A realist would posit that war is linked with human behavior, so wars are naturally occurring phenomena, and also that the system of anarchy resulting from the absence of a higher power leads to a state of war (Lisinkski). So realism offers a rather cynical explanation: we are destined to wage wars, since all politics is a struggle for both power and survival. Wars may be fought either to protect or expand security of... ... middle of paper ... ... but also than any other theory. Its focus on social factors and importance of ideas allows it to address problems that are not even in the scope of other theories. Additionally, the example of liberalism, Christianity, and socialism, among others, prove that ideas and ideologies can really change the world – as was already mentioned, a core belief of constructivism.
There is a non-linear relationship of power between the plural perspectives of realism. Realists consider states to be the principal actors in international relations as they are deeply concerned with the security of their own nation especially for the pursuit of national interest. However with this perspective there has been some scepticism with regards to the relevancy of morality and ethi... ... middle of paper ... ... anarchy to be autonomous via threats, coercion and by ‘soft power’. Using coercion is hard power. Persuasion and attraction is soft power.
The human condition and its significance to International Relations have been in debate for centuries. Classical Realist thought has focused on the inherently aggressive and selfish nature of man and assumed that it is these qualities that ensure war and conflict are inevitable aspects of human society. Alternatively, neo-realism emphasises the system structure of international politics. R.J. McShea discusses the significance of the human nature tradition throughout the study of international relations. The endeavour to rid the world of the evil of war and the advancement of the conditions for peace have been developed from the assumption that the interaction of the states, and the way they ought to conduct relations among themselves, are dependent upon the nature of man.
Utilizing an absence of conflict between democratic nations as the basis for the theory, Spiro identifies that proponents of Democratic Peace assert two aspects of the theory (Spiro, 1994). One is an institutional or structural belief, whereby such factors as public opinion, or checks and balances amongst the government constrain the likelihood of war. The other, is an ideological belief, whereby the liberal values of such regimes strive for peaceful interactions and constrain conflict. Democratic Peace Theory would therefore discredit the realist perspectives for interstate conflict which focus upon a sovereign state’s strategic interest within an anarchic world sphere. The theory has achieved status of dogma in many circles, but nevertheless has its share of critics who subscribe to the realist theory such as David Spiro and Bruce Russett.
Hobbes logically argues from the premises of human nature–equal, egotistic, and competitive–to the resultant universal war. However, his controversial solution to escape the state of nature in the form of an absolute sovereign, in combination with Locke’s advocation of an optimistic view of humanity, create dubious impressions of the “Leviathan’s” soundness. Nonetheless, Hobbes’ creation of a social contract will undoubtedly influence many modern political philosophers. Works Cited Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan, edited Edwin Curley.
Liberalism and Globalization For the most part, liberalism is a reaction to the realist issue of insurgency. Realists contend that security quandary will result if there is no central control in a revolutionary system. In the end, an offset of power might be unavoidable. Liberalists, then again, are idealistic and contend that there is potential concordance of interest between states, and cooperation are conceivable so common additions could be attained. This is dependent upon the essential suspicion that all states are levelheaded and comprehend their interest.
Despite the emergence of alternative approaches, realism remains the dominant theoretical perspective towards world politics. Realism is the traditional path that emphasizes the centrality of the state on the world stage and the pursuit of national self-interest above all else. Realism tends to be extremely pessimistic, hence the influencers of realism: Thomas Hobbes and Hans Morgenthau believe that humans by nature are selfish, aggressive, violent, unlikely to change, and that conflict is inevitable. Why have people become like that? What are major predictions by realism?
It seems that there is a development in the trend of conflicts, not cooperation. The two prominent schools of thought, Realism and Idealism, both identify conflict as the main issue in international relations. For Realists, war is the product of the states’ competition for power; therefore, war is unavoidable. On the other hand, Idealists believes that war is the product of socio-economics inequality and the interest of the monarchy. It is difficult to address a single cause of war.
In conclusion, the theory of perpetual democracy is based on tangible pillar but upon analysis, relativity, uncertainty and vagueness present themselves hence the criticism. It lacks uniformity in defining the key principles of democracy and liberalism despite being in line with the modern world where countries want inclusion in efforts to become globalized. To end my argument, the theory can be said to be a double-edged sword whereby it can lead to peace or justify war. With more succinct and clear definitions, the theory is okay in a modern world.
Both of these are international relations theories. International relations theories aid the individual in better understanding why states behave the way in which they do and “several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize” (Slaughter 1). That being said, to understand offensive neorealism, one must firstly be able to know the basis of realism in itself, as well as differentiate neorealism from neoclassical realism. Stephen G. Brooks argues in his article “Dueling Realisms” that both “neorealism and postclassical realism do share important similarities: both have a systemic focus; both are state-centric; both view international politics as inherently competitive; both emphasize material factors, rather than nonmaterial factors, such as ideas and institutions; and both assume states are egoistic actors that pursue self-help” (Brooks 446). Structural realism is another term for neorealism, and both will be used interchangeably in the following case study.