More handpicked essays just for you.
Realist approach and its impact on international relations
Realist approach and its impact on international relations
Realist approach and its impact on international relations
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In his 1988 Republican National Convention acceptance speech former U.S. President George H.W. Bush proclaimed that, “Weakness and ambivalence lead to war.”. For better or worse a state's ability to influence world politics is primarily based on much power they have. In purely academic terms, power is the ability of Actor A to get Actor B to do something that B would otherwise not do; the ability to get the other side to make concessions and to avoid having to make concessions oneself (Frieden P. A-6). Power is usually represented by the capability of a state to preserve or tip the balance of power towards their own national interests. Balance of power refers to a situation in which the military capabilities of two states or groups of states are roughly equal. Within the realist paradigm of world politics the balance of power among states is always subject to change at a moments notice. As such, those states who are at the top of the international pecking order have to remain vigilant of the potential threats to their power. With the end of the Cold War, the United States has been the unquestioned hegemonic authority in the international world. As a result, the U.S. has a vested interest to use its power to preserve the current balance of power. Recognizing this fact we can explain how “power”, in the form of diplomacy through bargaining and influence of domestic interests, accounts for the U.S. ongoing war in Iraq from its onset during former President George W. Bush's administration to the present policies in place because of President Barack Obama's administration.
Academic scholar James Fearon makes the claim that, “...because war is costly, a settlement that all sides prefer to war generally exists.”(Rationalist Explanati...
... middle of paper ...
...r did significant damage to his presidency and caused his Republican Party to lose control of Congress to the Democratic Party in 2006. It also helped propel Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) to winning the Presidency in 2008 against fervent Iraq War supporter Arizona Senator John McCain (R), giving Democrats control of both Congress and the White House for the first time since the Clinton administration. As a result of these elections the U.S. is prepared to withdraw from Iraq by early 2011. In a post 9/11 world, where world politics is shifting to the realist paradigm, the decision to go war is magnified in its power to shape world events. The Iraq War has become an example of how the U.S. wants to use its power to preserve its interests. The U.S. has shown itself to be more aggressive to protect its collective security, wealth and power in the international arena.
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
McDonald. “Just War Theory.” Humanities. Boston University. College of General Studies, Boston. 24 February 2014. Lecture.
On September 11, 2001, our country was hit with enormous devastation, just after eight o’clock a.m. the first of the twin towers was struck by a suicide pilot, the second was struck slightly later. The towers fell just after ten o’clock a.m., devastating the entire country, and ruining the lives of many. A plane also hit the Pentagon in Washington D.C., and another in rural Pennsylvania causing just as much grief. The U.S. is still in mourning, but standing tall, more Americans showed their American pride in the following months than ever before. In the months to come the only thing that was on the minds of millions was: Should we go to war? War is necessary for the survival of our country. Going to war with Iraq is a fight against terrorism. Many people believed that going to war with Iraq is unjust. Some believe that there are other ways in looking at the situation.
Followers of Realist school of thought argue the case of 2003 Iraq war from the standpoint of power and Security. The Bush administration’s rationale for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq was based on two misleading assumptions: firstly, Iraq had or was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (along with Iran and North Korea) and secondly, that it was aiding and protecting terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda. Such a conjecture based on unsubstantiated evidence helped Bush administration conjure up a dystopian situation which justified 2003 invasion of Iraq under the pretext of “security maximization”. This explanation was given in pursuance of the realist assumption that States’ as rational actors always act in accordance with their national security interests.
...l to socio-economical. Even more fascinating is the similarly consistent trend that states which deployed peaceful negotiations with the colonialists were much more successful than their violent counterparts in achieving or maintaining sovereignty and peace- despite at times having to sacrifice one for the other. For reasons that are beyond the scope of this paper, Boahen makes a conscious decision not to emphasize this ostensible tendency. Ultimately, peaceful responses did not bring about a harmonious relationship between the colony and the colonial power; however, in contrast to their violent counterparts, they did not result in nearly the equivalent number of deaths, injuries and devastating consequences to the infrastructure of the colony.
What does the United States have to gain from a war with Iraq? Supporters of a war with Iraq say it will help prevent the risk of an attack by a weapons of mass destruction developed by Iraq. Critics of a military action that say nothing will be gained, and the U.S. just wants to obtain the oil that Iraq controls. They claim that casualties will be too costly for America to afford. Nonetheless, America should act while others will not for fear of disturbing global peace. Iraq poses a “clear and present danger” to the security of the United States and the security of countries around the world.
Nye, Jr., Joseph S. “Hard and Soft Power in American Foreign Policy.” In Paradox of American Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 4-17. Print.
War is a hard thing to describe. It has benefits that can only be reaped through its respective means. Means that, while necessary, are harsh and unforgiving. William James, the author of “The Moral Equivalent of War”, speaks only of the benefits to be had and not of the horrors and sacrifices found in the turbulent times of war. James bears the title of a pacifist, but he heralds war as a necessity for society to exist. In the end of his article, James presents a “war against nature” that would, in his opinion, stand in war’s stead in bringing the proper characteristics to our people. However, my stance is that of opposition to James and his views. I believe that war, while beneficial in various ways, is unnecessary and should be avoided at all costs.
War is a universal phenomenon, it is a violent tool people use to accomplish their interests. It is not autonomous, rather policy always determines its character. Normally it starts when diplomacy fails to reach a peaceful end. War is not an end rather than a mean to reach the end, however, it does not end, and it only rests in preparation for better conditions. It is a simple and dynamic act with difficult and unstable factors which make it unpredictable and complex. It is a resistant environment where the simplest act is difficult to perform. In this paper, I will argue why war is a universal phenomenon and what are the implications of my argument to strategists.
Many theorists have tried to explain how any why conflicts end. Some theories have proven to be more successful than others. It is difficult to create a theory that applies to all conflicts because each conflict is different. Conflicts can be ethnic and religious based or they can be about resources and territories. William Zartman advocates a theory of ripeness and mutually hurting stalemates to explain how and why conflict have ended. Throughout this essay his theory will be analyze through the conflicts in Northern Ireland, Cambodia and the Oslo agreement. Through these three conflicts the strengths and weaknesses of ripeness theory can be seen
The Iraq War was a protracted armed conflict that began with the 2003 invasion of Iraq by a US-led coalition. The US wanted to destroy Saddam Hussein’s regime and bring democracy. To addition to that, US and its allies believed that Iraq had secret stocks of chemical and nuclear weapons, hence Iraq was a threat to the world (Axford 2010). In March 2003, US air bombed Baghdad and Saddam escaped Iraq. The invasion disarmed the government of Saddam Hussein. President Bush in March 2003 gave a premature speech, that tyrant of Iraq has fallen and US has freed its people. President Bush flew into Iraq to show the world that the war is over, even though nothing was accomplished (Kirk et al. 2014). Iraq was facing 13 years of scantions, therefore regime diverted its resources to flexible networks of patronage that kept it in power (Dodge 2007, 88). Iraq faced widespread of lawlessness and after the violent regime changed US could not control the situation. Iraqi civilians were looting, attacking ministries building and this resulted into a series of event (Kirk et al. 2014) . From a military perspective the regime was taken down, but they made no commitment to rebuild or secure the country.
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.
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).
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.