Session 11: A second look

I found the piece by Schroder quite interesting since it amalgamates and reflects upon all the key concepts we have studied in Theory of IR class so far. 

Schroder asserts that states do not balance and balances are not generally found in the international sphere. He states that hegemons prosper till the time they increase their relative gains by maximizing their power capabilities and adds that balancing is not the only strategy compatible with the concepts of anarchy and self-help. I partly agree with this assertion since we have discussed in great length that presently an effective way to maintain peace in the world is to balance power against power. Also, what the writer explains is true that there could be other ways of unraveling power dynamics but fails to present with viable options of doing so.

Also, the element of survival is addressed in the paper. States are perpetually finding ways to ensure their survival and thus pursue ways that they find most feasible. Some fight wars while others go into “hiding”. However, the question arises that what exactly does “hiding” mean? Does it mean acting as 

the silent spectator or does it mean accepting the authority of the powerful and authoritative entities?

In addition to these, the author reviews instances where states find it worthwhile to take risks in order acquire territories that bring along potential gains in various forms. He believes that territorial expansion is consistent with neo-realistic features of harnessing power, evading threats or attaining benefits. This can be explained using the current foreign policy of Russia in relation with Crimea and now Ukraine.

Schroder conflates neo-realism with Waltz’s Theory of International Politics and so overlooks upon various imperative literary devices that contribute to the understanding of IR to a greater extent.