A variety of theories were set forth to explain the way international politics works and give reasons why it does so. Among the contributors are Waltz and Huntington. However, both seem to have emphasized different factors as the decisive ones shaping politics and relations among nations. Hence, the question arises which view is more in line with reality with regard to contemporary politics.
In this paper I will consider the question of whether Waltz' or Huntington's explanation is more adequate when examining contemporary international politics. Since the publication of their theories date, relatively speaking, a long way back, this paper would examine the applicability in time of their explanatory power. For this purpose, I will proceed as follows: First, I will briefly summarize the main ideas of Waltz and Huntington. Second, by comparing them I will point out their similarities and differences, respectively. Third, I will give reasons why Huntington is more in accordance with current politics. Lastly, I will briefly summarize the findings and point to further research
At a glance
- Grade: 1.0 (1.0 is the best grade)
- Examines Turkey, Azerbaijan and Armenia in 1993 and 1994
- Considers the Economic Cooperation Organization and a proposed Caribbean-Central American economic platform
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Summary
3. Similarities: Actors and Competition for Power
4. Differences: Cooperation and Conflicts
5. Evaluation: Question of Adequacy
5.1 Concept of Identity
5.2 Level of Analysis
6. Conclusion
Objectives and Themes
This paper compares Kenneth Waltz's and Samuel Huntington's explanations of international politics, asking which provides a more adequate account of contemporary affairs. It examines their respective assumptions about states, cooperation, conflict, identity and competition for power.
- International anarchy and the self-help system
- Civilizations, cultural identity and political conflict
- States as actors and competition for power
- Different explanations of cooperation and conflict
- Identity and the level of analysis in contemporary politics
Excerpt from the Book
Summary
According to Waltz, the violence latent in the structures of international politics is the reason why nations are reluctant to cooperate with each other. (Waltz, 1986: 99-115) In particular, it creates a constant uncertainty towards specialization and trade keeping the states trapped within a self-help system. Further, the "tyranny of small decisions" (Waltz, 1986: 105) prevents the states of having results collectively beneficial. Since this behavior is encouraged by conditions of anarchy, unless these conditions are altered, states will remain single units pursuing exclusively their own interests. A world government as a solution is considered by Waltz as unpractical due to internal struggles for control resulting in a "world civil war". (Waltz, 1986: 109)
For Huntington, states create cultural spheres of identity, of which the broadest level is defined as civilization. (Huntington, 2003: 411-425) While economic relations among and support for members within civilizations grow, externally they compete for relative military and economic power, and promote their own values. The increase in civilization rallying consolidates the differences, or fault lines. Furthermore, these differences in power, military and economic wealth, on the one hand, and in values, cultures and beliefs, on the other, are responsible for the conflicts being likely to occur along the fault lines. (2003) Huntington argues that to the West's predominance other civilizations will oppose and start taking on a role of "movers and shapers of history". (Huntington, 2003: 412)
Similarities: Actors and Competition for Power
Though Huntington introduces the notion of civilization as a group of states sharing common elements such as history or religion, it is still, as assumed by Waltz and accepted by Huntington, the states themselves being the central actors in international politics. States make ultimate decisions and thus shape international affairs. Civilizations play a role to the extent of laying down new structures and spheres of which along their fault lines "clashes (...) dominant global politics." (Huntington, 2003: 412)
Further, both Huntington and Waltz argue that competition for power will be the main occupation in international relations. However, they slightly differ in explaining how they do so. While Waltz hypothetically considers the scenario of a "world government" and believes that under such a structure states would fiercely compete for the dominant position within the government (Waltz, 1986: 109-110), Huntington illustrates that the very activity began to be carried out by civilizations. According to him, the West, for instance, hold sway over international institutions such as UN or IMF and other civilizations such as the Islamic-Confucian attempt to challenge that order. (Huntington, 2003: 420-423) But still, they both identify a competition for power as an underlying feature of international relations.
Chapter Summaries
Introduction: The author introduces the question of which account better explains contemporary international politics and outlines the comparison.
Summary: The paper outlines Waltz's account of international anarchy and Huntington's account of civilizations and their fault lines.
Similarities: Actors and Competition for Power: This section examines the importance both authors attach to states and competition for power.
Differences: Cooperation and Conflicts: The author contrasts the explanations of cooperation and conflict, focusing on self-interest, identity and the levels at which conflicts occur.
Evaluation: Question of Adequacy: The author assesses the models using examples involving identity and different levels of analysis, including regional conflicts and economic cooperation.
Conclusion: The author summarizes the argument and raises a further question about the importance of political systems and ideologies.
Keywords
international relations, Kenneth Waltz, Samuel Huntington, international anarchy, self-help system, civilizations, cultural identity, power competition, international cooperation, conflict, kin-country syndrome, level of analysis
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this paper about?
It compares Waltz's and Huntington's explanations of international politics and considers their relevance to contemporary affairs.
What are the central themes?
The paper addresses international anarchy, civilizations, identity, state behavior, cooperation, conflict and competition for power.
What is the main research question?
It asks whether Waltz's or Huntington's explanation is more adequate for examining contemporary international politics.
What method does the author use?
The author summarizes and compares the two theoretical accounts, then evaluates them using examples from international politics.
What does the main discussion cover?
It considers similarities and differences between the theories and evaluates the roles of identity and the level of analysis.
Which keywords characterize the paper?
Key terms include international anarchy, civilizations, cultural identity, cooperation, conflict and competition for power.
How does the paper use the example of Turkey, Azerbaijan and Armenia?
It discusses their relations in 1993 and 1994 when assessing Huntington's concept of shared identity.
Why is the Economic Cooperation Organization discussed?
It is considered alongside a proposed Caribbean-Central American economic platform in the discussion of civilizations as a level of analysis.
- Quote paper
- Emre Yildiz (Author), 2012, Huntington and Waltz in International Relations Theories, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/231986
