10
Offensive realism can provide an explanation for how energy resources are influential in the foreign policy of exporters of energy supplies to the extent that these
energy supplies are utilized to enhance military readiness and defense power. This
theory cannot account for the positive outcomes of energy diplomacy when the military power is of a country is weak. As a result, since more energy supplies are utilized to enhance economic capabilities, this theory is faced with a lot of analytical
weakness; in other words, based on this theory, there is no direct dependence
between the amount of energy reserves under the control of a country or there is no
trade in energy and military power. In addition, invasive realism is incapable of
explaining the role of energy supplies when utilized as a means to strengthen its
impact both politically and diplomatically. In addition, this theory cannot account
for the function of energy supplies in the international relations of the importing or
transferring countries of energy, and because with these categories states are not
able to use energy supplies in international relations, explaining the position of
these supplies requires the use of defensive realism theory (Shirkhani and Mohajer
Pour 2012:27–28).
Waltz takes pains to avoid any philosophical dimensions in his theory, such as
discussions of human nature, and rather, aimed to establish a theory of international
politics similar to microeconomics (www.stanford.edu 2017). Waltz (1997:93) considers that:
…states in the international system are like firms in a domestic economy and have the same
fundamental interest: to survive. “Internationally, the environment of states’ actions, or the
structure of their system, is set by the fact that some states prefer survival over other ends
obtainable in the short run and act with relative efficiency to achieve that end.
Waltz goes on to explain the reason underlying the fact that cooperation is
restricted by a chaotic international system:
…. insecurity and unequal gains. In an anarchic situation, uncertainties regarding intentions
of other people exist in every state. Moreover, people fear that benefits that may be attained
from acting cooperatively could be more to the benefit of other states than itself, and this
could lead to be dependent on others (www.stanford.edu 2017). States do not become
increasingly dependent on other states out of their own will. In a self-help system, the
demand for security makes political interest more important than economic gain. (www.
stanford.edu 2017)
According to John Mearsheimer (www.mearsheimer.uchicago.edu, 2017) of the
school of offensive structural theory which Waltz’ work responds to, takes the claim
that states seek power as a fact acted upon according to a number of assumptions:
It is initially assumed that great powers are the most influential states in world politics, and
that they function in an anarchic manner. It is also assumed that every state in the world has
a military power capable of attacking other states. Another assumption is that no state can
definitely know what other states intend to do. However, states do want to have an idea
about whether or not other states—revisionist states—are decided to apply force in order to
change the balance of power, or whether or not other states—status quo states—are content
with the existent balance of power and thus do not intent to change it by applying force. The
fourth assumption made is that the primary aim of states is to survive. Finally, it is assumed
that states are logical and produce firm strategies to enhance their chances for survival.
1 Theoretical Framework
Offensive realism can provide an explanation for how energy resources are influential in the foreign policy of exporters of energy supplies to the extent that these
energy supplies are utilized to enhance military readiness and defense power. This
theory cannot account for the positive outcomes of energy diplomacy when the military power is of a country is weak. As a result, since more energy supplies are utilized to enhance economic capabilities, this theory is faced with a lot of analytical
weakness; in other words, based on this theory, there is no direct dependence
between the amount of energy reserves under the control of a country or there is no
trade in energy and military power. In addition, invasive realism is incapable of
explaining the role of energy supplies when utilized as a means to strengthen its
impact both politically and diplomatically. In addition, this theory cannot account
for the function of energy supplies in the international relations of the importing or
transferring countries of energy, and because with these categories states are not
able to use energy supplies in international relations, explaining the position of
these supplies requires the use of defensive realism theory (Shirkhani and Mohajer
Pour 2012:27–28).
Waltz takes pains to avoid any philosophical dimensions in his theory, such as
discussions of human nature, and rather, aimed to establish a theory of international
politics similar to microeconomics (www.stanford.edu 2017). Waltz (1997:93) considers that:
…states in the international system are like firms in a domestic economy and have the same
fundamental interest: to survive. “Internationally, the environment of states’ actions, or the
structure of their system, is set by the fact that some states prefer survival over other ends
obtainable in the short run and act with relative efficiency to achieve that end.
Waltz goes on to explain the reason underlying the fact that cooperation is
restricted by a chaotic international system:
…. insecurity and unequal gains. In an anarchic situation, uncertainties regarding intentions
of other people exist in every state. Moreover, people fear that benefits that may be attained
from acting cooperatively could be more to the benefit of other states than itself, and this
could lead to be dependent on others (www.stanford.edu 2017). States do not become
increasingly dependent on other states out of their own will. In a self-help system, the
demand for security makes political interest more important than economic gain. (www.
stanford.edu 2017)
According to John Mearsheimer (www.mearsheimer.uchicago.edu, 2017) of the
school of offensive structural theory which Waltz’ work responds to, takes the claim
that states seek power as a fact acted upon according to a number of assumptions:
It is initially assumed that great powers are the most influential states in world politics, and
that they function in an anarchic manner. It is also assumed that every state in the world has
a military power capable of attacking other states. Another assumption is that no state can
definitely know what other states intend to do. However, states do want to have an idea
about whether or not other states—revisionist states—are decided to apply force in order to
change the balance of power, or whether or not other states—status quo states—are content
with the existent balance of power and thus do not intent to change it by applying force. The
fourth assumption made is that the primary aim of states is to survive. Finally, it is assumed
that states are logical and produce firm strategies to enhance their chances for survival.
1 Theoretical Framework