Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mearsheimer and Fear

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Realism and Fear in International Relations

  • 2281 Accesses

Abstract

In Chapter 5, fear is assessed in the publications of Mearsheimer. This inquiry illustrates that his discussions about fear revolves around threat inflations and its endemic character. In Mearsheimer’s offensive realism, fear is primarily considered in relation to issues such as anarchy, uncertainty, survival and capabilities, as well as aggression in the form of security competition and war. Many of these issues reappear in his fear-based empirical analysis of international politics along with other subjects such as lying, demography, secrecy, cooperation and buck-passing, among others.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Mearsheimer 2011c, 21–22, 46, 59, 61–62, 90–91.

  2. 2.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 33.

  3. 3.

    See, ibid., 42–45.

  4. 4.

    Ibid., 5, 15, 19–22.

  5. 5.

    Mearsheimer however abandons his unitary actor’s assumption in practice. See, Pashakhanlou, “Back to the Drawing Board,” 216–217.

  6. 6.

    Mearsheimer 2006c, 231.

  7. 7.

    Ibid.

  8. 8.

    Mearsheimer 2009a.

  9. 9.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 17, 422 60. Special attention is afforded to great powers as they have the largest impact on international events and shape the world in their own image. Mearsheimer claims that there is a prescriptive element to his theory as well as “[s]tates should behave according to the dictates of offensive realism, because it outlines the best way to survive in a dangerous world.” Ibid., 11, emphasis in original.

  10. 10.

    Mearsheimer 2006b, 112, 122.

  11. 11.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 32. As we will see in later parts of this chapter, Mearsheimer is actually inconsistent on which of his five assumptions that are needed to bring about fear in his offensive realism.

  12. 12.

    Mearsheimer 2006b, 112, 122.

  13. 13.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 55–56, 60–61.

  14. 14.

    Mearsheimer 2004b, 184–187.

  15. 15.

    Ibid.

  16. 16.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 147–150.

  17. 17.

    Ibid., 152–153.

  18. 18.

    Mearsheimer, Tragedy, p. 155.

  19. 19.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 155–157.

  20. 20.

    Ibid., 157–159.

  21. 21.

    Just as in Waltz’s defensive realism, unipolarity is heavily under-theorized in Mearsheimer’s offensive realism. Again, unipolarity also undermines the explanatory power of Mearsheimer’s theory. See, Pashakhanlou 2014.

  22. 22.

    Mearsheimer 2010b, 86–87.

  23. 23.

    Ibid., 85–88.

  24. 24.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 29.

  25. 25.

    Ibid., 30.

  26. 26.

    Al-Tamimi 2013, 6 Also see,; Phythian 2011, 131; Wagner 2007, 13.

  27. 27.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 17.

  28. 28.

    Brown 2012, 76; Rudolph and Rudolph 2008, 53 n. 15; Al-Tamimi 2013, 6.

  29. 29.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 5.

  30. 30.

    Ibid., 32.

  31. 31.

    Dierauer 2013, 32; Schmidt 2013, 233; Fettweis 2010, 64.

  32. 32.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 52 also see, 34, 46, 50, 361.

  33. 33.

    Davis 2011, 7; Lemke 2004, 54; Little 2007, 218.

  34. 34.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 334, chapter 9.

  35. 35.

    Barkin 2010, 128.

  36. 36.

    Kydd 2005, 15; Thayer 2004, 65; Wohlforth 2010, 13.

  37. 37.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 42.

  38. 38.

    Ibid., 345.

  39. 39.

    Ibid., 32.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., 42.

  41. 41.

    Mearsheimer 1995b, 30; Mearsheimer 2001b, 3, 43; Mearsheimer 2004, 184, 187; Mearsheimer 2006c, 231.

  42. 42.

    Mearsheimer 1995, 11; Mearsheimer 2001b, 32.

  43. 43.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 32.

  44. 44.

    Ibid., 43.

  45. 45.

    Mearsheimer 2006a, 160.

  46. 46.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 361.

