Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 3 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Balance of Power | Waltz | Brocker I 634 Balance of Power/WaltzVsTradition/Waltz: the central assumption of a Balance-of-Power theory is that states are unitary actors whose minimum goal is their own survival and whose maximum goal is universal dominance. To this end, states have two means of power: increasing internal power (arming, strengthening the economy) or increasing external power (forming alliances or conquering). Since increasing external power requires a system of at least three states, the traditional theory is based on at least three actors. WaltzVs: this assumption is wrong (1). Two or more states coexist in a self-help system without superordinate central power, which can rush to the aid of a weak state or deter a state from using the means of power it could use to pursue its interests. In such a system, the expected result is a balance of power. According to Waltz, the primary goal of states is to maintain their position in the international system (2). Therefore, they will prefer balancing the powers over bandwagoning to stronger states. Waltz's thesis: this applies not only to the relationship between great powers, but to any constellation of two states in competition. WaltzVsTradition/WaltzVsMorgenthau: older authors (including Hans J. Morgenthau) had adopted a will of state actors to create systems of balance, Waltz considers this superfluous. (3) Waltz: not the motives of the actors, but the system structure ensures that balance occurs. (4) 1. Kenneth N. Waltz, „Theory of International Relations“, in: Fred Greenstein/Nelson W. Polsby (Hg.) International Politics: Handbook of Political Science, Reading, Mas. 1975, p. 36 2. Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics, Reading, Mas. 1979, p. 126. 3. Hans J. Morgenthau, Macht und Frieden. Grundlegung einer Theorie der internationalen Politik, Gütersloh 1963, p. 219-220. 3. Waltz 1979, p. 128. Carlo Masala, „Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics” in: Manfred Brocker (Hg.) Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt/M. 2018 |
PolWaltz I Kenneth N. Waltz Man,the State and War New York 1959 Brocker I Manfred Brocker Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert Frankfurt/M. 2018 |
| Liberalism | Morgenthau | Brocker I 280 Liberalism/MorgenthauVsLiberalism/Morgenthau: Thesis (1948): European liberalism, historically derived from the internal political struggle against absolute violence, was transferred to the completely different field of interstate relations by academic and foreign elites in Washington. A denatured liberalism of this kind was not able to eliminate the - according to Morgenthau, anchored in humans themselves - elementary power of the political, but rather the objectivity in dealing with the political. America was biased in a tangle of desirables, deceptive hopes and abstract ideals, in simplifying schemes and recipes that supposedly dispensed with the confrontation with power-political reality. Brocker I 286 MorgenthauVsLiberalism: he tries to negate in a decadent way the everywhere existing striving for power, which determines the political. This striving for power is inherent in human nature and dominates both private and social life. See Politics/Morgenthau, Power/Morgenthau. VsMorgenthau: this realistic view was hostile to his American contemporaries ((s) at the end of the 1940s), something Morgenthau had not reckoned with. For Morgenthau, however, this description was morally indifferent. Morgenthau did not realize that his diagnosis could and was understood as a moral affirmation of power and power politics. Christoph Frei, „Hans J. Morgenthau, Macht und Frieden (1948)“ in: Manfred Brocker (Hg.) Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt/M. 2018 |
Pol Morg I Hans Morgenthau Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, New York 1948 German Edition: Macht und Frieden. Grundlegung einer Theorie der internationalen Politik Gütersloh 1963 Brocker I Manfred Brocker Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert Frankfurt/M. 2018 |
| Political Realism | Brown | Gaus I 290 Political realism/Brown: Realists take the state to be the key international actor, assume that states pursue interests defined in terms of power and, thus, hypothesize a world which can be characterized as a 'struggle for power and peace', the subtitle of Hans J. Morgenthau's influential Politics among Nations (1948)(1). Presented with this thumbnail sketch, a political theorist might reasonably assume this doctrine to be connected with nineteenth-century German power politics of the school of Heinrich von Treitschke or, perhaps, at a higher level of sophistication, with the twentieth-century, right-wing, political philosopher and legal theorist Carl Schmitt, whose 'friend-enemy' distinction seem highly relevant here (Schmitt, 1996(2); Treitschke, 2002(3)). Brown: (...) nothing could be further from the truth. Classic American realism emerged in the 1930s and 1940s. Its three most influential figures were the radical theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, the diplomat George Kennan, and the émigré international lawyer, political theorist and, from 1943 onwards, University of Chicago professor Morgenthau; their work is well described in a number of modern studies (Smith, 1986(4); Rosenthal, 1991(5); Murray, 1996(6)). >International relations/Niebuhr, >Balance of Power/Waltz, >Balance of power/Social choice theory, >International relations/Carr. Gaus I 291 Social choice theory: (...) the dominance of neorealist/neoliberal thought has significantly narrowed the range of questions that theorists of international relations deem appropriate or answerable. Whether states pursue relative gains or absolute gains (one way of distinguishing between neorealist and neoliberal assumptions) is an interesting question, but can hardly form a satisfactory basis for an examination of the foundations of the current international order (Grieco, 1988)(7). VsSocial choice theory: older realists were more willing to criticize these foundations, and at least made some attempt to engage with issues such as the ethics of force, or the justice of a world characterized by great material inequalities. Classical realists such as Stanley Hoffman, influenced by the French thinker Raymond Aron, and the English school's Hedley Bull at least attempted to engage with the Third World's 1970s demand for a new international economic order (Aron, 1967(8); Hoffman, 1981(9); Bull, 1984(10)). Neorealism/neoliberalism: by way of contrast, neither neorealism nor neoliberalism make any attempt to consider, much less defend, the justice of the existing international order; anarchy is simply a given, an assumption that cannot be questioned, and concern with the internal characteristics of states, such as their poverty, is misdirected since states are posited to be similar in their behaviour, relevantly differentiated only by their capabilities. VsMorgenthau: in contrast to the practical realism of Morgenthau, the realism of the 'anarchy problematic' rests on a theoretical construct, but, perhaps paradoxically, its very limitations have actually opened up a space which, over the last two decades or so, a different kind of theory has attempted to fill. 1. Morgenthau, H. J. (1948) Politics among Nations. New York: Knopf. 2. Schmitt, C. (1996 ti9321) The Concept of the Political. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 3. Treitschke, H. von (2002) Politics. Extracts in C. Brown, T. Nardin and N. J. Rengger, eds, International Relations in Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 4. Smith, M. J. (1986) Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger. Baton Rouge, IA: University of Louisiana Press. 5. Rosenthal, J. (1991) Righteous Realists. Baton Rouge, LA: University of Louisiana Press. 6. Murray, Alastair (1996) Reconstructing Realism. Edinburgh: Keele University Press. 7. Grieco, J. M. (1988) 'Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: a realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism'. International Oganisation, 42:485—508. 8. Aron, R. (1967) Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. 9. Hoffmann, S. (1981) Duties beyond Borders. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. 10. Bull, H. (1984) Justice in International Relations: The Hagey Lectures. Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo. Brown, Chris 2004. „Political Theory and International Relations“. In: Gaus, Gerald F. & Kukathas, Chandran 2004. Handbook of Political Theory. SAGE Publications |
PolBrown I Wendy Brown American Nightmare:Neoliberalism, neoconservativism, and de-democratization 2006 Gaus I Gerald F. Gaus Chandran Kukathas Handbook of Political Theory London 2004 |
| |||