KING’S COLLEGE

IS REALISM RELEVANT
IN THE AGE OF
GLOBALISATION?
International Political Economy
Student Name: Irshad Nur
Student ID: 1257347
Candidate Number: R22263
Student Name: Irshad Nur Candidate Number: R22263 Student ID: 1257347

Content Page

1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................p3
2.0 Globalisation and the Modern State...................................................................................p3
3.0 Globalisation Through a Realist Perspective.....................................................................p4
3.1 Assumptions of Realism.........................................................................................p4
3.2 Realist Scepticism on Globalisation.......................................................................p5
4.0 Globalised Institutions........................................................................................................p6
4.1 Institutional relevance within realism....................................................................p6
4.2 Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism.....................................................p7
5.0 Trade and multilateralism..................................................................................................p8
5.1 Multilateral ism within a realist context.................................................................p8
5.2 WTO from a realist perspective.............................................................................p8
6.0 Security after 9/11..............................................................................................................p9
7.0 Conclusion...................................................................,,,..................................................p10
8.0 Bibliography.....................................................................................................................p11

2
Student Name: Irshad Nur Candidate Number: R22263 Student ID: 1257347

1.0 Introduction

Realism is a philosophical understanding and an analytic perspective: it is not necessarily an

ethical commitment to the nation-state. In fact, many realists lament a world in which
international rules and moral considerations do not adequately restrain the nation-state. Nor
is realism a scientific theory. As a philosophic or intellectual position, realism is not subject
to the Popperian criterion of Falsifiability. Like other philosophical positions such as
Marxism, liberalism, realist doctrine can neither be proved nor disproved by empirical
research. However, international relations scholarships in the realist tradition have led to
several theories or hypothesise, such as the theories of the balance power and hegemonic
stability that can be have been subjected to empirical testing to determine their validity.

We will tackle the question regarding whether realism is relevant in the age of globalisation
by firstly understanding the principle of globalisation within the modern state structure and
its theoretical supporters. Secondly, we will breakdown the assumptions that underpin
realism and how critical realists disagree with the so-called harmony that interdependent and
globalists preach. Thirdly we will assess how effective institutions are within the
globalisation paradigm and how sceptical realists disagree with the multilateral power
institutions and liberalists propagate. We will also look at whether modern trade treaties are
truly multilateral or unilateral. Lastly, we argue whether the events after 9/11 have given birth
back to classical realism when it comes to issues of security.

2.0 Globalisation and the Modern State

Globalisation challenges the core principles of realism. Critics and scholars still consider
realism relevant in today’s world but are becoming less prevalent. Globalisation is ostracising
traditional realism into the depths of international relation obscurity. In order to understand
the relevance of realism in the globalised world, we must first comprehend the multifaceted
definitions of globalisation. The popular journalist and globalisation commentator, Thomas
Friedman stated;

Globalisation is a dynamic on-going process. It is the inexorable integration of markets,

nation-states and technologies to a degree never witnessed before, in a way that is enabling

3
Student Name: Irshad Nur Candidate Number: R22263 Student ID: 1257347

the world to reach into individuals, cooperation and nation-states further, faster, deeper and
cheaper than ever before.”

As a nation-state, it is no longer viable to isolate oneself in the twenty-first century if you

wish to prosper. According to Martin el (2007) globalisation and the residual trade
significantly lowers the occurrence of conflict between nation-states. This is due to
interdependence, and the war would only harm both parties. Liberal scholar Susan Strange
(2000) stated:

“Today, it seems that the heads of governments may be the last to recognise that they and
their ministers have lost the authority over national societies and economies that they use to
have.”

This argument goes towards the globalist assessment of the world, which is being driven by
integrated markets which dominate in the form of sovereign capital, not the sovereign
government. Rosenau (1986) argued that the fall of internationalism required a new theory to
describe world politics and its evolution to globalisation. Rosenau’s new theory is based on
the emergence of what he calls subgroups which are governmental and non-governmental
transnational actors. Rosenau’s theory states that these subgroups create a decentralising
effect because they have a pluralistic nature taking emphasis away from single actors such as
states. The emergence of these subgroups, Rosenau argues world political dialogue has
shifted away from a realist or nationalist perspective to a much more multilateral and liberal
point of view. This in turn, according to Rosenau, has taken legitimacy and authority away
from states. Hyper globalists Kenichi Ohmae see global markets and international politics as
an unnatural business. Ohmae (1995) supports the rational theory of global markets being
perfectly aligned. He argues that if consumers can buy products from around the world and
producers able to manufacture anywhere around the world, then the notion of a national
economy becomes redundant. Ohmae also backs his argument on the mobility of capital and
nations with unfavourable policies receive less foreign investment and hence fall behind.
Hyper-globalists, Ohmae is not alone with his extreme view on globalisation. Susan Strange
(2000) noted that:

“Authority in society and over economic transactions is legitimately exercised by agents

others are subject to it.”