  47. 47.

    Mearsheimer 1995, 31; Mearsheimer 2006c, 232.

  48. 48.

    Dierauer 2013, 32; Geunwook Lee 2002, 200 n. 14; Tang 2008, 10 n. 3; Thayer 2004, 65.

  49. 49.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 31–32.

  50. 50.

    Ibid., xi.

  51. 51.

    Ibid., 345.

  52. 52.

    Ibid., 2.

  53. 53.

    Ibid., 32.

  54. 54.

    Ibid., 42–43.

  55. 55.

    Ibid., 43.

  56. 56.

    Ibid., 44.

  57. 57.

    Ibid.

  58. 58.

    Ibid., 44–45, 338, 346.

  59. 59.

    A potential hegemon is a states that has “the most formidable army as well as the most latent power among all the states located in its region” by a relatively large margin. Ibid., 45.

  60. 60.

    Ibid., 44–45.

  61. 61.

    Mearsheimer 2006c, 232.

  62. 62.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 42–43.

  63. 63.

    Ibid., 361.

  64. 64.

    Ibid., 292.

  65. 65.

    Mearsheimer 1984, 25; Mearsheimer 2001b, 151.

  66. 66.

    Mearsheimer and Walt 2003b.

  67. 67.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 144, 188, 214, 297.

  68. 68.

    Ibid., 117–118.

  69. 69.

    Ibid., 43; Mearsheimer 2004, 187.

  70. 70.

    Mearsheimer 1990b, 39.

  71. 71.

    Mearsheimer 2006b, 120.

  72. 72.

    Ibid., 117.

  73. 73.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 35.

  74. 74.

    Ibid., 85.

  75. 75.

    Ibid., 56.

  76. 76.

    Ibid., 150.

  77. 77.

    Mearsheimer 1990, 39.

  78. 78.

    Mearsheimer 1984, 31 n. 31.

  79. 79.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 133.

  80. 80.

    Ibid., 474 n. 78.

  81. 81.

    Ibid., 177–178.

  82. 82.

    Mearsheimer 2002b, 27.

  83. 83.

    Mearsheimer 1998a sec. 4; Mearsheimer 2001b, 144; Mearsheimer 2005c; Mearsheimer 2006a, 162; Mearsheimer 2010a; Mearsheimer 2010b, 90; Mearsheimer 2010c, 382, 390–391; Mearsheimer 2010d.

  84. 84.

    Mearsheimer and Walt 2007, 281.

  85. 85.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 470 n. 45.

  86. 86.

    Mearsheimer 1998b, 232.

  87. 87.

    Mearsheimer 2001a, 53; Mearsheimer 2001b, 395; Mearsheimer 2010e, 396.

  88. 88.

    Mearsheimer 2006b, 117.

  89. 89.

    Mearsheimer 1998a.

  90. 90.

    Mearsheimer 2011, 90.

  91. 91.

    Mearsheimer 1993, 54.

  92. 92.

    Ibid.; Mearsheimer 2010e, 396.

  93. 93.

    Mearsheimer 2001a, 55–56.

  94. 94.

    Mearsheimer 1998b, 241 n. 39; Mearsheimer 2001b, 497–498 n. 93.

  95. 95.

    Mearsheimer 1993, 59.

  96. 96.

    Ibid., 53.

  97. 97.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 166.

  98. 98.

    Mearsheimer and Walt 2007, 254.

  99. 99.

    Mearsheimer 2011, 57.

  100. 100.

    Mearsheimer and Walt 2002, 7; Mearsheimer and Walt 2003a, 56.

  101. 101.

    Mearsheimer 2011, 31–33, 38, 45, 63–64, 67.

  102. 102.

    Mearsheimer and Walt 2007, 87, 89–90, 217.

  103. 103.

    Ibid., 76.

  104. 104.

    Mearsheimer and Walt 2006b, 236.

  105. 105.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 292, 296.

  106. 106.

    Ibid., 324; Mearsheimer and Walt 2007, 43.

