Neoclassical realism

"The essay revolves around the question whether and to what extent the phenomenon of rebellious foreign policy behaviour in general and sponsorship of terrorism in particular can be explained within the theoretical framework of IR-Realism.
According to structural realist theories of International Relations, states aim at increasingtheir security and thus conform to the systemic ‘rules of the game’ and international norms.
Otherwise, they are likely to cause a balancing reaction by other states in the system that as a result could decrease their own security. However, there are forms of state behaviour that display a disregard of international norms and the implied pressure of socialization. One of these patterns is the support of violent non-state actors, e.g. insurgencies or terrorist organizations, in conflict with others.
Subsequently, this type of foreign policy implies a highly aggressive attitude and bears – for the supporting state - the risk of becoming not only a pariah within the international system but also a possible target of other states’ retaliation. The question remains, why these alignments occur after all and why they have proven quite stable despite strong international pressure.

In this paper, the question will be addressed whether and why states choose to rebel against international norms. Based on the structural realists’s assumption that states will adjust their behaviour to the response of other states in the system and yield to international peerpressure, historical and recent instances of resistance will be discussed in the following.

Demonstrated by the example of the Syrian support for the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in comparison to its assistance to Lebanese and Palestinian groups, another question will be addressed: Under what conditions do states decide to overtly support domestic or transnational violent opposition in other countries? In reverse, are there political costs of denial that we should take into account when we assess the rationality of foreign policies?

This paper aims at identifying the causes and underlying cost-benefit calculations of this so called policy of refusal by integrating domestic threats that political leaders face in a theoretical framework based on neoclassical realism and concludes that the peer pressure of international politics is limited by the requirements of regime security.  "

"Artikel ini adalah critical review penulis tentang bagaimana Robert Jackson  dan George Sorensen  menjelaskan Realisme dalam Ilmu Hubungan Internasional. Tulisan yang ditinjau terdapat pada BAB III dalam buku berjudul Introduction to International Relation: Theories and Approaches yang disusun bersama oleh Jackson dan Sorensen pada tahun 2007.
Dua fokus peninjauan kritis yang akan ditekankan oleh penulis, yaitu (1) penjelasan Jackson dan Sorensen tentang pemikiran Realisme, dan (2) dasar spesifikasi tradisi pemikiran yang dirumuskan Jackson dan Sorensen dalam menganalisa asumsi dasar Realisme dalam Ilmu Hubungan Internasional."

A panoramic outlook on the present global system shows that the US has been failing to preserve its global preponderance against the rise of new contenders from Asia. Turkey's new foreign policy demeanor under the AKP government reflects this shift of global power from the West to the East, leaning on both of these two poles (especially Russia and the US), thereby, aims at creating a 'zero-problem' situation with the neighboring Caucasian states. Yet, this strategy has not achieved its goal, mainly due to the ongoing debates, not only between Moscow and Washington, but also between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the Caucasian Regional Security Complexity. This work tries to read all these developments by applying insights from the neoclassical realist standing and argues that there are two main hindrances to the plan's success: the dynamics of the current global system and the security complexity of the Caucasus region.

« Jean-Pascal Alcantara, “On Internal Relations in Leibniz, British Neo-Realism and Whitehead,” Logique et Analyse, 54/214, juin 2011, Special Issue on Whitehead’s Early Work, pp. 173-209 », Zentralblatt MATH, European Mathematical Society, Fachinformationszentrum Karlsruhe & Springer-Verlag, Zbl 06079222.

Analyses of United States post-Cold War foreign policy in the Persian Gulf symbolize realism’s new found concern with foreign policy analysis. Prominent realists attribute specific policies to domestic concerns and how they have dominated policymaking in the era of US primacy. Although convincing, this perspective is not comprehensive. By drawing on regional security complex theory, as is done here, it is possible to map the regional developments which have equally constrained and incentivized the rise and fall of dual containment. In turn, this more extensive account produces two important findings regarding realism’s neglect of the regional level of analysis. First, realists, especially Mearsheimer and Walt, overstate the domestic determinants of US policy in the Persian Gulf. Second, and more broadly, realist foreign policy analysts underspecify the systemic pressures which shape and shove a country’s foreign policy.

Political realism dominated the study of international relations during the Cold War. Since then, however, its fortunes have been mixed: pushed onto the backfoot during 1990s, it has in recent years returned to the centre of scholarly debate in international relations. Yet despite its significance in international relations theory, realism plays little role in contemporary international political theory. It is often associated with a form of crude realpolitik that ignores the role of ethical considerations in political life. This book explores an alternative understanding of realism. The contributors view realism chiefly as a diverse and complex mode of political and ethical theorising rather than either a value-neutral branch of social science or the unreflective defence of the national interest. They analyse a variety of historical and philosophical themes, probing the potential and the pathologies of realist thought. A number of the chapters offer critical interpretations of key figures in the canon of twentieth century realism, including Hans Morgenthau, E. H. Carr, and Reinhold Niebuhr. Others seek to widen the lens through which realism is usually viewed, exploring the writings of Martin Heidegger, Hannah Arendt, and Leo Strauss. Finally, a number of the contributors engage with general issues in political theory, including the meaning and value of pessimism, the relationship between power and ethics, the role of normative political theory, and what might constitute political 'reality.' Straddling international relations and political theory, this book makes a significant contribution to both fields.