4
Student Name: Irshad Nur Candidate Number: R22263 Student ID: 1257347

Liberalist Susan Strange (2000) argues that globalisation and mass economic integration is
introducing a process of denationalisation through the establishments of transnational
networks of production, finance and trade. Proponents of Globalisation further argue the
demise of nation-states and realist ideology through the collapse of the Bretton Wood System
in the early 1970s. This resulted in a tremendous volume of unregulated capital which
transformed the relationship between states and markets. Burchill et al. (2001) investigation
believes that this changed relationship manifested itself in the form of transnational capital
becoming more potent than national economic sovereignty. Burchill’s examination concluded
on the fact that economic sovereignty and globalisation has been a process of either
enthusiasm by some states or a reluctant surrender by others.

3.0 Globalisation through a Realist Prospective

3.1 Assumptions of Realism

According to traditional realist literature, the theory is based on four principle assumptions.
The first critical assumption is that states are autonomous and have sovereignty. Non-
governmental actors such as international institutions are only useful for matters that do not
jeopardise national security. When national security issues are at stake, states either ignore or
manipulate these non-governmental actors. The second assumption of traditional realism is
that the state is a unitary actor. This means governments speak with one voice, one policy on
international matters hence discouraging opposition internally. The third assumption is that
realists adopt the rational actor principle of governments making choices that maximise the
benefits to the state. The final assumption to traditional realists is that national security tops
the agenda within the realms of international relations.

3.2 Realist Scepticism of Globalisation

The first major criticism of realists towards globalisation theory is the assertion of globalists
that the world is experiencing an unprecedented level of economic integration. According to
Burtless et al. (1998), realist observes the empirical evidence and compare today’s globalised
markets with twentieth-century realist governed economies. They conclude that the US
economy is no more globalised than it was in 1914. Keohane et (2006) found the net capital
outflow of Great Britain in the four decades prior to 1914 averaged 4 to 5 per cent while
Japan currently averages 2 to 3 per cent. Keohane also argues that the financial crisis of

5
Student Name: Irshad Nur Candidate Number: R22263 Student ID: 1257347

1997-1999 was not the first global crisis. The Wall Street crash of 1929 “Black Tuesday”
shockwaves were felt in Western Europe in the form of Austria’s Creditanstalt collapse in
1931.

Globalisation cannot occur under a realist perspective because of its central theme of
interdependence rather than power. The E.H. Carr’s piece “The Twenty-year Crisis”
utopianism and globalisation are attacked, and realism exonerated. Carr argues that the core
principles behind a utopian society were merely deceiving. Principles such as the harmony of
interest, peace, free trade and collective security only reflected the unconscious interests of
the state, particularly the hegemonic state at that period of time. Carr also indicates the
harmony of interest only occurs during transitional periods, and collective security is in the
hand of the hegemonic nation. Carr ultimately comes to the idea that both
liberalism/globalists and realist are at both ends of the extreme spectrum, and there should be
a mixture of the naivety of globalist and the bareness of realists.

Critical realists respond to globalisation theorists claim regarding the loss of state control
through the new phenomenon of cultural globalisation which is being carried out by the
global media and has been coined the “CNN effect”, Krasner (2001). Krasner argues that
modern media pales in comparison to the havoc that followed the invention of the printing
press. Ten years after Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door at Wittenburg,
his ideas had circulated throughout Europe. The Protestant reformation, mixed with the
invention of the printing press led to politicians promoting secular ideologies. European
monarchs were not able to stop these secular ideologies, which resulted in many lives being
lost. Realists argue the sectarian controversies of the 16 th and 17th centuries were more
intense and politically consequential than any modern transnational flow of a uniformed
globalised culture.

