Essay about Well Known Practitioners of Realpolitik

In a letter to an Italian friend, Napoleon wrote, “I do not wish to see Italy united. I want only independence. Unity would bring danger to me…” (Doc 11). Despite all of the bitter resentment, Cavour was pleasantly surprised when the northern and central states of Italy called for a fusion, and he returned to power in 1860 (McKay et al

Napoleon Bonaparte was an absolute dictator of France and he shows this by making every decision himself, thinking of himself as better than

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

Therefore, they strategically persuaded European powers to fight against Austria…Italy provoked Austria into war Cavour then used Garibaldi’s popular appeal to his benefit. “When Garibaldi and Emmanuel rode through Naples to cheering crowds, they symbolically sealed the union of north and south, of monarch and people.” (McKay, 837) Italy was now unified.

Few humans have ever come as close to ruling over the entirety of Europe as Napoleon Bonaparte did. As the end of the French Revolution drew near, Napoleon Bonaparte did not hesitate long to create policies that kept him in power. With such power, it was certain that Napoleon would use it to influence to people all over Europe. Napoleon’s impact on the people of France and Europe, who he affected through propaganda, his ideas of nationalism and patriotism, and a codification of laws, was a very long-standing and resilient ideology that was mostly prevalent during the French Revolution.

Gioberti suggests that the unification would remove civil disputes, such as wars and revolutions, that occurred within Italy as well as create such a strong Italy that no foreign forces could penetrate it. This was important at the time, while many foreign forces, such as Prussia and Austria, had invaded Italy. It was also important that Italy unify in order to prevent revolutions, for Italy had had multiple revolutions prior to this time period. Though some would disagree with these benefits, Marquis Massimo d’ Azeglio, a politician from Piedmont, had said “... ask any Italian, north or south, whether or not it is useful for Italy to free itself from foreign domination and influence, and no one, thank God, will reply other than in the affirmative.” (Document 6) Azeglio says that, though not everyone agrees with Unification, everyone would agree that it is better for Italy to free itself from foreign domination. This could possibly be done through Italian unification and the impossibility of foreign invaders, which was mentioned by Gioberti. Many people believed in the Italian unification for its abilities to create strength, remove civil problems, and prevent foreign domination and

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.

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

Napoleon’s political ideas were efficient and worked well to rule a country; he even adapted his ideas to help France run more efficiently. The Napoleonic Code gave equality to all male citizens and he rehabilitated the Catholic Church for his people, despite his belief in religious freedom. He created a bureaucracy with subprefects, prefects, and mayors that ran France. All of these ideas helped France run smoothly.

In realist theory, states are self-interested in that their own ‘relative gains’ are favoured over ‘absolute gains’ (i.e. gains for the entire society of states). This raises questions of motive and the potential for abuse in

Classical realist theory is based upon the idea that human nature is inherently bad and selfish, the international system is anarchic, and the state is the most important actor in international affairs. Basing policy decisions on human nature, the state looks to maximize it’s power and security within its geographic location. Realist theory sees all conflict deriving from power struggles between states, though it is not about fostering wars; rather the opposite.

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

The study of politics had its roots in philosophy and while there has been a drive to steer the study of politics towards a more scientific approach, many scholars like Max Weber believe that social sciences cannot simply imitate the natural sciences. This essay will examine the various approaches to applying scientific methodology to the study of politics and it will specifically explore Behaviorism, Positivism and Interpretivism and by looking at each methodology briefly explore the advantages and disadvantages of each method.

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.