Differences Between Morgenthau And Kant

For hundreds of years state sovereignty has allowed for individual states to effectively handle their problems internally. However, with the current increase of globalism, which Keohane and Nye describe as “a state of the world involving networks of interdependence at multicontinental distances” (75), many of the world’s major concerns have moved beyond the level of individual states. This interdependence has affected economic, military, environmental, as well as social and cultural aspects of international relations and everyday life. These overlapping processes of globalization have allowed for a great deal of global progress, but progress is impossible to achieve without occasional setbacks. The problems we face today are rooted in the contradiction of solving global issues while relying on the state-based Westphalian system of governance. Governance “provide[s] a general way to formulate, implement, monitor and enforce social rules,” (Scholte 20) but it is no longer possible to rely on a state-based system, in which states act independently to pursue self-interest, to solve international problems, many of which have been created collectively. State sovereignty and the motivation of power in political realism continue to neglect the important issues we face with growing global concerns that can only be solved with an increased cooperation through the strengthening of international institutions and non-state actors. It is necessary to shift from a state-based form of

In the article, author John J. Mearsheimer highlights that a state’s main objective in their actions were meant to survive and take any measure to ensure their safety. The state will focus on surviving and will plan around that objective. However, the safest possible position is to be the hegemon of their region. States aim to achieve this whilst still maintaining a secured surviving status. A state that has potential and holds a respected status may be safe now but is still exposed to downfall corresponds to the idea that states will search for opportunities to gain power over rivals. The author supports the notion of creating alliances and absolute power. In reality, states are not seeking equilibrium, rather they seek hegemony. With a regional hegemony

power it is important to determine the extent and significance of their role in global politics. This paper

Ikenson sets a Realist tone in the excerpt. Realists think that main international political actors are states and the competition for power is a zero-sum game. States are selfish so they constantly compete for power and security while fearing that other countries can be comparatively more

Therefore interactions may be defined in terms of power, and this allows for the analytical study of foreign policy, regardless of the circumstances. Realism as Realpolitik involves the use of power. Power is the ability to influence others into doing what they otherwise would not. In Realism, the important aspects of power looked at are power resources and power capabilities. Power resources are drawn over a long-term period and can be seen as potential power. These may include: population, geography and territory. Power capabilities are used for more immediate purposes, and they may include: military force, economic strength and diplomatic skill. The concept of the ‘Balance of Power’ is used to understand the process of Realpolitik. It is the relation of power between states. With the background of the Nigeria/Biafra civil war and the tool of analysis in place, this essay will now attend to explaining why Realism can be used as an analytical tool in discussing the conflict between Nigeria and Biafra, how the central concept of

The contemporary international system is one of multipolarity, leaning towards non-polarity. The conclusion of the Cold War saw the international system shift from one motivated by ideology to one motivated by strategy — an underlying feature of multipolarity. A multipolar system exhibits a ‘balance of power’ mechanism, in which many states ally to maintain power, without a single force dominating. The current international system exhibits all of the key characteristics of a multipolar system — multiple nation-states of influence, alliances which shift on the basis of power and stability, and international decisions made primarily for strategic terms. Facilitated by the advent of globalisation, non-state actors possess an unprecedented level of economic, military, and cultural influence. Their expanded influence in the international system has helped shift it from the bipolarity of the Cold War era. The advent of globalisation has also introduced a real-time effect into international relations which has permanently altered the interactions between state and non-state actors, and the influence they have on the world.