Critical realists also argue against the globalists’ claim that an integrated world produces a
more peaceful global order. Liberalists and globalists argue that market stability promotes the
potential for greater harmony than in any previous period in history. Realist scholars hasten
to note the current unsettled nature of the world. For sceptics, national borders still represent
fault lines of conflict, not meaningless lines drawn on a map. Let us points to the Israeli
Palestinian conflict, Indians and Pakistanis threatening to go nuclear over Kashmir, and
Ethiopia and Eritrea clashing over disputed territories to name a few. Opponents of
Globalisation use these events to tarnish the relevance of globalisation and that it contradicts

6
Student Name: Irshad Nur Candidate Number: R22263 Student ID: 1257347

globalist’s claims about the increasing harmony of the world and to reaffirm that realist
theory is still applicable in a post-modernist world. Mark Luper literature provides examples
of state unilateralism to illustrate their argument that international relations is better explained
by realist theory than globalist theory. Luper (2001) points to military unilateralism in Russia,
in Chechnya, and the US, in Kosovo, to back the realist position on borders and sovereignty
matters in international politics. Also, some globalists claim that violence will continue to
define the international system based on what they see as a localised world rather than a
global one. Indeed, the influential work, Globalisation in Question, Hirst and Thompson
claim that the world’s economy is evidence of localisation and nothing else. They claim that
there are three major power centres in the world today comprised of Europe, Asia, and North
America. Sceptics see this fractionalised world as giving rise to an increasing amount of
political violence. Sceptical authors such as Robert Kaplan see the future as being a “clash of
civilisations.” Kaplan argues that globalisation is volatile and that it will cause further
instability in the world which will ultimately lead to a surge in organised violence. Kaplan
cites the growing number of young men in the West Bank, Gaza, Nigeria, Zambia, and
Kenya, to name a few. He is worried that these young men will carry out political unrest
within the next 20 years as the gap between the haves and the have-nots grows wider as a
result of globalisation. Kaplan also believes that resource scarcity and terrorist attacks will
lead to further destabilisation in the world. Finally, Kaplan argues that future revolutions are
likely and that globalisation will lead to more complexity and strife before it might lead to
stability.

4.0 Globalised Institutions

4.1 Institutional relevance within a realist context

The international political system has never witnessed such an institutionalised world as the
one we confront today. Institutions are phenomenons that are a feature of the post WW2
period. With regards to realism, a question arises, should institutions be perceived as another
factor that helps to mitigate the constraints of the so-called international anarchy? According
to Keohane (1995) institutions, the greatest role in reducing transaction costs (mainly
informational). Besides facilitating cooperative behaviour, the current interdependent
structure of institutions also reduces the scope of relative gain by expanding the field in
which a loss can be compensated by a gain and conversely expanding the range and degree of
possibilities to punish an outsider, unilateral or free-riding behaviour. A dense network on

7
Student Name: Irshad Nur Candidate Number: R22263 Student ID: 1257347

institutions in today’s globalised world has meant the acquisition of new mechanisms to keep
order in an anarchic world. Waltz (1976) stresses that regardless of how developed
international institutions become the nature of such institutions are primarily to serve national
interests, particularly the hegemonic state and its allies rather than the comprehensive global
community. This argument can be viewed from a different perspective. This is a
misconception that self-interest and state preservation is monopolised by realist dogma. It is
just common sense that all international relations theories believe in self-interest. Such
misjudgement implies that other theories, notable liberalism are naïve not to believe in self-
interest. Such assumptions are categorical wrong, liberal theorists also believe in self-interest.
Their critique of realism is precisely that self-interest can be served by institutions and
international cooperation in a more effective manner than by unilateral and preservation
maximising behaviour. According to realist Mearschemer (1995), institutions such as
international law and formal international organisations are useful tools for advancing
national interests and exerting power, but they are not to be relied upon for security
guarantees. Realist scholars and thinkers view globalisation as nothing more than the mere
reflection of the hegemonic influence within the realms of international politics. However,
globalisation goes beyond the simplistic security and power understanding of realists. If
globalisation is measured as the acceleration of trans-boundary communication, international
networks, the diffusion of power, reciprocity and mutual dependence and the expansion of
universal norms and principles a different outlook materialises that questions the realist
ideology when explaining international institutions. The emergence of non-state actors such
as formal international institutions, non-governmental organisations and multinational
corporations have altered the playing field of international relations. Realist Waltz (1979)
argued that globalisation merely breeds suspicion, vulnerability and conflict because the more
interdependent states and people become the more insecure they will be

