The Rise of Neoclassical Realism in the Emerging Multipolar World Order

“Neoclassical Realism is no longer just another International Relations theory; it has gained renewed relevance in explaining state behaviour in an increasingly multipolar world, integrating systemic and domestic forces to explain how states deal in an increasingly multipolar world”

The current international order has perhaps gone through the most profound transformation since the end of the Cold War era. For almost three decades after the end of the Cold War era, American hegemony, globalization, and the belief that gradual erosion of great power rivalries was inevitable due to economic interdependence and international organizations constituted the main features of the post-Cold War world. Liberal democracies appeared to have won the battle, and multilateralism was thriving, and scholars anticipated the end of military rivalry in international politics. That optimism has mostly dissipated now. The current international system is increasingly marked by strategic rivalry, geopolitical division, technological rivalry, economic blackmail, and new threats to national security. The rivalry between the US and China has been the central theme in international politics, Russia is emerging as a revisionist state, middle powers are working to develop strategic autonomy, and regional disputes are creating new alignments in the international political landscape. Rather than entering into an orderly unipolar world, the world order is becoming increasingly multipolar, where power is dispersed among several influential players.

However, there is a fundamental question about the changing international system which is frequently ignored. In spite of the fact that all states exist in the same international system and are subjected to similar structural factors, why do they react in such a disparate manner? Why did India adopt a policy of strategic autonomy while Japan increased its networks of alliances? Why did the Gulf countries adopt diversification of relationships rather than following the pattern of alignment with one great power? Theories of traditional approach can explain the phenomena to a certain degree. The idea of Structural Realism correctly states that the international system along with its anarchy and the distribution of power influences state actions. Actually, the revival of the concepts such as deterrence, modernization of the military and balance of power shows how realistic theory is vital in explaining current geopolitics. But Structural Realism also claims that states experiencing same conditions should have similar responses. Contemporary international relations offer a contradictory picture: states under same conditions often pursue different policies and strategies.

The liberal theories provide crucial insights about the importance of international institutions, economic interdependence, and cooperation, but fail to account for how similar states tend to adopt divergent strategic decisions despite being part of the same institutions. In the same vein, Constructivist theories reveal the importance of the effect of ideas, identities, and norms, but provide an incomplete picture of why similar states adopt divergent geopolitics despite having similar normative beliefs. The core puzzle thus persists in that systemic pressures are becoming increasingly frequent, but state reactions continue to vary widely. It is for this very reason that Neoclassical Realism has acquired new relevance. By no means does it negate the lessons of classical or structural realism but rather seeks to extend them by contending that external pressures cannot unilaterally dictate behavior of states. The international system provides states with an opportunity structure that they do not react to in an automatic fashion. On the contrary, they construe these opportunities in the context of their domestic political systems, the perceptions of their leaders, their bureaucracies and their capabilities.

This approach offers a useful way of understanding contemporary international politics by connecting systemic pressures with domestic factors, rather than concentrating solely on one or another level of analysis, international or domestic. With the onset of multipolar world there is no uniformity in behavior of states and no predictability in their alliances. On the contrary, various strategies are being employed by states according to their political interests, economic strengths, institutions and understanding of their national interests in the current geopolitical landscape. The increasing significance of Neoclassical Realism can be attributed to the fact that it allows us to connect two elements of international relations that have been traditionally studied independently from each other. It takes into account the significance of the balance of power in the world and the fact that power becomes politically meaningful once it is perceived and articulated through domestic institutions. The key question is not only about the changes that take place in the international environment but about the way states react to these changes. In the age of geopolitical uncertainties and fragmentation of alliances, this becomes especially important. This is another reason why Neoclassical Realism is likely to emerge as an increasingly important theory of international relations.

The present-day international system has provided ample proof for the growing importance of Neoclassical Realism. Take, for instance, the competition between the USA and China. It has changed not only global trade, technology, defence, and maritime policies, but also international organizations. Similar external pressures are present for countries across the globe in Asia, Europe, the Middle East and Africa. But there is no one pattern of action adopted by all countries involved. India has continued its policy of strategic autonomy, maintaining strong relationships with the USA and at the same time continuing its strategic relations with Russia, even strengthening them. Japan has increased its military strength due to the security situation. On the other hand, most Southeastern Asian countries have continued to hedge, attempting to maintain economic connections with China while at the same time maintaining their security relations with the USA. If the systemic pressures alone were responsible for state behaviour, we would expect the same patterns from these countries. In reality, they are different since they perceive the world in a different way.

The same pattern of analysis applies to the Middle East. Increasingly, Gulf countries have pursued foreign policies with multiple orientations, managing their relations with the United States, China, Russia, and rising powers without depending exclusively on one strategic ally. Their motivations are not only related to shifts in the distribution of power in the international system but also include their own grand strategies for diversification, modernization, and sustainability at home. In much the same way, the European reaction to the Russian aggression against Ukraine has emphasized the need for collective defense, although there remain important differences in how Europeans see issues of energy security, defense budgets, industrial policy, and strategic autonomy. Such differences are not due to differences in international structure alone. They have to do with differences in political elites, capacity, national interests, and strategic cultures all key variables of Neoclassical Realism.

Apart from offering explanations for various types of foreign policies, Neoclassical Realism is also useful in analyzing the phenomenon of power. While traditional concepts of power such as military power, economic production, and number of people remain important, they do not define the concept completely anymore. In the twenty-first century, states with resilient institutions, good governance, technological innovations, and strategic thinking capabilities enjoy more benefits. Good military power will not be enough to cover for poor institutions, lack of cohesion in decision-making process, or weak governance. Similarly, good geographic location or plenty of natural resources alone will not be enough to give the state an international voice unless the government has the political capability to make use of the advantages. The lesson is of great significance in terms of policy implications. Governments tend to deal with external threats without giving much attention to the domestic institutions needed to address these threats effectively. The reality of current geopolitical rivalry shows that effective statecraft also depends heavily on such elements as resilience and strategic coordination rather than military or economic power alone. Countries that are able to combine their foreign policy agenda with the governance reform will have more chances to operate successfully in an increasingly competitive international landscape. On the other hand, countries with poor institutions fail to benefit from their strategic position despite favorable geopolitical conditions.

The emergence of Neoclassical Realism for scholars of International Relations also represents an academic shift within the discipline. The study of IR has always been marked by the conflict of internationalist theories versus theories that have stressed the importance of domestic politics. However, the modern geopolitical environment is showing that such distinctions become less and less helpful. Contemporary strategic rivalry transcends the confines of traditional military issues to include technology, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, global supply chains, critical minerals, climate security, and maritime security. Analyzing such multifaceted problems necessitates the use of theories that are able to combine structural pressures from outside and political reactions inside the country. Neoclassical Realism offers just this connection. Neoclassical Realism neither substitutes Liberalism nor Constructivism, but it completes them. When Liberalism is capable of accounting for international cooperation, and Constructivism stresses the role of norms and identity, Neoclassical Realism provides a valuable framework for explaining state behaviour in an age of power transition, great power competition, and geopolitical uncertainties. The shift from unipolarity to multipolarity involves not only the redistribution of power, but also changes in perceptions and strategies of states as they understand and pursue their national interests in a new situation.

The views presented in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Global Strategic Forum – GSF.