◎ A neorealist theory in the wake of neoclassical realism
◎ A general theory, elegant and parsimonious
◎ Good starting point for the understanding of international relations

This book is divided into two chapters.

The first chapter examines the current problems in the neorealist theories of international politics and proposes alternatives and operational suggestions. The division between offensive and defensive version of neorealism is unnecessary. We need a parsimonious theory that offers greater explanatory power. Therefore, this chapter proposes the systemic “interaction-structure theory” of stability as an alternative within the materialist tradition of realism. Interaction capacity is both a source of explanation and the precondition for a system. In addition, the offense-defense balance should be viewed as the logic of explanation. This allows the theory to explore mobility, density, and fragmentation as the new independent variables that derive from technology, geography, and power distribution, respectively. Furthermore, the meaning of stability, the dependent variable, should also be expanded to be “the threat to peace” rather than merely the avoidance of war. The name “interaction-structure theory” avoids giving the theory an offensive or defensive label and describes the precise content of this alternative.

The second chapter implements the interaction-structure theory of stability in international politics, which is based on Waltz’s structure theory with the concept of interaction capacity added. After illustrating the concepts and logic, the chapter provides measurements on each of the key concepts: mobility, density, and fragmentation as independent variables, and stability as dependent variable. Methods are then introduced to combine the three independent variables into a sole value and the hypothesis is stated. This in turn is tested with data from 1816 to 2012. The result is very positive, revealing the superiority of interaction-structure theory in capturing the mega-trend within the system. Further advances in international relations theory are expected.

As illustrated on the organic chemistry textbook styled cover page, this book tries to make international politics similar to a natural science. It is indeed too presumptuous for a humble rookie to propose a general theory of international politics, but the theory should still have a chance to be read.
All feedbacks and comments are greatly appreciated.
shihyueh@mail.nhu.edu.tw & issyyang@gmail.com
The author would like to express his deepest gratitude to the supports from
National Science Council, R.O.C. (Project Number: NSC 99-2410-H-343-004)

Introduction

Realism has a long and rich tradition. During the last century, landmark works of realism were published, including Carr’s The Twenty Years’ Crisis, Morgenthau’s Politics among Nations, and Waltz’s Theory of International Politics. These monumental writings exhibit the evolutionary development of realism from classical realism to neorealism. Strictly adhering to system-level variables, Waltz’s neorealist theory of international politics explains the international system as a whole, restricting itself to some “big” and “important” patterns in the system. This approach is highly praised not only for its rigorous and scientific treatment of a theory but also for the harmony between this particular theory and real world. With the sudden end of the Cold War, neorealism fell out of favor and began to receive a great deal of criticism; “one world, many theories” became the character of the new age.
Regarding neorealism itself, the current trend is its continuing division between the two versions. Defensive realism holds a more optimistic perspective, while offensive realism maintains a more pessimistic view. This offensive/defensive division has persisted for years, and the distinction is now widely accepted, employed, and even emphasized among scholars. Nonetheless, does this division make sense? Is it worthwhile? Does it improve our understanding and generate advances in theories? This chapter argues that the division is unnecessary, and that it results in endless repetition and stagnates the theoretical developments. This division should be ended and research should return to the materialist tradition of realism by exploring existing concepts with an original approach and by attempting to build a theory with terminology that accurately captures the precise attributes it describes.
Currently, the quest for a parsimonious neorealist theory of international politics with great explanatory power remains at a standstill decades after the creation of Waltz’s theory as illustrated in Mearsheimer’s The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, a major endeavor to establish a new landmark. This work reiterates the arguments of offensive realism, and the content of the proposed theory is almost identical to Waltz’s theory. The means proposed to improve the theory’s explanatory power contain the pitfall of tautology that Waltz himself wanted to avoid in the first place, and the central concept of “stability” in international systems is still weak in substance with the exception of the avoidance of war.
For neorealist systemic theories, the only explanatory variable is still structure, conceived as the distribution of power or polarity. Other frequently mentioned elements in the realist materialism tradition, especially regarding technology and geography, are not fully or systematically developed. Thus, the current stagnation in the development of systemic theories is not permanent, as the theories can be improved by considering these different elements. In fact, previous theories of international politics confused the “sources of explanation” with the “logic of explanation,” and thus erroneously adhered to “structure” as the only source of explanation, “balance-of-power” as the only “logic of explanation,” and the “sum of pole” as the only independent variable at the system level.
To pour new wine into an old bottle, Buzan’s concept of “interaction capacity” should be both the precondition of a system to setup the boundaries and also a source of explanation. Furthermore, the concept of “offense-defense balance,” closely related to technology and geography, should be taken as a “logic of explanation” and not as a variable or a source of explanation.
Under this framework, this chapter proposes the systemic “interaction-structure theory” of stability. This theory explores new options at the system level including technology in the concept of “interaction capacity” and geography and distribution of power in the concept of “structure.” These three aspects can then be abstracted into “mobility,” “density,” and “fragmentation.” Based on each of these three variables, three hypotheses about stability can be made: 1) “The higher the mobility, the lower the stability;” 2) “The higher the density, the lower the stability;” and 3) “The higher the fragmentation, the lower the stability.” Moreover, the meaning of stability is also broadened to “threats to peace” rather than the mere avoidance of war in order to encompass a more complete picture of the system. While the testing of these theoretical proposals will be left to the next chapter, this chapter addresses their testability by considering how to measure each key variable.
This chapter is organized into four major sections. The first provides a brief overview and commentary on the offensive/defensive division in neorealism and its obstruction of further theoretical development. The second section critiques Mearsheimer’s work, showing the stagnation in neorealist systemic theory and addressing the need to explore new independent variables at the system level. The third section analyzes the existing concept of interaction capacity and the offense-defense balance, and proposes some new ideas that can be used to form a framework for a new system theory. The fourth section outlines the framework, theoretical proposals, and operational suggestions for next chapter.

以上內容節錄自The Interaction-Structure Theory in International Politics
YANG, SHIH-YUEH◎著．白象文化出版

YANG, SHIH-YUEH (Ph.D., National Chengchi University) is an associate professor at the Department of International Affairs and Business, Nanhua University, Chiayi, Taiwan, Republic of China. Prof. YANG is the author and co-author of over 40 scholarly articles and monographs, and the author of more than 100 essays and analyses for various military journals and magazines. His research interests include international relations theory, strategic studies, regional security, and Chinese foreign and defense policy.