International Relations. A self-Study Guide to Theory

Philosophy of science 
• Positivism 

---

138 
 
Neorealism 
Normative perspective 
• Skepticism. 
• Cycles of war/conflict and peace. 
• Anarchy constantly reproduced, security dilem-
ma cannot be resolved.
• Peace and stability only as the absence of major 
conflict and war. 
Theory and practice/role of the 
scientist
• Contribution to peace and stability in the inter-
national system by providing objective, law-like 
knowledge about international politics. 
• Policy recommendation based on objective 
knowledge: Realpolitik (balance-of- power poli-
tics) as a contribution to stability. 
Review questions 
1. What is the core question of the neorealist theoretical research program? 
2. What function do assumptions about actors and structure have for the 
construction of neorealist theory? 
3. Outline the neorealist explanation of international politics. 
4. What is balance-of-power theory? 
Step 5: 
Final self-study and consolidation 
 
Self-study (3) 
Now read Waltz 2000 and Wohlforth 2008 from the required reading 
list. 
Self-study (4) 
In addition to the required reading, choose at least three texts out of the 
supplementary reading. Outline briefly a) the basic lines of critical argu-
ments against neorealist theory or b) current developments within the neo-
realist paradigm. Think for a moment about contemporary world politics. 
Do you see problems of real-world international politics for which a neo-
realist explanation could be relevant? 

---

139 
Self-study (5) 
Re-read Unit 2 about positivism as a philosophy of science. Why, from a 
philosophy of science perspective, does the neorealist theory belong to 
positivism?
Required reading 
Waltz, Kenneth 1979: Theory of International Relations, chapters 2, 4, 5 and 6. 
Waltz, Kenneth 2000: Structural Realism after the Cold War, in: International Security 25: 
1, 5-41. 
Wohlforth, William C. 2008: Realism, in: Reus-Smit, Christian/Snidal, Duncan (eds.): The 
Oxford Handbook of International Relations, 131-149. 
Supplementary reading 
Brooks, S.G. 1997: Dueling Realisms, in: International Organization 51, 445-477. 
Legro, Jeffrey W./Moravcsik, Andrew 1999: Is anybody still a Realist?, in: International 
Security 24: 2, 5-55. 
Schörnig, Niklas 2013: Neorealism, in: Schieder, Siegfried/Spindler, Manuela (eds.): Theo-
ries of International Relations. London and New York: Routledge (forthcoming). 
Schweller, Randall 1996: Neorealism’s Status-Quo Bias: What Security Dilemma?, in: Se-
curity Studies 5: 3, 90-121. 
Schweller, Randall L. 2003: The progressiveness of neoclassical realism, in: Elman/Elman 
(eds.): Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field. Cambridge, 
MA: MIT Press, 311-347. 
Schweller, Randall/Wohlforth, William C. 2000: Power test: evaluating realism in response 
to the end of the Cold War, in: Security Studies 9: 60-107. 
Taliaferro, J.W. 2000-01: Security Seeking under Anarchy: Defensive Realism revisited, 
in: International Security 25: 128-161. 
Wohlforth, William 1999: The stability of a unipolar world, in: International Security 24: 
5-41. 
Recommendations for further reading
Gilpin, Robert 1981: War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge Universi-
ty Press. 
Little, Richard 2007: The Balance of Power in International Relations. Metaphors, Myth 
and Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 
Mearsheimer, John J. 2001: The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: Norton. 
Vasquez, J.A. 1998: The Power of Power Politics: From Classical Realism to Neotradi-
tionalism. Cambridge: CUP 
Waltz, Kenneth 2008: Realism and International Politics. New York: Routledge 

---

140 
References in the text 
Waltz, Kenneth 1959: Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Co-
lumbia University Press. 
Snyder R.C./Bruck, H.W./Sapin, B. 1962: Foreign Policy Decision Making. An Approach 
to the Study of International Politics, New York).
Herz, John H. 1959: The Security Dilemma in the Atomic Age, in: Herz, John (ed.): Inter-
national Politics in the Atomic Age. New York: Columbia University Press. 

