Theories of International Relations

Realism in politics is a philosophy, which tries to observe, shape and predict political relations. It is based upon the assumption that power should be the primary goal of any political act, both in international or the domestic sphere. As far as domestic affairs are concerned, this theory states that political figures must direct all efforts to maximising their power. In the international sphere the nation should aim to maximize its power over other states. Interests should be satisfied by means of a power exercise, and the world is defined by competing powers This theory can be regarded as a prescription to be followed by politicians and states or as a description of current affairs of the state or politician pursuing self-interest. Realism in politics is often defined as a principle of power supremacy, and it has a long history since the dating back to ancient times. It was reflected in Peloponnesian War by Thucydides; by Machiavelli in his writing The Prince; as well as by other outstanding philosophers like Spinoza, Hobbes and Rousseau. Political realism is explained in the following way: “Prior to the French Revolution in which nationalism as a political doctrine truly entered the world's stage, political realism involved the political jurisdictions of ruling dynasties, whilst in the nineteenth century, nationalist sentiments focused realists' attentions on the development of the nation-state, a policy that was later extended to include imperialist ambitions on the part of the major Western powers-Britain and France, and even Belgium, Germany and the United States were influenced by imperialism (Viotti, Kauppi) .” In the second half of the nineteenth century it was found in social Darwinism who argued that social or political growth is determined by a struggle, in which the strongest parties survive (Ahrensdorf ). The underlying difference between social Darwinism and other branches political realism is the adherent of the former state believe nations are destined to rule over other nations, while others believe the that the nation, culture or politician secures their own needs before needs or interests of others. Political realism in international affairs Political realism suggests that international commonwealth is distinguished by anarchy, since there is no absolute world government that could rule with an all-purpose policy code. Since the anarchy does not need a chaotic nature, it allows member nations to enter into trading treaties. Theorists mostly agree with the Hobb’s theory: "Where there is no common Power, there is no Law: where no Law, no Injustice. If there be no Power erected, or not great enough for our security; every man will and may lawfully rely on his own strength and art, for caution against all other men (Hobbes, Leviathan, Part I, Ch.13 'Of Man', and Part II, Ch.17, 'Of Commonwealth, cited in Griffiths, O’Callaghan)." Respectively, without any supreme international force, nations treat each other with hostility or fear, and it damages the system. There are definite contradictions that can be found in the concept of political realism: descriptive realism may be regarded as a true theory or false concept. Even if it is regarded as a true concept, it does not necessarily mean that morality should be excluded from the principles that rule international policy. One of the strong forms if descriptive type of political realism states that states should be self-seeking, that they should build their policy basing upon desired gains of the nation and should not ignore their interests and demands. Simultaneously, “if descriptive realism is held, it is as a closed theory, which can refute all counter-factual evidence on its own terms (for example, evidence of a nation offering support to a neighbor as an ostensible act of altruism, is refuted by pointing to some self-serving motive the giving nation presumably has--it would increase trade, it would gain an important ally, it would feel guilty if it didn't, and so on), then any attempt to introduce morality into international affairs would prove futile (Stern).” The expressive political realism power depends upon the understanding of political reasons, between state diplomats and representatives. The pattern of officers’ relations, their motives and actions is complex. Waltz (date) says that the closed nature of expressive realism includes an oppose scheme that nations do not serve any needs at all, or can serve the needs of others only. The logical value of the three theories resulting from this concept offers that preferring one condition to another is an optional decision, if an assumption is accepted, or not. (Waltz, The present international sphere of nations’ interaction is defined by the lack of supreme power. In the past, wars were a strong argument in support of political realism – there have been more than 200 wars since the middle of the 17th century. This condition seems to have a chaotic nature, and some thinkers are likely to compare it to domestic anarchy, when state government is not able to rule the state: ‘Without a world power, war, conflict, tension, and insecurity have been the regular state of affairs; just as a domestic government removes internal strife and punishes local crime, so too ought a world government control the activities of individual states-overseeing the legality of their affairs and punishing those nations that break the laws, and thereby calming the insecure atmosphere nations find themselves in (Kegley, Wittkopf) ”. At the same time, such comparison leads to a conclusion that the relations between the state and the individuals are alike. This includes the personification of the states and collectivisation of individuals. Some theorists state that the relations between states and the citizens cannot be compared to the relations between the states and the relations of the individuals, and therefore should be differently judged. In addition to the propositions of descriptive realism, there are notions offered by prescriptive political realism, that a nation should follow its own interests and needs independently of the relevant state of international relations. This theory can be divided into various aspects, depending upon the proclaimed interest of the nation and the availability of the resources that would be used to reach desired goals. As far as the national interest is concerned, believers agree that the state should be self-efficient in economical and political sphere, cutting dependency on other nations (The Globalization of World Politics: an Introduction to International Relations, Year). This economic theory has been used for supporting political realism, especially in the 18th century the theorists of political sphere stated that the political power of the nation is reached and supported in the terms of reduced import and increased export only.

