Country A is a pacifist democracy with no territorial ambitions. Country B is a neighboring state undergoing rapid military expansion. According to neorealist theory, how will Country A most likely respond?
ACountry A will trust Country B because democracies recognize each other's peaceful intentions
BCountry A will ignore the buildup since it has no expansionist goals of its own
CCountry A will balance against Country B's growing power — not from hostility, but because under anarchy, no guarantee of intentions exists and the cost of being wrong is too high
DCountry A will pursue economic interdependence to make conflict too costly for Country B
This is the core neorealist insight: structure, not intention, drives behavior. Even a genuinely peaceful state cannot rely on another state's stated intentions under anarchy — there is no enforcer to guarantee promises, and if Country A misjudges Country B, it ceases to exist. Rational security-seeking, not hostility, explains balancing behavior. The scenario tests whether students understand that neorealism is structural — Country A's response is determined by the logic of the system, not by its own values or Country B's actual intentions.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
Classical realism and neorealism both predict competitive state behavior, but disagree on the fundamental cause. What is the key difference?
AClassical realism says states maximize power; neorealism holds that states only seek sufficient security
BClassical realism grounds state behavior in human nature's drive for power; neorealism grounds it in the anarchic structure of the international system
CNeorealism was developed first; classical realism is the later revision
DClassical realism is descriptive; neorealism is a prescriptive theory about how states should act
This distinction has profound implications: for Morgenthau's classical realism, competitive behavior stems from human nature — so changing it would require changing human nature, which is impossible. For Waltz's neorealism, the cause is system structure (anarchy) — so if you could establish a world government with enforcement power, behavior could theoretically change. Both produce the same behavioral prediction but offer different causal stories, leading to different implications about what could alter international politics.
Question 3 True / False
Realism prescribes that states should maximize their power at most costs, regardless of consequences — it is a normative framework for foreign policy decision-making.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Realism is primarily a descriptive and explanatory theory about how states do behave under anarchy — it is not a normative prescription for how they should behave. Offensive realism (Mearsheimer) predicts states try to maximize power, but this is a prediction about behavior, not a recommendation. Defensive realism holds that seeking maximum power is often counterproductive, predicting that states seek 'sufficient' security rather than maximal power. Realism's claim is explanatory: this is what the logic of anarchy compels states to do.
Question 4 True / False
The balance-of-power dynamic in realist theory explains why states form alliances against rising powers regardless of ideological alignment between the allies.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
Under anarchy, any state that grows powerful enough to threaten all others triggers counterbalancing coalitions — not because other states share ideology but because the rising power's capabilities are a structural threat. This explains why ideologically opposed states allied against Napoleon, Hitler, and during the Cold War, and why realists predict that China's rise will trigger balancing coalitions from neighboring states regardless of their political systems. Power distribution, not shared values, drives alliance formation in the realist framework.
Question 5 Short Answer
A student argues: 'Neorealism can't be right because many states cooperate extensively and rarely go to war.' How would a neorealist respond?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: A neorealist would distinguish between the baseline logic of anarchy and the frequency of actual conflict. Realism does not predict constant war — it predicts that security competition is the structural condition and that cooperation is fragile because it depends on aligned interests rather than enforceable commitments. States cooperate all the time when it serves their interests; the neorealist claim is that this cooperation can always be withdrawn when interests diverge, with no institution capable of reliably preventing defection. The absence of perpetual war is consistent with realism; what realism doubts is stable, durable cooperation on core security interests when the distribution of power shifts.
The key neorealist move is distinguishing between surface behavior (cooperation) and the underlying structural logic (self-help). Cooperation exists but is contingent — it persists as long as states find it serves their interests under current power distributions. When those distributions change, alliances dissolve and agreements are abandoned. Realism does not deny that periods of peace or cooperation occur; it predicts that they are always conditional on the balance of power, not on norms, goodwill, or international law.