رهیافت‌های سیاسی و بین ‌المللی

رهیافت‌های سیاسی و بین ‌المللی

نوواقع‌گرایی: از تبیین تا تجویز

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسنده
حمیرا مشیرزاده
استاد گروه روابط بین‌الملل، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.
10.48308/piaj.2026.243846.1871
چکیده
مقدمه و اهداف:حدوداً شش دهه ازظهور نوواقع‌گرایی/واقع‌گرایی ساختاری در رشته روابط بین‌الملل می‌گذرد و همواره شاهد مداخلات تجویزی نوواقع‌گرایان علم‌گرا در مناظرات مربوط به سیاست خارجی در کل و سیاست خارجی ایالات متحد به طور خاص بوده‌ایم. از آنجا که برخی از منتقدان نوواقع‌گرایی ملاحظات تجویزی نوواقع‌گرایی را در تضاد با علمی بودن و/یا ساختارگرا بودن آن می‌دانند و تاکنون بحثی مستوفا و مستقل در این مناظره در برابر آن مطرح نشده، این مقاله نشان می‌دهد که انتقادات مزبور بر اساس مبانی فرانظری نوواقع‌گرایی موجه نیستند. در پاسخ به این پرسش که چگونه مبانی فرانظری نوواقع‌گرایی این تجویزها را به عنوان نوعی رویکرد هنجاری توجیه می‌کند، استدلال اصلی مقاله آن است که رویکرد علمی و ساختارگرایی در چارچوب فلسفه علوم‌اجتماعی مغایرتی با تجویزگرایی نوواقع‌گرایی به عنوان یک نظریه علمی تبیینی کلان ندارد.

روش: در توضیح مبانی فرانظری تجویزگرایی متون مرتبط با فلسفه علوم اجتماعی و برای نشان دادن چگونگی رسیدن نوواقع‌گرایان به تجویز، متون مرتبط با روش تحلیل متن مورد بررسی و تفسیر قرار گرفتند.

یافته‌ها: یافته مهم بر اساس متون معتبر فلسفه علوم اجتماعی عدم تباین علم و ساختارگرایی با تجویزگرایی است. تحلیل متون نوواقع‌گرایان بنام نیز نشان می‌دهد که آنها چگونه از مبانی علم‌گرایانه و ساختارگرایانه به تجویزهای خاص در سیاست خارجی می‌رسند که پایه آن فرض عقلانیت کنشگران است. حتی والتس نیز به رغم تأکید بر عدم نیاز به فرض عقلانیت کنشگر در نظریه ساختارگرایانه خود، نوعی عقلانیت برساخته مبتنی بر جامعه‌پذیری را لاجرم وارد بحث کرده که طرح آن از نوآوری‌های این مقاله است. ون‌اورا صراحتاً تجویز را لازمه جستار علمی می‌داند و شرایط مفیدیت آن را بیان می‌کند. سوءبرداشت‌ها که به سیاست‌های نادرست و شکست منجر می‌شوند ناشی از محدودیت یادگیری دولت‌ها هستند و همین امر بعد تجویزی نظریه روابط بین‌الملل را توجیه می‌کند. نوشتارهای تجویزی خود او حاکی از انعطاف نظری و چشم‌اندازی چندبعدی‌اند. والت نوشته‌های بی‌شماری در تأکید بر اهمیت تجویزگرایی در حوزه سیاست خارجی دارد. وی در سطحی وسیع وارد مناظرات/تجویزهای سیاست خارجی شده و به سوءفهم‌ها و سوءبرداشت‌های سیاستمداران آمریکایی پرداخته است. مرشایمر که می‌کوشد میان بحث‌های نظری واقع‌گرایانه و سیاست خارجی قدرت‌های بزرگ - خصوصاً آمریکا- پل بزند، نسبت به کژکارکردی‌ها و خطاهای سیاست خارجی آمریکا هشدار می‌دهد. وی صراحتاً سیاست خارجی عقلانی را سیاست خارجی خوب می‌داند و همین حکم می‌کند که در تجویزهای خود عدم عقلانیت را مورد نقد قرار دهد. او توجه سیاستگذاران را برای اصلاح رفتار خود به «واقعیاتی» جلب می‌کند که واقع‌گرایی درباره سیاست بین‌الملل بیان می‌کنند.

