Critical Review essay #3 (IR).pdf

Let reason alone decide.-Parmenides Big results require big ambitions.-Heraclitus Arcing over the reign of the political are actors ranging from a monotonic individual to a macro entity termed the 'state'; the realpolitik of Ludwig von Rochau and cooperative, harmonious Willsonian global order have paved way for a rather diverse pool of debates and discourse in terms of this 'macro entity' or the state. The area of study dealing with the same was called 'International Relations' by Jeremy Bentham in his book Principles of Morals and Legislation. This area of study applies the microcosmic theories on a macrocosmic set of behaviours and relations. Palmer and Perkins define International Relations as the objective and systematic study of international life in all its aspects. The origin of 'state centric' world politics finds its origins in the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, wherein 'sovereignty' was established as the distinguishing feature of the state. Relations between and among the states are structured by acceptance of sovereign independence of all states, a feature of the Westphalian state-system (Heywood, 2012). State centrism has been losing its candour owing to the recognition of other actors that find significance on the world stage, like transnational corporations, and a host of non governmental entities. The academic discipline of International Relations emerged in its current form in the aftermath of the First World War wherein significant impetus was put on finding ways for establishing long-lasting peace. The centrepiece concern of the discipline has been the study of the relations of states, which were traditionally understood in terms of diplomacy, military and strategy. The

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.

MGIMO Review of International Relations

The article examines the major events of the two previous centuries of international relations through main concepts of political realism. The author argues that in order to understand the present dilemmas and challenges of international politics, we need to know the past. Every current major global problem has historical antecedents. History from the late 19th century constitutes the empirical foundation of much theoretical scholarship on international politics. The breakdown of the Concert of Europe and the outbreak of the devastating global conflagration of World War I are the events that sparked the modern study of international relations. The great war of 1914 to 1918 underlined the tragic wastefulness of the institution of war. It caused scholars to confront one of the most enduring puzzles of the study of international relations, why humans continue to resort to this self-destructive method of conflict resolution? The article shows that the main explanation is the anarchical ...

In this article, I explore recent work on realist political theory and international politics. I discuss how scholarship on the topic emanates from two different fields — International Relations and political philosophy — and argue that there is a good case for greater engagement between them. I open by delineating various kinds of realism, showing that the term covers a wide variety of methodological and political approaches. In particular, I suggest, it is important to recognize the difference between liberal and radical approaches. The remainder of the essay examines assorted examples of realist international political theorizing, work that ranges from attempts to rewrite the canon of 20th century political thought to contributions to the vibrant global justice debates.

Realism starts with states as the primary actors in the international system. Anarchy is the ordering principle of the international system. The anarchic principle allows realism to present a pessimistic analysis of the prospects for international cooperation and of the capabilities of international institutions. International anarchy fosters competition and conflict among states and inhibits their willingness to cooperate even when they share common interest. Liberal institutionalism came as a major challenger to realism. Historically appearing in its three successive presentations-functionalist integration theory in the 1940s and early 1950s, neo-functionalist regional integration theory in the 1950s and 1960s, and interdependence theory in the 1970s argued that international institutions can help states to cooperate. Thus, compared to realism, these earlier versions of liberal institutionalism offered a more hopeful prognosis for international cooperation. Also, provide an optimistic assessment of the capacity of institutions to help states achieve cooperation. Neo-liberalism, even accepting and retaining various realist principles, advocates the possibilities of cooperation and possible capacity of international institutions in this regard.Despite the existence of an anarchic world order, states do cooperate. No state would be able to live on its own or in isolation because of the simple concept of interdependence. My attempt is to look into the question of how far is the realist anarchic conception problematic in attaining cooperation in international system. Methodology may include following and reviewing the primary and secondary resources. Interview with eminent professors (on campus) will also be helpful.

LPF Annals, 2017

This paper has two aims: first, to discuss the concept of conflict within the field of political philosophy, and second, to clarify how conflict, appropriately defined, is a necessary and inevitable feature of politics. While this concept is often brought up in the literature, it has rarely been analytically defined. I define conflict as the situation characterized by (1) two or more actors (institutions, individuals or groups) having incompatible wills (due to interests, values, identities...), (2) at least one of them prefers the situation in which his will is realized ‘against the resistance of the other party’ (Weber, 2013) to that where his will is not realized but no cost is imposed on others, and (3) has the power and means to do so. Adopting such a definition allows to distinguish conflict from other popular concepts in political philosophy like pluralism, disagreement, violent struggle, and war. Pluralism for example, restricts (1) to values and does not imply (2). Rawls’s ‘reasonable pluralism’, for example, certainly rejects (2), while modus vivendi’s ‘radical pluralism’ often implicitly accepts it. Disagreement modifies (2) as requiring a will-to-truth or, at least, a will to find an agreement with the other party. Violent struggles are a specific form of conflict because they restrict their means (3) to violence. Similarly, war restricts (1) to institutional actors and (3) to organized violence. This definition of conflict, allows for several interesting features of the concept of conflict to transpire. First, not all conflicts are political. Second: the use of violence is contingent, although always potential. Third: conflicts are content-neutral. They cannot be resolved by proving the enemy wrong. Fourth: conflicts may arise unilaterally. Only one actor needs to exhibit the will to prevail, in order for the other to be in a situation of conflict. Given this definition, I claim that conflicts are permanent features of politics by showing that (1), (2) and (3) cannot be consistently eliminated. Contrasts of wills (1) are broadly recognized in the literature, both in political philosophy and in social and political sciences. The will to prevail (2) is not as unanimously acknowledged, but due to the unilateral emergence of conflict, we only need it to be possible, for conflicts to be inevitable. Similarly the disparity of power and means (3) cannot be consistently controlled in the political arena. I conclude by noting that as a reaction to the inevitability of conflict, a need for order emerges. Men are social animals in a materialistic and pre-moral sense, because they need each other to survive. Thus, the inevitability and disruptiveness of conflict prompt a vital need for a cooperative order. Since this means that there is no way to elude the need for order, without threatening our own survival, I conclude that this element is also a necessary one of politics, albeit in a weaker, hypothetical sense.

This essay questions the viability of political anarchy from a global governance perspective, eschewing the individual as a unit of analysis and instead focusing on the role and interaction of nation-states on an international level. In doing so this essay concludes that in a global context, political anarchy is feasible but not necessarily wholly sustainable. The implications of this for anarchic viability are discussed. The specific focus of this essay upon nation-states explores the claims of realists such as Mearsheimer (1994), who inherently assume that the system of international relations we inhabit is anarchic. Anarchy is not explored in any depth at more micro-levels of interaction but only referenced in passing and for example. Whilst it may be conventional to view political anarchy in binary terms, this essay makes the point that such a view is broadly unhelpful in understanding the practical implications of anarchy and the notion may be better explored in terms of ‘degrees of anarchy’.