The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Global Security Studies

Living Edition
| Editors: Scott Romaniuk, Manish Thapa, Péter Marton

State-Centric Paradigm

  • Suzette A. HaughtonEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74336-3_291-1

Introduction

The state-centric realist paradigm is considered the most dominant theoretical tradition within the discipline of International Relations. Prior to the post-1980s, it dominated security studies and the execution of states’ international statecraft. It determined states’ priorities and national security interests and shaped their relationships with each other. States and state actors’ behaviors were guided by realist notions, and it was explicated by Barry Buzan as having a timeless wisdom as its relevance is ever present in governmental activities and the behaviors of state representatives. Despite the strengths of realism, its flaws in the era of globalization are multiple and overlapping. Given global forces, scholars have raised questions about the dominance of the state as the main actor in international affairs and about the centrality of the state-centric realist paradigm in contemporary security studies and practice. The weaknesses in the state-centric paradigm have...

Keywords

Realism State State centric Neorealism Critical security studies 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Baldwin, D. A. (1997). The concept of security. Review of International Studies, 23(1), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carr, E. H. (2001). The twenty years’ crisis, 1919–1939: An introduction to study international relations. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  3. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. (1977). Power and independence: World politics in transition. Boston: Houghton Miffin.Google Scholar
  4. Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  5. Morgenthau, H. J. (1946). Scientific man versus power politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Morgenthau, H. J. (1954). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace (2nd ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  7. Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Booth, K. (2005). Critical security studies and world politics. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Bull, H. (1962). International theory: The case for traditional approach. World Politics, 18(3), 361–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Der Derian, J. (Ed.). (1995). International theory: Critical investigations. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Donnelly, J. (2000). Realism and international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hobbes, T. (1994 [1660]). In E. Curley (Ed.), Leviathan. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  6. Thucydides. (1972). History of the Peloponnesian war (trans: Warner, R.). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  7. Thucydides. (1993). On justice, power, and human nature: The essence of Thucydides’ history of the Peloponnesian war (ed. & trans.: P. Woodruff). Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GovernmentUniversity of the West Indies, Mona CampusKingstonJamaica