Tragedy Of Great Power Politics Analysis

1381 Words6 Pages

Offensive Realism and its relevance in IR theory Review of John J Mearsheimer’s The Tragedy of Great Power Politics By Piyush Kumar HS13H022 Department of Humanities and Social Sciences IIT Madras November 2014 John J Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W Norton, 2001. This essay will look at the key features of ‘offensive realism’ as propounded by John J Mearsheimer in his treatise The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. I will discuss the key concepts following the structure of the book and critically analyse it, along with his responses to the various critiques of his theory. I will then focus on Mearsheimer’s theoretical contributions to structural realism in particular and his position in the theoretical landscape …show more content…

If states seek to be hegemons, the structure will punish them as other states will form balancing coalitions that will put the survival of the potential hegemon in question. Waltz’ theory suggests that to achieve security states must pursue only ‘the appropriate amount of power’ . As an offensive realist, Mearsheimer departs from Waltz’s conclusions and criticizes the ‘status quo bias’ inherent in his theory. He says that ‘status quo states’ are rarely found in international politics because the system creates powerful incentives for states to maximise power at the expense of their rivals. Therefore, all great powers (the main actors in international politics) are revisionist powers who aspire to be the only hegemon in the system as it provides the maximum security and thereby maximizes the chances of survival. Unlike Morgenthau and other human nature realists, Mearsheimer does not say that states engage in aggressive behaviour because of some inner drive to dominate but due to structural forces. Following the assumptions of neorealism, he points towards three patterns of state behaviour-fear, self-help and power maximization. States can increase their security only by reducing the security of other states. This ‘security dilemma’ and the resulting power struggle is the ‘tragedy’ of international …show more content…

Firstly, the focus on great powers leaves a large part of the international system out of the analysis and this undermines the theory as it leaves quite a number of offensive measures out of its purview. Secondly, his theory focuses too much on the material aspects and does not focus on political power and also Joseph Nye’s concept of ‘soft power’ . Thirdly, the assumption of rationality in Mearsheimer’s theory is problematic as power maximisation in a self-help system is basically inviting aggression from others who might form a balancing coalition. Fourthly, he does not address the question of cooperation in international politics. He says that cooperation between states through alliances and international institutions are always like ‘temporary marriages of convenience’ and cooperation might be hindered as states try to seek relative gains. However, this does not explain how international institutions like the European Union have had a large influence on state behaviour. Similarly, he has not been able to explain why the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) has not been disbanded despite the fall of the Soviet Union. Fifthly, he shifts between regional level and systemic level of analysis, making it difficult to ascertain what the main driver of state behaviour is

Open Document