  107. 107.

    Mearsheimer and Walt 2007, 73.

  108. 108.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 125.

  109. 109.

    Ibid., 177.

  110. 110.

    Ibid., 340–341.

  111. 111.

    Ibid., 474 n. 78.

  112. 112.

    Ibid., 221.

  113. 113.

    Ibid., 235.

  114. 114.

    Mearsheimer 1998b, 229.

  115. 115.

    Mearsheimer and Walt 2007, 43.

  116. 116.

    Ibid., 254.

  117. 117.

    Mearsheimer 1984, 26.

  118. 118.

    Mearsheimer 2010c, 387.

  119. 119.

    Mearsheimer 2010b, 91.

  120. 120.

    Mearsheimer 1981b, 177.

  121. 121.

    Pashakhanlou 2013.

  122. 122.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 46.

  123. 123.

    Shaohua 2009.

  124. 124.

    Sagan and Waltz 2003.

  125. 125.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 37.

  126. 126.

    Mearsheimer 2006b, 122.

  127. 127.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 414 n. 7.

  128. 128.

    Mearsheimer 2009, 244–246.

  129. 129.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 422 n. 2; Mearsheimer 2006c, 241.

  130. 130.

    Öhman 2008, 709.

  131. 131.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 21.

  132. 132.

    Ibid., 10.

  133. 133.

    Ibid., 11.

  134. 134.

    As has already been established, the alternative readings where only one or a few of the five assumptions are responsible for bringing about this emotion have already been dismissed.

  135. 135.

    Waltz 1979a, 97–98.

  136. 136.

    Mearsheimer 2001b, 10.

  137. 137.

    Ibid., 358–359.

  138. 138.

    Ibid., 126.

