Competition Under the Security Dilemma

Abstract The security dilemma is one of the most famous concepts in international politics. Yet questions remain about its causes and consequences. Specifically: How often are great powers under the security dilemma? How do they behave when they are under the security dilemma? This article offers a structural realist theory of the security dilemma to answer these questions. The central argument is that great powers are always under the security dilemma, and this almost invariably causes them to compete with one another more or less intensely for the means to security. This understanding is in stark contrast to the conventional view, captured by offense-defense theory, which finds that there are various conditions under which great powers can escape from under the security dilemma or cooperate in spite of it. An analysis of the logic of the two theories and a review of the historical record from 1871 to 1990 demonstrate that structural realism offers a better understanding of the security dilemma than offense-defense theory.