7

‘BIG AND IMPORTANT

THINGS’ IN IR

Structural realism and the neglect

of changes in statehood

Georg Sørensen

Introduction

Where is the world headed?^1 Considerable confusion has surrounded this question
since the end of the Cold War. There is a war on terror going on, but there is also
a ‘liberal moment’, elements of a ‘clash of civilizations’, in some ways a ‘coming
anarchy’, maybe a replacement of ‘the end of history’ by ‘the return of history’,
perhaps combined with a ‘new world order’; recently, a serious financial crisis has
demanded our attention.^2 Wide-ranging political and economic change invites all
kinds of speculations; exotic theories, not always substantially connected to the real
world, compete for our attention. There appears to be no end to the novelties and
transformations that we have overlooked. ‘New, new, change, change’; academic
reflections about IR ‘are beginning to sound more and more like American political
campaigns’ one observer quipped already in 1994.^3
Some would argue that this happens because major existing theories, including
realism and structural realism (sometimes referred to as neorealism), have too little
to offer when it comes to analyse and understand the most important aspects of
current world politics. In particular, structural realism in the version of Kenneth
Waltz may well be set on explaining ‘a few big and important things’^4 but for all its
focus on systemic balance of power and relative capabilities it is often charged with
having failed to notice crucial developments. Is Waltzian structural realism a reliable
guide to understanding current world politics? My answer will be a resounding ‘Yes
and No’. ‘Yes’ in the sense that structural realism has important insights to offer
regarding the current balance of power and its effects on world politics. ‘No’ in the
sense that changes in statehood have taken place with profound consequences for
international affairs; these changes are not addressed by structural realism because,
regardless of its preoccupation with sovereign states, structural realism does not have
a developed theory of the sovereign state and can thus only address changes in