DOCSLIB.ORG

Great Power Management in International Society

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Shunji Cui and Barry Buzan Great power management in international society Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Cui, Shunji and Buzan, Barry (2016) Great power management in international society. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 9 (2). pp. 181-210. ISSN 1750-8916 DOI: 10.1093/cjip/pow005 © 2016 The Authors This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67191/ Available in LSE Research Online: July 2016 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. 1 The Evolution of Great Power Management in International Society Shunji Cui and Barry Buzan1 First draft [14,469 words article text and 2,624 references] Shunji Cui is an Associate Professor of International Politics and Deputy Director in the Department of Political Science, School of Public Affairs at Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. She was awarded a British Academy Visiting Fellowship in 2010 at LSE, UK; and a Fulbright Scholar-in-Residence in 2012-13 and taught at Marian University, USA. Her research has dealt with international relations and non-traditional security cooperation with reference to China-Japan and East Asian relations. Her publications include: ‘Conflict Transformation: East China Sea Dispute and Lessons from the Ecuador-Peru Border Dispute,’ Asian Perspective (2014); ‘Human Development and Human Dignity: Rethinking the Concept of Human Security’, Journal of International Security Studies (2014, in Chinese); ‘Beyond History: Non-Traditional Security Cooperation and The Construction of Northeast Asian International Society,’ Journal of Contemporary China (2013); ‘Problems of Nationalism and Historical Memory in China’s Relations with Japan,’ Journal of Historical Sociology (2012); ‘(De)Securitising Frontier Security in China: Beyond the Positive and Negative Debate’, Cooperation and Conflict (2011, with Jia Li). Barry Buzan is Professor Emeritus at the LSE, and a Senior Fellow at LSE IDEAS. Previously, he was Montague Burton Professor of International Relations at the LSE. In 1998 he was elected a fellow of the British Academy, and in the late 1990s he began a project to reconvene the English School. His books relevant to the English School include: International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations (2000, with Richard Little); From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation (2004); The United States and the Great Powers: World Politics in the Twenty-First Century (2004); International Society and the Middle East: English School Theory at the Regional Level (2009, co-edited with Ana Gonzalez-Pelaez); International Society and the Contest Over ‘East Asia’ (2014, co-edited with Yongjin Zhang); An Introduction to the English School of 1 We would like to thank Ian Clark, Evelyn Goh, Jorge Lasmar, Richard Little, two anonymous reviewers for, and the editors of, CJIP for comments on earlier drafts of this article. 2 International Relations: The Societal Approach (2014); and The Global Transformation: History, Modernity and the Making of International Relations (2015, with George Lawson). Abstract This paper is a contribution to the English School’s theory of primary institutions. It offers a historical and structural enquiry into the meaning of great power management (GPM) as a primary institution of international society as it has evolved since the 18th century. We seek to uncover the driving forces that shape this primary institution, and how they are working to redefine its legitimacy in the 21st century. We are particularly interested in uncovering whether and how particular conditions in international systems/societies facilitate or obstruct the operation of GPM. The paper examines how system structures, both material and ideational, have set different conditions for GPM. Using the evolution from traditional to non-traditional security as a template, it sets out the main functions that have evolved for GPM. It shows how the institution has quite different meanings and roles at different times, and how they play into the legitimacy that GPM requires. It considers how GPM works at both regional and global levels, and concludes by both looking ahead at the prospects for GPM, and opening a discussion on how to relate GPM to global governance. 3 1. Introduction The idea of great power management (GPM) stands prominently within the English school approach to IR. It is one of the five classical primary institutions (PIs) of international society identified by Bull, the other four being war, diplomacy, international law and the balance of power.2 In Bull’s formulation, great powers not only assume themselves, but are also recognised by others, to have managerial rights and responsibilities for international order. This idea is also present in hegemonic stability theory, and up to a point in global governance. The key to great power management as an institution of international society is that the powers concerned attract legitimacy to support their unequal status as leaders by accepting special responsibilities as well as claiming special rights.3 They do this both by displaying good manners and by efficiently providing public goods, though in theory and in practice, GPM norms can be driven by calculation or coercion. Holsti shows how the institution of GPM emerged along with the balance of power during the 18th and 19th centuries as replacements for a declining dynastic principle.4 Recently, especially with the rise of China, India and other non-Western powers, there has been growing interest in great powers and their roles and responsibilities in international society.5 There has 2 Although the discussion of classical primary institutions focuses mainly on the five that Bull discusses at length, he also notes that ‘it is states themselves that are the principal institutions of international society’. This means that sovereignty and territoriality, which are the defining principles for modern states, should be added to the other five. A good case can be made for adding nationalism, which since the 19th century has become a key constitutive principle for the modern state. See, Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study in World Politics (London: Macmillan Press, 1977), p. 71; James Mayall, Nationalism and International Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). For discussion of primary institutions see Barry Buzan, An Introduction to the English School of International Relations: The Societal Approach (Cambridge: Polity, 2014). 3 Ian Clark, ‘Towards an English School Theory of Hegemony’, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 15, No. 2 (2009), pp. 207-20; Mlada Bukovansky, Ian Clark, Robyn Eckersley, Richard Price, Christian Reus-Smit and Nicholas J. Wheeler, Special Responsibilities: Global Problems and American Power (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 26-27. 4 Kalevi J. Holsti, Peace and War: armed conflicts and international order 1648-1989 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 71-82, 114-37. 5 Jamie Gaskarth, ed., China, India and the Future of International Society (London: 4 been a particular focus on China, which is pressured from without to become a more responsible great power, and from within to balance the domestic political needs of the Chinese Communist Party with the necessity to engage in a Western-defined global economic order.6 More broadly, there has been interest in how rising powers gain the ‘legitimate’ great power status in ‘recognition games’,7 and some discussions on the legitimacy of power.8 But with a few exceptions there has been surprisingly little attention to the meaning of GPM itself as a primary institution.9 Our study makes a broader historical and structural enquiry into the meaning of GPM as it has evolved since the 18th century, seeking to uncover the driving forces that shape this primary institution, and how they are working to redefine its legitimacy in the 21st century. We are particularly interested in uncovering whether and how particular conditions in international systems/societies facilitate or obstruct the operation of GPM. In the classical formulation, GPM is closely related to another of the classical primary institutions, balance of power (BoP),10 which some writers take to be the fundamental enabling condition for international society.11 A BoP is seen as necessary to preserve a system of sovereign states from both endless war, and domination by some form of universal empire. Great powers are a likely, though not absolutely inevitable, consequence of an anarchic system of states (likely Rowman and Littlefield, 2015). 6 Catherine Jones, ‘Constructing great powers: China’s status in a socially constructed plurality’, International Politics, Vol. 51, No. 5 (2014), pp. 597-618.
Recommended publications
  • The Climate Debate Held Hostage by the G2

    The Climate Debate Held Hostage by the G2

    China Perspectives 2011/1 | 2011 The National Learning Revival The Climate Debate Held Hostage by the G2 Jean-Paul Maréchal Translator: N. Jayaram Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/chinaperspectives/5383 DOI: 10.4000/chinaperspectives.5383 ISSN: 1996-4617 Publisher Centre d'étude français sur la Chine contemporaine Printed version Date of publication: 1 January 2011 Number of pages: 56-62 ISSN: 2070-3449 Electronic reference Jean-Paul Maréchal, « The Climate Debate Held Hostage by the G2 », China Perspectives [Online], 2011/1 | 2011, Online since 30 March 2014, connection on 28 October 2019. URL : http:// journals.openedition.org/chinaperspectives/5383 ; DOI : 10.4000/chinaperspectives.5383 © All rights reserved China perspectives Articles The Climate Debate Held Hostage by the G2 JEAN-PAUL MARÉCHAL* Real optimism lies in saying that the next 25,000 years will be very that can be said about this quote is that it is confirmed by all available in - difficult. – Romain Gary dicators, be they measures of economic might or (present and future) re - sponsibility for climate change. year after the Copenhagen Summit, the Cancun Conference (29 November-11 December 2010) showed that, despite some The world’s top two economies (in PPP terms) progress, nothing decisive will happen in facing up to climate A (2) change without the engagement of the United States as well as the Peo - Calculated in “purchasing power parities” (PPP) terms, the US and Chi - ple’s Republic of China. In the climate arena, as in so many others, the G2 nese gross domestic products are the world’s two highest.
  • 'The Anarchical Society and Climate Change' Robert Falkner

    'The Anarchical Society and Climate Change' Robert Falkner

    ‘The Anarchical Society and Climate Change’ Robert Falkner in: The Anarchical Society at 40. Contemporary Challenges and Prospects, edited by Hidemi Suganami, Madeline Carr and Adam Humphreys (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 198- 215. INTRODUCTION Hedley Bull’s The Anarchical Society is the first English School text that addresses, albeit briefly, international environmental politics. Bull’s interest in environmental issues is motivated mainly by his desire to refute claims that ‘the states system is an obstacle to the attainment of man’s ecological objective of living in harmony with his environment’ (1977, 283). The book does not discuss climate change as such. Published in 1977, five years after the first UN environment conference but two years before the first World Climate Conference, The Anarchical Society conceives of environmental issues as a set of distinct problems that require international scientific cooperation and environmental management. By contrast, climate change has emerged today as an all-encompassing global ecological threat that requires the wholesale de-carbonization of the global economy. It is, as Hoffmann suggests, ‘perhaps the global challenge of modern times’ (2013, 3). Had Bull lived to observe the rise of international climate politics since the 1990s, would he have arrived at a different assessment of the environmental agenda? Would he still view global environmental politics through the same pluralist, state-centric, lens that is at the heart of The Anarchical Society? This essay offers a close reading of Bull’s classic text in an effort to apply his theoretical perspective to the international politics of climate change. My objective is to 1 explore what contribution pluralist English School theory can make to our understanding of how international society can respond to global warming, and what its limitations are.
  • Class on Hedley Bull 1. Some General Points About Bull's View a Central

    Class on Hedley Bull 1. Some General Points About Bull's View a Central

    Class on Hedley Bull 1. Some general points about Bull’s view A central claim in Bull’s argument is that anarchy—understood as interaction between and among agents, whether individuals or states, in the absence of a state—is not a single thing with a determinate set of consequences. Even if we accept the Hobbesian thesis that a world of separate individuals interacting under conditions of anarchy lacks any order, there are still at least three forms of anarchy which work very differently from one another: (i) an anarchical community of the kind that we find within stateless societies, where order among clans and lineages groups, with partially overlapping competences, is preserved in part because of a high degree of cultural homogeneity and social solidarity, and the rules enforced by groups are understood as having religious or natural status and a special authority owing to that status form of special owing to are according to custom and tradition; (ii) an anarchical international system (anarchical state system) with a plurality of states and no element of society (as Hobbes thought of international society) or none that plays a consequential role, in which order is preserved through the separate states acting on their own interests and/or values and principles, and not on the basis of a sense of common interests or an understanding of being bound by common rules and institutions; (iii) an anarchical international society, in which order among states is maintained by the existence of an international society that does not operate in the shadow of the state: that is, by a sense of common or shared interests/values, and a sense of being bound by common rules and institutions (habits, practices, and organizations).
  • Domestic Analogy in Proposals for World Order, 1814-1945

    Domestic Analogy in Proposals for World Order, 1814-1945

    Domestic analogy in proposals for world order, 1814-1945: the transfer of legal and political principles from the domestic to the international sphere in thought on international law and relations HIDEMI SUGANAMI Thesis submitted for the Degree of Ph.D. The London School of Economics and Political Science, University of London 1985 2 ABSTRACT The ways in which legal and political principles obtaining within states can profitably be transferred to the relations of states are among the contentious issues in the study of international relations, and the term 'domestic analogy' is used to refer to the argument which supports such transfer. The 'domestic analogy' is analogical reasoning according to which the conditions of order between states are similar to those of order within them, and therefore those institutions which sustain order within states should be transferred to the international system. However, despite the apparent division among writers on international relations between those who favour this analogy and those who are critical of it, no clear analysis has so far been made as to precisely what types of proposal should be treated as exemplifying reliance on this analogy. The first aim of this thesis is to clarify the range and types of proposal this analogy entails. The thesis then examines the role the domestic analogy played in ideas about world order in the period between 1814 and 1945. Particular attention is paid to the influence of changing circumstances in the domestic and international spheres upon the manner and the extent of the use of this analogy. In addition to the ideas of major writers on international law and relations, the creation of the League of Nations and of the United Nations is also examined.
  • The Evolving Spheres of International Justice the Evolving Spheres of International Justice

    The Evolving Spheres of International Justice the Evolving Spheres of International Justice

    The evolving spheres of international justice The evolving spheres of international justice ANDREW LINKLATER The Athenian position in the Melian dialogue that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must boldly expresses the realist theme that powerful states will not treat others equally if this seems likely to harm vital interests or jeopardize the balance of power. According to classical realism, justice (the idea that equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally) does not, and cannot, play a central role in the competitive world of inter- national politics. From that standpoint, what is true of states is just as true of the relations between individuals and groups within world society. Justice is principally a matter for the inner world of bounded communities; its role is marginal at best in their external relations.1 Two contrasting themes emerged in the 1970s in opposition to this doctrine. The first argued that order between old and new, former colonial and newly independent, states would be bolstered by redistributing power and wealth from the rich to the poor.2 The second argued that with the rise of inter- dependence the distinction between domestic and international relations is increasingly blurred and questions about who benefits from global arrangements inevitably raise justice considerations.3 These developments were the prelude to the more radical challenge to the realist dismissal of justice considerations which has emerged in the most recent phase of globalization. Globalization (the compression of time and space and the universalization of economic and social relations) has reinforced the critique of realism by encour- aging a rigorous analysis of equitable approaches to coping with global warming and ozone depletion.
  • Liberalism in a Realist World: International Relations As an American Scholarly Tradition

