ARTICLE
The Promises and Pitfalls
of Realist Explanations of Power Politics in Europe
More details
Hide details
1
Yaşar University, Izmir, Turkey
Publication date: 2016-06-30
Stosunki Międzynarodowe – International Relations 2016;52(2):91-103
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
This article critically examines the promises and pitfalls of realist explanations of
power politics in Europe. Starting with the pitfalls and drawing on a previous paper
about the end of the realist tradition in Europe, Jørgensen argues that realism is
a theoretical tradition (among several others) and that as such realism’s utility as
an explanatory tool is close to zero. By contrast, realist theories might have some
utility in explaining power politics, not least in applications of balance of power
theory, balance of threat theory, theories of alliance politics, power transition
theory or theories of foreign policy. Subsequently, the explanandum, ‘power
politics’, is characterised as an attractive yet slippery concept that is in severe
need of specification. Moreover, the article points out the obvious, specifically that
the region in question – Europe – is part of the world and that, when explaining
power politics in Europe, several (neo-)realist approaches would highlight the
importance of systemic structural factors. Concerning the promises of realist
explanations, it seems useful to examine the conditions under which the utility of
realism in explaining power politics in Europe would increase: i) further gains of
the European right and far right; ii) further advances of revisionist Russia; iii) the
EU disintegrating, cf. challenges to the euro, Schengen, and exit strategies such
as Grexit and Brexit; iv) intra-realist tradition developments include a thorough
reconsideration of the realist research agenda, for instance: by means of entering the
experience of problem-oriented eclectic approaches, specifically giving up claims
about realist supremacy, forgetting the bold claim that only realist theories describe
the world as it is, specifying when or where realist theory is relevant and where it
is not. The article has three recommendations: realists should give up Europe as
a region in which realist approaches are relevant (with a few notable exceptions);
instead realists could choose global power shifts or regional balances of power in
the Far East or the Middle East. The engagement of the US/Russia/Iran/Turkey/
Saudi Arabia in the Middle East could be seen as a soft case for realist analysts.