To what extent does the concept of ‘complex interdependence’ challenge realist claims about International relations
1 view 0 purchase
Course
Politics
Institution
University Of Westminster (UOW)
Realism is believed to be the most dominant theory in International relations. It stresses the conflictual side of nature, contrasted with liberalism. How does ‘complex interdependence’ fit into all this? And how does it challenge realist claims?
‘To what extent does the concept of ‘complex interdependence’ challenge realist claims about
International Relations?’
Realism is believed to be the most dominant theory in International Relations. It stresses the
conflictual side of human nature, contrasted with liberalism who take on a more co-operation
approach. Classical realism highlights the idea of national interest, though it is not the
Machiavellian doctrine “that anything is justified by reason of state” (Bull 1995, 189).
Moreover, it does not associate itself with the exaltation of war or conflict. Among its founding
fathers, Machiavelli, Hobbes and Thucydides are names most commonly mentioned with
realism. This essay attempts to critically examine the principle of ‘Complex Interdependence’ in
the context of this debate, which questions the basic assumptions of conventional and
structural realism. A core feature of the neoliberal viewpoint was complex interdependence.
The complex interdependence model sought to synthesise the viewpoints of realism and
liberalism.
Classical realism from the twentieth century has now been largely replaced by neorealism in an
effort to formulate a more empirical approach to the study of international relations, they are
related but slightly different theories. While classical realists regard anarchy as a general
condition within states to operate, neo-realists give priority to the international structure,
characterized by anarchy as the ordering principle and the distribution of economic and military
capabilities. (Waltz 1995). Both theories represent critical, post-modern perspectives. Realists
consider humans to be egoistic and built on the characteristic of self-interest, so much that the
extent of their own self-interest overcomes their moral principles. In Book 1 of Thucydides’
History, the Athenians affirm the priority of self-interest over morality. They say that
considerations of right and wrong have ‘never turned people aside from the opportunities of
aggrandizement offered by superior strength’ (chap.1 par.76).
Fundamental concepts of conventional and systemic realism were challenged by complex
interdependence. It became a central philosophy of liberalism, which assumes that people have
the ability to be good and to collaborate, for example, through international institutions such as
free trade and collective security, with a more optimistic view of human existence than realists.
They accept a collection of normative or moral statements about the nature of human
freedoms and rights and that all states deserve to live peacefully. States do remain a key actor
in liberalism, but focus is also shifted on those such as Multinational corporations (MNCs) and
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as well as social movements. Just as realists, liberals
also assume that human beings act rationally. According to ‘utilitarian’ thinkers like Bentham,
people who are behaving rationally will always act to maximise their ‘utility’ or interest.
, Complex interdependence is a theory that emphasises the complex forms in which actors
(states) become mutually dependent, vulnerable to the actions of each other and receptive to
the needs of each other as a result of increasing relations. Keohane and Nye created the theory
of ‘complex interdependence’ and say it is a ‘world in which security and force matter less and
countries are connected by multiple social and political relationships’ (Keohane, R., & Nye, J.
1998). And is defined as “An economic trans nationalist concept that assumes that states are
not the only important actors, social welfare issues share center stage with security issues on
the global agenda, and cooperation is as dominant a characteristic of international politics as
conflict.” (Genest 1996).
Interdependence isn't only understanding that peace and co-operation through actors is
needed, better yet a relationship based on dependence as well as interaction in a range of
different policy areas. It views societies connected by multiple channels through interstate and
transnational relations, countries being coherent with each other. Complex interdependence is
a feature that comes under the ‘Information Revolution’, as the cheap flow of information now
is widely available, as opposed to earlier instances where global corporations would heavily
control, the strict control has now loosened as advances have weakened the tightly structured
organizations. As well as formal connections, it also includes informal ties to non-governmental
organizations. These actors besides following their own interests, also ‘act as transmission
belts, making government policies in various countries more sensitive to one another.
(Keohane, R., & Nye, J. 1977).
Realists assumptions that the theory of complex interdependence contradicts include
international anarchy, sovereignty, pursuit of self-interest through self-reliance (mostly through
military means), and the inability to trust other actors. Complex interdependence assumes that
in international relations force (military) is of not much importance, as the nature of military
force and the consequences of its use have changed, it has become less efficacious even for
achieving the goals it formerly served. (Keohane, R., & Nye, J. 1998). Opposed to the realist
view that it is needed to guarantee survival. Realism believes state’s survival would come into
action by the use of the state’s own military defense. An example would be between the US
and Iraq. The US believed Saddam Hussein was close to having access to nuclear powers, which
would mean a national security threat for the US. Therefore, the US being a military
superpower, used this power to overcome Saddam’s. According to Keohane and Nye, intense
relationships of mutual influence may exist, but force is no more considered an appropriate
way of achieving other goals such as economic and ecological welfare which are becoming
more important, because mostly the effects of military force are very costly and uncertain.
(Keohane, R., & Nye, J. 1977)
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller sanamahmood2. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $9.67. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