4.1 Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism

Realism as pertaining to international relations means that international anarchy fosters

competition amongst states that restrain their ability to cooperate with each other. Following
the years after WW2 liberal institutional theory emerged to encourage cooperation. However,
the tensions of the 1970s swept away this theory mostly, but the little cooperation that
occurred encouraged policymakers to adopt a much less naive ideology of neo-liberalism.
This hybrid doctrine accepted the central tenants of realism such as security importance,
anarchy and self-interest but maintained the liberal/globalist view of international

8
Student Name: Irshad Nur Candidate Number: R22263 Student ID: 1257347

cooperation/institutions being the most viable option for prosperity. Grieco (1988) argues that
New Liberal Institutionalism (NLI) does not actually employ the true definition of anarchy
from a realist doctrine. According to Grieco, NLI theory is based on the premise that states
seek to maximise their absolute gains in international policy. Therefore they are, in a sense,
indifferent to how much they gain relative to other players. The main obstacle to cooperation
in this view is cheating and hence the definition of anarchy. The theory suggests that cheating
can be overcome by institutions. The realist view, on the other hand, is that states are
concerned with absolute and relative gains. They worry that their partners may gain more
than they do, and so even in the absence of cheating a state may withdraw from an agreement
if the other partners will gain more from it than they do, hence subverting existing power
structures. The main reason for this worry is uncertainty over future intentions of parties that
lead states to want to maintain their power vis-à-vis the world. In other words, this is the
threat of war. NLI theory fails to consider the threat of war arising from international
anarchy. Grieco states that the undeniable nature of anarchy and from a realist view
globalisation and interdependence are obsolete. Assuming the world opens up all its markets
and the equilibrium is achieved whereby each produces subject to its competitive advantage,
then states will simply have to accept the level of power which their advantageous industries
afford them. This view seems highly unrealistic. States will continue to want to have
industries that afford them economic and hence power dominance to maintain their position
in their world, i.e. technologies, military equipment, etc. and will be highly unwilling to allow
another state’s competitive advantage to designate it as a producer of products which give
greater economic power.

5.0 Trade and Multilateralism

5.1 Multilateralism within a realist context

According to Waltz (1999), realism views multilateralism as the inevitability pursues of

state’s conflicting interests when agreeing to cooperate. Realists Kagan (2002) stated that
there is an acute brand of American-style Multilateralism that is merely a cost-benefit
analysis, not a principle commitment to international cooperation as a pillar for the new
globalised order. Within the domestic political structure, multilateralism is viewed
differently. One outlook being “the route to democracy promotion and the emergence of a
peaceful liberal society” Cox et al. (2000). Bush’s successor Obama rejuvenated a new spirit
of multilateralism. Morris (2009) argues that this was severely compromised when the new

9
Student Name: Irshad Nur Candidate Number: R22263 Student ID: 1257347

administration moved to the UN human rights council and increased the financial
contributions to the IMF were met with harsh domestic opposition.

5.2 WTO from a realist perspective

The world trade organisation (WTO) encompasses 140 countries. Globalists and liberalists
use this multilateral organisation as an example of the successes within the integrated world
by claiming it takes authority away from states and places them with institutions. However,
we should remember that the WTO was created by states for states which make any claims
for autonomy dubious. As one US representative stated “The sovereignty argument is
pointless for every trade agreement we have signed in the past 200 years has in some way
infringed on our sovereignty” Crow (1996). This reinforces that states only participate in
multilateral organisations such the WTO with a realist mentality and always guard their state
autonomy. From a pessimistic point of view, we could state that the WTO is just another
institutional mechanism that imposes US hegemonic well on developing countries. Celia
W.Dugger article in the New York Times on 17 Dec. 1999 reported India, Eygpt and other
developing countries incensed anger over US-led trade sanctions on nations that failed to
comply with western labour standards. The Indian commerce minister at the time claimed:
“threats of sanctions were merely a protectionist effort in the guise of idealism to rob
developing countries of their greatest advantage of cheap labour.” It is not just developing
countries that have grievances with US self-interest policies. A perfect example would be the
Helms-Burton Act of 1996 which was viewed by the EU and US allies as extraterritorial and
widely condemned. The Act was an extension of the US trade embargo on communist Cuba.
The Act was masqueraded as a policy to protect private property. However, the true intension
was to penalise transnational corporation and nation-states that traded with Cuba, effectively
causing a secondary embargo. The Act entailed the legitimate prosecution of non-US citizens
that trafficked Cuban goods. Moreover, the Act denied US visas for any executives or major
shareholders from companies that dealt with Cuban products. The Helms-Burton Act was
received with outrage, and the UN passed a resolution denouncing the Act. The EU retaliated
by making it illegal for domestic firms to comply with the Act. After initial negotiations
broke-down, the US failed to comply, and the EU sought a dispute settlement in the WTO,
propagating that the Helms-Burton Act was in violation of free trade the underlining principle
of the WTO. The US ambassador to the WTO refuted the claims and stated that it was a
matter of national security. The mood in congress was also hostile towards the EU and WTO
involvement. Congresswoman Ilena Ros-Lehtinen was stated on transcript sating “no US