2000

Realism and International Relations provides students with a critical yet sympathetic survey of political realism in international theory. Using six paradigmatic theories - Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz, the Prisoners' Dilemma, Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes - the book examines realist accounts of human nature and state motivation, international anarchy, system structure and the balance of power, international institutions, and morality in foreign policy. Donnelly argues that common realist propositions not only fail to stand up to scrutiny but are rejected by many leading realists as well. He argues that rather than a general theory of international relations, realism is best seen as a philosophical orientation or research program that emphasizes - in an insightful yet one-sided way - the constraints imposed by individual and national egoism and international anarchy. Containing chapter-by-chapter guides to further reading and discussion questions for students, this book ...

2016

This paper will assess the alleged relevance of the realist thinking in International Relations by answering the question whether Realism still dominates the theory and practice of International Relations. Examination of some core theoretical assumptions of Realism and assessment of the continuing significance of the realist thinking during the Cold War period and after will be undertaken with regard to both theory and practice. To answer the key research question whether Realism is still dominant, arguments against and in favour of the claim will be presented. Based on evidence, the line of argument establishes that although the realist depiction of International Relations, with its stress upon the distribution of power, provides an important departure and continuous insight, not to mention the ‘timeless wisdom’ into the understanding of the behaviour of states, it is not in itself definitive as Realism has some noticeable weaknesses. This paper begins from the premise that although Realism alone is insufficient for understanding of contemporary international relations, its insights remain necessary to that enterprise. The method adopted is Toulmin model of argument, which serves as a basis for structure and organization. The big idea is an elucidation on ‘an enlightened Realism’, which confirms the continuing validity of Realist principles throughout history. It is explained through a juxtaposition between statecraft by Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Despite arguments questioning the relevance of the classical paradigm Realism is nowhere near becoming irrelevant in the practice of some states. Whereas the discipline has witnessed an astounding flourishing of numerous post-classical theories of International Relations. Despite emergence of such new theories, it is reasonable to suggest that Realism has not become obsolete. Undeniably, Realism produces numerous prolific critics, perhaps deservedly, because in its power political mode, it provides instrumental interpretation of the international system. Some would argue even, immoral examination of international politics, as opposed to a normative one, unlocked by the study of alternative International Relations theories, such as the English School, Constructivism, Feminism, Green theories or Global Environmentalism. It will be argued, however, that scholars of international politics cannot totally discard the Realist paradigm since security, rather than economic development, still remains the most important concern for many states in the developing world (although emancipation concerns are coming to the fore as well). Realism’s applicability and ability to explain the current international politics remains unparalleled. Although the world is changing (45% of the world is democratic), in certain fundamentals, it has not changed as much as many contemporary International Relations theorists believe. To a large extent, it remains characterised by anarchy, and its attendant logic of self-help and struggle for survival. The world is still decentralised, the key political actors are states which are competitive. This confirms Realist analyses of power politics with states compelled by their anarchic environment to act in a ‘functionally undifferentiated’ manner while using capability advantages to gain more influence over outcomes based on power accumulation, as timeless. In other words, Realism as one of not many theoretical paradigms remains relevant despite the passing of history, in other words, it aspires to explain events even beyond history as it is the longest tradition of thinking about international political reality. Thus, Realism remains essential to understanding states’ choices and actions. Consequently, despite the emergence of postpositivist approaches, it would be incorrect, some would argue even naïve, to state that Realism is not dominant. However pessimistically it may sound, based on data and evidence of states' practice Realism persists. Realism is far from being an exhaustive theory though, neither has it existed without evident limitations, nor has it remained universally applicable to all times and epochs (despite claims for it being beyond history, i.e. being relevant in all epochs), but its savage, simplistic variant is still evident in the world. Whether in brutal acts of war, acts of avenge, revanchism, competition and breaking of human rights, Realism is still