Realism And Realist Approaches To 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.

The international system is anarchic. It is very important to notice that anarchy, according to Mearsheimer, does not mean chaos or disorder, but absence of centralized authority, that stands above states and protects

We talked about anarchy means no central authority and there is no world police force. In class we talked about anarchy and how it related to International Relations. In the real world every country feel insecure and the only way for surviving is relying on themselves; self-help. We said in class, it is difficult to trust anyone because everyone is looking for self-interest in the anarchy system. As a result, that led to security dilemma that is actions taken by countries in order to secure themselves from other countries. Increasing its military strength or making alliances, for instance. The book talked about anarchy in general and how countries such as USA, Germany, and China would interact with one another under anarchy system. On the other hand, the book talked about how diplomatic communications can lessen or inflame tensions between countries or actors as well as clarify or obscure a county’s intentions. So not only military can help you to protect yourself but also

For realists the international system is anarchical, war is an ever present threat and the survival of a state is never guaranteed. This is why security is the main focus of most realists. States are forever seeking greater amounts of security, in a never ending search.

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.

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

While liberalism believes war to be avoidable through education, reformation of social institutions, and shared interests with other nations, realism finds war to be an unavoidable consequence of the self-preservation of the state. Liberalism sees the potential for and desires change, while realism finds change unlikely. Both theories agree on the principle that the international system is anarchic in nature. However, whereas realism relies on a balance of power to keep the system in check, liberalism does so through cooperation of international institutions and mutual interest of various states.

Though both theories provide similar solutions in how to gain what they want, their ultimate goals are truly distinct. Neo-realist see themselves as unitary actors, disregarding first or second images. They believe that since states are anarchic the only means of interaction is at the international level dealing with “high politics” and not the domestic determinants or “low politics”(Keohane. PI. 24). Focusing on what to them is the most important issue, security. Liberals are not unitary actors placing greater emphasis on expanding the means of interactions between states by discussing such issues as the economy, culture, capital system, and the individual. The interdependence amongst

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

Social humanitarian sciences focus on studying global political processes and the object of its research are social phenomena, which are defined as “international relations” in the world we know. International relations are comprised of many different categories, such as foreign policy, international politics or world politics. However, the central issue of international politics is the international relations. The term “international relations” has been first used by English philosopher J. Bentham at the end of 18th century. It is important to note that it is not accidentally that the term appeared at that particular time, as the border line of 18-19th centuries is marked by evolution of the international relations’

Anarchy is also defined as a state of 'absence of shared governance', this condition will force state actors to make a deal and an agreement between them. Robert Art and Jervis then explain that 'international politics then takes a role in the absence of centralized governmental authority, the absence of institutions emerging above the state with the authority and power to make laws and resolve disputes. The state can make agreements and cooperation, but there is no sovereign power can afford to ensure compliance and crack down on violations. This condition of absence of supreme powers is then referred to as anarchy in the context of international

Realism believes that the state is the main actor of the most important in determining the direction of a country. This means there is no term mentioned as an International Organization but merely the State. Realism also believes the State is deciding on the future of the people. In connection with it, the state is certainly confident that whatever actions are correct and appropriate

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.

For example, although there is consensus that the international system is structured anarchically, neo-realists and neoliberals hold differing views on the nature of anarchy: the former argues that anarchy is all-encompassing whereas the latter contends that anarchy can be weak or strong. Furthermore, neo-realists think that international cooperation is much harder to achieve than neoliberals do. What is more, they see institutions as unable to mitigate international anarchy, while neoliberals doubt this. All of the aforementioned differences will be sequentially elaborated on throughout this essay.