The Realist Theory Of The World Operates Within A State Of Anarchy

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.

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

Realists’ belief that, “war is unavoidable and natural part of world affairs.” According to Bova, there are over 200 sovereign states, and they all interest to gain power to defend themselves. As a result, state’s feeling of insecurity causes it to take any means to feel secure whether it is through the formation of ally with another powerful state or accumulation of military and economic power. Such action threatens other states provoke them take similar actions. This cycle applies to all states, and the feeling of threat and desire to survive is innate in humans In understanding International Relations, McNamara’s lesson is useful in the regards that actions that state takes to protect itself causes the complexity and conflicts of foreign policies that human beings are incapable of

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.

The debate on American power is a complex, yet interesting argument. This essay will discuss and define power through American military and economic aspects. These are key elements that define how much power a nation holds, as military and economic superiority allows a state to intimidate, persuade, and facilitate its own agenda. Both Cox and Williams have argued the debate on US power, and therefore their work features in this essay. I will discuss both articles in depth before coming to the conclusion that American power is in decline, and has been since 1991 at the end of the Cold War.

In a realist world, states have “supreme power” over its territory and population, there is an absence of a higher authority. The fact that there is no higher authority has its consequences. States become self-interested, they compete for power and security. It can lead states to continuously struggle for power “where the strong dominate the weak (Kegley, 28).” This ultimately creates a system in which each state is responsible for its own survival, making them cautious towards their neighboring states. In addition, a realist world is a self-help system; “political leaders seek to enhance national security” by building armies and forming alliances (Kegley, 28). Economic and military power are key components to a state sovereignty and to national security.

One of the founding fathers of political realism, Hans Morgenthau [1948], states that mankind exists to quench its thirst for power. Realism believes that any political action is determined by the pursuit of power of any state- whether for self-preservation or simply, expansion of the existing power- as was the case in the 2003 war. ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ involved a U.S.-led coalition which sought to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime.

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.

A realist’s view of the world is based on the idea of an anarchic global structure, where there is no higher power or authority above that of the states. Such a person sees the world as having competing power bases, maintaining individual states’ interests through the exercise of power. The primary concern is survival and this is accomplished by leveraging power. It is “the realist’s conception of power that has come to shape mainstream accounts of world politics.” Based on this view, in simplified terms, one might say that only through force can power be achieved. And one might assume that such force must be physical, coercive, or military in nature.

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.

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

For realist, it is necessary to prevent war, as it to achieve the national interest of a state, and to secure its security to the extent, it could ensure its survival in the international system. Thus, balance of power is important in order for the state to achieve these interests. Besides that, the realist argue that in the world politics, there is no central government to enforce law unlike in the domestic politics, thus each state has to provide for their own

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

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.