Answer the questions on Neorealism and its (reluctant) critics
1. After reading the article “Is anybody still a realist?” what are your thoughts on creating a “new paradigm” for realism?
2. What does the author suggest creates the unity within neorealism?
3. What are the key differences in realism vs neorealism?
4. Is neorealism an improvement on classical realism?
5. According to critics, Waltz defect in his approach lacks a historicist approach and it more-so ahistorical. When it comes to international relations theory and practice, pg 244 talks about choosing between two approaches (problem solving and critical purpose), which of these approaches/theory provides more room for development?
6. Would you describe neorealism as a social science or diplomatic practice?
7.Do you think theory and practice are interconnected, if so to what degree, or are they/should they be separate?