10
Student Name: Irshad Nur Candidate Number: R22263 Student ID: 1257347

government or leader would in good conscious allow the WTO or any outside entity to
determine what the United States can or cannot do to protect our own national interest.”
clearly sovereignty was the issue at the hearing. The US had or will ever have intentions to
share decisions regarding national interests with multilateral organisations such as the WTO.
THE EU eventually negotiated a settlement agreement with the US after institutional
mediation failed. It is believed that if an agreement had not been stuck that would have
seriously diminished WTO creditability or worse destroy the delicate free trade treaty
promoted by the US. We again observe a case study that nullifies the claim of globalisation.
From a realist perspective, the case for national interest does not lag but instead redirected in
complex and covert persuasions or threats. This case study also highlights the fragile
dynamics of globalisation and how multilateral institutions or economic integration only
exists when states are willing participates, Michea Mac et al. (2002).

6.0 Security after 9/11

For Realists such as Colin Gray and Kenneth Waltz 9/11 was not the beginning of a new era
in world politics but rather a re-adoption of the old in the form of classical realism. Booth and
Dunne (2002) argue that the Iraq war illustrated how hegemonic states with tremendous
powers could misuse that power. Schmidt and Williams (2008) indicate that the pre-emptive
strike on Iraq hailed in the return of classical realism. This went against the virtues of
American democracy promoted by the Bush administration. Morgenthau and Kennan (2000)
had earlier warned of the dangers that follow when states neglect their core national interests.
Realist scholars argue that the Iraq war was not in the American interest and was public in
their condemnation, and this has led to American hegemony contested and the financial crisis
the ensued. Against realist impulses of unilateral and unconstrained independent military
action G.W Bush, unlike Clinton, did not immediately respond to the terrorist attacks with
missile strikes. Instead, the president accepted first European demands to provide proof of
guilt. Engagement in international cooperation, the building of coalitions, commitments to
alliances reduces national autonomy. Harden realist administrations such as the Bush-era
understood the new nature of international politics and how embedded interdependent it had
become. Philip Gordon (2001) stated:

11
Student Name: Irshad Nur Candidate Number: R22263 Student ID: 1257347

“The new premium on Russian cooperation, for example, might make it harder or more
costly for Washington to proceed with current policy plans to withdraw from an anti-ballistic
missile treaty, enlarge NATO, or press for human rights in Chechnya.”

From a realist perspective, a hegemon will turn to unilateral action in order to exploit its
preponderance, protect its sovereignty, maximise its manoeuvring room and preserve its self-
maximising behaviour. American foreign policy, however, seems to have adopted a mid-way
strategy in which cooperation matters, international institutions matter, dialogue is
indispensable and security is not an only a military affair anymore. The terrorist attacks on
9/11 are a good example of how the nature of threats to global security is evolving. The
current challenges that are threatening the globalised world of illicit drugs, terrorism,
environmental despoliation, human rights abuses, and weapons proliferation respect no
borders and cross many disciplines. J.Nye (1999) stated:

“Using soft-power concepts creatively, negotiations rather than coercion, powerful ideas
rather than power weapons, public diplomacy rather than backroom bargaining.”

