The Importance Of Realism And Constructivism

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 realist theory has developed as a theory of state autonomy, emphasizing individual state survival, as a consequence of the perceptions of theorists about the nature of states and progress in the global system. Robert Powell define this perception, reasoning that “if one state can turn a relative gain to its advantage and the disadvantage of others, then [the system’s constraints] will induce a concern for the relative gains and this may impede cooperation absent any superior authority to ensure that these gains not be used in this way” (Powell qtd. Ordershook 213). This emphasizes the concept that states are chiefly concerned with the relative gains that they are capable of achieving, and [states] are acutely aware that other states intend to take advantage of any relative gain that they are capable of achieving in order to further protect their security and sovereignty.

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

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.

Realism is a theory which believes that sovereign states are the primary actors in the international system. It also believes that the international system has always been anarchic due to the nature of states not trusting each other and each state seeking to gain or maximize its own power capability. The Realist approach to the Cold War was also that of an “anarchical constitutive” and had seen the Cold War as something that was not out of the ordinary. The realists believed that states are always competing to maximize their own power, “the basic premise of its understanding is that the Cold War was not historically unique. the Cold War rather reflected in general terms the ongoing logic of inter-state conflict derived from the anarchical constitutive nature of the international system, and the ‘power maximization’ policies of states” R.Saull (2001:7).

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.

Realism has dominated international relations theory since emerging in the 1930’s. The era of state conflict lasting from the 1930’s to the end of the cold war in 1947, proved the perfect hostile environment to fit the largely pessimistic view of world politics. While many aspects of realism are still alive in International Relations today; including the dominant presence of states, intrinsic of war and the decentralised government. However, realism only reaches so far in explaining and creating a structure for international relations. Whilst the strengths of the theory lie in its pragmatic approach to power politics and conflict. However, the realist view is weakened by changes in the way that conflict is fought, the ineffectiveness of the balance of power model and the increasing global and interconnected world. Thus, using realism as a structure to explain international relations today is to some extent, a theory of the past.

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 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

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.

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

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 .

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.

In “Structural Realism...” Waltz defends his theory of Structural Realism against criticism that its tenets are no longer valid in a post-Cold War world. The international system, he writes, is still anarchic, even though that system is unipolar instead of bipolar as it was during the Cold War, and that states still seek hegemony and power. A nation 's ideals and internal factors may count for something (he posits that the US intervention after the collapse of Yugoslavia was the result of such pressures),3 but they certainly shouldn 't. States should make decisions based on the idea of maintaining their own security and maintaining a balance of power in the international system.