Realism in international relations is seen as one of the oldest theories of international relations and is widely held as a worldview. It is a general approach to international politics and is not a single theory, which always develops and provides better explanations according to the rapid change of the world. In International Relations, political realism is the foundation on states to be the main actor in the global politics to pursue its national interest in terms of power.
For the general features of realism in International relation, Thucydides (460 – 411 B.C.E) had explain its perspective concerning on state actors, egoism, anarchy, power, security and morality. The set of premises he made was the fundamental understanding on realism
…show more content…
It returns again on the kind of interest the state needs to determine its political action, which in a particular a foreign policy could be formulated depends in the period history upon political and cultural context, while the fourth principle of realism is its awareness of the morality on political action, which universal moral is not applicable for state’s actions. On the fifth principle, Morgenthau sees realism as the idea for all state actors to be looked merely as political objects in pursuing their particular interests of power. Therefore, at this point a state decided to pursue policies that respected the interests of other states while on the other hand it also protects and promoting its own. Thus, in the sixth principle of Morgenthau, the difference between political realism and other theories is real and thoughtful, where this theory cannot be subordinated to ethics. However, ethics still have to play a role in politics and should take consideration in political arts. Therefore, he describes the image of a man with politic to be a beast by lacking of moral, while the other man with moral become a fool by lacking in prudence (Standford,
...heories outlined in this paper. One of the defining principles of realism is that the state is paramount to anything else, including morality. Realists argue that deviation from the state interests in an anarchic system creates vulnerability. Morality of state theorists uphold state sovereignty and argue that intervention is not permissible unless the circumstances are crass and warrant action. They talk about aggression as the only crime that one state can commit to another and suggest that aggression should only be allowed as a retaliatory measure. Finally, cosmopolitans believe that morality can be achieved at the individual level and that morality can be somewhat universally applied. Non-realists do not support preemptive actions or intervention under almost any condition, and the criteria by which intervention is warranted aligns with the principles of justice.
Realpolitik is a goal oriented and practical form of politics, which overlooks morals, ethicality, and ideals to attain the interests of the nation or country. It doesn’t view compromise of ideals or morals as wrong, if it brings about the achievement of the political and national goal. The only thing that makes any action or decision taken right or wrong is its level of success. Those who practice realpolitik will not hesitate to take the decisions needed, whether unethical, unidealistic, or amoral, to bring about the desired end result. To do this, a realistic appraisal of power must be made, and based on that information decisions are taken to realize the self-interests of the individual state.
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. Thucydides' "History of the Peloponnesian War" is such a study of international relations. Not a philosophical work, it is considered of great importance within political and philosophical enquiry. In the "History," Thucydides attempts to disclose the underlying causes of the war between Athens and Sparta. He looks beyond the explicit clash of interest and Imperialist gains and endeavours to outline the implicit human motivations of fear, glory, and honour. The explicit motivations made war a continual threat; the implicit motivations and human interactions made it inevitable. It is this discussion within Thucydides' "history" that realists have taken as proof of his status as a founding father of realism; indeed, casual reading of the "History" may suggest this to be the case. However, it is my hypothesis that Thucydides was more optimistic of man, society and the possibility for peace. It is my intention to discuss Thucydides' assumptions of war and human na...
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.
Realism, in philosophical terms, refers to the concept that there is a reality beyond our perception. This means that how we see things and what we believe about them has no impact on the nature of said things. For example an individual may see an object as blue and another see the same object to be red, this is merely a disagreement between both parties about how they should label the colour. This wouldn’t mean that both parties are discussing different objects, this shows that no matter what individual’s beliefs or thoughts on the real world are only ever approximations and do not accurately capture reality. (O’Brien, M and Yar, M, 2008)
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.
Neo-realism and Liberalism both provide adequate theories in explaining the causes of war, yet Neo-realist ideals on the structural level and states being unitary actors in order to build security, conclude that Neo-realist states act on behalf of their own self interest. The lack of collaboration with other states and balance of power among them presents a reasonable explanation on the causes of war.
In International Relations it is commonly accepted that there is a wide range of different theoretical approaches which attempt to provide an explanation for the different dynamics of the global political system. Realism and Liberalism are well known theories which are considered to be two of the most important theories in international relations. They are two contrasting ideas when it comes to explaining how two states relate to each other in the absence of a world government. Both theories agree that the world is in anarchy and therefore it is helpful to start with a definition of anarchy and what it implies. This essay aims to discuss the contrasts between Liberalism and Realism as well as how these two theories agree that the world is anarchy.
Realism claims that what we can review about our surrounding is established in the fact that they absolutely exist. What we believe about gathered information is what we think about the actual world. It states that there is an actual world that assimilates directly with what we think about it.
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. Aside from these shared values that both reflect, the two forms of realism both present very different or conflicting views on state behaviour. For one, neorealists believe “the international system is defined by anarchy—the absence of a central authority” (Slaughter 2) and that states take action based on the possibility of conflict, always looking at a worst-case scenario, whereas postclassical realists believe that states make decisions and take actions based on the probability of an attack or act of aggression from other states (Brooks 446). To expand on neorealism’s possibility outlook, Kenneth Waltz argues, “in the absence of a supreme authority [due to anarchy], there is then constant possibility that conflicts will be settled by force” (Brooks 447). Neorealists look at the possibility of conflict due to the potential cost of war, due to
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.
Firstly, the state is an important component in the concept of realism. An independent state can be defined as a clear cut territory, under the jurisdiction of supreme government with sovereignty and a permanent population (Jackson, Sorensen 2013: 4). Hobbes claims that, states are the major actors in global, it seeks self-interest and survival; it operates in anarchy, so they emphasize self-help (Heywood 2011: 14).
In realism, states are seen as rational, unitary actors. Realists assume that the actions of a state are representative of the entire state’s population, disregarding political parties, individuals, or domestic conflict within the state (Goldstein & Pevehouse, 2010). Any action a state takes is in an effort to pursue national interest. National interest is “the interest of a state overall (as opposed to particular political parties or factions within the state)” (qtd. in Goldstein and Pevehouse, 2010, p. 355). If a state is rational, they are capable of performing cost-benefit analysis by weighing the cost against the benefit of each action. This assumes that all states have complete information when making choices (Goldstein & Pe...