勢力均衡理論と国際政治の現実 : モーゲンソー,ウォルツ,ポスト・ウォルツ

機関リポジトリ Web Site

書誌事項

タイトル別名
  • Balance-of-power theory vs. international political reality : Mougenthau, Waltz, and Post-Waltz
  • セイリョク キンコウ リロン ト コクサイ セイジ ノ ゲンジツ モーゲンソー ウォルツ ポスト ウォルツ

この論文をさがす

抄録

"Theory of International Politics", written by Kenneth N. Waltz in 1979, has had a profound influence on North American academic society of International Politics, and the field of security studies in particular, since the 1980s. In this book, by advocating "balance-of-power theory", he revived "the balance of power" and "realism" (This "realism" was called "neorealism" and was separated from Morgenthau's traditional realism). Waltz's balance-of-power theory has been criticized mainly by"non-realists" such as neo-liberal institutionalists or constructivists, and relatively, their comments have drawn the attention. However, some realists who emerged after Theory of International Politics (I call them "Post-Waltz") suggest very impressive alternatives of Waltz's theory, too. This article is the comparisons of Waltz and Post-Waltz about the balance of power, and investigates these three issues: (1) From what viewpoints Waltz and Post-Waltz explain and estimate the balance of power? (2) How Post-Waltz criticize, revise or follow Waltz's balance-of-power theory to apply it to their own foreign policy analyses? (3) To what extent the hypothesis of the balance of power are consistent with the reality of international politics and foreign policy?

"Theory of International Politics", written by Kenneth N. Waltz in 1979, has had a profound influence on North American academic society of International Politics, and the field of security studies in particular, since the 1980s. In this book, by advocating "balance-of-power theory", he revived "the balance of power" and "realism" (This "realism" was called "neorealism" and was separated from Morgenthau's traditional realism). Waltz's balance-of-power theory has been criticized mainly by"non-realists" such as neo-liberal institutionalists or constructivists, and relatively, their comments have drawn the attention. However, some realists who emerged after Theory of International Politics (I call them "Post-Waltz") suggest very impressive alternatives of Waltz's theory, too. This article is the comparisons of Waltz and Post-Waltz about the balance of power, and investigates these three issues: (1) From what viewpoints Waltz and Post-Waltz explain and estimate the balance of power? (2) How Post-Waltz criticize, revise or follow Waltz's balance-of-power theory to apply it to their own foreign policy analyses? (3) To what extent the hypothesis of the balance of power are consistent with the reality of international politics and foreign policy?

収録刊行物

詳細情報 詳細情報について

問題の指摘

ページトップへ