آنچه نوواقع‌گرایان مورد بررسی در این مقاله را، علاوه بر رویکرد تجویزی بسیاری از آثار آنان به هم می‌پیوندد، خردمندی ملاحظه‌کارانه یا «خویشتنداری» به عنوان عنصری بنیادین است. هنگامی که والتس از «میزان متناسب قدرت» سخن می‌گوید یا مرشایمر و والت لزوم اجتناب از تعارضات غیرضروری را مطرح می‌کنند، سنت دیرپای واقع‌گرایانه‌ای را منعکس می‌سازند که احتیاط و در نظر گرفتن منافع و واکنش دیگران را ضروری می‌داند.

نتیجه: بر اساس متون فلسفه علوم اجتماعی و دیدگاه خود واقع‌گرایان تعارضی میان علم‌گرا و ساختارگرا بودن و داشتن مواضع تجویزی وجود ندارد. نواقع‌گرایان نیز با فرض شکلی از عقلانیت به نقش کارگزار می‌رسند و رفتار مغایر او با عقل‌گرایی را مورد نقد قرار می‌دهند. در عین حال، این نگاه عقل‌گرایانه در عقلانیت هزینه-فایده محدود نمی‌شود و خردگرایی ملاحظه‌کارانه را نیز دربر می‌گیرد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
نوواقع‌گرایی
روابط بین‌الملل
علم‌گرایی
سیاستگذاری خارجی
نظریه تجویزی

عنوان مقاله English

Neorealism: From Explanation to Prescription

نویسنده English

Homeira Moshirzadeh
Professor, Department of International Relations, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran .
چکیده English

Introduction: Roughly six decades have passed since the emergence of neorealism/structural realism in International Relations. Throughout this period, scientifically oriented neorealists have intervened prescriptively in debates on foreign policy. Since some critics of neorealism consider its prescriptive implications to be inconsistent with its scientific and/or structuralist character and given that no comprehensive and independent discussion has yet been presented in response to this critique, this article seeks to demonstrate that such criticisms are not justified based on neorealism’s metatheoretical foundations. In response to the question of how neorealism’s metatheoretical premises justify these prescriptions, the article seeks to demonstrate that, based on the philosophy of social science, neorealism’s prescriptivism is consistent with its scientific structuralist approach.

Method: Text analysis was applied to texts on philosophy of social science (to elucidate the metatheoretical underpinnings of prescriptivism) and to neorealist relevant texts (to demonstrate how neorealists arrive from a structural theory to policy prescriptions).

Findings: Based on authoritative texts in the philosophy of social science, there is no inherent incompatibility between science and structuralism, on the one hand, and prescriptivism, on the other. Analysis of the writings of prominent neorealists also shows how they move from scientistic and structuralist foundations to specific foreign-policy prescriptions, grounded in the assumption of actor rationality. Even Waltz, despite emphasizing that his structural theory does not require the assumption of actor rationality, has in practice presumed a form of constructed rationality based on socialization—a point that constitutes one of this article’s innovations. Van Evera explicitly regards prescription as a necessary component of scientific inquiry and specifies the conditions under which it is useful. Misunderstandings that lead to misguided policies and failure stem from the limitations of state learning, and this very fact justifies the prescriptive dimension of IR theory. His own prescriptive writings reflect theoretical flexibility and a multidimensional perspective. Walt has repeatedly emphasized the importance of realist prescriptions for foreign policy. He has engaged extensively in foreign-policy debates/prescriptions and addressed the misperceptions and misunderstandings of American policymakers. Mearsheimer, who seeks to bridge the gap between realist theoretical discussions and the foreign policy of great powers, warns against dysfunctions and errors in U.S. foreign policy. He explicitly equates rational foreign policy with good foreign policy, which in turn requires him to critique irrationality in policy-makings. He draws policymakers’ attention to the “realities” that realism articulates about international politics in order to modify their behavior.

What unites the neorealists examined in this article, beyond the prescriptive approach evident in much of their work, is prudence or “restraint” as a fundamental element. When Waltz speaks of the proper amount of power, or when Mearsheimer and Walt stress the need to avoid unnecessary conflicts, they reflect a long-standing realist tradition that regards caution and consideration of others’ interests and reactions as essential.