---

141 
6. Neoinstitutionalist theory
Learning steps 
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 
142 
Step 1: 
Neoinstitutionalist theory as “modified structural realism” ............... 
145 
1.1.
Power, structure and rationality: concepts and assumptions .................. 
145 
1.2.
The objective and core question of neoinstitutionalist theory ................ 
147 
1.3.
Normative perspective and the significance of IR as policy analysis .... 
148 
1.4.
Summary ................................................................................................ 
149 
Step 2: 
The neoinstitutionalist explanation of international politics ................. 
150 
2.1. 
The concept of interdependence ............................................................. 
150 
2.2. 
Power and interdependence .................................................................... 
152 
2.3. 
International cooperation, international institutions and the 
“civilization” of world politics ............................................................... 
153 
Step 3: 
Check your understanding: 
key aspects and review questions ..................................................................
154 
Step 4: 
Final self-study and consolidation .............................................................. 
156 

---

142 
Introduction 
This unit will introduce you to the second theoretical approach in Part II: 
neoinstitutionalist theory in International Relations. 
Institutionalist theory is one of the most influential perspectives in the so-
cial sciences, as well as in economics and law. Political scientist Elinor 
Ostrom won the 2009 Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences for academic work 
carried out within an institutionalist framework. Ostrom’s work, above all her 
book Governing the Commons. The evolution of institutions for collective ac-
tion (1990) is an excellent example of institutionalist political science and 
economics. Ostrom’s objective is to understand the fundamental problems 
involved in governing and managing natural resource systems, and to find out 
how and what type of institutions can contribute toward solving the collective 
actions problems inherent in the use and distribution of natural resources. Re-
search based on Ostrom’s institutionalist analysis includes case studies on the 
capabilities and limitations of self-governing institutions for regulating re-
sources such as fisheries, water resources, irrigation or land.
In a number of disciplines, collective goods, for which a clean and healthy 
environment is a good example, constitute a core field of institutionalist stud-
ies. What unites all strands of “institutionalism” found in sociology, political 
theory, comparative government, economics and law is a strong belief that 
“institutions matter” in social and economic life. In general, institutionalism 
focuses on the influence of the rules, norms or procedures of social institu-
tions on human behavior and individual preferences and actions. This is also 
true for institutionalist theory in the academic discipline of IR, where the fo-
cus lies on the impact social institutions have on the interests and behavior of 
states and other actors in international politics, and on how interstate coop-
eration and an increasing institutionalization of international politics contrib-
ute to solving the fundamental problem of order in an anarchical international 
system. 
Recall for a moment how we learned that the historical development of 
the modern state system goes hand in hand with theoretical reflections on in-
terstate relations. As discussed in Part I of this book, the idea and principle of 
state sovereignty, as well as the idea of viewing international politics as an 
anarchical realm, were both developed parallel to the advent of the modern, 
centralized territorial state of the Westphalian order. These theoretical reflec-
tions not only provide descriptions of the “conditions” in international poli-
tics, but also transfer ideas on political solutions to the problem of anarchy: 
how to create rules and norms for conducting international politics in the ab-
sence of a “world government”, how to prevent or formulate rules for conflict 

---

143 
and war among nations, and how to achieve cooperation. We briefly dis-
cussed the important contributions of Hugo Grotius to the development of in-
ternational law and Immanuel Kant’s visions of a foedus pacificum, i.e. inter-
national organization and international law as a means of conducting peaceful 
interstate relations. With regard to establishing such interstate institutions, 
these “solutions” to the problem of anarchy are directly opposed to the early 
ideas of the realist tradition that power and balance-of-power-politics present 
the best means to stabilize interstate relations. We know that different theo-
ries of IR provide different explanations for outcomes in international politics 
and therefore also different solutions for the actual practice of international 
politics.
Although theoretical reflections on the ways in which institutions affect 
social life and society date back as far as Ancient Greece, it was not until the 
late 19
th
and first half of the 20
th
century that the study of institutions gradual-
ly became more systematic and “scientific” in the way we discussed while 
considering the issue of “science” in Unit 2. In the US and Britain, the study 
of political institutions has dominated large areas of the social sciences since 
at least the 1950s. The focus of this early institutionalist analysis (“old” or 
classical institutionalism) was on the formal institutions of government and 
the state, often in comparative perspective. 
In International Relations, the term “old institutionalism” relates to the 
early systematic study of the role and functions of (formal) international or-
ganizations in the 1950s and 1960s, in particular the United Nations and its 
many related organizations and specialized agencies, as well as the European 
Communities. In fact, we can think of a “tradition” of institutionalist theoret-
ical reflection in International Relations. This tradition comprises theories 
such as functionalism (the “classic” being David Mitrany’s A Working Peace