Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Strengths and weaknesses of Realism in international relations
Strengths and weaknesses of Realism in international relations
Critique of realism in international relations
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Polities, Authority, Identities and Change yielded after more than 20 years of productive cooperation of Yale H. Ferguson and Richard W. Mansbach. Several years before publishing Policies, in their previous book The Elusive Quest: Theory and International Politics, Ferguson and Mansbach exposed the need for displaying an alternative approach to perceiving and interpreting relations among different polities, which served as a foundation for this book. (Ferguson & Mansbach, 1988). This fourth collaborative book came into light of the day as the reaction to the perceived increasing disparity between international relations academic knowledge (theory) and international relations practice (reality), which international relations theory aims to explicate. These noted scholars question the framework of the Westphalian model of territorially bounded sovereign nation-states and share the opinion that the lack of forceful opponent led to continuous supremacy of the realism as “grand theory”. This situation promoted the model of the world based on the mainstream European tradition of power politics with main focus on structural determinants and states-as-actors, which had many weak points. In both authors’ opinion, these flaws had erosive effect on academic knowledge of international relations. Hence, both authors share sceptical view on how contemporary essential issues in international relations might be presented in the light of realism view. Their concern was focused on the practitioners and their view of the world moulded by the dominant theory: “It is no exaggeration to suggest that ordinary citizens who follow the daily news may have a better picture of the way the world actually works than the vast majority of blinkered IR theorists"...
... middle of paper ...
...omizing indeed widely divergent political systems with different political experiences. (McNeill, 1997).
Works Cited
Ferguson, Y. H. and Mansbach, R. W. (1996). Polities: Authority, Identities, and Change. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Ferguson, Y. H. and Mansbach, R. W. (1988). The Elusive Quest: Theory and International Politics. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
McNeill, W. H. (1997). Territorial States Buried Too Soon. Mershon International Studies Review, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 269-274. Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The International Studies Association. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/222670 Accessed: 21/10/2011 14:29
Cioffi-Revilla, C. (2001). Polities: Authority, Identities, and Change. (Review). American Political Science Review. URL: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-73021487.html Accessed: 21/10/2013
New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Shiraev, Eric B., and Vladislav M. Zubok. International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Silver, Larry.
Edkins, Jenny, and Maja Zehfuss. Global Politics: A New Introduction. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2009. Print.
Mearsheimer J. J. (2010). Structural Realism. International Relations Thoeries, Discipline and Diversity (Second Edition), p.77-94
Understanding the World ‘We’ Live in’, International Affairs, Vol. 80, No. I, (2004) pp. 75-87.
Mingst, Karen A., and Jack L. Snyder. Essential Readings in World Politics. N.p.: W.W. Norton, 2013. Print.
Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand [cited 12 September 2011]. Available from: http://www.questiaschool.com>. US Department of State.
The prominent scholar of Political Science, Kenneth N. Waltz, founder of neorealism, has proposed controversial realist theories in his work. Publications such as "Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis", "Theory of International Politics” and “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate,” demonstrate how Waltz's approach was motivated by the American military power. In acquaintance of this fact, the purpose of this paper is to critically analyze Waltz theoretical argument from the journal "Structural Realism after the Cold War". Firstly, this paper will indicate the author's thesis and the arguments supporting it. Secondly, limitations found in theoretical arguments will be illustrated and thirdly, synergies between the author's thesis and this analysis will be exposed.
In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst countries. Liberalism provides a theory that predominantly explains how states can collaborate in order to promote global peace; however, as wars have been analyzed, for example World War II, the causes of them are better explained by Neo-realist beliefs on the balance of power and states acting as unitary actors. Thus, looking out for their own self interest and security.
The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.
Jones, W. T. Masters of Political Thought. Ed. Edward, McChesner, and Sait. Vol. 2. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1947.
Balaam, David. Introduction to International Political Economy, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Pearson Education, 2005.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
The international system is an anarchical system which means that, unlike the states, there is no over ruling, governing body that enforces laws and regulations that all states must abide by. The International System in today’s society has become highly influential from a number of significant factors. Some of these factors that will be discussed are Power held by the state, major Wars that have been fought out in recent history and international organisations such as the U.N, NATO and the W.T.O. Each of these factors, have a great influence over the international system and as a result, the states abilities to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development”.
Some theorists view social interactions as an exchange of objective and subjective power (Benford & Hunt, 1992, p. 3), with social movements being created for the purpose of restructuring an imbalance in social, political, and economic power, or the way in which such power is used (Lukes 1974, pp. 24-5). The dramaturgy theory agrees that the focus of a social movement is the amendment or transformation of power relations, and goes even farther by suggesting that leaders of said movements are responsible for developing new and alternate possibilities for current power relations, and must persuade members that they are capable of generating change (Benford & Hunt, 1992, pp. 3-6). Thus, the effectiveness, quality, and sustainability of
Moore, B (1967). Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 433-442.