Why Are Revisionist States Revisionist? Reviving Classical Realism as an Approach to Understanding International Change
Why Are Revisionist States Revisionist? Reviving Classical Realism as an Approach to Understanding International Change
复制标题
为什么修正主义国家是修正主义国家？
DOI：
10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800217
复制
发表时间：
2008
影响因子：
1.4
通讯作者：
Jens Ringsmose
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Rynning;Jens Ringsmose
在这篇文章中，我们认为现实主义最近回避了战争与和平的重大问题，复兴的古典现实主义可以帮助现实主义重回正轨。现代现实主义者倾向于认为，国家要么都是维持现状的参与者，要么都是修正主义者，其结果是对国际变化的根源和动力难以把握。为了复兴古典现实主义，我们考察了三组占主导地位的批评。值得注意的是，我们回到了现实主义的经典文本，以表明经典实际上不是简约主义的：它们既没有将系统性或全国性的现象(第三和第二意象理论)还原为人性(第一意象)。古典现实主义者理解这些层面之间的许多错综复杂和微妙的联系，而现代现实主义者之所以成为简化论者，是因为他们简化了对系统性现象的解释。我们展示了古典现实主义如何有力地回应批评者，并提出研究问题，这将再次推动我们对国际变化的理解。
In this article, we argue that Realism recently has eschewed big and important questions of war and peace and that revived Classical Realism can help bring Realism back on track. Modern Realists tend to assume that states are either all status quo players or all revisionists, and the result is a slippery grasp of the sources and dynamics of international change. To revive Classical Realism, we examine three dominant sets of criticism. We notably return to the classical texts of Realism to show that the classics were in fact not reductionist: they did not reduce either systemic or national phenomena (third and second image theory) to human nature (first image). Classical Realists understood the many intricate and delicate connections between these levels, and it is modern era Realists who are reductionists because they reduce explanations to systemic phenomena. We show how Classical Realism can respond in strength to its critics and ask the kind of research questions that again will advance our understanding of international change.