    Liberalism in a Realist World: International Relations As an American Scholarly Tradition

    Liberalism in a Realist World: International Relations as an American Scholarly Tradition G. John Ikenberry The study of international relations (IR) is a worldwide pursuit with each country having its own theoretical orientations, preoccupations and debates. Beginning in the early twentieth century, the US created its own scholarly traditions of IR. Eventually, IR became an American social science with the US becoming the epicentre for a worldwide IR community engaged in a set of research programmes and theoretical debates. The discipline of IR emerged in the US at a time when it was the world’s most powerful state and a liberal great power caught in a struggle with illiberal rivals. This context ensured that the American theoretical debates would be built around both power and liberal ideals. Over the decades, the two grand projects of realism and liberalism struggled to define the agenda of IR in the US. These traditions have evolved as they attempted to make sense of contemporary developments, speak to strategic position of the US and its foreign policy, as well as deal with the changing fashions and stand- ards of social science. The rationalist formulations of realism and liberalism sparked reactions and constructivism has arisen to offer counterpoints to the rational choice theory. Keywords: International Relations Theory, Realism, Liberalism The study of International Relations (IR) is a worldwide pursuit but every country has its own theoretical orientations, preoccupations and debates. This is true for the American experience—and deeply so. Beginning in the early twentieth cen- tury, the US created its own scholarly traditions of IR.
  • Nato's European Members

    Nato's European Members

    Naval War College Review Volume 56 Article 3 Number 1 Winter 2003 Nato’s European Members Richard L. Russell Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review Recommended Citation Russell, Richard L. (2003) "Nato’s European Members," Naval War College Review: Vol. 56 : No. 1 , Article 3. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol56/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Russell: Nato’s European Members NATO’S EUROPEAN MEMBERS Partners or Dependents? Richard L. Russell he transatlantic relationship is fraying at the edges. The Europeans are in- Tcreasingly uneasy over the George W. Bush administration’s national secu- rity policy, judging by the pronouncements coming from government officials. While the tragedies of 11 September 2001 garnered Americans broad sympathy in Europe, emotional support since has steadily eroded. What had been Euro- pean sympathy on a personal level to American pain and suffering is gradually giving way to anxiety about this nation’s preponderance of global power, mixed with an awareness—if in many instances only subconsciously—of Europe’s own shortcomings, particularly in the realm of international security. Certainly, European capitals are lending a hand in the diplomatic, intelli- gence, and police work needed to track and round up al-Qa‘ida operatives who use Europe as a hub for international operations.
  • Orders and Borders: Unipolarity and the Issue of Homeland Security David G

    Orders and Borders: Unipolarity and the Issue of Homeland Security David G

    This article was downloaded by: [David G. Haglund] On: 06 July 2012, At: 09:31 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Canadian Foreign Policy Journal Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcfp20 Orders and borders: Unipolarity and the issue of homeland security David G. Haglund a a Department of Political Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada Version of record first published: 06 Jul 2012 To cite this article: David G. Haglund (2012): Orders and borders: Unipolarity and the issue of homeland security, Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 18:1, 9-25 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/11926422.2012.674383 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and- conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
  • NATO and the European Union

    NATO and the European Union

    Order Code RL32342 NATO and the European Union Updated January 29, 2008 Kristin Archick Specialist in European Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Paul Gallis Specialist in European Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division NATO and the European Union Summary Since the end of the Cold War, both NATO and the European Union (EU) have evolved along with Europe’s changed strategic landscape. While NATO’s collective defense guarantee remains at the core of the alliance, members have also sought to redefine its mission as new security challenges have emerged on Europe’s periphery and beyond. At the same time, EU members have taken steps toward political integration with decisions to develop a common foreign policy and a defense arm to improve EU member states’ abilities to manage security crises, such as those that engulfed the Balkans in the 1990s. The evolution of NATO and the EU, however, has generated some friction between the United States and several of its allies over the security responsibilities of the two organizations. U.S.-European differences center around threat assessment, defense institutions, and military capabilities. Successive U.S. administrations and the U.S. Congress have called for enhanced European defense capabilities to enable the allies to better share the security burden, and to ensure that NATO’s post-Cold War mission embraces combating terrorism and countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. policymakers, backed by Congress, support EU efforts to develop a European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) provided that it remains tied to NATO and does not threaten the transatlantic relationship.
  • The Revival of Carl Schmitt in International Relations: the Last Refuge of Critical Theorists?1 David Chandler

