Realism Theory Of Polarism

1068 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Weakness of constructivism theory in international relations

The theory of Realism key actor is the state. The view of the state in Realism is power seeking and to make judgments based on the significant of national interests. Each state acts in a unitary way to increase its power by war, balance of powers, or through economy. The International System believes in anarchy. The distribution of power among states can be judged by its economy and military capabilities. However, the Realist theory does take in consideration that change can occur in the International System. Realism incorporate change due to future leader’s position on policies and the progression of economies and military capabilities of states which can be caused by wars or the way a state responds to economic, political, and technological …show more content…

The disagreement among Realist focuses on polarity and stability. Polarity can be described as ways power can be distributed in an International System. Polarity systems consist of multipolar, bipolar, and unipolar. The focus point of polarity is how much autonomy does a states has in the International System. For instants, in today’s society the United States commands majority of the capabilities in the International System. Will the United States hegemony influence the outcome of other states power and military capabilities such as the nuclear deal with …show more content…

Constructivism mainly focuses on constant change. Many people argued for change which started interests groups and nongovernmental organizations. Constructivism wouldn’t work in an International System due to the fact that the International System is anarchic. Anarchy is the only International System that will never change in my opinion. Economies and military capabilities can change. States seeks its national interest and looks to empower itself my any means necessary. In the current contemporary system of the United States hegemony, soft power can influence the United States abilities to use constructivism. The only thing that constructivism has in commons with the International System is that nothing will always stay the

Show More
Related

  • The Key Differences Between Realists, Morality of State Theorists, and Cosmopolitans

    1550 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...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.

    Read More

  • The cold war

    2042 Words  | 5 Pages

    With the shock of two destructive world wars and then the creation of the United Nations, whose aim is to preserve peace, it is unconceivable for these two nations to fight directly in order to promote their own ideology. But the US and the USSR end up to be in competition in numerous ways, particularly in technological and industrial fields. In the same time they start to spread their influence over their former allies. This phenomenon have led to the creation of a bipolar world, divided in two powerful blocs surrounded by buffer zones, and to the beginning of what we call the Cold War because of the absence of direct conflicts between the two nations.

    Read More

  • fog of war

    1454 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Structural Realism after the Cold War

    984 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • American Hegemony in the Twenty-First Century: Consensus and Legitimacy

    6585 Words  | 14 Pages

    Abstract: Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been the world’s only unquestioned superpower. How the United States evaluates its position as global hegemon has important consequences for American foreign policy, particularly with regards to the potential for future policy constraints. Thus, this paper seeks to consider the question: How durable is American hegemony? The paper first defines the state of American hegemony and then considers the primary challengers: Europe, Russia, China, Japan and imperial overstretch. It will conclude that in the long-term, East Asian geopolitical instability poses the greatest threat to American hegemony, but that in the short-term, the hegemony will prove to be quite durable as long as the United States can counteract the phenomenon of imperial overstretch. In order to diffuse both internal and international threats to hegemony, American leaders should work to pursue national interests within a framework of consensus and legitimacy as much as possible.

    Read More

  • Realism And Liberalism Research Paper

    1108 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Power and International Relations

    1989 Words  | 4 Pages

    The realism few on power, is based on state versus state relationship, in that their is no overarching power in the world. Also the realism theory states that as a result of not having a world government state seek to protect their own interest against neighbouring or rival states. Realism is centred around military power also known as hard power. However on the other hand liberalist believe that co-operation interaction between states is a much more effective means then military threat. Soft power allows states to come to a compromise, both in a ‘win-win’ situation. An example of this is Iran coming to a compromise with the United States on the issue of nuclear weapon. With both countries being rational and open-minded, allowing for life being saved if a war had broken out.

    Read More

  • Understanding International Relations

    1517 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • International Relations

    2631 Words  | 6 Pages

    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).

    Read More

  • William Wohlforth's Article: The Stability Of A Unipolar World

    721 Words  | 2 Pages

    The author’s reasons for this are that the United States is the most powerful nation economically and technologically, in addition to having the most powerful army. This makes it difficult for one to argue with the unipolarity of the U.S. I believe that unipolarity exists, but I disagree with the suggestion that it is stable, as the stability of a system largely depends on the leadership, and within a unipolar system leadership will be all the more integral to the existence of the system. This is especially in a country such as the United States, as the leadership changes every four to eight years and the tactics used to deal with hegemony will change with those leaders, thus creating an unstable

    Read More

  • Political Realism

    2261 Words  | 5 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Realist Approach to International Relations

    982 Words  | 2 Pages

    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).

    Read More

  • Realism During the 1994 Rwanda Genocide

    1226 Words  | 3 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • China: A New World Power

    1136 Words  | 3 Pages

    A country’s struggle to power is much like that of two rivalling siblings. They are locked in a constant competition as they attempt to one-up the other. Countries do the same as they race against each other to produce better exports, and to attract more money into their economy. They are constantly vying against each other for the center of attention so that they are the main focal point of the international world. This competition continues until one finally relents, or blatantly falls, and allows the other to shine; much like how China is slowly managing to overtake the U.S. in terms of international influence. The success of one individual cannot remain forever, and eventually they will begin to fall. This is the current situation where the U.S. and China stand today as China is beginning to overtake the U.S. in terms of economic capability. With a superior economy, it is possible for China to overcome the challenges it faces as it moves into position as the next world power. Though, just like the pair of siblings, despite China’s recent successes, the other won’t disappear completely. The U.S. will not disappear into the background and allow China to take complete control as hegemon, or world power, and establish something akin to a uni-mulipolar system. A system where there is one main power and many already established rising powers. This uni-multipolar system allows for other countries to continuously compete for the position at the top.

    Read More

  • The Threat of China

    784 Words  | 2 Pages

    With the end of the Cold War emerged two superpowers: The United States and the Soviet Union. The international system then was considered bipolar, a system where power is distributed in which two states have the majority of military, economic, and cultural influence both internationally and regionally. In this case, spheres of influence developed, meaning Western and democratic states fell under the influence of U.S. while most communist states were under the influence of the Soviet Union. Today, the international system is no longer bipolar, since only one superpower can exist, and indisputably that nation is the United States. However China is encroaching on this title with their rapid growth educationally, economically, and militaristically.

    Read More

More about Realism Theory Of Polarism

Open Document