Struggle Essentials Of International Relations Essay


Discuss about the Struggle Essentials of International Relations.



The subject matter of the question is based on political opinion of John Mearsheimer about the international institution. In this case, a brief history of the author regarding the political career as well as his remarks on the international relations has been discussed and it has been mentioned that how his theories help to support the political ambiance regarding the international matters (Neumann, Iver 2017). It is important to discuss the various aspects of the theories of John to understand the role of the offensive realism in case of international relation and an attempt has been made to explore the idea of John regarding the international organisation. It is also aimed to determine whether there are any weak points of John regarding the issue (Gilpin, Robert 2016).

The subject matter of this thesis is to consider John’s view regarding the international institution and to find out the originality of the fact whether international institution has played any role regarding resolving the dispute between the international states (Deudney, Daniel and Ikenberry 2017). In almost all his researches, he has concentrated on the power politics and power hunger of the political leaders. John had propounded many theories and a follower of the offensive realism. It has been stated by John that the base of the international politics depends on the supreme power. In this case, Alexander Andrew argued that international organisations are playing important role due to globalisation in the international politics. He was supported the view that the efficient homework of the organisations has been grown up and pointed out certain problems that has been faced by international organisations. He opposed the view of the realists and stated that the realism theory is based on the reflection of the distribution of power. On the other hand, K.Z.T. Amin had tried to point out certain reasons regarding the US invasion over the territory if Iraq. It has been mentioned by him that the main object of US was to defeat the conventional force of Iraq. Huntington states that the mentality of the offensive realists has been clarified in this thesis and their leaning mentality regarding the massive power politics has been generated here. The main reason behind the war as pointed out by John has been described as power imbalance that also give rise confliction among the states. He has structured the international organisation and predicted certain strategies to strengthen the base of offensive realism. Certain weak points of his research have also pointed out here. Whereas, in the view of Waltz, international system provides reserve policie and he had pointed out the tendency of these organisations regarding the hegemony and balance of power. Jeffery Taliaferro had attempted towards the anarchy system and its role over the international security.

However, the common weakness regarding the entire political scientists is that no one has tried to define the provoking behaviour of the states. It has been observed that the states are attempting to grab the weak countries by making their military power strong and they do not even care for the rules of the institutions. The concept of balancing derives from this dilemma. The balance of power restricts the powerful nature of the strong states as against the weaker states and motivates the states regarding their survival policies. In this case, it can be stated that the theory of John had achieved success as he stated that the power imbalance is the main reason of war.

The main aim of the thesis is to point out the role of the international institution regarding the dispute resolving matter and their impacts on the international states.

Key objective is to analyse the rsearch methodology of John’s theory. It has been mentioned under the thesis that John has rightly predicted the position of the China and the Middle East countries and the essence of his policies regarding the same. However, in this thesis, it has also been discussed that the theory of John is suffering from certain limitations such as his concept is limited to the international organisations only. He had failed to concentrate on the cultural clash and hegemony of western culture.

The first books of John gave him an opportunity to do a deep research on the military intervention and he had successfully contributed all his applications regarding the war politics (Mearsheimer 2014). In this theory, he had working on the mental state of the leaders regarding the war policies and he that the leaders are following certain policies regarding the same and that can be categorised into three parts has mentioned it. The three strategies laid out by him are the war of attrition strategy, limited aims strategy and the blitzkrieg strategy (Mearsheimer 2017).

He had narrated that the leaders of the war made certain mental theories to win a war. According to the first theory, there is a huge level uncertainty along with huge cost that are applicable on the attacking troops. As per the second strategy, the level of uncertainty and the cost of the war, both are comparatively low from the first strategy (Mearsheimer 2017). The most applicable and chosen option is the third one that based on the decisive process to defeat the enemies and it has been mentioned that the well strategic policies of the attacker make it possible to lower the cost to achieve the target in a fruitful manner. It has been stated by him that the policies of World War II is a suitable example of conventional deterrence (Nichols 2013).

The second strategy of John helps him to make a fair chance regarding the nuclear policies and strategies. He has been argued that the nuclear strategies of Ukraine and the Germany should be increased to strengthen the hands of United States and he had suggested to the militaries of United States to change the Foreign policy to deal with the cold war with the Soviet states. He had also opposed the Ukrainian nuclear policy and their decision over the surrender the weapon to the Soviet states (Mearsheimer 2017).

