Analysis Of Kenneth N. Waltz's Views On International Relations
Kenneth N. Waltz is a structural realist who subscribes to “defensive realism”, which argues that states aim to amass as much power as possible because they want to be assured security in the international arena (Lamy and Masker, p.75). His perspective on international relations further explains that states do this through a “self-help system” where states, distrustful of others, conclude that they can only rely on themselves to defend against external threats. They act prioritizing national interests over global ones (Waltz 1986, p.101-102). This insecurity that underscores how states conduct themselves in international relations inadvertently provokes other states to react similarly, resulting in a security dilemma that is likely to breed
…show more content…
I believe that his views can be expanded further to provide a more holistic overview of international relations. Firstly, multipolarity need not necessarily lead to war; it is possible for a balance of power and consequently, stability, to occur under it. For example, the Pax Britannica period of the 19th century saw to relative peace amongst the European states for decades (Goddard 2008/2009, p.10). Furthermore, even if the balance of power is upset, it can always be restored again due to the perpetual security dilemma, regardless of the world order. In a multipolar world, states might also justify their seemingly aggressive actions with legitimation strategies such as the rhetorical trap or the raising of ontological security. These strategies aim to capture the empathy of other states in order to ameliorate their antagonism and avoid war (Goddard 2008/2009, …show more content…
9). Inter-state wars or competition for power are hence not common or expected due to the hegemon’s dominance which deters other states from attempting to balance its power (Wohlforth 1999, p. 23); it is not rational for them to do so when considering the associated costs and risks of balancing, like the imposition of sanctions by the hegemon or negative international opinion. The absence of rivals with the ability and willingness to contest the superpower means that it will be able to assume hegemonic leadership of the international community. This depresses the possibility of conflict on a global scale and contributes to the preservation of world peace (Wohlforth 1999,
I believe that his views can be expanded further to provide a more holistic overview of international relations. Firstly, multipolarity need not necessarily lead to war; it is possible for a balance of power and consequently, stability, to occur under it. For example, the Pax Britannica period of the 19th century saw to relative peace amongst the European states for decades (Goddard 2008/2009, p.10). Furthermore, even if the balance of power is upset, it can always be restored again due to the perpetual security dilemma, regardless of the world order. In a multipolar world, states might also justify their seemingly aggressive actions with legitimation strategies such as the rhetorical trap or the raising of ontological security. These strategies aim to capture the empathy of other states in order to ameliorate their antagonism and avoid war (Goddard 2008/2009, …show more content…
9). Inter-state wars or competition for power are hence not common or expected due to the hegemon’s dominance which deters other states from attempting to balance its power (Wohlforth 1999, p. 23); it is not rational for them to do so when considering the associated costs and risks of balancing, like the imposition of sanctions by the hegemon or negative international opinion. The absence of rivals with the ability and willingness to contest the superpower means that it will be able to assume hegemonic leadership of the international community. This depresses the possibility of conflict on a global scale and contributes to the preservation of world peace (Wohlforth 1999,