Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge Holger Schmidt Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge, edited by Charles W. Kegley. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995. 374 p. $30.00/Paper. Like other seminal historical events of this century, the end of the Cold War provided a stimulus for students of world affairs to readjust the theoretical prisms through which they perceive international political events. Much like its object of study, international relations theory today is in a [End Page 194] state of transition. One symptom of this theoretical reassessment is the increasing criticism mounted against realism, the discipline’s dominant paradigm during the postwar era. Analyses of realism’s conceptual and empirical shortcomings have become a growth industry since the bipolar superpower confrontation of the Cold War has receded into history. Perhaps the most powerful contemporary alternative to realist conceptions of world politics is presented by scholars operating within the liberal tradition. The peaceful resolution of the US-Soviet geopolitical and ideological rivalry, the ensuing spread of capitalism and democracy to new areas of the globe, and the growing number of multilateral cooperative efforts have lent renewed credibility to liberalism’s emphasis on progress and change. Charles Kegley’s Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge is a product of both the growing dissatisfaction with the limitations of the traditional realist framework and the current resurgence of liberal thinking. Reflecting the intellectual climate within the discipline, the volume aims at a critical examination of realism from a liberal perspective and tries to assess liberalism’s potential to advance scholars’ understanding of world affairs. In addition, the book attempts to stress continuities with past debates among students of international relations by tracing the origins of the contemporary contest between the discipline’s two main schools of thought. While Controversies in International Relations Theory is primarily designed as a liberal critique of the realist theoretical orthodoxy, the editor also attempts to demonstrate how the two approaches “overlap and reinforce each other” in order to pave the way for a possible future synthesis of liberal and realist insights. The book consists of five major parts. Part One, featuring such prominent authors as Michael Doyle, Joseph Grieco, Ole Holsti, and Kenneth Waltz, introduces the reader to the central tenets of modern realist and liberal thought and the different philosophical traditions from which the two approaches have emerged. These introductory essays set the stage for the main discussion in Parts Two to Four, in which various core issues and substantive problems in contemporary international affairs are examined in light of the two contending theoretical perspectives, focusing on the institutional, economic, military, and normative dimensions of world politics. The volume concludes with a look to the future of the realist-liberal debate. In keeping with the editor’s goal of correcting the past pro-realist bias within the discipline, the essays in Controversies in International [End Page 195] Relations Theory concentrate on highlighting realism’s conceptual and empirical shortcomings. On the conceptual level, realism is faulted for its narrow focus on security issues and great power rivalries, which, in Ole Holsti’s words, not only fails to “capture the complexities of contemporary international life but—blinds the analyst to the institutions, processes, and norms that permit cooperation and significantly mitigate some features of an anarchic system.” On the empirical level, Barry Hughes’ contribution on the European Union and Nicholas Onuf’s and Thomas Johnson’s essay on the so-called “democratic peace” examine two phenomena that seriously bring into question core realist assumptions. While the absence of armed conflict among democratic states challenges the realist assertion that unit-level factors, such as regime type, have no significant impact on which states do or do not go to war with each other, the Europeans’ ongoing attempts to form an ever closer union puzzle realists for two reasons: First, the continued transfer of authority from the state to the community level contradicts their proposition that states inherently seek to retain a maximum possible degree of political and economic independence. Second, the Europeans’ increased integrative efforts run counter to the realist claim that EC cooperation...