Hans Morgenthau regarding the international relation introduced the word realism. It is an approach on the liberal institutionalism and constructivism. It has been stated by the policy makers that the policies should be based on the approaches regarding the international relations and it should be kept in mind that the policies are the main responsible regarding the war policies. Johnmearsheimer was a supporter of the offensive realism and his ideologies are based on the policies made by the Kenneth Waltz that is known as neorealism. The theories that are being supported by John were circled around the massive international powers and he regarding the great power politics has supported it. According to his theory, dominancy is the only option regarding the war politics and there is no place for the democratic peace theory in war politics. It has also been stated by him that the theories propounded by Waltz are based on defensive realism and it has been stated by many of the researches that the theory of John will be opposed the theory of Waltz. However, it has been observed that John had accepted the theories made by Waltz and merged up the offensive and defensive realism for the betterment of the base of the theory (Glaser 2014).

Certain distinctions have been observed regarding the theories of john and Waltz on the international relations. It has been mentioned in this topic that the international relations are based on supreme power and there is no place for the independent effect. According to the theory of John, the power injected in the war is limitless and force has been created by the anarchic structure. This structure is based on the international politics. Whereas the concept propounded by the Waltz is based on the limited power of the political leaders and as per his view, the war fighters are commencing fight to achieve a limited power (McFaul et al. 2014).

According to the views of the offensive realism, the intention of the international system is to create powerful states so that they can gain energy by beating the inferior powers. It has been stated by John that dominancy is the main object of the international war politics. The main thing regarding the theories of the John and Waltz are that both of them tried to excavate the system regarding war policies and the realism, but in both the cases, the power related sphere are differentiated by both the author (Downes et al. 2014).

According to famous scholar Downes, the main theme of the theories of John is power politics (Downes et al. 2016). Power denotes certain abilities regarding the human control over the social and environmental issues. There should be an equity regarding the power to establish the peace. However, it has been noticed that the asymmetric conditions of the states are creating power imbalance and that causes risk of war. It has been predicted by John that the superior states are targeting the inferiors and there is a position created regarding the military capability. It has been stated that power imbalance is depending on the various military dimensions. It is important to understand the scope of the international development to restrict the scope of the power imbalance.

The structure of the international institution can be divided into three parts. It has been pointed out by Jensen that the categories of international organisations are the inter-governmental organisation, international non-governmental organisation and the multinational organisations(Jensen 2016). Inter-governmental organisations are formed by way of agreement held between the native states. It has been stated by the researchers that both the governmental and the non-governmental members can be the member of the international NGOs. Multinational institution or organisation is the co-ordinated company that are formed by nation states. In this case, there is one Mother Company and certain amount of subsidiary companies. It has been mentioned that the International Labour Organisation or the Economic Co-operation and Development are the instances of the multinational institution.

There is a link present between the international organisations and the realism. It has been stated that the international system portrayed the opportunities regarding the advantage taking policies and there is a dominating intention regarding the state policies are present to denote the objective of the state policies.

The believer of the realism theory that there are certain chances that can define the policies regarding the international law and system has stated it. The chances are categorised into five parts. The first prediction is based on the anarchic ideology of the international system. The second prediction is based on the military capability of the states and it has been noticed by the researchers that the states are becoming potential harm to each other (Deudney et al. 2017). The third presumption reveals the failure of one state regarding the war policies of the second or other states.The fourth policy is based on the lack of independency in the international institutions. The fifth strategy based on the survival strategy of the states regarding the global system.

It has been stated by John that the international policies are based on power politics and there is no limit regarding the same. It has also been stated by him that the intention of the stated regarding the war politics are based on hegemony (Kub?lkov? 2015). The term hegemony has been defined as per his view that the superior states want to grab the power from the inferior states and there is no place for independent efficacy.

It has been pointed out that the international policies are based on certain policies and it has been stated by the policy makers that the objective of the international organisation is to promote the message of international peace and security. It intends to develop the friendly relation in between the states and the citizens. Certain promotions are being made regarding financial stability and the progression regarding the societal development. However, John had stated that the international organisations had failed to fulfil all the objectives.