unrivalled when it comes to the conduct of states in the non-democratic world. However, Realism's influence is not monolithic when it comes to theory. Realism persists in acts of states only when weak leaders sacrificing integrity and objectivity decide to allow so, for example, by not disarming an aggressor in time, or by turning a blind eye to unlawful military interventions, or by not being guided by ethics. Hard military power counts for more in the context of international politics than it does in democratic domestic politics. In international relations, conquest, or pure coercion, is not leadership, but mere dictation. In other words, 'offensive' Realism exists, as long as, weak leaders who are on top of states follow the realist precepts and its attendant logic of competition, rivalry, carnal revenge and retort to war. In so doing though dictators put whole societies as well as liberal order in danger. In contrast, strong leaders help groups create and achieve shared goals. Successful transformational leadership is about change. When strong leaders allow for the possibility of transformation of the structure towards security community, then the realist logic no longer holds true and is not accurate. Realism and neo-realism are unable to explain structural change in world order. In line with the evidence, although Realism is not definitive (i.e. even weak leaders have alternatives and societies have democracy to choose strong leaders), it is alive and well, and it looks like it is not likely to disappear anytime soon from both theory and practice of International Relations. Primitive, savage and brutal elements are unfortunately still visible in 21st century civilized world. What can IR scholars do to make Realism less dominant in both IR theory and practice of states? The relationship between theory and practice is that of mutual, dual causality. If Realism persists on top echelons of power, it persists also in the practice of states. To change this, scholars have to initiate a theoretical innovation among the top most powerful statesmen. Realism persists unless IR scholars are actively engaged in innovative refinement and eclectic creation of new theories which could then be, in turn, readily applied by strong, transformational leaders, i.e. leaders who believe in change and bring about real, multiple social change. In principle, good theories lead to good policies since policy problems inspire theoretical innovation. Theories inform policy although policy makers pay relatively little attention to the vast theoretical literature in International Relations. If this trend could be reversed, if more scholars would become more interested in doing policy-relevant work and if more policy makers started to listen to IR scholars, then this would enable more effective bridging of the gap between theory and policy. If it is accepted that the point of IR theory is to enable a convergence in which political theory meets practice. Then, such an analytic activity could be, thereby leading to a smoother and swifter transfer of new, well crafted, fine-tuned, and more innovative theories strengthening 'transmission belt' from theory to policy. This would be followed by implementation of effective, successful policies to enable peaceful change though within the system, in actual reality, leading to the innovative and technological transformation of the whole system. Perhaps, even civilizing the International Society in the way that some of the English School scholars have long time ago envisaged. Creative, original ideas exist, but they are rarely applied by policy makers and statesmen who often discard eco-movements, feminist, postmodernist, pospositivist theories. Thus, if scholars and academics produce useful knowledge, as for example with the theory of 'an enlightened Realism', such constructive ideas could be implemented into the practice of statecraft. When successful, research for policy’s sake could perform an enlightenment function of social sciences (this metaphor illustrates the role of a theory in understanding the world of IR - we can only shed light on what is known, and even then, we cannot be 100% certain about the activity of theorising, for what is unknown remains in the darkness) making the discipline more diverse and the world a better place. Reminding at the same time that each of the theories whether classical or post-classical, reveal only part of truth about contemporary international political reality, and thus, from this standpoint, none is sufficiently satisfactory.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

In the discipline of international relations there are contending general theories or theoretical perspectives. Realism, also known as political realism, is a view of international politics that stresses its competitive and conflictual side. It is usually contrasted with idealism or liberalism, which tends to emphasize cooperation. Realists consider the principal actors in the international arena to be states, which are concerned with their own security, act in pursuit of their own national interests, and struggle for power. The negative side of the realists’ emphasis on power and selfinterest is often their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states. National politics is the realm of authority and law, whereas international politics, they sometimes claim, is a sphere without justice, characterized by active or potential conflict among states.

