrote his book during the height of the Cold War which was characterized by bipolarity between
the two great powers of the time, the United States and the Soviet Union. According to structural
realism war and peace depends on the nature of power distribution among the units of the international
system (Polarity: unipolarity, bipolarity, and multipolarity). Waltz contends that the bipolar distribution
of power is the most stable and peaceful form of international order.

As in a unipolar system, the major power will weaken itself by misusing its power and even if it does not
then unbalanced power will leave weaker states feeling uneasy and gives them reason to attempt to
balance against it.

Structural realism is subdivided into two factions based on how much power they believe is optimal:

1. Defensive realism argues that if any state becomes too powerful, balancing will occur as other
powers would build up their forces. This will result in a security dilemma (Many of the means
that a state uses to increase its security will lower the security of other states, which will in turn
seeks to increase its security, creating a dilemma. An example of this is the arms race of the Cold
War). As a result, the security dilemma would leave the aspiring hegemon less secure. Defensive
realists maintain that it is in a state's interest to maintain the status quo rather than maximize
its power as aggressive expansion as promoted by offensive realists can threaten states security
and lead to war.

2. Offensive realism seeks power and influence to achieve security through domination and
hegemony. According to offensive realism, security in the international self-help system is
scarce. The international arena is fragile and the world is anarchic. the major great powers must
maximize their security through maximizing their relative power by expansionist foreign policies,
taking advantage of opportunities to gain more power, waging preemptive wars and weakening
potential challengers. All this is done with no regard to morals rather solely based on national
interest.
For offensive realists, a state’s ultimate goal is hegemony or primacy because it is the best way
to increase its odds of survival. Offensive realists accepts defensive realist assertion that
threatened states usually balance against dangerous foes, however, they maintain that
balancing is often inefficient and that this inefficiency provides opportunities for a clever
aggressor to take advantage of its adversaries. Also, conquests are not always necessary. China's
economy has been growing at an impressive pace without wars proving that conquest is
unnecessary for accumulating great wealth.