No realist theory explains why states perceive some powers but not others as threats
Evidence
We would need a theory of threat perception (which neorealism does not provide) to answer the question of when powerful states are also seen as threats. Power-based approaches cannot tell us, for example, why Canada does not fear the United States. Threat-based approaches tell us that states perceived as having “aggressive intentions” will be seen as a threat and responded to; they do not tell us, however, what causes some to see certain states as being aggressive while others do not. — Robert B. McCalla, NATO’s persistence after the cold war, 61
Categorization
- QUESTION: The Canada-does-not-fear-the-US case is an unresolved puzzle worth chasing: why does proximity and power disparity not generate an alliance or buildup there? Could connect to theories of identity (liberal-democratic shared identity dampening threat perception).
- DEEPTHINKING: This naming of threat perception as the untheorized residual zeroes in on exactly the mechanism that would explain NATO’s persistence: once threat is perceptual and socially constructed rather than material, an organization that shapes perception can keep its reason for existing alive.
- XREF: connects to: Threat-based alliance logic holds only for non-institutionalized arrangements. — Robert B. McCalla, NATO’s persistence after the cold war, 157; States respond to perceived cultural-ideological threats, not raw power balances; Neorealist theories predict alliances collapse once their external threat fades. — Robert B. McCalla, NATO’s persistence after the cold war, 37
Related
- Realism explains alliance behavior under threat but fails without one. (similarity 0.85)
- All realists hold that external threats are necessary for alliances to form and persist (similarity 0.83)
- Neorealism cannot explain alliance persistence once threats vanish. (similarity 0.83)
- Threat-based alliance logic holds only for non-institutionalized arrangements. (similarity 0.83)
- Alliance theory predicts collapse once threats vanish. (similarity 0.82)
- Theories should be judged by explaining outcomes and causal mechanisms, which neorealism fails at (similarity 0.82)
- Deeply institutionalized alliances outlast ad hoc ones against realist expectations (similarity 0.82)
- Theoretical frameworks beyond realism are needed to explain NATO’s survival. (similarity 0.81)
- Neorealist theories predict alliances collapse once their external threat fades. (similarity 0.81)
- NATO survived the cold war’s end due to institutionalization, not merely threats (similarity 0.80)
- NATO stayed cohesive despite neorealist predictions of its collapse (similarity 0.80)
- Explaining alliance persistence requires nonrealist unit-level theory. (similarity 0.80)
- A theory must explain overall outcomes, the standard neorealism fails. (similarity 0.79)
- Alliance cohesion rises and falls with the external threat it balances (similarity 0.78)
- Neither neorealism nor institutionalism explains domestic support, an unwarranted omission. (similarity 0.78)