Abstract
Since the end of the Cold War, realism has received little serious attention within the European International Relations literature and has been dismissed as insufficient to explain the most important developments and events in Europe and the world. We argue that this treatment has been unfair. In fact, we consider realism a powerful theory that explains broad, long-term patterns of state behavior, as well as systemic outcomes. The key contribution of realism is its understanding of the constraining and enabling role of the international distribution of power, which represents a decisive initial sorting stage for the choices that states can make. However, in line with neoclassical realist authors, we argue that to explain and predict state behaviour more precisely, the domestic distribution of power, ideas, interests, and institutions need to be taken into account. In any case, power disciplines states and other actors when their leaders fail to adequately recognise their place in the international system. Unlike rival theories, the attention of realists to the impact of the disproportionate power of the United States on the international system allows them to explain a series of developments: the end of the Cold War; the transformation of the global order; the lack of major power conflict; and the re-emergence of inter-state competition in Europe and globally. We conclude by emphasizing the importance of considerations of power for policymaking within Europe.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
It should be noted that realism was never out of fashion in Central and Eastern Europe. Yet voices from there were by and large not taken seriously in the rest of the European scholarly or policy communities.
- 2.
See Feng (2009) on China’s position in the East Asian order from the 15th to the 19th centuries for a discussion of how globally unique American preeminence was.
- 3.
Madeleine K. Albright, “The Right Balance Will Secure NATO ’s Future,” Financial Times, December 7, 1998.
- 4.
We will return to this point in the second half of the chapter, when we bring on board neoclassical realist insights.
- 5.
French foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine referred to the US as a hyperpower in 1999. “To Paris, US Looks Like a ‘Hyperpower’,” New York Times, February 5, 1999.
- 6.
Jan Puhl, “Poles React: Warsaw Fears Washington Losing Interest in Eastern Allies,” Spiegel, September 17, 2009.
- 7.
“‘Reset’ Sought on Relations with Russia , Biden Says,” Craig Whitlock, Washington Post, February 8, 2009. French President Nicolas Sarkozy was dismissive of attempts by the U.S. government to expand NATO to include Georgia and Ukraine, which have been major irritants to Russia.
- 8.
“Six days that broke one country—and reshaped the world order,” Ian Traynor, The Guardian, August 16, 2008. “Don’t ask us who’s good and who’s bad here,” said Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, “We shouldn’t make any moral judgments on this war. Stopping the war, that’s what we’re interested in.”
- 9.
“Report: Polish minister calls US ties worthless,” Vanessa Gera and Monika Scislowska, Associated Press, June 23, 2014. Recordings of a private conversation in 2014 caught Polish foreign minister Sikorski describing Poland’s strong alliance with the US as worthless and “even harmful because it creates a false sense of security.”
- 10.
Though Jack Snyder might take some issue with being included among the neoclassical realists.
- 11.
US embassy in the Netherlands, “Ambassador’s Parting Thoughts on Taking the Dutch to the Next Level,” Date: August 22, 2005 (05THEHAGUE2309, Wikileaks 2011).
- 12.
US embassy in the Netherlands, “Netherlands/Afghanistan: Engaging Labor Party Leader Bos—Part of the ‘Getting to Yes’ Strategy for Extending Dutch Deployments in Afghanistan Post-2010,” Date: September 18, 2009 (09THEHAGUE567, Wikileaks 2011).
- 13.
Anonymous French Ministry of Defense official, interview with one of the authors, February 2016.
References
Art, Robert J. 1996a. “American Foreign Policy and the Fungibility of Force.” Security Studies 5 (4): 7–42.
———. 1996b. “Why Western Europe Needs the United States and NATO.” Political Science Quarterly 111 (1): 1–39.
———. 2013. A Grand Strategy for America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Berger, Thomas U. 1998. Cultures of Antimilitarism: National Security in Germany and Japan. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Calleo, David P. 2011. Rethinking Europe’s Future. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Christensen, Thomas J. 1996. Useful Adversaries: Grand Strategy, Domestic Mobilization, and Sino-American Conflict, 1947–1958. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Dueck, Colin. 2008. Reluctant Crusaders: Power, Culture, and Change in American Grand Strategy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Duffield, John S. 1999. “Political Culture and State Behavior: Why Germany Confounds Neorealism.” International Organization 53 (4): 765–803.
