The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory | Kenneth Waltz | Neorealism in IR

💡 NOTE for students and readers:

“The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory” by Kenneth Waltz isn’t so dense or hard to understand. The core concepts in this international relations theory paper are straightforward, but the way they interact can be complex. So my recommendation for this post is that you keep a copy of the original paper handy. This post works best as a reading companion or study guide. Especially if you’re trying to understand Neorealism, polarity, or the causes of war in global politics for class or revision.

ALSO, the first few paragraphs had me CACKLING with the way Waltz was throwing shade on Morgenthau. It was academic discourse/debate through research papers at its finest. PLEASE make sure you read that. This kind of scholarly back-and-forth is super common in IR theory, especially in core texts. It’s part of what makes reading these papers kind of fun (if you’re into theory drama, that is).

Basic Info

• Author(s): Kenneth Waltz
• Year of Publication: 1988Main Research Question
• Journal/Publisher: The Journal of Interdisciplinary History
• Link to Paper: https://www.jstor.org/stable/204817

Main Research Question

“Neorealism contends that international politics can be understood only if the effects of structure are added to the unit-level explanations of traditional realism (Waltz, 1988;  p.617)”

He contends that while “unit level” actors like evil leaders can be a cause of war, they are nuances, and do not allow for a theory to be made. Waltz contends that the cause for wars cannot merely be attributed to arbitrary and random occurrences like the temperaments of leaders (he’s throwing shade on Morgenthau here). He argues that to the unit level factors like leaders, economies etc., we need to consider the effect of international political structure to devise a sound theory. This sound theory answers the main questions i.e. “Why do wars (in general, not specific ones) happen? Why are they a recurring phenomenon?” 

He proposes a Neorealist perspective to answer this. Think of this paper as the OG Neorealist theory on war.

Key Arguments and Findings

In the theoretical framework that he presents, Waltz presents the following:

1. States are the unitary actors
2. The world exists in a state of anarchy i.e., there is, “No single central power/monopoly of power”
   1. They have to rely on a “self-help” system or provide for their own safety
   2. This leads to the “security dilemma.”
      1. States always seek security, which is why they seek power: One state takes steps to feel safer, builds defence apparatus, builds alliances. This may be a defensive move but it may be perceived by competing states to see this as a threat (Waltz, 1988, p. 619).

Essentially, the anarchic structure of the world explains why there is a constant possibility of war to break out.

Polarity (a deeper look into the anarchic structure)

• Global anarchy may be unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar, i.e. certain states may accumulate more power than others due to the security dilemma.
  • Therefore, the number of major players matter.
• In the paper, Waltz considers multipolarity and bipolarity
• Multipolar world
  • Lot of strong players (states) → lot of potential allies
    • Can, however, can result in rigidity in strategy because each player in the alliance will have some common and some conflicting interests. To quote Waltz, “Alliances are made by states that have some but not all of their interests in common. The common interest is ordinarily a negative one: fear of other states (Waltz, 1988, p. 621).”
    • States can feel trapped in their alliances
    • Weaker members of an alliance may be the determiner of the policy, and the stronger members cannot back out. 
    • WWI example.
• Bipolar World
  • Alliance allows leaders more strategic freedom in policy because they can act more to further their own interests rather than  to appease allies (something which happens in multipolar worlds)
  • E.g USA vs. USSR
  • Unlike multipolar words, it is easier to understand who is the adversary
  • If there is no crisis/conflict, that becomes more concerning because the opposing power remains under deep suspicion. 
  • Economies may be less interdependent (Waltz, 1988, p. 623)
• Miscalculation  vs. Overreaction (as causes of conflict in a polarised world)
  • Miscalculation is deemed a greater threat in a multipolar world than an overreaction because an overreaction would only cost a lot of money (Waltz, 1988, p. 623)
  • Waltz doesn’t define Miscalculation outright. How I understand it:
    • State A underestimating/overestimating State B’s capabilities (e.g military capabilities)
    • State A misjudges its alliance with State C (convinced that it will back State A/stay out of its way) when it decides to attack State B. 
  • Waltz doesn’t define Overreaction outright. How I understand it:
    • State A responds strongly to a perceived threat made by State B. For example, State B buys 50 bombs, so State A goes all out and buys 150 bombs of different kinds just to be safe and then it spirals into an arms race.
  • Unlike overreaction, if states miscalculate in a multipolar world, the effects could be devastating.
  • Overreaction is deemed a greater threat in a bipolar word (Waltz, 1988, p. 623). 
• Waltz attributes post-WWII peace to the destruction of the multipolar world and the creation of a bipolar one. But that’s not the only reason he attributes it to.

Nuclear Weapons

• Nuclear weapons are new unit level factors that ensure peace (Waltz, 1988, p.626). 
• They increase the costs of war so much that in order to engage in a war with another nuclear power, states would have to be assured of success before even beginning (and that’s impossible).
  • This makes even large-scale conquest outdated because if conflict escalates, it could result in destruction on an unimaginable scale (also MAD, or mutually assured destruction of all involved parties). 
• To quote Waltz (1988, p. 625), ‘The accumulation of significant power through conquest, even if only conventional weapons are used, is no longer possible in the world of nuclear powers.”

Why Is This Paper Important?

This paper is important because it shifted focus in IR from individual events to overlying structure. IR is no longer subjective/dependent on human temperament. It becomes a little bit more empirical. It formed the origin of neorealist theory  on war – a major school of IR theory that influences world leaders’ policies even today.

TL;DR

The anarchic structure of the world system fosters conditions for making war a possibility constantly. States are just trying to survive. Polarity of bipolar systems being less prone to miscalculations than multipolar worlds affects how conflict is managed. Nuclear weapons, unit level factors, make wars with nuclear states nearly impossible. 

At a glance, Waltz differentiates the neorealist approach from the traditional realist approach:

Traditional Realism	Neorealism
States are evil. They lust for power. That’s why wars happen (okay, this is very reductive, but hey I’m trying to make a “TLDR” section so bear with me)	War is not just about evil leaders (unit level actors). The structure of the system (anarchy + insecurity + self-help) makes war not just possible, but almost inevitable. The unitary factors and structures must be considered in combination.

Topics and Themes in this Post:

1. Neorealist Theory/Neorealism in IR
2. Kenneth Waltz War Theory
3. Causes of War in International Relations
4. Realism vs. Neorealism
5. Structure in International Relations
6. Security Dilemma
7. Multipolarity vs. Bipolarity
8. Nuclear Deterrence in IR theory

References

Waltz, K. N. (1988). The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18(4), 615–628. https://doi.org/10.2307/204817