The Importance Of Realism And Constructivism

According to constructivism “The world of international relations is not just the world of material capabilities and materialistic opportunities it is also a social world”. Constructivists believe that actor states are occupied with both normative and material factors. They do not deny that the material world shapes their structure, but they believe that through reflections and discourse, actor states are malleable and influenced by each other. Constructivism thus deals with the process through which principled ideals become social norms. In being so, constructivism becomes a critical component for the international recognition of a state. This becomes crucial for actors, as the internationalization of social norms will ensure compliance over external pressure. Thus, democracy promotion can be subsumed under the socialization and internalization by actors. The persistence of democratic international institutions after the cold war as well as the mass identification of states as democracies and the absence of a strong alternative political ideology have contributed to a process of socialization promoting democratic cooperation. Therefore, after the Cold

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.

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.

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.

Many theories and explanations explaining the actions and existence of ISIS, and how it might be overcome in order to ensure the safety and security of countries worldwide. Two competing theories – realism and constructivism – give us much to consider about how we understand and react current events and future ones: “How a state manages those opportunities and obligations depends on its definition of the threat, its understanding of the players involved, and its assumptions about capabilities and responses both at home and abroad. In other words, a state must make a decision to balance the hard facts of realism with the potential of a more liberal foreign policy.” (Buros, 2011). Another thing to consider is the rest of the community: “How a state responds to that threat relies on basic assumptions made regarding the threat, capabilities of themselves and their allies, and the willingness of the international community to acquiesce to perceived aggression.” (ibid). Generally put, the proclaimed Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) flourished with instability and a weak government in Iraq. With previous ties to Al Qaeda, its involvement in fighting against Bashar al-Assad and capture of land in Iraq and Syria, coupled with extreme violent methods and rhetoric gave the region enough to be concerned about. How this occurred can be explained a few ways.

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 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.

Realism is seen to offer democracy from a perspective of both a classical and structural realism (Monten, 112-156). Democracy promotion through realism may be viewed as a situation when democracy may reduce some the causes of conflict cited by realists, the causes may not eliminate those in conflict. For realism, that is democratic peace, and that is when there is democracy in a country. Such democracies

In examining Kenneth Waltz 's “Structural Realism after the Cold War,”1 and Andrew Moravcsik 's “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,”2 it is clear that theories presented in each (Realism and Liberalism) are at odds with one another in many ways. But why did the authors reach the conclusions they did about the way that states behave in the international system? This paper seeks to answer that question.

There are many ways to definition realism in the realm of international relations. The best definition can be defined as “action is based on a self-interest which is defined in a predominantly materialist way in order to distinguish itself from idealism” (Guzzini, 2004). This can also mean that the nation state will use realist theories to further their own goals and agendas. Power is a major factor in realism on an international level. This can be seen most prominently in cases of war where one nation state goes to war with another to gain control of resources, land, or power over the other nation state.

Constructivism Realism agree with the theory that says the world is in anarchy (chaos). Constructivism also said that international relations can be established through conflict and cooperation. So here assessed the importance of existing institutions namely through regulative and constitutive. Each country needs to comply with the decree. If away, then there are various forms of action to be taken such as military, economic supply restrictions and others. So countries need to assess national interests whether to cooperate or not.

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

In contrast to the normative emphasis of ideal theorist political realism provides a stark contrast. According to realists, ideas about morality or justice have no place in an international political system that is dominated by the quest for security and order. States must act in their own self-interest to ensure their own survival in an anarchic world. There is no world government to protect them; they must emphasise power over any ethical considerations. As such, realists categorically deny many of the arguments put forward by Singer. William Galston provides a sharp criticism on Singer’s point on proximity by stating “if I see two children drowning – my own and someone else’s – and I can only save one, does it follow that I must be indifferent as to which one? Conversely, he correctly identifies that we will always give moral weight to those closest to as us and it is therefore his conclusions that “it is no accident that we have never seen a society that embraced Singer’s principle, and I can say with utter confidence that we never will.” It seems to that any inability to comply with Singer’s prescriptions proves that there is fault with the prescription rather than us.

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.