How the Possibility of Change Affects Change: The Unstable Nature of Domestic and Structural Pressures in Neoclassical Realism

This paper modifies, to some extent, 'Type III' of neoclassical realism. The current state of knowledge shows that states 'choose from a range of policy alternatives to navigate between systemic constraints and domestic political imperatives.' (Ripsman, Lobell, Taliaferro 2016: 34). This assumes that systemic and domestic constraints are constant at the moment of making decision. The first question is: are these factors really constant? The basic claim of this paper is that they are not. Change assumes modifications in systemic and domestic pressures already in the decision-making process. Three reasons are the most important. Firstly, the willingness to make a decision causes the likelihood of modification in systemic stimuli. This transition takes effect when the potential for change influences decision-makers so strongly that shifting their attitudes will generate an appropriate systemic pressure. In other words, if, according to other stats perceptions, a given decision will have an impact on the systemic transition, it will cause other states reactions to influence the systemic transition even before making a decision. Secondly, the change in the state of international system carried out in a relatively short period of time means a relative inconstancy of domestic pressures. The previous state of the international system (before the intention to make a decision appeared) could effectively preserve domestic pressures, limiting the possibility of making certain decisions. The change in the state of the system may make these domestic pressures irrelevant. The pressures to date may not limit the state's ability to implement certain decisions or may even turn out to be insignificant, which may change the state's position in the system. Thirdly, the relative interdependence of domestic pressures is also important. Changing the significance of one of the domestic pressures may cause an increase or decrease in the significance of other domestic pressures. It may also change the state possibilities and result in taking a different, previously impossible decision. The second question is: how does this affect the conceptualization of the relationship between domestic and structural variables? Three issues described above show that systemic constraints do not delimit domestic variables, but they are interconnected. This interconnection influences both types of constraints, changing the conditions in which their significance increases. This redefinition of relations between structural and domestic variables could make a significant contribution to theoretical analyzes of neoclassical realism.