Search

This paper addresses the multiple disconnects separating neorealist international relations theory and the practice of foreign policy. Below, several of these that have already received great attention by scholars in the field are very briefly summarized. For example, neorealists carefully separate IR theory from foreign policy analysis. One cannot say much about the behavior of a single state, they repeatedly warn, based on a systemic IR theory. Foreign policy, neorealists acknowledge, is likely to reflect elements of domestic politics as well as international constraints. Then, much greater scrutiny is directed at an important disconnect that has not received close examination ? the divergence between the neorealist theory of international politics and the real world practice of American neorealists who often assume prominent roles in academic and policy debates about US foreign relations. Based on neorealist participation in these academic and policy debates, as well as the scholars? own explanation of their role in these controversies, the paper concludes that these neorealists arguably embrace reflective, communicative, and emancipatory notions of foreign policy decision-making. These are, of course, foundational theoretical concerns of constructivist and critical international relations theorists and are often disparaged by neorealists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Debates in security studies in the U.S. and Europe have drifted almost completely apart. In Europe it is common to present the theoretical landscape in terms of, say, critical security studies, the Copenhagen School, traditionalism and feminism. In the U.S. it is more common to see the major debate within security studies as being the one between offensive realism and defensive realism! Previously, almost all theoretical inventions in IR were made in the U.S. Currently, distinct theories are widely associated with places like Aberystwyth (Critical Security Studies), Paris (Bigo’s Bourdieu-inspired work) and Copenhagen (securitization). The new European approaches differ not only from security studies in the US, they also stand apart from most work done in other parts of the world. Are these theories peculiarly ‘European’ and if so, why? The paper aims at explaining the emergence of these European security theories. The explanation draws partly on the political context in the different regions, and partly on features of the intellectual fields, International Relations and Security Studies. The theories are also assessed briefly as to their relevance and usefulness. To what extent are they bound to local, European problems or relevant to the issues that are addressed elsewhere and vice-versa for the theories that flourish in the U.S. and the periphery respectively? Can they travel to the other parts of the world in a helpful role? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]