Bibliography

  • Al-Tamimi, Naser. 2013. China–Saudi Arabia Relations, 1990–2012: Marriage of Convenience or Strategic Alliance? New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barkin, Samuel. 2010. Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International Relations Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Chris. 2012. Tragedy, ‘Tragic Choices’ and Contemporary International Political Theory. In Tragedy and International Relations, eds. Toni Erskine and Richard Ned Lebow, 75–85. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, Carmel. 2011. Power, Threat, or Military Capabilities: US Balancing in the Later Cold War, 1970–1982. Plymouth: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dierauer, Isabelle. 2013. Disequilibrium, Polarization, and Crisis Model: An International Relations Theory Explaining Conflict. Plymouth: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fettweis, Christopher. 2010. Dangerous Times? The International Politics of Great Power Peace. Washington: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geunwook Lee, Gerald. 2002. To be Long or not to be Long—That is the Question: The Contradiction of Time-Horizon in Offensive Realism. Security Studies 12 (2): 196–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kydd, Andrew. 2005. Trust and Mistrust in International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, Douglas. 2004. Great Powers in the Post-Cold War World: A Power Transition Perspective. In Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century, eds. T. V. Paul, James Wirtz, and Michel Fortmann, 52–75. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, Richard. 2007. The Balance of Power in International Relations: Metaphors, Myths and Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John. 1981b. The British Generals Talk: A Review Essay. International Security 6 (1): 165–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John. 1984. Nuclear Weapons and Deterrence in Europe. International Security 9 (3): 19–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John. 1990a. Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War. International Security 15 (1): 5–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John. 1990b. Why We Will Soon Miss the Cold War. Atlantic Monthly 266 (2): 35–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John. 1993. The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent. Foreign Affairs 72 (3): 50–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John. 1995b. The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security 19 (3): 5–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John. 1998a. A Peace Agreement That’s Bound to Fail. New York Times 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John. 1998b. Here We Go Again. New York Times, sec. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John. 2001a. Guns Won’t Win the Afghan War. New York Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John. 2001b. The Future of the American Pacifier. Foreign Affairs 80 (5): 46–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John. 2002b. Realism, the Real World, and the Academy. In Realism and Institutionalism in International Studies, eds. Michael Brecher and Frank Harvey, 23–33. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John. (1904–2004). 2004b. Power and Fear in Great Power Politics. In One Hundred Year Commemoration to the Life of Hans Morgenthau, ed. G. O. Mazur, 184–196. New York: Semenenko Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John. 2005c. The Rise of China Will Not Be Peaceful At All. The Australian 18: 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John. 2006a. China’s Unpeaceful Rise. Current History 105 (690): 160–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John. 2006b. Conversations in International Relations: Interview with John J. Mearsheimer (Part I). International Relations 20 (1): 105–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John. 2006c. Conversations in International Relations: Interview with John J. Mearsheimer (Part II). International Relations 20 (2): 231–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John. 2009a. Reckless States and Realism. International Relations 23 (2): 241–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John. 2010a. Australians Should Fear the Rise of China. The Spectator 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John. 2010b. Israel’s Fated Bleak Future. Chicago Tribune.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John. 2010c. Sinking Ship. The American Conservative 10–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John. 2010d. Structural Realism. In International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, eds. Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith, 77–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John. 2010e. The Gathering Storm: China’s Challenge to US Power in Asia. The Chinese Journal of International Politics 3 (4): 381–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John. 2011a. Imperial by Design. Foreign Affairs 70 (111): 16–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John. 2011c. Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John, and Stephen Walt. 2002. Can Saddam Be Contained? History Says Yes. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, International Security Program Occasional Paper. Cambridge. Available from http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/mearsheimerwalt.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John, and Stephen Walt. 2003a. An Unnecessary War. Foreign Policy 134: 51–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John, and Stephen Walt. 2003b. Keeping Saddam Hussein in a Box. New York Times, sec. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John, and Stephen Walt. 2006b. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Middle East Policy 13 (3): 29–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John, and Stephen Walt. 2007. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Öhman, Arne. 2008. Fear and Anxiety: Overlaps and Dissociations. In Handbook of Emotions, eds. Michael Lewis, Jeannette Haviland-Jones, and Lisa Barrett, 709–729. New York: The Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pashakhanlou, Arash Heydarian. 2013. Back to the Drawing Board: A Critique of Offensive Realism. International Relations 27 (2): 202–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pashakhanlou, Arash Heydarian. 2014. Waltz, Mearsheimer and the Post-Cold War World: The Rise of America and the Fall of Structural Realism. International Politics 51 (3): 295–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phythian, Mark. 2011. The Problem of Intelligence Ethics. In War, Ethics and Justice: New Perspectives on a Post-9/11 World, eds. Annika Bergman-Rosamond and Mark Phythian, 128–149. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, Lloyd, and Susanne Hoeber Rudolph. 2008. Making U.S. Foreign Policy Toward South Asia: Regional Imperatives and the Imperial Presidency. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, Brian. 2013. A Modest Realist in a Tragic World: John J. Mearsheimer’s The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. In Classics of International Relations: Essays in Criticism and Appreciation, eds. Henrik Bliddal, Casper Sylvest, and Peter Wilson, 230–239. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaohua, Yang. 2009. How Can Weak Powers Win? The Chinese Journal of International Politics 2 (3): 335–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, Shiping. 2008. Fear in International Politics: Two Positions. International Studies Review 10 (3): 451–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thayer, Bradley. 2004. Darwin and International Relations: On the Evolutionary Origins of War and Ethnic Conflict. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, Robert Harrison. 2007. War and the State: The Theory of International Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, Kenneth. 1979a. Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, Kenneth. 2003. Assaying Theories: Reflections on Imre Lakatos. In Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, eds. Colin Elman and Miriam Elman, vii–xii. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wohlforth, William. 2010. Realism and Security Studies. In The Routledge Handbook of Security Studies, eds. Myriam Dunn Cavelty and Victor Mauer, 9–20. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, United Kingdom

    Arash Heydarian Pashakhanlou

Authors
  1. Arash Heydarian Pashakhanlou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pashakhanlou, A.H. (2017). Mearsheimer and Fear. In: Realism and Fear in International Relations . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41012-8_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation