International Relations Essay

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.

A realist’s view of the world is based on the idea of an anarchic global structure, where there is no higher power or authority above that of the states. Such a person sees the world as having competing power bases, maintaining individual states’ interests through the exercise of power. The primary concern is survival and this is accomplished by leveraging power. It is “the realist’s conception of power that has come to shape mainstream accounts of world politics.” Based on this view, in simplified terms, one might say that only through force can power be achieved. And one might assume that such force must be physical, coercive, or military in nature.

The balance of power theory is viewed as critical policy in the handling of international relations. To fully comprehend how the balance

Hans Morgenthau set out to "present a theory of international politics" (1948, revised 1985, p. 3) which would be tested by its empiricism and "ruthless pragmatism" (Snyder, 2004, p. 3). This essay identifies Morgenthau's definition of scope, purpose and concepts underlying a theoretical structure initially set out in six points in Politics Among Nations, identifies the structure holding these components together into a coherent "realist theory of international politics" (Morgenthau, 1985 p. 3) and discusses some of the controversy Morgenthau's proposals have engendered. Morgenthau's empirical pragmatism ultimately reduces to 'prudence,' which produces moral political decisions, ethics of which are different for the state than for individuals.

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

Hans Morganthau’s realist approach to international politics was centred around the stuggle for power, to the extent that, if the study of international politics were not focused on the global power structure, we would instead be studying international law and justice, or international economics (Morgenthau, 1985). Simply put, “Politics defined as power is important and merits study in its own rights” (Barkin, 2003, p. 327). The concept of realism rose from the “need to study international politics as they are, not as we feel they should be” (Barkin, 2003, p. 327), that is, as put by Morgenthau, through an “empirical and pragmatic” approach (Morgenthau, 1985, p. 3). As will discussed in this essay, we have seen throughout history to current times, actors in international politics behaving in such a way to maximise their self-interest through the harvest of material power. Constructivism provides another lens in which power in the shape of ideas, culture, ideology or other socially constructed factors, can be realised through political discourse (Hopf, 1998).

As for the long term affects, our greatest fear would lay on what we risk by putting weapons in the hands of the Ukrainian’s. We’ve seen several former Soviet states, with weapons supplied by Russia, from using these weapons further and in conflicts we disapprove of. To keep this from happening a close eye on the Ukraine would be required, once more draining resources further. In terms of long term peace, this option is the most fitting, with this retaining our alliances and possibly getting our desires in the end. Economically it is a larger blow than the first policy decision, but cheaper than full military intervention. We also have a greater chance of having plausible deniability if we support a counter insurgency plan over a full military action. This however

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.

     Ideas are the corner-stones of International Relations and Diplomacy. These ideas are often titled theories, a term that grants the ideas a certain degree of credibility in application, though they remain theories; they cannot be proved., only applied intelligently in hopes of arriving at the correct conclusion. One theory concerning the Balance of Power (BOP) falls under the Neo-Realist analysis of conflict within the International system. This Essay will attempt to apply this theory, somewhat retroactively to the situation in

Kenneth Waltz’s key argument is that states have little choice but to compete with each other for power as there exists no higher authority that they can turn to in times of crisis. After all, stronger states are less likely to be attacked than weaker states. Therefore, to survive, their main goal should be to ensure that other states do not gain power at their expense. Waltz emphasizes that “the first concern of states is not to maximize power, but to maintain their positions in the system.” Neo-realism’s principal departure from classical realism is the “idea that international politics can be thought of as a system with a precisely defined structure.” It also breaks with classical realism

Waltz’s postulate focuses on the anarchic environment of the international system and grounds his analysis on the consequence of the anarchic structure in the international system, which ultimately dictates how states behave. In this chapter, Waltz contends that the balance of power theory is a unique concept in international politics. The balance of power concept is laid upon two prerequisites, that the international system is anarchic and that the international system is filled with units wanting to survive. This theory claims that the basis of the balance of power does not result from actor’s interests but arises inevitably from the anarchic nature. With that being said, Waltz’s realist account is essentially different from Morgenthau realism model in that he presents a more systemic theoretical foundation for realism, in where state actions or balance of power is dictated and predicted from the anarchic nature of the international system.

Historical Realism on the other hand takes into consideration the historical development at that moment, the moment of development. Scholars of historical Realism still see the state as an agent that attempts to farther its self-interest; however, they also are interested in the historical factors, which affect the state decision in pursuing its goals in relations to other states. Thus, we can see that the realist prospective emphasizes the role of the state as the supreme power, ignoring the role of other actors, such as international organizations and multinational corporations. By that logic, states seek to gain power; wealth is a tool to gain that power, it is not an end by itself; and economic interest will change with the change of the position of the state within the international sphere. One must ask then, in a globalized world, where economic actors have significant power as much as political actors, can we still consider the state as the most important player in the international sphere?

The Realism theory explain that even if all the countries appear to have different objectives according to particular circumstances, in reality they have common intentions, which are focused on re-building the logic of policy makers. And the last assumption sees a country as a “unitary actor”. The nature of the international system defines the main problems that a country can face (Holsti, 1985) .

Realism is an approach to international politics that is based on the importance of power politics and the pursuit of national interests (Heywood, 2000). According to this school of thought, the international realm is a moral free ambience in which the state is seen as a rational and uniform player which finds itself in constant conflict with the other states of the system due to the lack of a comprehensive world government, i.e. an international anarchy (Oldemeinen, 2010). Realism is directly contrasting to romanticism or idealism, as it offers a cold and calculating picture of how the world functions, which is often seen as pessimistic. From an international relations perspective, realism portrays global politics in a homogeneous

Realism believes that power relationships matter most for states. In other words, it is an international relations paradigm that relies heavily on the importance of power and the anarchic nature of the international system. In analysing the floating exchange rate system, realists look for the role of the single hegemonic state or the concentration of power to one state. This is a system level theory that looks for what the hegemon