many structures constructing the world as it is. Or rather, what theories tell us it
seemsto be.
In such discussions, the word ‘world’ – like ‘international’ and ‘global’ – trip off
the tongue, usually without a second thought. This should not be so, and Waltz
himself generally uses the terms with care. In the label ‘International Politics’, the
word ‘International’ conventionally describes relations between governments across
state borders (the word was apparently invented by Jeremy Bentham at the end of
the eighteenth century, long after the modern ‘international’ system had passed its
Westphalian milestone). The phrase ‘World Politics’ refers to those issues focusing
on politics (‘security’, governance, and so on) that are of a general character across
the earth, but whose significance is unevenly distributed. In this sense, World Politics
is the field for exploring ‘who gets what, when [and] how’ across the earth.^34
‘Global’ issues or challenges refer to those specific dynamics (such as climate change)
which affect all parts of the earth. It was with these distinctions in mind that I chose
the title of this book as I did.
These are not merely semantic matters: it is the tensions between the accelerat-
ing dynamics of contemporary worldpolitics in face of the problem-maintaining
structures and identities of internationalpolitics which I see as central to the dis-
cipline’s next great debate. The World Politics perspective problematises the
international level, as well as the ‘problem-solving’ theories that seek to explain it.
This broader referent – World Politics – is increasingly salient as space shrinks, time
quickens, and multiple globalisations densify. Ultimately the world and the inter-
national cannot be kept apart. The Great Reckoning will not allow it. Reason
demands meta-problem-solving in the biggest arena, even if it cannot be achieved.
To summarise: from the discipline’s beginning, students of International/World
Politics have been interested in explaining the world as it isand some have sought
to speculate about better possible futures – this being a practice-oriented academic
project. Structural realism developed as one of the most powerful theories seeking
to explain the international system, with its key theorist, Kenneth Waltz, claiming
that it explains ‘a few big and important things’ – but certainly not everything. To
the extent that its explanatory power accounts for the dynamics of the international
system, those who hope to make a better world had better understand it. This is
especially so as human society comes face-to-face, this century, with the costs of its
traditional ways of doing things. It is essential that fundamental change comes about
in the way we (especially the powerful) live globally, if widespread conflict and
disorder is to be avoided. In this regard, the relevance of Waltzian theorising, above
all, is that his ideas provide a critical tool for what Elshtain in her chapter calls the
weeding out of ‘all sorts of nonsense’ about bringing better possible futures into
reality. In the final chapter I will argue that ‘We Have Worlds Inside Us’:^35 but
before reaching for the best we must first level with the international in Waltz’s
world.
12 Realism redux