Курапов А.Е. Место школы неореализма в науке о международных отношениях

Научная статья
УДК 327:7.037.7
https://doi.org/10.24158/pep.2026.3.13
 

Место школы неореализма в науке о международных отношениях

 
Андрей Евгеньевич Курапов
Российская академия народного хозяйства и государственной службы
при Президенте Российской Федерации (РАНХиГС), Москва, Россия,
kurapov-ae@ranepa.ru, https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4240-9997
 
Аннотация. Статья посвящена анализу места школы неореализма в современной науке о международных отношениях. Рассматривается теоретический вклад К. Уолтца в концептуализацию подхода, включая разработку теории баланса сил и концепции анархии как организующего принципа системы. Анализируется внутренняя дифференциация неореализма на оборонительное и наступательное направления, а также основные линии критики подхода со стороны альтернативных школ мысли в области международных отношений. Особое внимание уделяется объяснительному потенциалу неореалистических концепций применительно к трансформации международной системы в 2010–2020-е гг., включая американо-китайское соперничество, кризис либерализма и российско-украинский конфликт. Демонстрируется сохраняющаяся релевантность неореализма как специализированного теоретического инструмента для анализа великодержавной конкуренции и структурных ограничений поведения государств в условиях трансформации международного порядка.
Ключевые слова: неореализм, структурный реализм, теория международных отношений, баланс сил, великодержавная конкуренция, дилемма безопасности, трансформация международной системы
Финансирование: инициативная работа.
Для цитирования: Курапов А.Е. Место школы неореализма в науке о международных отношениях // Общество: политика, экономика, право. 2026. № 3. С. 98–105. https://doi.org/10.24158/pep.2026.3.13.

Original article
 

The Place of the Neorealism in the International Relations Science

 
Andrei E. Kurapov
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy
and Public Administration (RANEPA), Moscow, Russia,
kurapov-ae@ranepa.ru, https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4240-9997
 
Abstract. The article analyzes the place of the neorealism in contemporary international relations theory. It examines K. Waltz’s theoretical contribution to the conceptualization of the approach, including the development of balance of power theory and the concept of anarchy as the organizing principle of the system. The internal differentiation of neorealism into defensive and offensive directions is analyzed, along with the main lines of criticism of the approach from alternative schools of thought in international relations. Particular attention is paid to the explanatory potential of neorealist concepts in relation to the transformation of the international system in the 2010s–2020s, including US – China rivalry, the crisis of liberalism, and the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. The continuing relevance of neorealism is demonstrated as a specialized theoretical tool for analyzing great power competition and structural constraints on state behavior in conditions of international order transformation.
Keywords: neorealism, structural realism, international relations theory, balance of power, great power competition, security dilemma, transformation of the international system
Funding: Independent work.
For citation: Kurapov, A.E. (2026) The Place of the Neorealism in the International Relations Science. Society: Politics, Economics, Law. (3), 98–105. Available from: doi:10.24158/pep.2026.3.13 (In Russian).

© Курапов А.Е., 2026

Список источников:
 
Ashley R.K. The Poverty of Neorealism // International Organization. 1984. Vol. 38, iss. 2. P. 225–286. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818300026709.
Blackwill R., Harris J. War by Other Means: Geoeconomics and Statecraft. Cambridge, 2016. 384 p. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674545960.
Brooks S.G. Dueling Realisms // International Organization. 1997. Vol. 51, iss. 3. P. 445–477.
Carr E.H. The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919–1939. An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. L., 1981. 244 p.
Ikenberry G.J. After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars. Princeton, 2001. 320 p. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400823963.
Keohane R. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, 1984. 320 p.
Kristensen P.M. International Relations at the End: A Sociological Autopsy // International Studies Quarterly. 2018. Vol. 62, iss. 2. P. 245–259. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqy002.
Lebow R.N. The Long Peace, the End of the Cold War, and the Failure of Realism // International Organization. 1994. Vol. 48, iss. 2. P. 249–277. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818300028186.
Legro J.W., Moravcsik A. Is Anybody Still a Realist? // International Security. 1999. Vol. 24, iss. 2. P. 5-55. https://doi.org/10.1162/016228899560130.
Mearsheimer J. The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities. New Haven, 2018. 324 p. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv5cgb1w.
Mearsheimer J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. N.Y., 2001. 529 p.
Mearsheimer J. Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault // Foreign Affairs. 2014. Vol. 93, iss. 5. P. 1–12.
Morgenthau H. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. N.Y., 1948. 489 p.
Schweller R., Pu X. After Unipolarity: China’s Visions of International Order in an Era of U.S. Decline // International Security. 2011. Vol. 36, iss. 1. Pp. 41–72. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00044.
Walt S.M. The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, 1987. 321 p.
Waltz K. Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis. N.Y., 1959. 114 p.
Waltz K. Theory of International Politics. Boston, 1979. 256 p.
Wendt A. Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics // International Organization. 1992. Vol. 46, iss. 2. P. 391–425. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818300027764.
 
References:
 
Ashley, R.K. (1984) The Poverty of Neorealism. International Organization. 38 (2), 225–286. Available from: doi:10.1017/s0020818300026709.
Blackwill, R. & Harris, J. (2016) War by Other Means: Geoeconomics and Statecraft. Cambridge. 384 p. Available from: doi:https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674545960/
Brooks, S.G. (1997) Dueling Realisms. International Organization. 51 (3), P. 445–477.
Carr, E.H. (1981) The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919–1939. An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. London. 244 p.
Ikenberry, G.J. (2001) After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars. Princeton. 320 p. Available from: doi:10.1515/9781400823963.
Keohane, R. (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton. 320 p.
Kristensen, P.M. (2018). International Relations at the End: A Sociological Autopsy. International Studies Quarterly. 62 (2), 245–259. Available from: doi:10.1093/isq/sqy002.
Lebow, R.N. (1994) The Long Peace, the End of the Cold War, and the Failure of Realism. International Organization. 48 (2), 249–277. Available from: doi:10.1017/s0020818300028186.
Legro, J.W. & Moravcsik, A. (1999) Is Anybody Still a Realist? International Security. 24 (2), 5–55. Available from: doi:10.1162/016228899560130.
Mearsheimer J. (2018) The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities. New Haven. 324 p. Available from: doi:10.2307/j.ctv5cgb1w.
Mearsheimer, J. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York. 529 p.
Mearsheimer, J. (2014) Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault. Foreign Affairs. 93 (5), 1–12.
Morgenthau, H. (1948) Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York. 489 p.
Schweller, R. & Pu, X. (2011) After Unipolarity: China’s Visions of International Order in an Era of U.S. Decline. International Security. 36 (1), 41–72. Available from: doi:10.1162/isec_a_00044.
Walt, S.M. (1987). The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca. 321 p.
Waltz, K. (1959) Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis. New York. 114 p.
Waltz, K. (1979) Theory of International Politics. Boston. 256 p.
Wendt, A. (1992) Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization. 46 (2), 391–425. Available from: doi:10.1017/s0020818300027764.