Observations of Realists Essay

There are gaps in the theory of Realism, one of them being that Realists argue States are the most important actors in an international system, but there are also non-state actors who do not hold any power, and are still able to display that power. This aspect refutes the

John Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism follows similar assumptions to that of other realist theories such as Thomas Hobbes and Niccolò Machiavelli’s realism, or Kenneth Waltz’s structural realism. Mearsheimer’s theory operates on five core assumptions. First, as with other realist theories, Mearsheimer assumes that the international system is anarchic, meaning there is no overarching institution that governs nation states. Second, under offensive realism all great powers possess offensive military capabilities. Third, States can never be sure that other states will not use their offensive military capabilities against them. Fourth, drawing from neorealist thought, states seek to maintain their survival above all other goals. Finally, all states within the system are rational actors (Mearsheimer, 2001).

There are three theoretical perspectives in which world leaders identify themselves with one theory or all, based in the decision they must make. To better understand the international politics comparison of the three theoretical approaches are conducted. Realism has been viewed as the dominant perspective in International Relation theory for many years. Realist view survival as the means to “create and enforce laws to protect citizens” (6). The assumption in Realism can be made that “the rules of the international system are dictated by anarchy; in this sense, anarchy is perceived as a “lack of central government to enforce rules” and protect states” (6). Realism can also be assumed as the theory that used by nation leaders to rule and govern with an “iron Fist”.

In an effort to bring an end to world poverty the World Bank and IMF (International Monetary Fund) were established in 1944. Consisting of members from 44 nations “The Bank and the IMF are twin intergovernmental pillars supporting the structure of the world's economic and financial order”(Driscoll, 1996). In other words they are international economic organizations that grant loans to third world countries for development programs.

Hans Morgenthau, a philosopher of realist thought, believed individual states to be the most important actors on the international stage. He argues that states are self-interested forces constantly vying with other states for dominance; that they’re vying with them for power. Power refers to “anything that establishes and maintains the control of man over man.” States are consistently consumed with the process of maintaining the power they already have and acquiring more. In Politics Among Nations, Morgenthau

Neo-realism, also known as structural realism or system level theory outlined in Theory of International Politics (1979) has been Kenneth Waltz’s response to the Realism theory by Hans Morgenthau (1948). The neo realist thinking of Waltz along with John Mearsheimer, Robert Keohane, Stephen Krasner, Charles Kindleberger and Robert Tucker George Modelski had a deep impact both within and beyond the realist tradition. Unlike classical realism, Neo realism does not consider human nature as relevant when it comes to the behaviour of states in international system rather explains it in terms of structure of the international system. As per neo realists, the international structure is predominately defined by their ordering principles (anarchy) and the distribution of capabilities (power) across units. In the neo realist theory, power is simply the combined capability of a state and changes in the structures can be explained by the distribution of power across the states. Waltz claimed that any theory of international relations should be able to tell both about the units-states- and the system as a whole.

Specifically aiming to predict and prescribe foreign policies, each theory offers useful elements to creating a multifaceted, effective foreign policy. In “One World, Rival Theories”, we see that the argument that “Policymakers and public commentators invoke elements of all the theories when articulating solutions to global security dilemmas” (Snyder 54). For Snyder, each decision does not often fit into a single theory, but rather draws upon the most useful pieces of a theory to use in combination with the other theories. Looking firstly to realism, we see the theory that arguably offers the most obvious example of power as an end goal of foreign policy. Realism centrally finds that international affairs involve self-interested states attempting to gain power, advocating for what many term “ruthless pragmatism” in hopes of creating a more peaceful global community (Snyder 55). Realism, by its dependence on strength through military power, proves itself most useful in its aid to the shortcomings of international organizations and laws to keeping peace. However, as Snyder argues, its own tendencies to depend on an unstable and unpredictable balance of military and political power that simply does not consistently exist greatly limit the theories application for real

Despite the evident differences between the two outlooks, both constructivism and realism are not completely dissimilar. Both theories hold that states are the “fundamental actors in international politics” (Weber, 2014: 264). With regards to constructivism, this

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

The English School of International Relations, often referred to as the ‘international society’ approach to International Relations or the Groatian School is a theory which is mainly characterized by its efforts to place itself outside of the polarization seen in the debates between liberals and realists as well as by its commitment to the study of what an important contributor to the English School of IR, Hedley Bull called ‘the anarchical society’. Just as this term implies the English School of IR acknowledges that a structural characteristic of international relations is the anarchy, however, it also acknowledges that autonomous states create a society that adopts concepts of justice and order in its judgment and its rhetoric. Therefore, this approach focuses on the balance of power, international law and the spread of cosmopolitan principles. (pg.78)

The European Union (EU) was 'founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law'. Democracy can be interpreted in different ways, for it means "the power of the people" where the public decide who they want as they leader by a majority vote system who represents the views of the people. Lisbon Treaty gave these rights the force of law therefore these rights are not to be violated by member states and must maintain a healthy baseline of democracy. Many academics have argued that the EU is suffering from a 'democratic deficit' due to the Euopean not having enough power and for other reasons which will be discussed. I will discuss the observation of Joseph Weilers 'standard version' of the democratic deficit and analyze the strengths and weaknesses of his argument. This essay will examine the reasons why many academics and authors believe there is a democratic deficit. Further discussions will point to renowned intellectuals who reject the idea of democratic deficit , such as Professor Andrew Moravcsik and Proffesor Giandomencio Majone who both refute the idea that the EU lacks democratic accountability- for different reason which will be discussed in detail. My conclusion will include my belief that the EU does suffer from a democratic deficit and this will be supported by the powerful evidence that will be stated throughout this essay.

Discourse regarding the European Union and democracy, is often paradoxical. EU is, on one hand, often accused of being undemocratic. On the other hand, others praise EU for reinforcing democracy. Many argue that the EU is undemocratic, as national parliaments lose some power after joining the union (Zielonka, 2007). EU membership also complicates the structure of democratic decision-making. However, simplifying the process requires centralization of power, which is opposed by all members. A counterargument to this, however, is that all members voluntarily and enthusiastically joined, and the majority of citizens supported EU membership (Zimmermann et al. 2012).

The increasing weight of the Union since its creation in 1951 has elevated the community to the international stage as an indubitable power and encouraged the debate about the characterization of the EU, fostered by the involvement from European political science scholars. Scholars have came up with a "sui generis" definition of the EU in the sense that it neither is an intergovernmental organization nor a federal state.4 Still, the novelty of the Union does not bound itself to the definition of the nature of European institutional set-up. Indeed, the discussion between scholars goes further towards the characterization of the European power.

Constructivists believed that the focus of the theory should be directed to the study of processes. The main task of the state is not confined to the issue of security. States may have long-term common interests and influence the international system. The interests of the state were formed in the process of "constructing". All subjects of a policy change in time and this creates a new identity (Kaarbo and Lee Ray, 17).

The EU has gone through different Treaties in order to achieve democratic legitimacy. This includes the Treaties of Amsterdam (1997), Nice (2001), the “unsuccessful” Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe (2004), and the Treaty of Lisbon (2007). The last two treaties, stirred open debates around Europe, with critics claiming that the treaties will channel a way for an unelected European super-state, while at the same time, defenders argued that it