Conclusion: Based on texts in the philosophy of social science and the views of the realists themselves, there is no conflict between scientific approach and structuralism, on the one hand, and offering prescriptions, on the other. Neorealists, by assuming a form of rationality, arrive at the role of agency and criticize behaviors that diverge from rationality. At the same time, this rationalist outlook is not confined to cost-benefit rationality but also encompasses prudence.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Neorealism
International Relations
scientific approach
foreign policymaking
prescriptive theory
 
References
‒     Barkin, Samuel (2009), “Realism, Prediction, and Foreign Policy.” Foreign Policy Analysis 5: 233-246.
‒     Bernstein, Richard J. (1976), The Restructuring of Social and Political Theory. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
‒     Bessner, Daniel and Nicolas Guilhot (2015), “How Realism Waltzed Off: Liberalism and Decision-Making in Kenneth Waltz's Neorealism.” International Security 40,2: 87-118. Doi:10.1162/ISEC_a_00217.
‒     Christensen, Thomas and Jack Snyder (1990), “Chain Gangs and Passed Bucks: Predicting Alliance Patterns in Multipolarity.” International Organization 44,2: 137-168.
‒     D’anieri, Paul (2019) “Magical Realism: Assumptions, Evidence and Prescriptions in the Ukraine Conflict.” Eurasian Geography and Economics. 60,1: 97-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2019.1627231
‒     Elman, Colin (1996), “Horses for Courses: Why Not Neorealist Theories of Foreign Policy?” Security Studies 6,1: 7-53.
‒     Elman, Miriam Fendius (1995), “Foreign Policies of Small States: Challenging Neorealism in Its Own Backyard.” British Journal of Political Science 25,2: 171-217.
‒     Feaver, Peter, Gunther Hellman, Randall L. Schweller, Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, William C. Wohlforth, Patrik Jackson (2000), “Correspondence: Brother, Can You Spare a Paradigm? (Or Was Anybody Ever a Realist?)” International Security 25,1: 165–193.
‒     Fey, B. (2004), Social Theory and Political Action. Translated by M. Zare. Tehran: Iran Publication Institute. [In Persian]
‒     Gilpin, Robert (1981), War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
‒     __________ (1986), “The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism,” in Robert Keohane, ed., Neorealism and Its Critics. New York: Columbia University Press: 301-320.
‒     Holsti, Ole R. (2000), “Theories of International Relations.” In World Politics: The Menu for Choice. Edited by Bruce Russett, Harvey Starr, and David Kinsella: 16-39. Wadsworth. Draft Used is Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289181824_Theories_of_international_relations. (Last Access 25 January 2025),
‒     Humphreys, Adam R. C. (2006), Kenneth Waltz and the Limits of Explanatory Theory in International Relations. PhD Dissertation. Oxford: University of Oxford.
‒     Jackson, Patrik (2011), The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of World Politics. London and New York: Routledge.
‒     Juneau, Thomas (2023), “Neoclassical Realism as a Theory for Correcting Mistakes: What State X Should Do Next.” International Studies Review 25, 3: https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad021
‒     Keck, Zachary (2012), “The Interview: Stephen M. Walt.” The Diplomat. Available at: https://thediplomat.com/2012/12/the-interview-stephen-m-walt/?allpages=yes. Last Access: 2/14/2026.
‒     Kent, George (1972), The Dimensionality of Nations Project. Research Report, 59. University of Hawaii.
‒     Kincaid, Harold (2023), “Positivism and Value Free Ideals in Political Science.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
‒     Kurki, Milja (2008), Causation in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
‒     Laroche, C. D. and S.F. Pratt (2018), “Kenneth Waltz Is Not a Neorealist (and Why that Matters).” European Journal of International Relations 24,1: 153-176. DOI: 10.1177/1354066117696561
‒     Lawson, Stephanie (2015), Theories of International Relations: Contending Approaches to World Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
‒     Lepgold, Joseph (1998), “Is Anyone Listening? International Relations Theory and the Problem of Policy Relevance.” Political Science Quarterly 113,1: 43-63.
‒     Little, D. (1994), Versions of Explanation in Social Sciences. Translated by. A. Soroosh. Tehran: Serat. [In Persian]
‒     Mearsheimer, John (1990), “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War.” International Security 15: 5-56. https://doi.org/10.2307/2538981.
‒     ______________ (1993), “The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent.” Foreign Affairs 72: 50-66.
‒     ______________ (2001), The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton.
‒     ______________ (2006), “China’s Unpeaceful Rise.” Current History 105: 160-162.
‒     ______________ (2009), “Reckless States and Realism.” International Relations 23,2: 241-256. DOI: 10.1177/0047117809104637.
‒     ______________ (2014), “Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault.” Foreign Affairs, 93,5: 77- 89.
‒     ______________ (2019), “Realism and Restraint.” Horizons: Journal of International Relations and Sustainable Development 14: 12-31.
