| . |
Stephen M. Walt's
Scholarly Papers
Click on the title of any column to sort the table by that
column. |
|
|
| |
|
|
Aggregate Statistics |
|
Total Downloads
10,597 |
Total
Citations
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
1.
|
|
|
John J. Mearsheimer University of Chicago - Department of Political Science Stephen M. Walt Harvard University - John F. Kennedy School of Government
|
| Posted: |
|
15 Mar 06
|
|
Last Revised:
|
|
27 Jul 07
|
|
10,275 (65)
|
2
|
|
| |
Abstract:
The centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy is its intimate relationship with Israel. Though often justified as reflecting shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, the U.S. commitment to Israel is due primarily to the activities of the "Israel Lobby." This paper describes the various activities that pro-Israel groups have undertaken in order to shift U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction.
International Affairs, Globalization, International Security, Political Science
|
|
|
2.
|
|
|
Stephen M. Walt Harvard University - John F. Kennedy School of Government
|
| Posted: |
|
12 Dec 00
|
|
Last Revised:
|
|
20 Oct 08
|
|
322 (25,220)
|
|
|
| |
Abstract:
The United States now enjoys a position of preponderance unseen since the Roman Empire. Not surprisingly, the past decade has produced a lively debate on U.S. grand strategy, with different authors offering sharply contrasting advice on how the United States should respond to its position as the sole remaining superpower. This paper considers one element of this debate: will U.S. preponderance trigger a defensive backlash by other states? Part I examines why states tend to balance against other states, and argues that structural balance of power theory cannot explain why efforts to balance U.S. power have been remarkably weak since the end of the Cold War. Part II considers alternative explanations for the absence of any serious attempt to balance U.S. power, and argues that a combination of balance-of-threat theory and the theory of collective goods offers the best explanation for the dearth of balancing behavior. Part III lays out a set of prescriptions based on these theoretical insights, emphasizing in particular the need for a policy of self-restraint. The conclusion offers several caveats to these recommendations and identifies issues that merit further investigation.
|
|