much traditional analysis of foreign policy has been grounded on realist
assumptions about international anarchy and the state as ‘coherent
units’ (Keohane and Nye 1977 : 24), there is a pressing need for conceptual and theoretical
innovation in this field.
New conceptual tools are particularly needed for analysing the
external relations of the European Union, given its sui generis
nature. Neo-realism offers little of value
German security policy since 1989. The aim of this chapter, consequently, is to consider the concept of strategic culture in greater detail
and to locate it within the ﬁeld of security studies.
Neo-realism and German normalisation
As the Cold War came to a close, a frenzy of analysis on the future
of German security policy emerged. Consideration of how German
post-Cold War security policy might develop reﬂected a far broader
and fundamental discussion, within the discipline of international
Longhurst, Germany and the use of force
relations, this study will deploy a combination of several to capture its complex reality.
The Middle East is arguably the epicentre of world crisis, chronically war-prone and the site of the world’s most protracted conflicts. It appears to be the region where the anarchy and insecurity seen by the realist school of international politics as the main feature of states systems remains most in evidence and where the realist paradigm retains its greatest relevance. Yet neo-realism’s 1 a-historical tendency to assume states systems to be unchanging
’s dilemma should not continue to cooperate if their opponent defects. This avoids the sucker’s payoff. It
is not in any actor’s interest to be taken advantage of by another actor who has
no interest in cooperation. This assumption conforms to neo-realism’s emphasis on the need for states to be prepared for any eventuality, including attack,
in the anarchic international system.9 The need to defend oneself is well established in IR theory, and models of deterrence were built on the assumption
that long-term patterns of hostile relations would yield better outcomes than
Philosophy, politics and foreign policy in America’s ‘second modernity’
Vibeke Schou Tjalve and Michael C. Williams
, see W. Sheuerman, Morgenthau (Cambridge: Polity
Press, 2009). See particularly, N. Guilhot, ‘The realist gambit: Postwar American
political science and the birth of IR theory’, International Political Sociology,
2:4 (2008), pp. 281–304; and N. Guilhot, ‘American Katechon: When political theology became international relations theory’, Constellations, 17:2 (2010),
19 This dilemma also provided one of the prime and generally hidden dimensions of the move from realism to neorealism in the American study of international relations, primarily under the
It is clear from the above that CFSP
presents a serious challenge to mainstream international relations theory.
This challenge is two-fold. First, traditionally dominant strands of
international relations theory, such as (neo)-realism or neo-liberal
institutionalism, appear ill-equipped to account for some of the defining
characteristics of CFSP. The traditional realist paradigm, with its emphasis
on differing national
Perspectives from Jammu and Kashmir, Cyprus and Bosnia-Herzegovin
Elena B. Stavrevska, Sumona DasGupta, Birte Vogel, and Navnita Chadha Behera
regardless of the specificity of the context and the stage of
Old theories, new realities
This chapter is informed by, but is not focused on, testing existing
theory. Though Peace and Conflict Studies as a separate multidisciplinary field has now come into its own, much of international conflict
has typically been studied through the lens of International Relations.
We find it difficult to locate an analysis of victimhood and agency especially in the positivist terrain of International Relations. Realism of
different variants – classical, structural or neo-realism
”:Toward an identity agenda in
neo-realism?’ in Lapid,Y. and Kratochwil, F. (eds), The Return of Culture and Identity
in IR Theory, Lynne Rienner, Boulder, CO and London.
Levak, A. E., 1974, ‘Provincial conflict and nation-building in Pakistan’ in Bell, W. and
Freeman,W. E. (eds), Ethnicity and Nation-building, Sage, Beverley Hills and London.
Mehta,V., 2004, Editorial, ‘You can’t buy the people of India’, Outlook, 24 May.
Mukherjee, J. R., 2005 ‘Tale of three states’, The Sunday Statesman, 6 March.
Mukherjee, L., 1975, A History of India (British period), Mondal Brothers
five main approaches to
FPA.38 The first approach is neo-realism, as represented by Kenneth Waltz’s analysis. The second approach is the world economy perspective, which is popularised
by Immanuel Wallerstein and the world-system theorists. The third approach
can be labelled the quantification approach that is essentially the residual of CFP.
For this approach, the regularities of foreign policy behaviour can be discovered
through the gathering of empirical data. The fourth approach emphasises the use
of middle-range theories. The final, and most popular, approach
– the rather nasty complacency of power mistaking itself for virtue. It is a sceptical exercise that draws on historical analysis and sets store by good seamanship (in Michael Oakeshott’s sense) rather than in the promise of arrival at a final port. For Carr, at least, realism remains in need of the opposing and balancing convictions of idealism, with the two fixed in a permanently see-sawing relationship (in which realism dominates).
By contrast, the second orientation of realism (and neorealism) emphasises its claim to be the voice of an