International journal of innovative research and development, 2020

The application of theories in the study of International Relations is the surest epistemic strategy one could deploy to master the flexibilities and complexities of international system, structures and interactions-from intercitizenry level to that of national governments. This is more so because as much as the indispensability of empirical knowledge in theorisation thrives, the empirical knowledge could not be epistemologically comprehended, unless when premised on propositions, hypothesis and theories on the already known or established pattern of human conditions (Yandaki, 2015: 11-12). Indeed, the fluidity and flexibility of knowledge as it endlessly flows from the fountain of human intellect makes schools of thoughts and streams of interpretations to be numerous. This is not unconnected to the fact that people are usually the conscious or unconscious spokespersons of their society, as it profoundly influenced them (Carr, 1984; 55). As such, it is understandable why scholars belonging to different schools of thought, often write on the same phenomenon, differently. Impliedly, therefore, theories, regardless of the academic usefulness of their abstractness must possess empirical roots and correspondence (Yandaki, 2015: 14); so too, the theories in International Relations, the dominant among which are Realism, Liberalism and Marxism. These are considered to be the dominant because 'whatever comes later is simply built on them' (Arabu, 2016: 43). These schools of thought or theories are a construct of an array of scholarly dispositions by different thinkers, both classical and contemporary, on the nature and essence of human behaviour and interactions as they affect International Relations. The prime goal has been to have a cognitive mastery over the patterns of human relations in order to explain the laws of international interactions or recurrent national behaviour and orchestrate a safer and more prosperous world. Thus, being a plethora of enormous and complex events, issues and relationships, International Relations could be best understood and analysed through the instrumentality of theories, which help......observer to think critically, logically, and coherently by sorting these phenomena (i.e. the complex events, issues and relationships) into manageable categories so that the appropriate units and level of analysis can be chosen and, where possible, significant connections and patterns of behaviour identified (Burchill and Linklater, 2005: 16). Trying to assemble, narrow and explain the complexities of the nature of human beings as they interrelate, representing their respective groups at an international level, for instance, the liberalists stressed on the use of liberal approaches in international interactions. Furnished with a firm optimism on human nature, they believe that international law and morality, rather than power (à la the realists), are the key influences on International Relations; and with the presence of International Organisations such as United Nations (UN), cooperation, peace and prosperity could be achieved to form a comity of nations. The Marxists on the other side solely view International Relations from the perspective of economy, class struggle and the control of productive forces. They conclude that the hierarchical nature of the international system, which favours some nations at the expense of others, was a result of imperialism (Mingst, 1999: 66-70 & 79-83).

What is politics all about? Realism, as its name suggests, claims to be an approach to international relations theory that captures the real essence of politics. It has been the dominant IR theory over the past several decades, and its proponents like to speak of 'the timeless wisdom of realism'. By looking at some of its intellectual precursors we can try to see why realists make such bold claims.

Galaxy: International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 2023

Hans J. Morgenthau's "Politics Among Nations" is a seminal work in the field of international relations that lays out his political realism theory. Morgenthau argues that the international system is characterized by a constant struggle for power and influence among states, and that the pursuit of power and self-interest is the primary driving force behind state behavior. He also stresses the importance of diplomacy in advancing national interests and maintaining the balance of power, as well as the concept of the "national interest" as the primary guiding principle of foreign policy. The statesman also plays a crucial role in Morgenthau's political realism, as he must understand the complexities of the international system and make decisions in the face of uncertainty and ambiguity. In conclusion, Morgenthau's political realism provides a nuanced understanding of international relations and the behaviour of states in the pursuit of power, selfinterest, and national interest.

Strategic Analysis, 2017