Abstract
Neorealism has severe problems with the analysis of a unipolar world order. I suggest a different framework for the analysis of a world with less interstate war and a much-diminished role for the classical security dilemma. This involves a study of domestic conditions in major types of state: we live in a world of increasingly fragile states (also in the global North) that are compelled to prioritize domestic problems. Further, domestic insecurity in the global South is the major security problem today in terms of human cost. Finally, today’s emphasis on independence and national issues will not solve severe global problems that require intense cooperation across borders. For an appropriate analysis of international relations at present, neorealist parsimony will not do. Nor will any other parsimony; it must be a larger analysis, drawing on several theories.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Adler, P. (2018). Ontological security, the struggle for recognition, and the maintenance of security communities. Journal of International Relations and Development, 21, 858–882.
Albert, E., & Xu, B. (2016, May 19). China’s environmental crisis. Council of Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-environmental-crisis.
Autessere, S. (2014). Peaceland: Conflict resolution and the everyday politics of international intervention. Cambridge University Press.
Balthasar, D. (2017). Peace-building as state-building? Rethinking liberal interventionism in context of emerging states. Conflict, Security & Development, 17(6), 473–491.
Berlin, I. (1953). The Hedgehog and the Fox: An essay on Tolstoy’s view of history. Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Biden, J. (2021, February 4). Remarks by president Biden on America’s place in the world. Whitehouse. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/02/04/remarks-by-president-biden-on-americas-place-in-the-world/
Bremmer, I. (2015). What does America stand for? Time Magazine., 185(20), 16–21.
Brock, L., Holm, H.-H., Stohl, M., & Sørensen, G. (2011). Fragile states. Violence and the failure of intervention. Polity Press.
Buzan, B., Jones, C., & Little, R. (1993). The logic of anarchy: Neorealism to structural realism. Columbia University Press.
Buzan, B. (2004). The United States and the great powers. World politics in the twenty-first Century. Polity Press.
Cahill, W.C. (2020, July 18). Will Xi Jinping’s strongman rule leave China weaker after the pandemic? The National Bureau of Asian Research. https://www.nbr.org/publication/will-xi-jinpings-strongman-rule-leave-china-weaker-after-the-pandemic/
CNN Politics. (2020, September 5). Allies despair as Trump abandons America’s leadership role at a time of Crisis. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/09/politics/us-leadership-coronavirus-intl/index.html.
Cox, M., Ikenberry, G. J., & Inoguchi, T. (eds.). (2000). American democracy promotion. Impulses, strategies, and impacts. Oxford University Press.
Daalder, I., & Lindsay, J. (2018). The Empty Throne: America’s abdication of global leadership. Public Affairs.
Deutsch, K. W., Burell, S. A., & Kann, A.(1957). Political community and the North Atlantic area. Princeton University Press.
Donais, T. (2009). Empowerment or imposition? Dilemmas of local ownership in post-conflict peacebuilding processes. Peace and Change, 34(1), 3–26.
Fukuyama, F. (2012, January–February). The future of history: Can liberal democracy survive the decline of the middle class? Foreign Affairs, 53. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2012-01-01/future-history.
Gallup (2020, July 27). U.S. leadership remains unpopular worldwide. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/316133/leadership-remains-unpopular-worldwide.aspx
Greve, P. (2018). Overlap, identities and expectations: Explaining challenges to cohesion in security. Communities. Department of Political Science.
Hansen, B. (2011). Unipolarity and world politics. A theory and its implications. Routledge.
Huntington, S. P. (2004, March–April 30–45). The hispanic challenge. Foreign Policy.
Jackson, R., Sørensen, G., & Møller, J. (2019). Introduction to International Relations. Theories and approaches (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Jervis, R. (2009). Unipolarity: A structural perspective. World Politics, 61(1), 188–213.
Kapstein, E. B., & Mastanduno, M. (Eds.). (1999). Realism and state strategies after the Cold War. Columbia University Press.
Kohli, A. (2020). Imperialism and the developing world. How Britain and the United States shaped the global periphery. Oxford University Press.
Krasner, S. D. (1994). International political economy: Abiding discord. Review of International Political Economy, 1(1), 13–19.
Legro, J. W. (2011). Sell unipolarity? The future of an overvalued concept. In G. J. Ikenberry, M. Mastanduno, & W. C. Wohlforth (Eds.), International relations theory and the consequences of unipolarity (pp. 342–367). Cambridge University Press.
McGreal, C. (2008, January 22). Congo conflict causes 45,000 deaths a month: study. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jan/22/congo.chrismcgreal.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy Of Great Power politics. W.W. Norton.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2017). We are moving to a multipolar world with three great powers. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoWMn8H7u1Q.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2019a, September 23). Reply: Humanities and social sciences online. https://networks.h-net.org/node/28443/discussions/4768948/h-diploissf-roundtable-11-2-great-delusion-liberal-dreams-and.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2019b). Bound to fail. The rise and fall of the liberal international order. International Security, 43(4), 7–50.
Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature. Allen Lane.
Plattner, M. F. (2003). Sovereignty and democracy. Policy Review. https://www.hoover.org/research/sovereignty-and-democracy.
Schelling, T. C. (2000). The legacy of Hiroshima: A half-century without nuclear war. Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly, 20, 1–7.
Schelling, T. C. (2005). Nobel prize lecture. Nobelprize. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2005/schelling/lecture/.
Simons, C., & Zanker, F. (2014). Questioning the ‘local’ in peacebuilding (Working Paper). University of Halle.
Sørensen, G. (1998). States are not ‘like units’: Types of state and forms of anarchy in the present international system. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 6(1), 79–98.
Sørensen, G. (2001). Changes in statehood. The transformation of international relations. Palgrave Macmillan.
Sørensen, G. (2008). The case for combining material forces and ideas in the study of IR. European Journal of International Relations, 14(1), 5–33.
Sørensen, G. (2016). Rethinking the new world order. Palgrave.
Sørensen, G. (2020). Globalization and the nation-state. In D. Caramani (Ed.), Comparative politics (5th ed., pp. 439–455). Oxford University Press.
Tan, C. K. (2018, March 14). China spending puts domestic security ahead of defense. NikkeiAsia. https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/China-People-s-Congress-2018/China-spending-puts-domestic-security-ahead-of-defense
Tannenwald, N. (2005). Stigmatizing the bomb: Origins of the nuclear taboo. International Security, 29, 5–49.
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Addison-Wesley.
Waltz, K. N. (1990). Nuclear myths and political realities. American Political Science Review, 84(3), 731–745.
Woodward, S. L. (2017). The ideology of failed states. Why intervention fails. Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sørensen, G. (2022). Uneasy Partners: Neorealism and Unipolar World Order. In: Græger, N., Heurlin, B., Wæver, O., Wivel, A. (eds) Polarity in International Relations. Governance, Security and Development. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05505-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05505-8_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-05504-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-05505-8
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)