Snyder, Glenn H.

More than fifty years have passed since Hans Morgenthau introduced “realism” as an approach to the study of international relations. Since then, the approach has withstood not only a steady assault from such external quarters as liberal institutionalism, the democratic peace school, and “constructivism” but also a marked divisive tendency. Splinter groups have emerged, each waving an identifying adjective
to herald some new variant or emphasis. The first of these came in the late 1970s, when Kenneth Waltz’s “neorealism” marked a major split from Morgenthau’s traditional realism, which henceforth became known as “classical” realism. Since then, especially during the last decade, new variants and new tags have proliferated. The field of international relations now has at least two varieties of “structural realism,” probably three kinds of “offensive realism,” and several types of “defensive realism,” in addition to “neoclassical,” “contingent,”
“specific,” and “generalist” realism. The debate among partisans of
these differing views has been vigorous. It has also been helpful in clarifying— if not resolving—some of the issues involved. A prominent participant in these debates has been John Mearsheimer, under the banner of offensive realism. He now offers readers a book-length statement of his views, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics

Carolina Digital Repository

Mearsheimer's World—Offensive Realism and the Struggle for Security: A Review Essay

https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/downloads/zp38wn83x

Mearsheimer's World—Offensive Realism and the Struggle for Security: A Review Essay

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Carolina Digital Repository