‒     Mearsheimer, John and Stephen Walt (2014), Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy. Translated by R. Kamshad. Tehran: Farzan-e-rooz. [In Persian]
‒     Mearsheimer, John and Sebastian Rosato (2023), How States Think. New Haven: Yale University Press.
‒     Mearsheimer, John and Stephen Van Evera (1995), “When Peace Means War.” The New Republic (December 18) Available at: https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/A0023.pdf. Last Access: 2/15/2026.
‒     Morgenthau, H. (1995), Politics among Nations. Translated by H. Moshirzadeh. Tehran: IPIS. [In Persian]
‒     Moshirzadeh, Homeira (2026), “Hans Morgenthau and Foreign Policy Prescriptions.” Public Policy 12,2: 183-202 https://doi.org/10.22059/jppolicy.2026.10781[In Persian]
‒     Mouritzen, Hans (1997), “Kenneth Waltz: A Critical Rationalist between International Politics and Foreign Policy,” in Iver Neumann and Ole Wæver, eds., Future of International Relations: Masters in the Making? New York: Routledge.
‒     Princen, Thomas (1997), Towards a Theory of Restraint. Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 18,3:233-254.
‒     Ryan, A. (1994), Philosophy of Social Sciences. Translated by A. Soroosh. Tehran: Serat.[In Persian]
‒     Tanter, Raymond and Richard H. Ullman (1972), “Theory and Policy in International Relations.” World Politics 24: 3–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2010557
‒     Telhami, S. (2002), “Kenneth Waltz, Neorealism, and Foreign Policy.” Security Studies. 11,3:158-170. DOI: 10.1080/714005344
‒     Toft, Peter (2005), “John J. Mearsheimer: An Offensive Realist between Geopolitics and Power.” Journal of International Relations and Development 8:381-408.
‒     Van Evera, Stephen (1999), Causes of War: Power and the Roots of Conflict. Ithaca,NY: Cornell University Press.
‒     ______________ (2002), “Why States Believe Foolish Ideas?” Available at: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781403981707_9. Last Access: 2/15/2026.
‒     ______________ (2006), “American Foreign Policy for the New Era.” In How to Make America Safe: New Policies for National Security. Edited by Stephen Van Evera. Cambridge,MA: The Tobin Project: 87-96.
‒     ______________ (2006), “Assessing U.S. Strategy in the War on Terror.” Annals AAPSS, 607:1-7. DOI: 10.1177/0002716206291492.
‒     Venema, Dorien (2015), The Role of Prudence in IR Theory. MA Thesis. Nijmegen: Radboud University.
‒     Vetter, Eva (2000), Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis. Translated by Bryan Jenner. London: Sage.
‒     Walt Stephen M. (1985) “Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power.” International Security 9,4: 3-43. 0162-2889/85/040003-41.
‒     ___________ (1987), Origins of Alliance. New York: Cornell University Press.
‒     ___________ (1990), “Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and Security Studies.” International Security 23,4: 5-48. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2539293?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. Last Access: 1/27/2026.
‒     ___________ (2015), “Why Arming Kiev is a Really, Really Bad Idea.” Foreign Policy. Available at: http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/09/how-not-to-save ukrainearming-kiev-is-a-bad-idea/. Accessed on: 8-2-218.
‒     ___________ (2024), “America’s Polarization Is a Foreign Policy Problem, Too.” Foreign Policy Available at: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/11/americas-polarization-is-a-foreign-policy-problem-too/.
‒     ___________ (2005), “The Relationship between Theory and Policy in International Relations.” Annual Review of Political Science 8:23–48. Doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.012003.104904. 
‒     ___________ (2000), “Keeping the World Off Balance: Self Restraint and U.S. Foreign Policy.” Faculty Research Working Papers Series. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=253799.
‒     ___________ (2012), “Theory and Policy in International Relations: Some Personal Reflections.” Yale Journal of International Affairs 7,2: Page numbers not available.
‒     ___________ (2018), “US Grand Strategy after the Cold War: Can Realism Explain It? Should Realism Guide It?” International Relations 32,1: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117817753272
‒     Waltz, Kenneth (2019), Man, State, War. Translated by M.R. Rostami. Tehran: Sales. [In Persian]
‒     ___________ (1979), Theory of International Politics. New York: Random House.
‒     ___________ (2012), “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb.” Foreign Affairs 91: 2–5.
‒     “War with Iraq Is Not in the US National Interest” New York Times. Available at https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/War-with-Iraq-Is-Not-in-Americas-National-Interest.pdf (Last Access 10/15/2025),
‒     Wight, Colin (2007), “Philosophy of Social Sciences and International Relations.” In Handbook of International Relations. Edited by Walter Carlnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons. London: Sage: 23-51.
‒     Zarnett, David (2017), “What Does Realist Foreign Policy Activism Tell Us About Realist Theory?” Foreign Policy Analysis 13:618–637. Doi: 10.1111/fpa.12074.