Download - LSE Theses Online - London School of Economics and ...

ethics may underpin the same foreign policy outcome. 161 As a practical measure,furthermore, he argues that “(a)ny judgement about the ethical status of a particularforeign policy programme has to be made in the round, and not simply in onearea”. 162A neoclassical realist framework does not exclude internationalism, to the extentthat internationalism may be regarded as both a feature of domestic ideology, usedfor placating political allies domestically, and as a tool for building followershipinternationally. It may simply be regarded as another instrument of internationalpolicy, and a vehicle for the pursuit of self-interested goals.Scholars in the neoclassical realist tradition, carrying the mantle of classical realism,have made great strides in furthering understanding about how ideas and power areoften inseparable components of foreign policy, by focusing on unit-level andsystem-level influences on foreign policy outcomes. These themes are examined inthe following section.3.2. Neoclassical realism: Conceptual and Theoretical IssuesNeoclassical realism represents an attempt to synthesise the strengths of classicalrealism and neorealism in a parsimonious theory of foreign policy that may beapplied to states of any size or ranking in the international hierachy. Althoughneoclassical realism utilises realism’s focus on the anarchical state system as the keydeterminant of foreign policy, it includes a more open approach to the roles ofperception and domestic politics than does the traditional neorealist position. Itsadherents emphasise that neoclassical realism is not a theory of internationalpolitics. Instead, it is a theory of foreign policy analysis. Neoclassical realism seeksprecisely to re-insert the state between systemic dynamics – such as the relativedistribution of power - and foreign policy outcomes. Its assumptions about thestate, in turn, derive primarily from classical realism. This is so because neoclassical161 Chris Brown, “Ethics, interests and foreign policy”, in Ethics and Foreign Policy, eds.,Smith, Karen E. and Margot Light (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001): 21-23.162 Ibid., 29.86