The creation of the study of international relations in the early 20th century has allowed multiple political theories to be compared, contrasted, debated, and argued against one another for the past century. These theories were created based on certain understandings of human principles or social nature and project these concepts onto the international system. They examine the international political structure and thrive to predict or explain how states will react under certain situations, pressures, and threats. Two of the most popular theories are known as constructivism and realism. When compared, these theories are different in many ways and argue on a range of topics. The topics include the role of the individual and the use of empirical data or science to explain rationally. They also have different ideological approaches to political structure, political groups, and the idea that international relations are in an environment of anarchy.
To fully appreciate these differences and arguments, realism and constructivism must be defined briefly. Realism can be broken down to its core understanding that the international system is anarchic and it consists of political actors known as states. There are three tenants that each state will inherently follow and are known as statism, survival, and self-help. Every decision by a state will have to follow these tenants to be considered rational. Because of this, each state will be naturally distrustful of one another and will act or make decisions based on getting the upper hand or protecting its security from another state. This generates conflict between states and creates a vicious circle of sizing up every state, making a decision based on what would likely be the most beneficial...
... middle of paper ...
...thus NATO has made its mission to uphold these ideals.
Although realism presents a solid framework for international political structure, constructivism fills in the gaps that realism fails to address or ignores. That being said, constructivism is still not the perfect theory as it still debated and contrasted against many other critical theories. Realism presents a solid framework for the international system. However there are some gaps in it structure that it does not recognize or fails to explain. Constructivism tries to fill in these gaps. Although constructivism is good at examining problems of other theories it does not present a solid framework on its own. It relies on theories such as realism to present this framework so it can criticize it. Together realism and constructivism provide a solid framework and allows the ability to explain its shortcomings.
George Kennan says, “Morality in governmental method, as a matter of conscience and preference on the part of our people – yes.” He goes on to say that morality as a criterion for measuring and comparing the behavior of states is flawed. Morality is a preference, not a requirement to govern in the international anarchic system, Kennan argues. Ethics and justice in the international system are measured by how states satisfy varying moral requirements. These moral requirements are defined by a variety of schools of thought, including: Realists, Morality of States theorists, and Cosmopolitans. Realists may validate some action where morality of state theorists and cosmopolitans are fundamentally opposed. In this paper I will examine such examples and detail the key differences between realists, morality of state theorists, and cosmopolitans. I will compare and contrast realists with the other two non-realists perspectives and explore how these theories apply to an international system of states and how these theories shape the way one state acts or reacts in an anarchic system.
argues that America needs to be more engaged in internationalism. On the other hand, realism
I take direct realism to be the better version of realism, as unlike Locke, it does not infer the existence of the external world, it just assumes it. Direct realism is the theory that suggests we perceive the external world directly, and that external objects exist in reality, furthermore these objects are independent to our experience. One of the merits of this view, is the way in which it responds to the sceptic, who will argue that the realist must somehow prove, with certainty, that their experiences as of a table are in fact caused by a table (1), not an evil demon (2). However, Devitt argues that a realist does not need certainty, but only needs to change the epistemological standard, and instead ask whether it is more reasonable to believe (1) than it is the believe (2).
Mearsheimer J. J. (2010). Structural Realism. International Relations Thoeries, Discipline and Diversity (Second Edition), p.77-94
The basic concept of realism is that states pursue power. This power includes military resources. States look to go after war weapons. They may look to make alliances with states with strong military force. A state with strong military can aid the other state in defense against any foreign threat. This way, a state can be seen as powerful due to its alliance even if it does not have strong military force itself. Strong economy is another thing that can make a state powerful. Economic resources can be optimized through trade with other countries and with natural resources. Education is also an important asset in terms of economy because educated people have more potential to earn high salaries and serve the state better. Power can also be achieved in terms of geography. Location of a state can make it important and more states would want to keep good relations with it and ally with it. This again is only due to the fact that other states see some kind of benefit in this alliance. Realists believe that all states directly or indirectly seek this power and stability.
...ower game does not match up with reality. Each state takes actions based on the given situation and neo-realism misses this nuance. Constructivism actually considers this more by analyzing the actors at play and their identifies and interests. In this case, it led to more hostility and created the conflict because the states were antithetical in nature to each other. This drove the conflict, not material matters.
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.
...ermore, norms did not stop the US to got to Afghanistan and Iraq and constructivism does not fully explain peace because most of its explanations are on humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian aid does not bring peace. Why did not the United States or Europe intervene in Rwanda genocide? We all know that he is because Americans did not have interests, a small African country with no mineral and most of the UN peacekeeping were remove from Rwanda. Constructivism is just critical where others theories failed to give the proper explanation and it does not make predictions, and even according to Wendt himself who identifies constructivism as a tool for analysis,rather than a tool of predictions. Wendt (1992). Finally, construstivits forget that individual experiences and attitudes vary accordingly to actors and that on the “what?” but not on the “Why?” and the “How?”.
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.
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.
...ous situations, possibly because these studies have attributed motive and action to the states rather than to the decision-makers within them. Thus, foreign relations and policies can truly be strengthened when people can view and truly appreciate international issue in many different perspectives, such as realist, idealist, liberalist, constructivism, feminist, world economic system analysis, etc. When people are able to see issues and solutions to problems in many different ways world peace might be reachable.
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.
Realism is one of the oldest and most popular theories in International Relations. It offers a perspective about competition and power, and can be used to explain the actions between states. An example of realism is the U.S. reaction – or lack thereof – during the 1994 Rwandan genocide.
“In the place where idealism and realism meet, that is where there is the greatest evolutionary tension.” Idealism prioritizes ideals, social reforms and morals, by wanting to benefit not just yourself, but the world around you, believing people are generally good. On the contrary, realism gives priority to national interest and security with emphasis on promoting one’s own power and influence by assuming that people are egocentric by nature. Based on the definitions stated above, idealism and realism are significantly different from each other and their divergence of thought is more apparent when various proponents of each such as Woodrow Wilson, Henry Lodge, Barack Obama and George W. Bush have varied outlooks on comparable issues in politics. Subsequently, an idealist’s reaction to a particular issue would be a lot different than a realist’s response. Therefore, idealism deals with normative ideas and allows for improvements in the progress of not only a single state, but the whole world, however realism solely focuses on the benefits of one’s own nation.