Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 178 views

    Mearsheimer Vs Waltz

    Uploaded by

    Kelsie
    This document summarizes the debate between Mearsheimer and Waltz on offensive realism vs defensive realism. Mearsheimer argues that great powers seek hegemony due to an anarchic international system where states can never be certain of others' intentions. Waltz agrees with Mearsheimer's assumptions but contends that states seek a balance of power to ensure their survival rather than hegemony. While Mearsheimer sees a pessimistic world of power-hungry states, Waltz argues that balances will inevitably emerge to check the rise of dominant powers and ensure no state gains absolute dominance.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Mearsheimer Vs Waltz

    Uploaded by

    Kelsie
    178 views3 pages
    This document summarizes the debate between Mearsheimer and Waltz on offensive realism vs defensive realism. Mearsheimer argues that great powers seek hegemony due to an anarchic international system where states can never be certain of others' intentions. Waltz agrees with Mearsheimer's assumptions but contends that states seek a balance of power to ensure their survival rather than hegemony. While Mearsheimer sees a pessimistic world of power-hungry states, Waltz argues that balances will inevitably emerge to check the rise of dominant powers and ensure no state gains absolute dominance.

    Original Description:

    A paper for an introductory international politics course.

    Original Title

    Mearsheimer vs Waltz

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes the debate between Mearsheimer and Waltz on offensive realism vs defensive realism. Mearsheimer argues that great powers seek hegemony due to an anarchic international system where states can never be certain of others' intentions. Waltz agrees with Mearsheimer's assumptions but contends that states seek a balance of power to ensure their survival rather than hegemony. While Mearsheimer sees a pessimistic world of power-hungry states, Waltz argues that balances will inevitably emerge to check the rise of dominant powers and ensure no state gains absolute dominance.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    178 views3 pages

    Mearsheimer Vs Waltz

    Uploaded by

    Kelsie
    This document summarizes the debate between Mearsheimer and Waltz on offensive realism vs defensive realism. Mearsheimer argues that great powers seek hegemony due to an anarchic international system where states can never be certain of others' intentions. Waltz agrees with Mearsheimer's assumptions but contends that states seek a balance of power to ensure their survival rather than hegemony. While Mearsheimer sees a pessimistic world of power-hungry states, Waltz argues that balances will inevitably emerge to check the rise of dominant powers and ensure no state gains absolute dominance.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The passage discusses the differing views of offensive realism by Mearsheimer and defensive realism by Waltz on international order and state behavior.

    Mearsheimer assumes that the international system is anarchic, great powers will have offensive military capacities, states can never be completely confident of other states' intentions, survival is the principal goal of great powers, and great powers are rational actors.

    Mearsheimer views states as always pursuing hegemony, while Waltz argues states have a range of aspirations from self-preservation to domination. Mearsheimer sees little room for cooperation, while Waltz believes in the possibility of power balances.

    Kelsie Ehalt

    Professor Farrell / Vanes Ibric

    PSC 1003

    October 3, 2015

    Mearsheimer vs. Waltz

    Mearsheimer and Waltz are the main voices of the Offensive and Defensive Realism

    debate. Each argues for a particular international order; Mearsheimer sees one of marked by

    power hunger, while Waltz sees one of potential balance.

    Mearsheimer begins by making five assumptions: the international system is anarchic,

    great powers will have offensive military capacities, states can never be completely confident

    that they know other states’ intentions, survival is the principal goal of great powers, and great

    powers are rational actors (Mearsheimer 30-31). He then postulates that great powers, in the end,

    want hegemony. In addition, since there is no world police, states have to defend themselves,

    without the expectation of help from others, from potential threats. Alliances he says are, “only

    temporary marriages of convenience” (Mearsheimer 33). He further explains that since great

    powers fear each other, and have the military strength, and maybe the motive, to attack, they will

    continually build up arms until one state has the most power and most security, a la the security

    dilemma. This is why, he says, that hegemony is the ultimate goal; it provides the closest thing to

    a guarantee of safety. Smaller states, of course, could try to challenge the hegemon, but will

    inevitably lose because of the super state’s more powerful military. In short, Mearsheimer would

    say they too much power is not enough.

    Waltz agrees with Mearsheimer’s assumptions for the most part. He also emphasizes the

    anarchy of the international system and the want for survival, but adds that states are, “unitary

    1
    actors who, at a minimum, seek their own preservation, and at a maximum, drive for universal

    domination” (Waltz 118). Here is where he diverges sharply from Mearsheimer; Waltz argues

    that there is a sliding scale of state aspiration with hegemony only at one extreme end.

    Mearsheimer, in contrast, contends that all states (at least big ones) desire nothing short of global

    supremacy. Waltz instead proposes an international arrangement where groups of states try to

    balance each other’s power. If one state starts to accumulate too much power, smaller states can

    join together to challenge them. But, these smaller states have a choice; either join the side of the

    larger state that is threatening them to try and become more secure defensively, or the opposing

    coalition to attempt to prevent the aggressor from attacking. This choice is where the

    complexities of international relations are best seen. Waltz asserts that balance is unavoidable,

    writing, “we find states forming balances of power whether or not they wish to” (Waltz 125).

    Mearsheimer, overall, provides a significantly more pessimistic view of the world. It is

    characterized by inexorable, power-hungry, mega-states who aim for world domination. Stability

    is only a far-off dream. There is little to no room for cooperation between states, only tension

    from the pursuit of each’s best interest and survival. Mearsheimer’s world is practically an

    apocalyptic one for small states - they are subject to the domination of the great powers with

    little hope of getting any power for themselves. Waltz is immensely more hopeful through his

    discussion of power balances; one state can stockpile a lot of power, but other states will always

    be there to take their ambition down a few ticks, so there is no fear of absolute dominance by one

    state.

    2
    Works Cited

    Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York, New York: W. W.

    Norton & Company, 2001.

    Waltz, Kenneth N. Theory of International Politics. New York, New York: McGraw Hill, 1979.

    You might also like