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
Frieden, Jeffry A., David A. Lake, and Kenneth A. Schultz. World Politics. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2013. Print.
When exploring the relationships between nations, a number of conceptual models exist. Each model purports to explain and predict the interactions between international actors. Three of these schools of thought were initially enumerated in The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. (K. J. Holsti, 1985) These schools were the “Classical Paradigm”, “Theory of Global Society”, and the “Neo-Marxist” conceptual models. This paper will explore each of Kalevi Holsti’s three schools of thought and the unique advantages and disadvantages of each. Through the exploration of each, this paper will determine which model provides the most accurate conceptual framework for understanding and interpreting the current reality of international relations.
Shiraev, Eric B., and Vladislav M. Zubok. International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Since the end of the Cold war and collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the concept of sovereignty has begun to disappear from modern day international relations. Sovereignty refers to a state’s ultimate political authority over its given territory and that external to this there’s no higher authority that states must obey nor recognise (Baylis.J, Smith.S, Owens.P. 2011). The notion of sovereignty is a key factor of the theory of realism (Neufeld.M. 1998), and is heavily interlinked with the theory’s key perceptions of non-intervention and self-help (Baylis.J, Smith.S, Owens.P. 2011) – ideas that will be examined throughout this essay, and used as a means to prove the lack of sovereignty present in the international
Schmidt, B. C. (2007). Realism and facets of power in international relations. In F. Berenskoetter & M. J. D. Williams (Eds.), Power in world politics (pp. 43-63). London: Routledge.
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.
National security undeniably has a preponderant place in the political, economical and military agenda of each state. Therefore, the state has a paramount responsibility in the contexts of its own domestic and transnational security. Whatever may be the way the state adopts in order to protect itself and its citizens, it needs to be accord with an international system. In this sense the state tends to follow a specific model in terms of international relations. Focuses in the case of western societies in general, and more specifically the United States as the iconic model of the western world, states tend to favour a realist perspective in terms of national security. Albeit, what is exactly the realism theory in the national security field? According to Glaser the realist view proposes the achievement of most high standard quality of national security focused on the acquisition of superior grades of power among the relative states sparking the idea of the presence of an anarchical international system .
Realism is one of the important perspectives on global politics, it is a notion about the conservative society and political philosophy (Heywood 2011: 54; Shimko 2013: 36). Besides, Gilpin (1996) claims that “realism…, it is not a scientific theory that is subject to the test of falsifiability, therefore, cannot be proved and disproved.” (Frankel 1996: xiii). The components of the realist approach to international relations will be discussed.
Moore, B (1967). Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 433-442.
Doyle, Michael W. and G. John Ikenberry, eds. (1997) New Thinking in International Relations Theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Pres.
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
While some may argue that a state-centric international system is apt for non-state actors, since to attain a foreseeable future, they need to comprehend the state system and how to operate within it. This structure is weakening as non-state actors are increasing their influence in conflicts and challenging the international order founded upon the power of states. The openness of commercial markets and the weakening territorial sovereignty has limited the state’s monopoly of power asserted by structural realists. In Structural Realism After the Cold War, Kenneth Waltz alleges that, “If the conditions that a theory contemplated have changed, the theory no longer applies.” Theories and traditions in international relations must become more comprehensive if society intends to tackle the conflicts of the 21st century more effectively in the future.
The discipline of international relations (IR) contains several theories that contain theoretical perspectives to the idea of power. Within the realist perspective there are two approaches that help paint the portrait of the realist theory, the classical approach to realism and the neo-realist approach. Classical realism and neorealism both have been subjected to criticism from IR scholars and theorists representing liberal and constructivist perspectives. The key tenets to realism contain three essential characteristics of international relations which are the state, anarchy and the balance of power. This essay will closely analyse all three characteristics with special regards to power being central to the realist perspective.
Baylis, Smith and Patricia Owens. 2014. The globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations. London. Oxford University Press.
There are three main arguments concerning the discussion over the amount of power regimes have in the international system. The neo-realist argument is the first one where regimes are not merely considered as inadequate, but sometimes deceptive. This perspective is regarded as conventional structural. Keohane and Stein support the second argument, which states that regimes have certain worth, but only under particular conditions. Finally, the Grotian argument perceives regimes as an essential, secondary phenomenon feature of human nature. The connection of international and domestic stakeholders, through benefits, influence, standards, societies, and knowledge lead to the likely development of regimes.