Realism has a long history of being debated and is often referred to as part of the ''first great debate” within international politics. Realism is seen as a direct response to idealism and is also heavily criticised for being overly simplistic and somewhat irrelevant to modern world politics. However, like all theories of world politics, Realism is and can be used to explain current issues within international relations and does have valid points to make about such issues in modern society. This essay will explore the key assumptions of Realism (statism, security and self-help)and put them into context of wider world politics examples to assess whether Realist values are suited to analyse contemporary politics or whether the Realist values are being challenged by new ideas and changes in the international system. There are many changes which have come about that may challenge the core values of Realism such as Globalization, a decrease in war/conflict or formations of higher bodies such as the EU.
Whilst there are several variants of Realism each with slightly different ideas, all forms of Realism share the same values of statism, survival and self help. Statism is the idea that the main actors within international relations are the sovereign states and that there is no community beyond state boarders. States are only interested in increasing their own national security and gaining power. Due to the international system being anarchic, there is no sovereign body to limit the ways in which states go about gaining power. War is therefore seen as an inevitable part of living in an anarchic world for Realists who think that war will always exist. States are primarily interested in relative gains and always want to gain more advantag...
... middle of paper ...
...Th Edition. Oxford University Press.
Burchill, S., Andrew, L., et al. 2013. Theories of international relations. 5Th Edition. Palgrave Macmillan
EU institutions and other bodies. European Union online publications. URL = http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/index_en.htm (last accessed 24th november 2013)
Ladyman, J., 2013. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Structural Realism. URL = . (last accessed 24th november, 2013)
Morgenthau, H.J, 1993. Politics among nations. 6Th Edition. New York; London: McGraw-Hill
Vera, E., 2013, A critique of realism. HubPages. URL = http://enockvera.hubpages.com/hub/A-Critique-of-Realism (last accessed 24th november, 2013)
UN at a glance. UN online publications. URL = http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/index.shtml (last accessed 24th november, 2013)
...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.
Shiraev, Eric B., and Vladislav M. Zubok. International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Mingst, K. (2011). Essentials of international relations. (5th ed., p. 70). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
The realism that will be the focus of this paper is that of Kenneth Waltz. Kenneth Waltz presents his theory of realism, within an international system, by offering his central myth that, “Anarchy is the permissive cause of war”. Kenneth Waltz’s central myth helps answer the question as to why war happens in the first place. During the cold war, there was a heightened sense of insecurity between Russia and the United States due to presence of nuclear weapons. The Movie Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb used cold war tension between the two countries to tell the story of a general who went crazy and decided to unleash his fleet of nuclear bombers onto Russian military bases.
How would you feel about explaining all of human world history with just one theory holding a few basic assumptions? Maybe it’d be easier to start by trying to explain one event or time period as a warm-up. There are many theories of how the world’s political arena works, i.e. realism, liberalism, constructivism, Marxism, green theory, and a multitude of others along with variations of those just mentioned. There of course is some truth in all theories, yet each is flawed to a certain extent (Lisinski).
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.
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.
Schmidt, B. C. (2007). Realism and facets of power in international relations. In F. Berenskoetter & M. J. D. Williams (Eds.), Power in world politics (pp. 43-63). London: Routledge.
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.
Maier, Sarah E. "Realism." Continuum Encyclopedia of British Literature. London: Continuum, 2006. Credo Reference. Web. 25 April 2014.
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.
“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.
National security undeniably has a preponderant place in the political, economical and military agenda of each state. Therefore, the state has a paramount responsibility in the contexts of its own domestic and transnational security. Whatever may be the way the state adopts in order to protect itself and its citizens, it needs to be accord with an international system. In this sense the state tends to follow a specific model in terms of international relations. Focuses in the case of western societies in general, and more specifically the United States as the iconic model of the western world, states tend to favour a realist perspective in terms of national security. Albeit, what is exactly the realism theory in the national security field? According to Glaser the realist view proposes the achievement of most high standard quality of national security focused on the acquisition of superior grades of power among the relative states sparking the idea of the presence of an anarchical international system .
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.
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau sought to create new political theories which would deal with the issues of their time. Both authors have had their works interpreted and applied to the international realm. Many international relations scholars have taken the theories developed by Hobbes and Rousseau as being indicative to the “realists” school of thought. However, an understanding of the realism school of thought will provide us with a means by which we can measure and better understand the two authors place within the paradigm. As we shall see, the theories which were developed by Hobbes and Rousseau do not make them “stone cold realists”. Rather, it will be shown that although they both advocate certain principles of realism, much of their theories are in fact antithetical to realism.