“International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power.” The best way to explain emergence of international order and their change is through the application of the theory of realism in international relations. Thereby, International order refers thereby to the structure, functioning, and nature of the international political system or world politics. It describes basic pattern of interactions among nation-states. In particular, states are determined through four essential features: territory, population, effective government, and sovereignty. More importantly, the basic concept behind realism is the pursuit of nations for power. Gaining and maintaining power is the only guarantee for nation’s security. States are confronted with …show more content…
Nazi-German’s ultimate goal was to become a regional hegemon. At the same time, Hitler’s violation of the Treaty of Versailles, the annexation of Austria and incorporation of Czechoslovakian Sudetenland are arguably the evidence of securing Germany’s survival as a state. Through the war with Poland and Western Europe Germany gained territory and enlarged their relative power clearly on the expense of the defeated states and Great Britain. The war with Russia in 1941 was aimed at enlarging Germans territory; “Lebensraum (living space for German population)”; and strengthening the German economy by securing oil resources in the Caucasus. Consequently, a defeated Germany by Western allies and the Soviet Union in 1945 had to face a decline from a great power to a weakling for the second time in a thirty year timeframe. In the following years, the United States and the Soviet Union moved as the two remaining great powers to expand their spheres of influence and defend against each other. Most importantly, the outcome of the Second World War had shaped the international order significantly and this bipolar order should last for roughly forty
At the end of WWI, Austro-Hungary was on the losing end, along with all of its allies, Germany included. Thanks to international sanctions, the Hapsburgs were exiled from their own empire, which was also broken up into the several smaller nations that make up what is now Central and Southeastern Europe (Austria, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, parts of Germany, parts of Ukraine, parts of Poland, parts of Italy, Croatia, Slovakia, and Serbia). In addition to that, Germany (the Weimar Republic at the end of the war) was forced to pay all of the debts for everyone for World War I, the last of which being paid not even four years ago (Spiegel). When Hitler came to power, he felt that it was terrible that Germany had to pay for something it did not even start, and declared war on most of the rest of the world, including Poland, Czechoslovakia, Russia, Scandinavia, France, the UK, and many other nations after annexing Austria and allying with Italy and Japan, and later allying with Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, and Bulgaria as the Axis Powers (Wikipedia), who lost the war to the Allied Forces. This defeat paved the way for Russia to take control of eastern Germany and the rest of Eastern Europe, making the Cold War
Germany was economically frail subsequent to World War I. The Treaty of Versailles had held them accountable for the cause, and the Great Depression further deteriorated their condition. Germany was ambitious for power and resources. Envisioning world domination, Adolf Hitler, dictator of Nazi Germany, led his Nazi Party to invade Poland in 1939. France and Britain guaranteed to offer military support if Poland were to become attacked; they declared war, initiating World War II.
...dens the understanding of international relations and correspondingly broadens the understanding of security. Built on Thayer’s and Waltz’s theory, the paper suggests that structure of the international system is central to international security and to achieve peace, suitable strategies are necessary to balance the power relations. While it should not be ignored that the Evolution theory still falls within realism realm with many other forms of complex security problems unexplained.
According to realist view ordering principle of the international system is based on anarchy. There is no higher authority other than the states themselves to check and balance their actions. Consequently, nation-states are the main players in this system. In other words, sovereignty inheres in states, because there is not a higher ruling body in the international system. This is known as state centrism. Survival is an obligation continuing to be sovereign. On the other hand, sovereignty is the characteristic feature of states and its meaning is strongly tied to use of force. According to the most of the realist variants, states are “black boxes”; the determinative factor is states’ observable behavior, not their leaders’ characteristics, their decision making processes or their government systems.
In conclusion realist and liberalist theories provide contrasting views on goals and instruments of international affairs. Each theory offers reasons why state and people behave the way they do when confronted with questions such as power, anarchy, state interests and the cause of war. Realists have a pessimistic view about human nature and they see international relations as driven by a states self preservation and suggest that the primary objective of every state is to promote its national interest and that power is gained through war or the threat of military action. Liberalism on the other hand has an optimistic view about human nature and focuses on democracy and individual rights and that economic independence is achieved through cooperation among states and power is gained through lasting alliances and state interdependence.
To understand the international relations of contemporary society and how and why historically states has acted in such a way in regarding international relations, the scholars developed numerous theories. Among these numerous theories, the two theories that are considered as mainstream are liberalism and realism because the most actors in stage of international relations are favouring either theories as a framework and these theories explains why the most actors are taking such actions regarding foreign politics. The realism was theorized in earlier writings by numerous historical figures, however it didn't become main approach to understand international relations until it replaced idealist approach following the Great Debate and the outbreak of Second World War. Not all realists agrees on the issues and ways to interpret international relations and realism is divided into several types. As realism became the dominant theory, idealistic approach to understand international relations quickly sparked out with failure of the League of Nation, however idealism helped draw another theory to understand international relations. The liberalism is the historical alternative to the realism and like realism, liberalism has numerous branches of thoughts such as neo-liberalism and institutional liberalism. This essay will compare and contrast the two major international relations theories known as realism and liberalism and its branches of thoughts and argue in favour for one of the two theories.
The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of Realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power would be the UN’s ability to influence the actions of states within the UN but the state itself has the power to determine how they act. Morgenthau goes on to his next level of analysis in which he explains the difference in force and power in the international realm. Force is physical violence, the use of military power but power is so much more than that. A powerful state can control the actions of another state with the threat of force but not actually need to physical force. He believed that the ability to have power over another state simply with the threat of force was likely to be the most important element in analysis the power of as state (Kleinberg 2010, 33-34).
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.
Smith, T. General Liberalism and Social Change in a Post-WWII America, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00287217#close, November 30th 1999
To conclude, there are four main components of the realist approach to international relations, they are: state which includes egoism as the states are composed by the selfish people, self-help which includes balance of power as power is used to enhance the survival rate, survival which includes hegemony in order to maintain its position and anarchical system which related to lust for power and led to security dilemma.
Whenever world politics is mentioned, the state that appears to be at the apex of affairs is the United States of America, although some will argue that it isn’t. It is paramount we know that the international system is shaped by certain defining events that has lead to some significant changes, particularly those connected with different chapters of violence. Certainly, the world wars of the twentieth century and the more recent war on terror must be included as defining moments. The warning of brute force on a potentially large scale also highlights the vigorousness of the cold war period, which dominated world politics within an interval of four decades. The practice of international relations (IR) was introduced out of a need to discuss the causes of war and the different conditions for calm in the wake of the first world war, and it is relevant we know that this has remained a crucial focus ever since. However, violence is not the only factor capable of causing interruption in the international system. Economic elements also have a remarkable impact. The great depression that happened in the 1920s, and the global financial crises of the contemporary period can be used as examples. Another concurrent problem concerns the environment, with the human climate being one among different number of important concerns for the continuing future of humankind and the planet in general.
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”.
The study of international relations takes a wide range of theoretical approaches. Some emerge from within the discipline itself others have been imported, in whole or in part, from disciplines such as economics or sociology. Indeed, few social scientific theories have not been applied to the study of relations amongst nations. Many theories of international relations are internally and externally contested, and few scholars believe only in one or another. In spite of this diversity, several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize on military power, material interests, or ideological beliefs. International Relations thinking have evolved in stages that are marked by specific debates between groups of scholars. The first major debate is between utopian liberalism and realism, the second debate is on method, between traditional approaches and behavioralism. The third debate is between neorealism/neoliberalism and neo-Marxism, and an emerging fourth debate is between established traditions and post-positivist alternatives (Jackson, 2007).
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.
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.