The main issues regarding the same are that whether the international institution has independent effect over the great power behaviour or not. John Mearsheimer had pointed out the loopholes regarding the international organisations in his journal: “The False promise of international institutions”. It has been opined by him that the international organisations are unable to resolve the dispute in between the states. They have limited power. According to the offensive realists, the international relations cannot be resolved by the limited powers. The main reason behind the same is that in limited powers, there are certain restrictions imposed that make them lag behind (Neumann 2016). It is the main differences in between the offensive and the defensive realism. The example that has been made by the realist is the functions of the NATO (Lindley-French 2015). It has been stated by the realists that United Nations have given powers to the organisations to resolve the dispute over the international relations, but they cannot impose their decisions on the member states. It has been stated that the international organisations are working through ad hoc alliance.

The main ideology of john is based on the massive power of the states regarding the war policies and it can also be stated that most of the politics are based on uncertain intentions. To certain extent, the ideology of John regarding the international relations seems right. It has been showed by him that the base of fear is dominant in nature. He had recognised the fact as the tragic essence of international politics. From many of his theory, it has been observed that the ideas made by him regarding the political features are predicted rightly. His research regarding the Israel Lobby and the U.S. foreign policy has made a huge success (Mearsheimer and Walt 2016). John was opted for the view regarding the policies taken for the Israel as the poor coalition system between the individuals and the organisations also concentrated on the foreign policy of United States over the issue. It has been stated by him that Jewish are fond of Israel and in this case, Christian Zionists are playing an important role. He was critically analyse the policy of the Israel lobby and suggested that the policy taken by the farm lobby will not for the interest of the United States.

His assumption regarding the Israel war has proved successes. He predicted that the policies taken by the Israel is based on the wrong policies and they will lose the war against Lebanon and United States. He also stated that the rising power of China can be a great dilemma for the interest of the United States. He had rightly predicted the Israel’s nuclear policies on the United States and it has been showed to him that America should change its foreign policies to deal with the international matters (Pashakhanlou 2014). He has rightly observed regarding the Chinese evasion and it has been stated by him that the internal policies of China can be an apple of discord to the capitalist countries. He had opposed the political tactics of China and it has been stated by him that China had invested a lot of money for the national security and the policy of China is not at all based on the democracy (Kireshner 2014). It can be observed that the observation made by John Mearsheimer is not judgment-based, but he had described the interaction between the states regarding the anarchic world.

He has structured the international relationship and the facts and reasons of the same. He that dominant nature of the leaders make huge success form has also stated it the pre-history period. As an example, he had made the versions of the Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler and the Qing dynasty in China. These rulers had made the perfect example regarding the hegemony. The work of John is to analyse the political matters from certain views. He had done the exact thing. According to his view, the anarchic system helped the states to act as per their own interest and the classical sense of realism will help to maintain a balance of power (Mearsheimer 2013).

It is also observed that John had conveyed his view on China’s emergence and stated that it will cause great dilemma to the United States. According to the recent policies taken by the United States denotes the same thing over the issue. In recent times, USA’s policies over China had become a burning topic and it has been observed that USA provokes Japan and India to enhance their power to beat the nuclear power of China. Therefore, from certain views it can be stated that the policies and the theories propounded by him were right. It was his duty to analyse the matters and predicted things based on the theories as a political scientist. He has made a right observation regarding the political hegemony and the war policies that had been propounded by him gave him a huge success.

His decisions over the policies of USA regarding the international relationships were rightly observed and he has concentrated over the European allies and the lacking capacity of the military troops. The China’s policy regarding the dominancy on the South China sea has been predicted by him and he told that the hegemony of China regarding the same can be made dilemma for the European Capitalist states (Jackson and Krasner 2014).

It is no doubt to state that as a political scientist, he had made certain remarkable role in the field of international relations, his theories has certain loopholes or weak points. It has been declared by him that the international institutions have failed to meet the requirements properly and they are suffering from limitation of powers (Layne 2014). He also stated that the policies make by the international institutions cannot be treated as a success and the objectives and the steps taken by the international institutions were in vain. However, the reality is quite different from his theory. It can be stated that the international institutions like the United Nations or NATO has done certain great things regarding the maintenance of peace and security. The role of the United Nations cannot be denied in case of resolving the global political issues. It has been stated by many institutionalist researchers that United Nation’s policies help to restrict the possibilities of Third World War.

