Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
criticisms of realism in international relations
criticisms of realism in international relations
critique of realism in international relations
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: criticisms of realism in international relations
IBRAHIM FURKAN KAYA FOG OF WAR DEFINATION OF THE REALISM Realism is a tradition of international theory centered upon four propositions. 1. The international system is anarchic. • There is no actor above states capable of regulating their interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity. • The international system exists in a state of constant antagonism (see international anarchy). 2. States are the most important actors. 3. All states within the system are unitary, rational actors • States tend to pursue self-interest. • Groups strive to attain as many resources as possible (see relative gain). 4. The primary concern of all states is survival. States build up military to survive, which may lead to a security dilemma. 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. Basically, realism depends on these assumptions: In the absence of a domi... ... middle of paper ... ...vent this war, men must choose the option of surrendering to a Leviathan, who then will have an absolute control over them and their lives. According to Machiavelli, his understanding of human nature was a complete contradiction of what humanists believed and taught. To sum up, when we think about a war, we should think Mr. McNamara‟s perspective. Thanks to this movie, we can understand that all these aspects or lessons are related with the war in terms of realism in the international system. He generally emphasizes on the decision-making mechanism and rationality. According to Mr. McNamara, the main idea is the fog of war. For him, War is too complicated to understand because of the variables that go beyond human intelligence which possesses ability of deciding. Our understanding will never be good enough to see why we kill people unnecessarily.
The Fog of War is a documentary film that can be illustrated with the observations and thoughts of Robert McNamara. The entire film takes a shape around him and his experiences. He had a crucial role within the US government by giving critical decisions. He was the former secretary of defense. The Fog of War is a documentary that shows us the difficulties and responsibilities that are needed to bear. The documentary is a good example of how important decision-making mechanism concerning the security issues. Since US has huge power in politics, government was expected to do everything well. Responsibilities of Robert McNamara were significant. The documentary film is a kind of interview of the US former Secretary of Defense. In the interview,
...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.
In the film The Fog of War, McNamara learns a number of lessons from the figures of the 20th-century American government. The film offers a view on the human side of the people entrusted to the control the United States and the way their personalities affect the state’s policies. The film provides an insight for historians and politicians into the way individuals and different personalities influence the decisions of the U.S foreign policy. The film is a focus on the fragile side of the leaders in both the mental and physical capacities. The lessons of McNamara indicate the influence of human decisions on the international relations of a nation as seen from the theories of global politics.
The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara. Dir. Errol
Robert McNamara, a major U.S. political figure in the mid-to-late 20th century, served as the Secretary of Defence and was involved in decision-making for events such as World War II, the Cold war, and the Vietnam war. Though his legacy was great, it also created ripples of contention. Many cite him as a very flawed individual, whose flaws perhaps overwhelm his positive contributions. The 2003 documentary “The Fog of War”, which outlines these major U.S. events through the lens of McNamara’s experience, provided a human element to this controversial political figure that was so heavily scrutinized. It is centered around an interview with McNamara in which he reveals his own reflections. This was paired with real footage and pictures to provide
Realists believe that the international system is in a state of anarchy, not chaos, but
I must say that this film is very traumatizing. There are some images in this film that will be burned and scarred into my mind for as long as I live. I have seen many holocaust films, but no one was as near as dramatic and depicting as Night and Fog. However I did like the theme of this movie. It is very sad but yet realistic. Our minds are murky and dull. We tend to only remember the important situation in our lives. Yet we don’t remember the importance of our own history. I say OUR history be cause we all are human beings on this earth. Whether we believe in Allah, Jesus, Jehovah, or whatever higher power, we are all one race, and that the human race. It is very sad to know that human beings were treated and slaughtered just because of an ideology of superiority complex. Al though the Jewish people were massacred I learned that we must always keep a sense of hope in order to assure our own survival. When I saw in the movie the moments where there were journals that read about favorite foods and important dates, my heart was filled with sadness. Not because these victims didn’t have this to eat but because of the false illusions that they had to dream in order to stay sane.
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...
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.
...ciety of the utter necessity of voluntarily handing over their individual rights is somewhat unlikely. Even if one could convince all citizens that this relinquishment of power were desirable, after the initial creation of the body politic, the cohesive unity indicated by the metaphor of the Leviathan seems highly improbable because one sovereign will be hard-pressed to accurately embody the will and to serve the interest of such a vast multitude. Thus, the very mortality and physicality that would allow for the strength of the Leviathan to be implemented to serve the interests of the people make it equally likely that the strength could be misused in tyrannical oppression.
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.
From the realist point of view, the international political system is considered as anarchic. There is a lack of external authority among states that ensures peace, stability and balance of power. In the analyzed document, the author's main thesis states that changes of the system would alter the international political system. However, changes within the system will maintain its anarchism. In order to support his thesis, the author replies to liberal critics, who consider the neorealism as obsolete taking into account three important arguments against the neorealism.
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.
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.
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”.