7.0 Conclusion

In conclusion, from observing different variables that may hinder the relevance of realism o
today’s globalised society, states are truly self-interested and have successfully retained their
own sovereignty. It would be ignorant of us to dismiss globalisation completely. Yes, it is
true that international institutions are much more complex and interconnect, and multilateral
agreements are binding to a certain degree. However, these instruments of globalisations only
serve as a tool to legitimise the dominance developed nations or US hegemony and its allies
over developing countries. From this, we can agree that globalisation can be seen as a new
militaristic tool because ideologies are much harder to fight than an invading force. Hence
globalisation can be seen within a soft war context. On the rare occasions when global
institutions and international treaties cannot be manipulated, or legal loopholes found,
powerful states simply ignore the system and exercise their sovereign rights. This can be seen
as a realist trait. From an economic and trade point of view, many realists have always stated
that globalisation is not a lasting irreversible effect. Many states will happily pull out from
international organisations such the WTO if it no longer benefits them.

12
Student Name: Irshad Nur Candidate Number: R22263 Student ID: 1257347

8.0 Bibliography

David Held et al., eds. Global Transformations (Stanford University

Press, 1999), 16.

Kelly S. Peace, International Organizations (Prentice Hall, 2000),

173.

Kristin Renwick Monroe, ed. Contemporary Empirical Political Theory

(University of California Press, 1997), 73.
8. Scott Burchill et al., eds. Theories of International Relations, 2d ed.
(PALGRAVE, 2001), 2.

Kristin Renwick Monroe, ed., Contemporary Empirical Political

Theory (University of California Press, 1997), 73.

Scott Burchill et al., eds. Theories of International Relations, 2d

ed. (PALGRAVE, 2001), 13.

James N. Rosenau and Ernst Otto Czempiel, eds. Governance

Without Government: Order and Change in World Politics (Cambridge
University Press, 2000) 13.

Scott Burchill et al., eds. Theories of International Relations, 2d

ed. (PALGRAVE, 2001), 14.

David Held and Anthony McGrew eds. The Global Transformations

Reader (Polity Press, 2000), 6.

Susan Strange “The Declining Authority of States” in David Held

and Anthony McGrew eds. The Global Transformations Reader (Polity

13
Student Name: Irshad Nur Candidate Number: R22263 Student ID: 1257347

Press, 2000),148.

James Rosenau and Ernst Otto Czempiel, Global Changes and

Theoretical Challenges (Lexington Books, 1989), 5

Joseph S. Nye Jr., Power in the Global Information Age (Routledge

Press, 2004), 180-182.

John MacMillan and Andrew Linklater eds. Boundaries In Question:

New Directions In International Relations (Pinter Press, 1995), 4.

Susan Strange “The Declining Authority of States” in David Held

and Anthony McGrew eds. The Global Transformations Reader (Polity
Press, 2000), 13.

David Held and Anthony McGrew eds. The Global Transformations

Reader (Polity Press, 2000), 287.

Gary Burtless, et al., eds. Globaphobia: Confronting Fears About

Global Trade, (Brookings Institute Press 1998), 82

Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, “Globalisation: What’s New?

What’s Not? (And So What?)” available from
(3 Aug. 2006).

Stephen Krasner (2001). Sovereignty. Available from

(3 Aug. 2006).

Gary Burtless, et al., eds. Globaphobia: Confronting Fears About

Global Trade, (Brookings Institute Press 1998), 82

Peter Oppenheimer, Globalisation, Institutions and Social

Cohesion. Edited by Maurizio Franzini (Springer 1999), 54

14
Student Name: Irshad Nur Candidate Number: R22263 Student ID: 1257347

Joseph Grieco, and John Ikenberry, State Power and World Markets:
The International Political Economy,( Norton & Company, Inc. 2003),
113

Stephen Krasner (2001). Sovereignty. Available from

(3 Aug. 2006).

Scott Burchill et al., eds. Theories of International Relations, 2d

ed. (PALGRAVE, 2001), 55.

INTERNATIONAL THREATS AND INTERNAL POLITICS: BRAZIL, THE ED AND THE US,
1985-1987 J. Odell (1993)

ANARCHY AND THE LIMITS OF COOPERATION: A REALIST CRITIQUE OF THE

NEWEST LIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM J.M. Grieco (1988)

Grieco, J. M. (2002), ‘Modern Realist Theory and the Study of International Politics in the
21st Century’, in M. Brecher and F. Harvey, eds., Millennial Reflections on International
Studies (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press)

15