The Interaction-Structure Theory in International Politics

　　◎ 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.

作者簡介

　　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.

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.