Abstract
This article aims to discuss the role of sea and naval power in “Rise and Fall Realism”; “Defensive Structural Realism”; and “Offensive Structural Realism”, which are respectively represented by the works of Gilpin (2002) and Modelsky and Thompson (1988); Posen (2003) and Mearsheimer (2001). We argue that these scholars mistakenly employ sea and naval power as if they were synonyms. In fact, these scholars are mainly concerned with the military component of sea power, that is, naval power. In addition, we claim that the relative importance of naval power in relation to other sources of power varies in a spectrum that goes from: 1) the consideration of naval power as a necessary and almost sufficient condition to global power raking, 2) moving to the acknowledgment of naval power as historically important to the last two hegemonic powers but not necessarily important in future manifestations of hegemonic power, and 3) reaching the consideration of naval power as only having a supportive role for land power, being this power the necessary and almost sufficient condition to a high placing in the global ranking of powers. Finally, we reflect on the argument established by those variants of Realism on the connection between naval power and wealth.
Published Version (Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.