Edelstein, David M. 2002. “Managing Uncertainty: Beliefs About Intentions and the Rise of Great Powers.” Security Studies 12 (1): 1–40.
Feng, Zhang. 2009. “Rethinking the ‘Tribute System’: Broadening the Conceptual Horizon of Historical East Asian Politics.” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 2 (4): 545–574.
Freyberg-Inan, Annette. 2018. “Global Governance and the Continuing Relevance of Power.” Forum on Power Politics. International Institutions.
Freyberg-Inan, Annette, Ewan Harrison, and Patrick James. 2009. Rethinking Realism in International Relations: Between Tradition and Innovation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
“Germany. White Paper 1994.” n.d. Accessed January 31, 2018. http://www.resdal.org.ar/Archivo/d0000066.htm.
Howorth, Jolyon, and Anand Menon. 2009. “Still Not Pushing Back: Why the European Union Is Not Balancing the United States.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 53 (5): 727–744.
Ikenberry, G. John. 2002. America Unrivaled: The Future of the Balance of Power. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Jones, Seth G. 2007. The Rise of European Security Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Judt, Tony. 2006. Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945. London: Penguin.
Kier, Elizabeth. 2017. Imagining War: French and British Military Doctrine Between the Wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kratochwil, Friedrich. 1993. “The Embarrassment of Changes: Neo-Realism as the Science of Realpolitik Without Politics.” Review of International Studies 19 (1): 63–80.
Kühn, Ulrich, Tristan Volpe, and Bert Thompson. 2017. “Tracking the German Nuclear Debate.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. http://carnegieendowment.org/2017/09/07/tracking-german-nuclear-debate-pub-72884.
Kydd, Andrew. 1997. “Sheep in Sheep’s Clothing: Why Security Seekers Do Not Fight Each Other.” Security Studies 7 (1): 114–155.
Layne, Christopher. 1993. “The Unipolar Illusion: Why New Great Powers Will Rise.” International Security 17 (4): 5–51.
———. 1997. “From Preponderance to Offshore Balancing: America’s Future Grand Strategy.” International Security 22 (1): 86–124.
———. 2006. The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Lebow, Richard Ned. 1994. “The Long Peace, the End of the Cold War, and the Failure of Realism.” International Organization 48 (2): 249–277.
Levy, Jack S., and William R. Thompson. 2010. “Balancing on Land and at Sea: Do States Ally Against the Leading Global Power?” International Security 35 (1): 7–43.
Liang, Qiao, and Wang Xiangsui. 1999. Unrestricted Warfare. Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House.
Mastanduno, Michael. 1997. “Preserving the Unipolar Moment: Realist Theories and US Grand Strategy After the Cold War.” International Security 21 (4): 49–88.
Mearsheimer, John J. 1990. “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War.” International Security 15 (1): 5–56.
———. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Meijer, Hugo, and Marco Wijss, eds. 2018. The Handbook of European Defence Policies and Armed Forces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ministry of Defence. 1998. “Strategic Defence Review.” HM Government.
Narizny, Kevin. 2017. “On Systemic Paradigms and Domestic Politics: A Critique of the Newest Realism.” International Security 42 (2): 155–190.
Posen, Barry R. 1986. The Sources of Military Doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany Between the World Wars. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
———. 2003. “Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of US Hegemony.” International Security 28 (1): 5–46.
———. 2006. “European Union Security and Defense Policy: Response to Unipolarity?” Security Studies 15 (2): 149–186.
“Quadrennial Defense Review.” 2014. Accessed February 1, 2018. http://history.defense.gov/Historical-Sources/Quadrennial-Defense-Review/.
Rathbun, Brian. 2008. “A Rose by Any Other Name: Neoclassical Realism as the Logical and Necessary Extension of Structural Realism.” Security Studies 17 (2): 294–321.
Ripsman, Norrin M., Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, and Steven E. Lobell. 2016. Neoclassical Realist Theory of International Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Risse-Kappen, Thomas. 1994. “Ideas Do Not Float Freely: Transnational Coalitions, Domestic Structures, and the End of the Cold War.” International Organization 48 (2): 185–214.
