Security, neorealism, and the British Empire
Abstract
Why states engage in empire building is a question that realist theories of international relations should be well suited to answer. Imperialism encapsulates the very core of realism: the idea that power is paramount in accounting for state interaction. For an explanation to be useful, it should accurately describe and explain past state behavior. However, neorealist theories pay insufficient attention to the internal workings of states, suggesting instead that due to the anarchic nature of the international system, the hunt for greater security is the primary engine of state behavior. As such, neorealists often cannot capture the complexities of imperial expansion by emphasizing security maximizing behavior, nor has neorealist literature sufficiently specified the security variable itself. By looking inside the black box of internal politics instead of conceptualizing state behavior as monolithic and homogenous, it should be possible to assess the accuracy of the theory. Given realism's emphasis on great powers, in order to evaluate neorealism I examine several British decisions to expand or maintain their empire. If neorealists are correct, security concerns should be foremost among rationales identified for expansion. If they are not, which variables merit additional consideration in explaining imperialism?
Degree
Ph.D.
Advisors
Shimko, Purdue University.
Subject Area
Modern history|International Relations|International law
Off-Campus Purdue Users:
To access this dissertation, please log in to our
proxy server.