Letteratura scientifica selezionata sul tema "Mencius;Kenneth N Waltz;international relations"

Levels of Analysis is related to the explaining of causes of phenomenon (Buzan, 1995). The coming to the fore of levels of analysis in international relations was the result of the behavioral movement during the 1950s that was attempting to apply methodology of natural sciences in social sciences. Before that, traditional approaches were dominant, and they were more oriented towards history and law. The works of Kenneth N. Waltz, Morton A. Kaplan, and J. David Singer have had major roles in bringing levels of analysis into international relations (Buzan, 1995). Since then, the works of Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver have added the level of regional analysis to International Relations studies. This article reviews the three main levels of analysis and also explains the regional level of analysis in international relations.

In 1948, Hans J. Morgenthau wrote his classic text, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, that was largely responsible for establishing realism as the prevailing theory in the field of International Relations (IR). In 1979, Kenneth N. Waltz wrote an immensely influential book, Theory of International Politics, that resulted in a new structural version of realism – neorealism – becoming the dominant theory in IR. John J. Mearsheimer, who is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, has written a profoundly important book that rightfully deserves a prominent place along with Morgenthau and Waltz in the canon of realist thought about international politics. Mearsheimer's clearly written book puts forth a new structural theory of realism that he terms offensive realism. This version of realism argues that the observable patterns of behaviour among all of the great powers throughout history, most notably their ubiquitous power-seeking, can be explained by the fact that they exist in a condition of anarchy in which there is no higher source of authority above them. While sharing many of the same basic assumptions with neorealism, offensive realism, as elucidated by Mearsheimer, provides a fundamentally different account of the essential dynamics of international politics than that which Waltz and his students have been offering for the last twenty years or so.

This thesis introduces a " new " international relations theorist who is also, in fact, one of the oldest of international relations theorists. Mencius (Meng Zi 371-289 BCE) is well known to students of Chinese culture as a key figure in the history of Confucianism and in the history of China: the second sage no less. Yet modern scholars usually study him, if he is studied at all, for an idea of how " Chinese" think rather than as a thinker worth studying for his own sake. I decided to study Mencius as an international relations theorist in response to the common criticism that international relations, the academic discipline, is too "e; eurocentric". This criticism has been made many times. My goal however was not to repeat the criticism but to find a major thinker outside the euro-centric world. Such a thinker could be presented as an international relations theorist and thus demonstrate that we should indeed heed the critics of euro-centrism and make studies outside the euro-centric framework rather than simply announce that international relations is euro-centric and proceed to make another euro-centric study. This study of Mencius, qua international relations theorist, illustrates that point. Mencius lived in a world of warring states and tried to bring peace and order to that world. In the course of doing so he developed a sophisticated international relations theory which can be used to analyse events in the contemporary world. In this thesis I offer a comparison of Mencius and Kenneth N Waltz, a famous contemporary international relations theorist, to show the strength of Mencius’ theory. Mencius argues that an anarchical system of states can become an ordered one if the order is legitimised by what he calls " benevolence" , an ethic based on universal values. Waltz argues that values can never underpin an order that runs contrary to states’ interests. Once an anarchical international system has commenced balance of power formations will rise to stop it moving towards order. The disagreement between Mencius and Waltz is profound; it is not simply about the patterns of international relations ii systems but whether a policy of reform based on values can succeed in the international arena. Waltz, and the vast majority of international relations theorists, answer that question in the negative. This " ruling out" of progress distinguishes the study of international politics from the study of domestic politics. Mencius does not rule it out; he offers hope for progress and reform in the international arena. Thus the attempt to address one problem, euro-centrism, led me to approach the greatest problem, the denial of a role for values in the international world. The thesis sets out to show that Mencius’ international relations theory has greater explanatory power than the theory of Waltz, the arch positivist. The thesis also seeks to demonstrate that it is a mistake to rule values out of international politics.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Sydney, 2002.
Title from title screen (viewed 15 April 2008). Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy to the Discipline of Government and International Relations. Degree awarded 2002; thesis submitted 2001. Includes bibliographical references. Also available in print form.