Emre Yildiz

Huntington and Waltz in International Relations Theories: Comparative Analysis in Search of an Adequate Model Emre Yildiz

Seminar paper from the year 2012 in the subject Politics - International Politics - General and Theories, grade: 1,00, Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH (School of Humanities and Social Sciences), course: Internationale Institutionen / International Institutions, language: English, comment: Comment of the instructor: The structure is very clear, and you included a well designed introduction and conclusion. The sections are very clear. Your citation style is basically good, but you could cite more often. The paper has a clear question and argument, and it is very readable. Your summaries and comparisons are correct and concise, and your arguments convincing. Structure and formal requirements (40%): 1,00 Content (60%): 1,00 Overall: 1,00 , abstract: A variety of theories were set forth to explain the way international politics works and give reasons why it does so. Among the contributors are Waltz and Huntington. However, both seem to have emphasized different factors as the decisive ones shaping politics and relations among nations. Hence, the question arises which view is more in line with reality with regard to contemporary politics. In this paper I will consider the question of whether Waltz' or Huntington's explanation is more adequate when examining contemporary international politics. Since the publication of their theories date, relatively speaking, a long way back, this paper would examine the applicability in time of their explanatory power. For this purpose, I will proceed as follows: First, I will briefly summarize the main ideas of Waltz and Huntington. Second, by comparing them I will point out their similarities and differences, respectively. Third, I will give reasons why Huntington is more in accordance with current politics. Lastly, I will briefly summarize the findings and point to further research