Rosato, Sebastian. 2015. “The Inscrutable Intentions of Great Powers.” International Security 39 (3): 48–88.
Rosecrance, Richard. 2006. “Power and International Relations: The Rise of China and Its Effects.” International Studies Perspectives 7 (1): 31–35.
“Russia’s 2000 Military Doctrine | NTI.” 2000. http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/russias-2000-military-doctrine/.
Rynning, Sten. 2002. Changing Military Doctrine: Presidents and Military Power in Fifth Republic France, 1958–2000. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Schweller, Randall L. 2006. Unanswered Threats: Political Constraints on the Balance of Power. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schweller, Randall L., and William C. Wohlforth. 2000. “Power Test: Evaluating Realism in Response to the End of the Cold War.” Security Studies 9 (3): 60–107.
Sheehan, James J. 2009. Where Have All the Soldiers Gone?: The Transformation of Modern Europe. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Silove, Nina. 2016. “The Pivot Before the Pivot: US Strategy to Preserve the Power Balance in Asia.” International Security 40 (4): 45–88.
Snyder, Jack. 1991. Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Sterling-Folker, Jennifer. 2013. Making Sense of International Relations Theory. In Neoclassical Realism: Domestic Opportunities for Great Power Intervention, ed. J.W. Taliaferro and R.W. Wishart. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Stokes, Bruce. 2017. “NATO’s Image Improves on Both Sides of Atlantic.” Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project (blog). May 23, 2017. http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/05/23/natos-image-improves-on-both-sides-of-atlantic/.
Tang, Shiping. 2010. A Theory of Security Strategy for Our Time: Defensive Realism. Basingstoke: Springer.
“Text of Newly-Approved Russian Military Doctrine.” 2010. http://carnegieendowment.org/2010/02/05/text-of-newly-approved-russian-military-doctrine-pub-40266.
“The 2011 Defense Policy Guidelines.” n.d. Accessed January 31, 2018.
Toje, Asle, and Barbara Kunz. 2012. Neoclassical Realism in European Politics: Bringing Power Back In. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Van Hooft, Paul. 2015. “The Future in the Past: Victory, Defeat, and Grand Strategy in the US, UK, France and Germany.” Unpublished, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
———. In preparation. The Future in the Past: Victory, Defeat, and Comparative Grand Strategy.
“Völkerrechtliche Verpflichtungen Deutschlands Beim Umgang Mit Kernwaffen Deutsche Und Europäische Ko-Finanzierung Ausländischer Nuklearwaffenpotentiale (013/17) — wd2 — Sehrgutachten.” 2017. Wissenschaftliche Dienste, Deutscher Bundestag. Accessed January 15, 2018. https://sehrgutachten.de/bt/wd2/013-17-voelkerrechtliche-verpflichtungen-deutschlands-beim-umgang-mit-kernwaffen-deutsche-und-europaeische-ko.
Volpe, Tristan, and Ulrich Kühn. 2017. “Germany’s Nuclear Education: Why a Few Elites Are Testing a Taboo.” The Washington Quarterly 40 (3): 7–27.
Walt, Stephen M. 1987. The Origins of Alliance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1996. “International Politics Is Not Foreign Policy.” Security Studies 6 (1): 54–57.
———. 2000a. “NATO Expansion: A Realist’s View.” Contemporary Security Policy 21 (2): 23–38.
———. 2000b. “Structural Realism After the Cold War.” International Security 25 (1): 5–41.
———. 2010. Theory of International Politics. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Wohlforth, William C. 1999. “The Stability of a Unipolar World.” International Security 24 (1): 5–41.
Zakaria, Fareed. 1999. From Wealth to Power: The Unusual Origins of America’s World Role. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Van Hooft, P., Freyberg-Inan, A. (2019). Europe May Be Done with Power, but Power Is Not Done with Europe: Europe During an Era of American Unipolarity and of Relative Decline. In: Belloni, R., Della Sala, V., Viotti, P. (eds) Fear and Uncertainty in Europe . Global Issues. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91965-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91965-2_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-91964-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-91965-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)