The second major school of thought is the liberal school of thought. This school believe that in international relations human rights are important and the fact that the United Nations which is a global human

Realism has been the dominant political theory in International Relations for many years. The theory of Realism can date back to almost fifth-century B.C. But Political Realism, and the way we use the theory today was conceived in the 1940’s by Hans Morgenthau who was influenced by the works of Niccolo Machiavelli. In Morgenthau’s works such as Magnum Opus and Politics Among Nations, Morgenthau structured an account of Political Realism that has dominated international studies often referred to today as Classical Realism. Realism is an extremely pessimistic theory that believes that we should see the world for how it is and not how we wish it would be. For this reason Realists must make many assumptions about human nature and make objective laws centered around these assumptions. They must also focus on the notion that states are the primary actors in international affairs and there main goal is maintaining power and security. It also stresses the rational, objective and unemotional realities that come with state decision making. Because of its prominence, several subtheories within Realism have emerged. Classical Realists like Thomas Hobbes, Hans Morgenthau and Nicolo Machiavelli believe in the same basic principles as neorealist realists like Kenneth Waltz, but they still differ in several ways.

Generally interstate politics is a permanent bargaining game over the distribution of power, thus it describes world politics as a state of war and a struggle of power, and is pessimistic about the prospects for eliminating conflicts and war. Therefore, the best description for world politics is the constant possibility of war, because the nature of humanity or structure of international order allows wars to occur. Realists recognize that states go to war for significant reasons, which makes it difficult to understand the exact causes of wars. Hence, there is no question that states often begin wars to acquire power over a rival stateand to enhance their security (Dunny, Kurki, & Smith 2016), such as during the Cold War. Mogenthau (1945) argues that human nature is the main cause of war. He maintains that everyone was born with power that drives them to dominate each other. Thus power is the currency of international politics, which is therefore important to have a substantial amount of power and ensure a balance of power (Dunny, Kurki, & Smith 2016). Waltz (1979) is practical in stating that the primary goal of states is not to maximinze power, but to achieve or minimize the security needed (p126). This means that improving a nation’s power is indeed only a means to another end, that end being less of a reliance on maintaining high security, since that nation will be holding the power. The case in point here is that when the U.S formed an alliance with Western Europe, this

Whether it is the domination of one man over another or one state dominating another it has always been in human nature to seek power over others. Power lust is key in the understanding international relations. According to various realist scholars “Of all people's evil ways, none are more prevalent or dangerous than their instinctive lust for power and their desire to dominate others” (Kegley 2017/ pg.28). The Nazis lust for power over Europe in the 19th century is a key example of natural lust for power that has been

But, Kenneth Waltz argues that the behavior of most of the nations contradicts this. He asserts that Morgenthau fails to explain why other desires are unable to outweigh the fear nations may have about miscalculation of their relative power. Waltz states that, “Unable to conceive of international politics as a self-sustaining system, realists concentrate on the behavior and outcomes that seem to follow from the characteristics they have attributed to men and states.”

The motive of international relations is the struggle of states to expand its influence in the external environment (Kaarbo and Lee Ray, 7).

This idea of self-preservation is essential to any sovereign state, and all take a similar stance on national security as the United States. One of protection. In order to accomplish this it is necessary for states to be able to implement goals on an international stage, thus requiring a certain amount of power. When it comes to the issue of obtaining power, two major methods become apparent. The control over space and the control over physical place. Both of these options available to states focus on power as “Condign (based on force), Compensatory (the use of various resources) or Conditioned (result of persuasion), and their sources as Personality (individuals) and Property (their material resources)” (Galbraith, 1983).

Therefore, economic national perspective is established across the actions of coherent states. Nevertheless, foreign affairs is perceived as a fight for power, as well as international political economy which is seen as combating for power and wealth.

Starting back in history I want to draw attention to the Melian dialogue that we discussed in the very beginning of class. The Melian dialogue is a great example of how international relations from back in history, specifically 416 BC, is very similar to today’s international relations. In the dialogue the Athenians wanted to take over the island of Milos (hence the Melians) though the Melians remained neutral throughout the war the Athenians were fighting. The Melians still wanted to remain neutral but the Athenians thought it would make them look weak in the eyes of other nations. Many of the ideas presented in this text are similar to many current debates today and it reflects on how a nation can have a need for power and what nations will do to achieve that power.