ABSTRACT
The core theoretical argument of Miller (2010) is based on the assertion that like (neo)realism which has both a defensive and offensive branches, such a distinction is also applicable to (neo)liberalism. In this respect, Miller traces two main criteria that distinguish between explanations of security and peace. The first is whether an actor achieves peace through influencing other actors’ capabilities (i.e. the balance of power) or through influencing their intentions and domestic character. This criterion according to Miller distinguishes between the realist approaches and the liberal ones. In addition, the second criterion that helps to distinguish among approaches to security and peace is how military force is used. The offensive approaches support the unilateral employment of maximal force. Conversely, the defensive approaches support the multilateral employment of minimal force. Based on these elements Miller differentiates among four approaches:
