International Relations: Realism, Neoliberalism, and Cooperation

"Realism, Neoliberalism, and Cooperation: Understanding the Debate" (1999) by Robert Jervis, published in International Security.

We will survey the entire paper, given that this will be our third meet-up on this paper.

Over many meetings, our group discussed John Mearsheimer's book "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics." Mearsheimer is an offensive realist in the arena of international relations.

Offensive realists hold that the international system lacks a referee, so each state must look out for itself by accumulating as much power as possible.

Is this approach theoretically prudent, explanatory and predictive with the respect to what states actually do?

The group decided to continue the discussion through the eyes of Robert Jervis, who wrote the 1999 article "Realism, Neoliberalism, and Cooperation: Understanding the Debate."

Here Jervis explains the differences between the realist and neoliberal approach to international relations.

Powerpoint slides will be presented, if you hadn't the time to read the linked article:

• https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Realism%2C-Neoliberalism%2C-and-Cooperation%3A-the-Debate-Jervis/a1313bc5ff446b3b1d028e1438b9b919f3e4d7f9
• Download the pdf by looking under the description and clicking on the white icon titled "academiccommons.colombia.edu".

Come join us.

Here's Jervis summary of his article:

"The study of conflict and cooperation has been an enduring task of scholars, with the most recent arguments being between realists and neoliberal institutionalists.

Most students of the subject believe that realists argue that international politics is characterized by great conflict and that institutions play only a small role. They also believe that neoliberals claim that cooperation is more extensive, in large part because institutions are potent. I do not think that this formulation of the debate is correct.

In the first section of this article, I argue that the realist–neoliberal disagreement over conflict is not about its extent but about whether it is unnecessary, given states’ goals. In this context we cannot treat realism as monolithic, but must distinguish between the offensive and defensive variants.

In the second section, I explain the disagreement in terms of what each school of thought believes would have to change to produce greater cooperation. This raises the question of institutions."