There are two—and only two—fundamental positions on how to cope with the fear that is derived from the uncertainty over others’ intentions in international relations (IR) literature. Because these two positions cannot be deduced from other bedrock assumptions within the different IR approaches, the two positions should be taken as an additional bedrock assumption. The first position, held by offensive realism, insists that states should assume the worst over others’ intentions, thus essentially eliminating the uncertainty about others’ intentions. The second position, held by a more diverse bunch of non-offensive realism theories, insists that states should not always assume the worst over others’ intentions and that states can and should take measures to reduce uncertainty about each others intentions and thus fear. These two different assumptions are quintessential for the logic of the different theoretical approaches and underpin some of the fundamental differences between offensive realism on the one side and non-offensive realism theories on the other side. Making the two positions explicit helps us understand IR theories and makes dialogues among non-offensive realism theories possible.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 102 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.