Idealism And Realism In International Relations

Realism is an international relations theory with a lineage that dates back to thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, Machiavelli and Thucydides (Forde). Because the conditions for international relations are inherently anarchic, with neither hierarchical power nor expectation of reciprocity to enforce cooperation between actors, realists insist that the sole responsibility of the state must simply be self-preservation. As foreign policy specialist George Kennan wrote, “other criteria, sadder, more limited, more practical must be allowed to prevail” in spite of morality.

While idealism itself is a beautiful phenomenon, I prescribe that a need for an ideology much like what one of my own personal hero’s spoke, which is the idea that; “I am an idealist with no illusions”, which is a increasingly nuanced view on the realities of the world but also to cling to the desire for something “better”.

Even though realism finds itself deeply rooted in a utilitarian moral framework, critics arise as to such an outlook remains immoral (it is wrong to apply) at best. A major opponent theory is liberalism. Dismissing that conflicts are inevitable, liberals uphold that the spread of legitimate domestic political orders will eventually bring an end to international conflicts.[ Scott Burchill, “Liberalism” in Theories of International Relations, ed. Scott Burchill (New York: Palgrave, 2001), 35.] This approach involves embedding notions of democracy, human rights, and free trade. As a result, states will avoid ideology clashes and a universal state will emerge. Liberals might repudiate realism on its utilitarian ground: its consequential nature and lack of universal moral code. In this section, I will defend realism against some liberal criticism.

The first view will be through the current predominant school of thought in international relations, realism. Although there are several different forms of realism the core ideas are that states are the central actors in international politics rather than individuals

The states are the most important actors in realism. Realism is a broad intellectual tradition that explains international relations in terms of power. More specifically, when states work in an effort to increase their own power in relation to other states. With Realism there are claims made, such as the world is a harsh and dangerous place, and the only certainty in the world is power. If a state is powerful, that state will always outlast its weaker competitors. In addition to this, the most important and reliable form of power is military power. Another claim is a state’s primary interest should be self-preservation, and due to this, a state should seek power and protect itself. Realism has a very defined foundation, and that is dominance. The looking glass of realism sees the world through recognizing the winner and the loser.

Realism is a theory that depicts world politics as a ceaseless repetitive struggle for power. In other words, political realism seeks to explain international relations between states in terms of power. Realist “views that nation-state as the most important actor…because it answers to no higher authority;” in other words, it is an anarchic system (Kegley, 27). Some traits of realism are that states are sovereign, non-cooperation among states, and the exclusion if morality in policies.

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.

The end of the First World War saw a shift in political thought towards liberalism through the creation of the League of Nations to avoid a recurrence of international aggression, while realism seemed to have lost its credibility. The dramatic failure of the League in stopping another international war gave rise to serious questions and doubts about the effectiveness of the liberal ideas upon which it had been founded. This offered realism a chance to re-emerge as the dominant perspective in international relations. But, unlike the eighteenth-century definition of classical realism that argued that all states are motivated by the pursuit of power and expansion, the postwar realists modified the initial theory. For nearly 2,500 years, classical realism has displayed a principal unity of thought. One of the most important classical realist writer, Hans Morgenthau, came to have the largest impact on this field. His 1948 book, Politics Among Nations, coined an account of realism that dominated international relations for almost three decades.

There are two, key conflicting theories in the study of international relations, idealism and realism, known to scholars as the ‘Great Debate’. Realism, offers an account of international affairs through four central ideas; that states are the key players in international relations, the decentralised international stage is anarchic, actors are rational and self-interested

Realism by its own definition refers to a theory that analyzes the relations among states, highlighting human nature as a major factor in politics. Motivations for global outreach, relationships, and conflicts are described as consequences from human aspects, such as fear, the desire to seek wealth, et cetera. Pessimism permeates the core of realism. Realists argue that power must be sought out in order for states to exist as thriving groups, even if it means to participate in conflicts (Baylis et al., 2017, 102). States are seen as the primary actors to focus upon when analyzing international relations (Houghton, 2007, 25). This broad approach brings heavy focus upon the issues which regard global peace and war and how major powers interact and maintain relations, assigning less focus at the individual level of analysis.

Contemporary international relations is a complex field. Understanding events and attempting to make sense of them can be a daunting task. There are, however, tools available, which can assist in providing clarity to these complex issues. The first of these tools is historic knowledge. Without historic background of an issue, it is nearly impossible to understand the events driving that issue in modern times. A second tool, the one which will be the focus of this paper, is international relations theory. Theory can be defined as “a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action,” (Merriam-Webster) and can be used “in many cases as a basis of prediction.” (Mingst 56) There are three major theories which we

When “Arab spring” started to influence various countries in Middle East and North Africa with domino effect in 2010, Libya was one of these countries. There were uprisings in the regions because of the bad economic conditions, lack of the democracy, human rights, and people’s demand for democracy of the cruel dictators. The demands or discomforts were same in Libya, but process of the Muammar al-Gaddafi ’s regime’s end was different from others as it was intervened by coalition states and NATO. Libya’s intervene was carried out by the 1973 numbered resolution of United Nations Security Council in March, 2011. The reasons of the intervention were expanding democracy in the region, ending Gaddafi’s violence through civilians and changing the regime. However, unlike other interventions in international area, it was quick and sudden. Therefore it was obvious that other than providing good life conditions to Libyan people, there were also other purposes of the coalition states through Libya’s rich resources.

When discussing whether or not a nation-state should enter a war and when to do so, three beliefs on foreign policy and war exist. The three different diplomatic stances are that of pacifism, just war theory, and political realism. Political realism, or realpolitik as it is often referred to, is the belief war should only occur when it is in the national interest of the particular nation-state. Henry Kissinger, a political realist, in his book Diplomacy argues that realism is the only logical answer. Just war theorists, along with pacifists, on the other hand oppose these arguments and therefore critique of this form of diplomatic action. To construct a valid understanding of the realist perspective the arguments Kissinger puts forth in

Realism focuses on the balance of power and how it impacts of actions of state actors within the international political system. Morgenthau said that, “The aspirations for power on the part of several nations, each trying to either maintain or overthrow the status quo, leads of necessity to a configuration that is called the balance of power and to policies that aim at preserving it” (Morgenthau 1967,131). He goes on by explain that not only is the balance of power and the policies that protect it inevitable but also that they are essential for

Realism is one of the main theories within International Relations. It provides the view that all actors within the international system act on their own self-interests to gain power. This essay intends to discuss its usefulness as a theory and the reasons for and against it being used to analyse world affairs. Firstly, it shall discuss how the theory is advantageous as it explains how shifts in the balance of power can lead to conflict however it is unable to explain why the distribution of power changes. Second, it will portray how it is useful because states do not need to be labelled as good or bad to fit the theory although it disregards the idea of Natural law and gives a cynical view of human morality. Finally, it will suggest that as the theory is very parsimonious, it can be applied to multiple situations within the world system. On the other hand, it will be said that it fails to look at individuals within a state and their influence on the actions of the state. These costs and benefits will be conveyed through the current tensions between the USA and North Korea to link the theory in with current world politics.