It has been observed during the cold war, NATO takes certain principles on the liberal democracy in the area of Central and Eastern Europe. United Nations has also taken certain important policies to maintain the peace. This organisation has tried to resolve the disputesamicably. The United Nation had helped the process to resolve the Korean crisis in the year 1950. The institution has been struggling for the independency of the continents like Algeria and Morocco. The policy with Africa in the year 1960 has also give the organisation a huge success. Furthermore, he had not analyse other related matters like cultural clash between two regional or international states and only concentrated on the organisational matters ( Johnson and Phil 2016).

Therefore, it can be stated that the theories of John plays an important role regarding the international relations and he had made a huge research on the political field. His predictions were sharp in nature and his books had achieved many awards. His statement regarding the policies of China, Middle East countries were got huge success and it is a fact that his theories on political hegemony reached certain distinction in the field of war politics. His opinion regarding the international institutions are true as it is a fact that the decisions of the institutions are not binding in nature and the member states will get choice to accept or denied the decisions and hence it can be stated that the observations of John Mearsheimer regarding the political institutions are acceptable. His theory was suffered from certain discrepancies, but the other critiques had failed to prove the outcome of the power imbalance and its impact on the international politics. John had rightly observed the detrimental effect of the provoking nature of the strong states and held the power imbalance as the main reason for war.


Baylis, John, Patricia Owens, and Steve Smith, eds. The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press, 2017.

Deudney, Daniel, and G. John Ikenberry. "Realism, Liberalism and the Iraq War." Survival 59, no. 4 (2017): 7-26.

Deudney, Daniel, and G. John Ikenberry. "Realism, Liberalism and the Iraq War." Survival 59, no. 4 (2017): 7-26.

Downes, Alexander, Robert Jackson, Stephen Krasner, Jack Snyder, John Mearsheimer, Carl Schmitt, Kenneth Waltz, Michael Walzer, and Charles Glaser. "THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO." Instructor (2014).

Fawcett, Louise. International relations of the Middle East. Oxford University Press, 2016.

Gilpin, Robert. The political economy of international relations. Princeton University Press, 2016.

Glaser, C.L., 2014. The necessary and natural evolution of structural realism. The Realism Reader, edited by Colin Elman and Michael Jensen, pp.245-52.

Jensen, Jan. "The International System. To what extent is anarchy a constant or a variable?." (2016).

Kirshner, J., 2014. The tragedy of offensive realism. The Realism Reader, p.468.

Kub?lkov?, Vendulka. International relations in a constructed world. Routledge, 2015.

Layne, Christopher. "The “poster child for offensive realism”." The Realism Reader (2014): 197.

Lindley-French, J., 2015. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization: The Enduring Alliance. Routledge.

McFaul, Michael, Stephen Sestanovich, and John J. Mearsheimer. "Faulty powers: Who started the Ukraine crisis." Foreign Aff. 93 (2014): 167.

Mearsheimer, John J. "Can China rise peacefully?." The National Interest 25 (2014): 23-37.

Mearsheimer, John J. "Why the Ukraine crisis is the West's fault: the liberal delusions that provoked Putin." Foreign Aff. 93 (2014): 77.

Mearsheimer, John J. "Why the Ukraine crisis is the West's fault: the liberal delusions that provoked Putin." Foreign Aff. 93 (2014): 77.

Mearsheimer, John J., and Stephen M. Walt. "The Case for Offshore Balancing: A Superior US Grand Stategy." Foreign Aff.95 (2016): 70.

Mearsheimer, John. "America unhinged." The National Interest129 (2014): 9-30.

Mearsheimer, John. "Anarchy and the Struggle for Power." The Realism Reader 179 (2014).

Mearsheimer, John. "Anarchy and the Struggle for Power." The Realism Reader 179 (2014).

Mearsheimer, John. Conventional deterrence. Cornell University Press, 2017.

Mingst, Karen A., and Ivan M. Arregu?n-Toft. Essentials of International Relations: Sixth International Student Edition. WW Norton & Company, 2013.

Neumann, Iver B. Russia and the idea of Europe: a study in identity and international relations. Taylor & Francis, 2016.

Nichols, T., 2013. The Case for Conventional Deterrence. The National Interest, 12.

Pashakhanlou, Arash Heydarian. "Waltz, Mearsheimer and the post-Cold War world: The rise of America and the fall of structural realism." International Politics 51, no. 3 (2014): 295-315.

Roach, Steven C., Martin Griffiths, and Terry O'Callaghan. International relations: the key concepts. Routledge, 2014.

How to cite this essay: