Essay Sample on Structural Realism After the Cold War

Introduction

The paper focuses on the readings titled Structural Realism after the cold war by Kenneth Waltz's and Taking Preference seriously by Andrew Moravcsik's. In evaluating these two readings, the primary similarity that they exhibit is that they focus on providing significant information regarding the international politics aspect. Nevertheless, their points of view differ where Kenneth Waltz provides a realist opinion while on the other hand, Andrew Moravcsik provides an idealistic opinion. It is also worth noting that the reading depicts the modern international politics as well.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

In his reading, Kenneth Waltz strives to stress the fact that the structures of realism are not as dead as people proclaim. In his argument, Waltz provides an example of the world war where in any case where peace breaks, people believe that there is no realism. Realism is the perspective that the practical or the real appearance of things through facts rather than myths. A realist is usually practical an often reject myths. Throughout the reading, Waltz explains how structural realism continues to apply as a functional model in the modern world of international politics even after the Cold War despite the major changes in the international relations system. In this case, structural realism is evident where the power outstands as the most significant factor that dictates the international relations. Waltz claims are relevant in today's world where the states are striving to gain more power. These significant changes in international politics today have been driven by the spread of democracy, the increase in the international interdependence, and the evolving role of international institutions.

On the other hand, Andrew Moravcsik utilizes the liberalism theory to support his idealist perspective of international politics. On the contrary to Waltz's opinion, Moravcsik claims that the configuration of the state preferences is the most significant aspect that shapes international politics. In this case, the relationship between the states and their surrounding societies is what shape their behaviors. The society plays a critical role in influencing the social purpose that defines the state preferences. As opposed to Waltz's claims, Moravcsik uses the liberal theory which operates on assumptions rather than the practical idealism.

The liberal theory assumes that the primary actors within the international political system are individuals and private groups who are often risk-averse, have conflicting values and are subject to the influence of societal variations. Another assumption is that the states act as a representative of the interests and preferences of the domestic society. It means that these representative institutions not only determine the social coalition to be represented in the international system by also dictate how they will be represented.

The analysis of the two readings portrays the two conflicting perspectives regarding the international politics aspect. According to the realist perspective, Waltz claims that the results of the actors rarely correspond to their intentions. Therefore, based on the practical operations of the international institutions, one can derive a valid generalization.

On the other hand, Moravcsik backs the idealist's perspective by claiming that the intentions of the representative institutions act as the primary determinant of what they achieve. He further argues that the state preferences reflect the social interactions which may vary with the changing societal context.