    The Revival of Carl Schmitt in International Relations: the Last Refuge of Critical Theorists?1 David Chandler

    © 2008 The Author(s) Millennium: Journal of International Studies Vol.37 No.1, pp. 27–48 ISSN 0305-8298; DOI: 10.1177/0305829808093729 http://mil.sagepub.com The Revival of Carl Schmitt in International Relations: The Last Refuge of Critical Theorists?1 David Chandler This article seeks to question the ‘critical’ readings of Carl Schmitt’s understanding of international law and the use of force in inter- national relations, particularly the approaches taken by many critical cosmopolitan theorists and many post-structuralists who have used Schmitt to distance themselves from, and to critique, American for- eign policy, especially under the Bush administrations. I suggest that these critical theorists engage in a highly idealized understanding of Schmitt, focusing on his contingent political conclusions, using his work descriptively rather than analytically. It is argued that the ideal- ist approach to Schmitt stems from these commentators’ concerns to describe their work as critical rather than from any attempt to use Schmitt’s underlying ontological framing of the relationship between law, ethics and the use of force to develop analytical insights into the practice and jurisprudence of the international sphere today. The revival of Schmitt in international relations therefore tells us more about the crisis of critical theorizing than the relevance of Schmitt’s analysis to today’s world. Keywords: Carl Schmitt, critical theorists, ontology Introduction: Reading Nomos der Erde The superficial nature of current uses of the work of Carl Schmitt, in substantiating critical approaches to the international sphere, is particu- larly apparent when he is used in relation to debates on humanitarian intervention and criticism of the global war against terrorism.
  • Is Growing China a Real Challenge to the U.S. Power?

    Is Growing China a Real Challenge to the U.S. Power?

    International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 5, No. 10(1); October 2015 Is Growing China A Real Challenge To The U.S. Power? Abdul Salaam Khan1 Abstract The purpose of this paper is to discuss the global hegemonic power of the United States of America as presented by different international theorists with special reference to the rise of People’s Republic of China and the possible transition of global power from West to the East. The paper comprises of six parts: first part presents the history and evolution of the US hegemonic power after the World War II, second highlights scholars like Robert Gilpin, Robert Keohane, Joseph Nye, James Petras and Immanuel Waller stein that the American hegemony has declined after the 1970s, thirdly it presents scholars like Stephen Gill and Susan Strange that the hegemonic dominance of the United States in the global affairs is still intact, fourth part discusses the rise of the People’s Republic of China as major challenge to the future US global power, fifthly it presents comparative analysis of the USA and China politically, economically, militarily, educationally, demographically and geographically and at the end it gives long term discussion and analysis in the context of global power of the United States and rising China. 1. Introduction After the World War II, the United States has become hegemonic due to its unmatched economic, military, political and cultural influence in global affairs. The American global order was basically characterized by liberal democracy and free capitalist economy. The hegemonic power of the United States in the post-World War II has been presented differently by different scholars.
  • Realism and International Relations

    Realism and International Relations

    Realism and International Relations Jack Donnelly PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK http: //www.cup.cam.ac.uk 40 West 20th Street, New York NY 10011-4211,USA http: //www.cup.org 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia Ruiz de Alarcón 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain © Jack Donnelly 2000 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2000 Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge Typeface Plantin MT 10/13 pt System QuarkXPress™ [SE] A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data Donnelly, Jack. Realism and international relations / Jack Donnelly. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0 521 59229 1 (hb) – ISBN 0 521 59752 8 (pb) 1. International relations. 2. Realism. I. Title. JZ1307.D66 2000 327.1Ј01 – dc21 99-053676 ISBN 0 521 59229 1 hardback ISBN 0 521 59752 8 paperback Contents Acknowledgments page vii Introduction 1 1 The realist tradition 6 2 Human nature and state motivation 43 3 Anarchy, hierarchy, and order 81 4 System, structure, and balance of power 107 5 Institutions and international society 131 6 Morality and foreign policy 161 Conclusion: The nature and contribution of realism 193 Selected recommended readings 203 References 205 Index 228 v 1 The realist tradition One might imagine that defining an old and well-established theory such as realism would be a simple task.