Thank you Annual Reviews for a wonderful interview with one of the foundational thinkers in international relations conducted by one of the finest minds in the field today. This will be a treasure for future generations of scholars. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita
That could apply to anything. If there's a bipolar structure or a multipolar structure, then how is it anarchic? There's always a power configuration. Just because there's one overwhelmingly dominant power doesn't mean states do not struggle against one other. The hegemon will generally only make an effort to impose itself in those parts of the world where its vital interests are at stake. There are also regional hegemons who will play a greater part in some parts of the globe than the hegemon.
dashrirprock but unipolarity is a special case of polarity. it renders balance of power, the central realist concept that endures peace and stability in anarchical system, as an impossibility. about hegemon being limited to a specific region is a valid argument. that does come very close to Mearsheimer's theory. thanks!
Darryl Sean as i understand it, authority is merely legitimate power. this argument comes very close to what IR Theory mentioned in reply to this post. legitimacy is definitely less in unipolarity than in domestic heirarchy. this definitely has a bearing on international order, making international system anarchical.
For Waltz, as he probably says in this interview, a unipolar configuration tends to be structurally unstable because the global hegemon has a tendency to over-extend itself (e.g., the Iraq War). I know for a fact Waltz discusses this point explicitly in the "Conversations with History" interview. Another way of thinking about it is imagine if an American citizen attempted to harm his own countrymen. In such a scenario, the government would intervene by attempting to neutralize the aggressor, provide emergency services to the victims, etc. However, if there are two bumblefuck countries halfway across the world and one attacks the other.... well, according to realist, it's a system of self-help; those countries are essentially on their own. To the extent international law and the U.N. can effectively resolve those disputes, the realism model might be undermined. But realists will maintain that states are far and away the main players.
We apologize for removing the comment. It appeared to have been posted twice and we were trying to remove the duplicate posting. Please feel free to post again.
Kant started with it, Simmel improved it: the theory of socialization through conflict (of interests). This theory applied to the Neopluralism of Fraenkel and projected on the level of International Relations and its Unipolarity unfolds the potential of an incredibly high acceleration of the international "socialization". Dissent - we may not have enough of it.
He applies the sphere of the physics and maths to the IR theory, and he succeed. The International System is nothing but the amount of the Politics Units
That is exactly not what he does! The international system is more than just the units. It is not really about the units, but about the structure, how the units relate to each other. It is not about the capabilities of the units at all, but about how the capabilities are distributed among all units. The sum is greater than its parts!
Waltz- unipolarity least stable. Can expect a balancing power or coalition to arise. Hence rise of China is a stabilizing factor. Mearsheimer- States want max power and to be Hegemons. Only regional hegemony is possible due to stoppibg power of oceans. But US will try tonprevent rise of peer competitors like China. US may do so through offshore balancing or selective engagement.
Wqltz- bop redundant in nuclear conditions. N capabilities do not add up. After second strike capability is achieved there is nothing that another nuclear ally can add to that.
Interdependence- it implies equality while IP is about inequalities of power. Share of intl trade in gdp rising but staggering differences in gross Gdp. It is used as rhetoric to disguise extent of US dominance in intl system
What's about the instability of Unipolarity? If we are to get into the dimension of the endless dependent variables called Normativism, which again isn't able to provide us with one single thesis - for theses are based on hypotheses, which arise from an interaction or, at best, a correlation between at least one dependent and one in-dependent variables - I'd like to state that this instability, allegedly caused by the Unipolarity, is in my humble opinion in a particular way functional.
Now, that's academia at its finest, my comment questioning Waltz's statement that Unipolarity is the most unstable systemic formation has been removed. Truly, truly pathetic.
Thank you for uploading this fantastic material. Both Kenneth and the interviewer impress me. It's a shame that you wouldn't find any interview of this quality on TV (speaking for Germany, that is).
Kenneth Waltz. Legend!
Thank you Annual Reviews for a wonderful interview with one of the foundational thinkers in international relations conducted by one of the finest minds in the field today. This will be a treasure for future generations of scholars.
Bruce Bueno de Mesquita
"If there's unipolarity, then how is international politics anarchic?" The interviewer got Prof. Waltz by the balls there at 52 minute mark.
That could apply to anything. If there's a bipolar structure or a multipolar structure, then how is it anarchic? There's always a power configuration. Just because there's one overwhelmingly dominant power doesn't mean states do not struggle against one other. The hegemon will generally only make an effort to impose itself in those parts of the world where its vital interests are at stake. There are also regional hegemons who will play a greater part in some parts of the globe than the hegemon.
