Conflict and Cooperation in International Relations: Theoretical Contributions of the Debate between New Realism and Neoliberalism
This paper deals with the debate between neo-realism and neo-liberalism within the field of international relations and highlights the most important propositions of the two theories, especially regarding their views on the structure of international relations and whether it is characterized by anarchy and conflict or cooperation. The study of conflict and cooperation in international relations has been one of the main tasks of research and analysis for theorists and researchers of international relations, and this conflict-cooperation nexus has become the main issue in the debate between the two prevailing theories in international relations. Neorealism and neoliberalism are the most influential theories on international relations, and the debate between them has considered one of the most important one in the field of international relations. This research seeks to clarify and explain the theoretical contributions of each of the two theories regarding conflict and cooperation in international relations, and the extent to which neoliberal assumptions, especially with regard to the role of international institutions in increasing international cooperation, has contributed to reducing the dominance of the realistic vision in international relations, especially with regard to conflict and anarchy. It argues that the debate between neorealism and neoliberalism did not significantly contribute to developing the theory of international relations, as this debate did not contribute significantly to reducing the dominance of power politics in international relations and solving the international problems resulting from it.
Baldwin, D. A. (1993). Neorealism and neoliberalism: The contemporary debate. New York: Columbia University Press.
Carr, E. H. (1939). The Twenty Years Crises: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Finnemore, M. (1996). National Interests and International Society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K. (1998). International Norm Dynamics and Political Change, International Organization, 52, 887-918.
Gallarotti, G. M. (1991). The Limits of International Organization: Systematic Failure in the Mangement of International Relations, International Organization, 45:2, 183-220.
Gilbert, G. M. (1951). Stereotype persistence and change among college students. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46:2, 245-254.
Haas, E. B. (1958). The uniting of Europe: Political, social, and economic forces, 1950-1957. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press.
Ikenberry, G. J. (2001). After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Jervis, R. (1999). Realism, Neoliberalism, and Cooperation, International Security, 24:1, 42-63.
Keohane, R. O. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Keohane, R. O. (1989). International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory. Boulder, Colo.: Westview.
Keohane, R. O. (1993). Institutionalist Theory and the Realist Challenge After the Cold War, in Baldwin, D. W. (ed.) Neorealism and neoliberalism: The contemporary debate. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 269-301
Keohane, R. O. (2002). Power and Governance in a Partially Globalized World. London: Routledge.
Keohane, R. O. and Martin, L. (1995). The Promise if Institutionalist Theory, International Security, 20: 1, 39-51.
Keohane, R. O and Milner, H. (eds.) (1996). Internationalization and Domestic Politics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Keohane, R. O. and Nye, J. S. (1977). Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown.
Krasner, S. D (1995). Power politics, institutions, and transnational relations. in Risse‐Kappen (ed.) Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non‐State Actors, Domestic Structures, and International Institutions. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 257–79.
Lake, D. A. (2013) Theory is Dead, Long live Theory: The End of the Great Debates and the Rise of Eclecticism in International Relations, European Journal of International Relations, 19:3, 567-587.
Lapid, Y. (1989) The third debate: On the prospects of international theory in a post-positivist era. International Studies Quarterly, 33:3, 235–254
Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton.
Mearsheimer, J. (2010). Structural Realism, in Dunne, T., Kurki, M. and Smith, S. (2010). International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 77-94.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1954). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 2nd ed, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Nye, J. (1988). Neorealism and Neoliberalism, World Politics, 40:2, 235-251.
Nye, J. and Keohane, R. (1971). Transnational Relations and World Politics: An Introduction, International Organization, 25:3, 329-349.
Powaski, R. E. (2017). American Presidential Statecraft: from Isolationism to Internationalism. London: Pargrave Macmillan.
Richardson, J. L. (2008). The Ethics of Neoliberal Institutionalism, In Reus-Smit, C. and Snidal, D. (eds) The Oxford Handbooks of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 222-233.
Ruggie, J. G. (1982). International regimes, transactions, and change: embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order. International Organization, 36, 379–415.
Ruggie, J. G. (1993). Multilateralism Matters: The Theory and Practice of an Institutional Form. New York: Columbia University Press.
Snyder, G. H. (1997). Alliance Politics. New York: Cornell University Press.
Sterling-Folker, J. (2010). Neoliberalism. in Dunne, T., Kurki, M. and Smith, S. (2010). International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 116-134.
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Reading, Mass.: Addison‐Wesley.
Waltz, K. (1988). The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18:4, 615–628.
Waltz, K. (1990). On the Nature of States and Their Recourse to Violence. U.S. Institute of Peace Journal, 3:2, 6–7.
Waltz, K. (1992). Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory. In Robert, R. (eds.) The Evolution of Theory in International Relations. South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, pp. 21-38.
Waltz, K. (2000). Structural Realism after the Cold War, International Security, 25:1, 5-41.
Copyright (c) 2020 Omran Ali
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License [CC BY-NC-SA 4.0] that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work, with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online.