Structural Realism and Interconnectivity

Abstract

As a theory, now decades old, it has been said that structural realism has run its course in explanations of international relations in the post—Cold War era. Presumably this is because since the end of the Cold War, there is now as expected the long-term absence of a major war between the major states. For some, it was the high-conflict era of bipolarity in which structural realism had its greatest explanatory power. But the occurrence of war was never the sole reason why structural realism explained international behavior. It was only its most dramatic, and in some ways, its most important. Structural realism today can be expected to endure as long as state preeminence endures and states remain the most important actors in the international system, even in peace, for in peace one finds the rudiments of war. In recent years, non-state and near-state actors have been put forth as decisive new units in a world now focused on economics, limited campaigns or on terrorism. The state therefore is said to have declined in relative importance. But one needs to identify the impact of such non-state actors in the world before we can make an assessment about the significance of the new relations they create, and the theory that explains them.