Pol S Final Spring 2014

Taking realism as the security argument that deals directly with state security, it is accepted that nation states have valid concerns in protecting their borders and populations within from external threats, be they military force or manifestations of problems stemming from

In regards to how states deal with institutions and how much power certain institutions hold. One must realize just as the realists suggests that institutions do not always hold much power. However, with this being said it is also important for one to acknowledge that institutions such as the UN do set certain rules and procedures which may make it easier for states to interact and conduct business with one another. With that being said it is still important for one to know that not all states abide by the rules

Both realism and idealism dominate theories of International Relations. Realism dismisses legal concerns in regards to international relations, believes that a powerful state will always outdo weaker competitors and that there is no all-encompassing power that can enforce global rules to punish bad behavior. Idealists see values and their institutions as driving forces (1, Betts). For instance, Woodrow Wilson, an idealist, [his ideas] led to the creation of the League of Nations. This was an international organization that would protect weaker states from stronger ones. In Richard Betts article Realism Is an Attitude, Not a Doctrine, many modern international affairs are outlined and discussed through both theories of international relations.

Realism is the preeminent theory of International Relations, as it provides the best explanation for what is going on today in the modern world in case of conflicts and political disputes. Realism can be broken down in three elements: Survival, Statism and Self Help. Survival is fundamentally the basic instinct of any state. Not to forget that in International Relations, states are known as “Actors” (O’Neil, 2009). Survival mostly kicks in when a state is under anarchical rule, or simply “a state with no higher authority” (Mearsheimer, 2008). Statism on the other hand concentrates on economic controls of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industries. And finally Self Help. Self Help is basically being able and adapted to succour one’s state in times of hardship and distress. Even though there are many different elements and

Realism tends to focus on the struggle for power between states in an anarchic international system. The major actors of realism are the states themselves. Realism presents a realistic view of international relations and focuses primarily on how the world is literally, rather than how it ought to be. Realist believes that states are rational, unitary actors whose aim is to enhance their power and security by all means. There is evidence that Iraq was a unitary actor who, just as the realists believe, fought in order to enhance its power and security. Though, some could argue that the Persian Gulf War was justified, there is sufficient evidence that concludes otherwise. Whether or not the public considered the Persian Gulf War justifiable, the main issue is that it was a battle that resulted in the death of thousands of lives, both soldiers and civilians.

Realists and Liberals have their differences. One can already foresee that Realism has much more a conservative and pessimistic vision of the world. This comes from the realist’s skepticism about the capacity of human reason and the delivery of moral progress, all due to self-interest. As growth is not possible for Realism, survival of the state is the solitary thing that matters, which therefore reflects on its conservatism. From a realist perspective, the most important objective is relative power, whether a state is more or less powerful than one’s traditional rival. This concept influences how states act. States that have relatively more power; have very few constraints to states that have less power. Overall, this influences the stability

According to realism, the system for any country works for their benefits only by increasing their power relative to that of other countries. The reasons realism theory works this way because it claims that the world is a very dangerous place and the only way to survive is to be strong and powerful by having a reliable military power. There are many reasons that realism thinks that way (Sparknotes, 2017). First, there is no controlling power that can inforce global rules or punishments. Second, other countries might take advantage because moral behavior is very risky and can cripple the country’s ability to protect itself. Third, it looks like the international system is causing countries to engage in military force and war. So realism believes that the leaders may be ethical, but they must not let their honesty concerns guide their foreign policy.

Realism , and how the Syrian government's agreement to hand over its chemical weapons is inconsistent with the realist theory. Realism starts with two key assumptions:that states are the dominant actors,States must live in fear of one another.Realist assume that anarchy which is the absence of central authority , shapes the interest and interactions that matter in world politics ( ). Realist emphasizes that the lack of a central government or international police enforcement ,Leave no other option but to add extreme measures of security;In order To protect its sovereignty and its people.With the high interest of state Security ; comes an interest in acquiring power- usually having stronger military capabilities than other states. This leads to Neighboring states competing on building

2) The state is the most important rational actor in international relations. Realists see the system as a state dominated one. The idea of state-sovereignty is where no outside actor can dictate the domestic or foreign policies of another state. Realists also give little importance to non-state actors. They view individuals and non-government organizations as lacking the military power needed to compete with the other states in the international order.

However, the core of realism theory, with its understanding of world politics remains the same – uncompromising struggle between states for power and influence, and not moral and legal principles that define the foreign policy of a state. One of the baselines for political realism is the clause of the anarchic nature of international relations. From this point of view, the anarchic nature of relations

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.

“Realists believe that the most important actors in world politics are states and state decision makers”

It is easy to draw that conclusion, since realism depicts a world characterized by security competition and war. The second assumption is that great powers inherently possess some offensive military capability, which gives them the wherewithal to hurt and possibly destroy each other. States are potentially dangerous to each other, although some states have more military might than others and are therefore more dangerous. The third assumption is that states can never be certain about other states ' intentions. Specifically, no state can be sure that another state will not use its offensive military capability to attack the first state. The fourth assumption is that survival is the primary goal of great powers. Specifically, states seek to maintain their territorial integrity and the autonomy of their domestic political order. The fifth assumption is that great powers are rational actors. They are aware of their external environment and they think strategically about how to survive in it”

First of all, under realism, IOs are not powerful independent actors in international society. Amongst realism’s central axioms is the assertion that the state is “the only legal actor internationally,” (Baylis, Smith and Owens, 2014, 544). This effectively means that the state is the only powerful independent actor in international society. Furthermore, this principle also establishes that since IOs are not states, they do not have any power within the international system, thus, they cannot be powerful independent actors in international society. There are instances where the state has ignored the

The realist theory has been prevalent in history for much time, displaying its prominence ubiquitously in international relations. The realistic theory which has been examined and supported by philosophers such as Hans Morgenthau and Thomas Hobbes, concludes that the world operates within a state of anarchy. The states tend to strive and pursue for their own benefit and the primary objective for the states is survival and power. Therefore, an accumulation of resources and military is vital. Much of politics are flooded with political actions induced by presidential ambitions. The relevance of realistic theory is quite evident in International relations, from analyzing Morgenthau’s principles of political realism: power, security, statism and moral significance of political actions .