There's a hierarchy in power but no hierarchy in authority
dashrirprock but unipolarity is a special case of polarity. it renders balance of power, the central realist concept that endures peace and stability in anarchical system, as an impossibility. about hegemon being limited to a specific region is a valid argument. that does come very close to Mearsheimer's theory. thanks!
Darryl Sean as i understand it, authority is merely legitimate power. this argument comes very close to what IR Theory mentioned in reply to this post. legitimacy is definitely less in unipolarity than in domestic heirarchy. this definitely has a bearing on international order, making international system anarchical.
For Waltz, as he probably says in this interview, a unipolar configuration tends to be structurally unstable because the global hegemon has a tendency to over-extend itself (e.g., the Iraq War). I know for a fact Waltz discusses this point explicitly in the "Conversations with History" interview.
Another way of thinking about it is imagine if an American citizen attempted to harm his own countrymen. In such a scenario, the government would intervene by attempting to neutralize the aggressor, provide emergency services to the victims, etc. However, if there are two bumblefuck countries halfway across the world and one attacks the other.... well, according to realist, it's a system of self-help; those countries are essentially on their own. To the extent international law and the U.N. can effectively resolve those disputes, the realism model might be undermined. But realists will maintain that states are far and away the main players.
We apologize for removing the comment. It appeared to have been posted twice and we were trying to remove the duplicate posting. Please feel free to post again.
Kuttey ki dum
The interviewer was very lucky to have this interview. He might asked all those questions that every one in IR would like to ask to Ken Waltz!
Kant started with it, Simmel improved it: the theory of socialization through conflict (of interests). This theory applied to the Neopluralism of Fraenkel and projected on the level of International Relations and its Unipolarity unfolds the potential of an incredibly high acceleration of the international "socialization".
Dissent - we may not have enough of it.
The interviewer only wants to talk about nuclear weapons.
Time to learn how to cite a youtube video
A true legend of IR theory!
A fun fact for all of you. James D Fearson was a former doctoral student of Kenneth Waltz at UC Berkeley.
kenneth walts is father new realism
Absolutely! but the new realism just copied the old classical based on the old Morgan's
He applies the sphere of the physics and maths to the IR theory, and he succeed. The International System is nothing but the amount of the Politics Units
That is exactly not what he does! The international system is more than just the units. It is not really about the units, but about the structure, how the units relate to each other. It is not about the capabilities of the units at all, but about how the capabilities are distributed among all units. The sum is greater than its parts!
Waltz- unipolarity least stable. Can expect a balancing power or coalition to arise. Hence rise of China is a stabilizing factor.
Mearsheimer- States want max power and to be Hegemons. Only regional hegemony is possible due to stoppibg power of oceans. But US will try tonprevent rise of peer competitors like China. US may do so through offshore balancing or selective engagement.
Looks pretty good for 87! Thanks again for uploading this!
He looked cute
Wqltz- bop redundant in nuclear conditions. N capabilities do not add up. After second strike capability is achieved there is nothing that another nuclear ally can add to that.
Interdependence- it implies equality while IP is about inequalities of power. Share of intl trade in gdp rising but staggering differences in gross Gdp.
It is used as rhetoric to disguise extent of US dominance in intl system
Thanks for uploading this amazing interview from a true legend in IR theory
A true legend of IR theory!
What's about the instability of Unipolarity?
If we are to get into the dimension of the endless dependent variables called Normativism, which again isn't able to provide us with one single thesis - for theses are based on hypotheses, which arise from an interaction or, at best, a correlation between at least one dependent and one in-dependent variables - I'd like to state that this instability, allegedly caused by the Unipolarity, is in my humble opinion in a particular way functional.
why? i just want to understand the reasons why you claim that.
LOL. A true believer, I see. LOL.
P.S.: Don't dare agreeing with me!
LEGENDA EM PORTUGUÊS? CADÊ?????
Master!!
Great
Now, that's academia at its finest, my comment questioning Waltz's statement that Unipolarity is the most unstable systemic formation has been removed. Truly, truly pathetic.
They removed by mistake and apologised for it.
Thank you for uploading this fantastic material. Both Kenneth and the interviewer impress me. It's a shame that you wouldn't find any interview of this quality on TV (speaking for Germany, that is).
Waltz's claim that Unipolarity (=hegemony) is the most unstable system possible is beyond ridiculous.
I bealive in Mearsheimer- unipolarity is impossible
hm, i'd rather have a stool with three legs than just one. or even zero.
uhhh iihhh ee uhhh this guy should not be giving interviews PERIOD piss poor job. No bags of popcorn.