Defensive Realism

Defensive realism follows the basic neorealist assumptions that the anarchic nature of the international system compels states to seek self-help for survival. The impulse to survive is thus the primary factor that conditions state behavior. This line of thought is consistent with Kenneth Waltz's theory of international politics, which posits the dominance of the “third image” (international system) in explaining the behavior between and among states. Anarchy and survival are thus the animating factors that privilege security over power. Unlike classical realism in which international politics is a struggle for power, in neorealism, power is just a means to an end, and thus the ultimate objective is to maximize security to enhance survival.

To highlight the central features of defensive realism, it is important to distinguish the differences between the more traditional (defensive) orientation and offensive realism. Although both variants maintain the central objective of states seeking security for survival, the debate between relative gain and relative loss and the appropriate strategies reveals fundamental differences in how states pursue their goals in conditions of anarchy.

Defensive realism is driven by human behavioral assumptions that preventing loss takes precedence over pursuing gains and the risks associated with it. By constantly guarding their positions in the international system, states could pursue a cost-effective security strategy. Hence, it is a status quo-oriented theory predicated on maintaining an international equilibrium conducive for states to pursue minimal security strategies for maximum survival. Why would states want to challenge their positions in the international system when doing so would trigger a counterbalancing coalition, thus compelling the challengers to expend more on security while intensifying the security dilemma that may in effect reduce survival? Thus, pursuing a minimal security strategy precludes any ambition of improving its international standing until the basics are ensured—mainly staying alive in an anarchic world. There are rare opportunities for expansion because the hope of improving security through such provocative strategies may actually result in the opposite—endangering a state's survivability.

Although defensive realists envision a world in which security is abundant, offensive realists posit that security, like any other resource, is subject to competition. The competitive nature of international politics tends to intensify the security dilemma, thereby precluding the possibility for cooperation and drastically reducing the ability for states to maintain their positions. Offensive realism is thus a theory predicated on international political change in which the central goal is to maximize offensive capabilities to pursue relative gains. Survival is never certain until a state achieves regional hegemonic status, and therefore it is necessary to contain the aspirations of peer competitors, possibly resorting to preemptive war, to prevent the hegemon from being dethroned. [Page 166]Defensive realism promotes a more optimistic outlook on international relations. If all states maintain their positions and achieve a consensual cost-effective security strategy, then cooperation is possible. However, anarchy also exacerbates the ever-present security dilemma, increasing the likelihood of conflicts and misperceptions, questioning the prudence of international cooperation, and strengthening the concept of self-reliance in seeking security. The criticism of defensive realism is that the bias toward the status-quo deviates from international reality. If states are so well behaved and maintain their respective positions, why do states feel threatened, and why is it so difficult to mitigate the security dilemma? The sense of insecurity and the ever-present danger of military conflicts compel states to seek international political change to enhance survival. The rise and fall of great powers continues to capture the essence of international politics. The intra-neorealist debate therefore underscores the variety of strategies states pursues to maximize survival in an anarchic international system.

...