Historic Reality vs Neo Realist theory

In “Historical Reality vs Neo Realist Theory, Paul W, Schroeder launches a scathing attack on the dominant International Relations theory in question. He supports himself with historic evidence while pointing out questionable assumptions and contradictions within the realist school of thought, with a special focus on Kenneth Waltz’s self help and balance of power doctrines.

Schroeder argues rather convincingly that Waltz’s theory regarding the balance of power is flawed, due to simplistic assumptions regarding history and the nature of states. The basic problem he highlights is that Waltz has too easily assumed that states will act in a uniform fashion with regard to coalitions and bandwagoning in the international system. Next Schroeder targets Waltz’s self help principle, which states that states are sovereign and must be prepared to fend for their survival. He also points out that Waltz has used historic examples to suit himself and establish support for his theories.

While Schroeder’s criticisms are difficult to contend with in their validity, it cannot be ignored that his piece is largely a criticism of Kenneth Waltz rather than the Realist school as a whole. Also Schroeder’s basis for arguments are steeped in history, which is a bit of a contradiction in that he himself, criticizes Waltz for assuming that history repeats itself.  That being said, the realist school is indeed in need of some flexibility in the post Cold War era where a bipolar system existed until the fall of the Soviet Union leaving the United States as the sole great power.