Realism explains alliance behavior under threat but fails without one.

Evidence

Clearly, in the context of a high or growing threat environment, realist expectations will prevail. The argument presented here suggests that only in the context of an institutionalized alliance and a declining threat environment will these expectations not apply. — Robert B. McCalla, NATO’s persistence after the cold war, 157

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Explaining alliance persistence requires nonrealist unit-level theory. — Robert B. McCalla, NATO’s persistence after the cold war, 16; Alliance theory predicts collapse once threats vanish. — Robert B. McCalla, NATO’s persistence after the cold war, 14; All realists hold that external threats are necessary for alliances to form and persist — Robert B. McCalla, NATO’s persistence after the cold war, 33 (+12 more)

Broader Connections

• Alliances may persist through habit and precaution after threats recede #complicates (0.92) — Robert B. McCalla, NATO’s persistence after the cold war, 61
• Deeply institutionalized alliances outlast ad hoc ones against realist expectations #complicates (0.90) — Robert B. McCalla, NATO’s persistence after the cold war, 161
• Neorealist theories predict alliances collapse once their external threat fades. #corroborates (0.88) — Robert B. McCalla, NATO’s persistence after the cold war, 37
• Both realism and institutionalism ignore the domestic prerequisites of alliance costs #expands (0.80) — Robert B. McCalla, NATO’s persistence after the cold war, 139
• A shared enemy cannot hold alliance partners whose ambitions conflict #qualifies (0.78) — Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the…, 881
• Systemic realism and active political commitment can coexist rather than exclude each other #qualifies (0.72)