| Realism In International Relations |
Article Index for Realism |
Website Links For Realism |
Information AboutRealism In International Relations |
|
The term realism or '''political realism''' collects a wide variety of theories and modes of thought about International Relations that have in common that the motivation of states is in the first place the strive for (mostly) military and economic power or security, rather than Ideals or Ethics . This term is mostly used as a synonym for Power Politics . Sometimes realism is also used to refer to classical realism, the oldest form of realism. HISTORY OF REALISM Realism became a discipline in international relations during and after World War II . Realism is nevertheless similar to and perhaps even found its origin in earlier writers like:
BASIC THEORY Fundamental principles common to realist theories:
Realism makes several key assumptions. Primarily, it assumes that mankind is not inherently benevolent and kind but self centered and competitive, in contrast to other theories of International Relations such as Liberalism . It also fundamentally assumes that the international system is Anarchic , in the sense that there is no authority above states capable of regulating their interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity (that is, no true authoritative World Government exists). It also assumes that Sovereign State s, rather than international institutions, non-governmental organizations, or multinational corporations, are the primary actors in international affairs. According to realism, each state is a Rational actor that always acts towards its own Self-interest , and the primary goal of each state is to ensure its own Security . Realism holds that in pursuit of that security, states will attempt to amass Resource s, and that relations between states are determined by their relative level of power. That level of power is in turn determined by the state's capabilities, both military and economic. Moreover, Realists believe that states are inherently aggressive (''offensive realism''), and that territorial expansion is only constrained by opposing power(s). This aggressive build-up, however, leads to a Security Dilemma where increasing one's own security can bring along greater instability as the opponent(s) builds up its own arms. Thus, security is a Zero-sum game where only ''relative gains'' can be made. There is a distinction between ''structural realism'' and '''''liberal realism''''' (also known as "Neoliberal Institutionalism"): :The former emphasize the permanent condition of conflict. Thus, to ensure state security, states must be on constant preparation for conflict through economic and military build-up. :The latter holds that while the system is anarchical, through diplomacy, international law and society, order can be promoted. (''English School'') This gives credence to establish IGOs such as the United Nations . MODERN REALISM Classical realism Modern realism began as a serious field of research in the United States during and after World War II. This evolution was partly fueled by European war migrants like Hans Morgenthau who had a negative view of human nature, thought by some to be due to their experiences in WWII. Other important political realists include among others:
Liberal Realism
Structural or Neo-realism See Also: Neo-realism Neo-Realism resembles Classical Realism on most accounts. However, Neo-Realism predominantly focuses on the ''international system'' rather than human nature. While states remain the principal actors, greater attention is given to the forces above and below the states through a Levels of Analysis or '''Structure-Agency''' debate - with the international system as a ''structure'' acting on the state and individuals below the level of the state acting as ''agency'' on the state as a whole.
Neoclassical realism Neoclassical Realism can be seen as the third generation of realism, coming after the classical authors of the first wave (Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Morgenthau), and the neorealists (esp. Kenneth Waltz). Its designation of "neoclassical", then, has a double meaning: 1) It offers the classics a renaissance; 2) It is a synthesis of the neo and the classical approach. Gideon Rose is responsible for coining the term in a Book Review he wrote Gideon Rose, "Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy", ''World Politics'', Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 144-172. In the article, Rose identifies Randall Schweller, Fareed Zakaria, Thomas Christensen, William Wohlforth and Aaron Friedberg as being the main Neoclassical Realist authors. What primarily motivated these scholars to come up with a new theoretical model was the fact that neorealism was only useful to explain political outcomes (classified as being 'theories of international politics'), but had nothing to offer about particular states' behavior (or 'theories of foreign policy'). The basic approach, then, was for these authors to "refine, not refute, Kenneth Waltz", by adding domestic intervening variables between systemic incentives and a state's foreign policy decision. Thus, the basic theoretical architecture of Neoclassical Realism is: Distribution of power in the international system (Independent Variable) >>> Domestic perception of the system and/or domestic incentives (Intervening Variable) >>> Foreign Policy decision (Dependent Variable) While the Neoclassical approach has only been used for theories of foreign policy so far, Randall Schweller notes that it could be useful to explain certain types of political outcomes as well.Randall L. Schweller, "The Progressiveness of Neoclassical Realism", pp. 311-347 in Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman eds., ''Progress in International Relations Theory'', (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003). This new realist model is particularly appealing from a research standpoint because it still retains a lot of the theoretical rigor that Waltz has brought to realism, but at the same time can easily incorporate a content-rich analysis, since its main method for testing theories is the process-tracing of case studies. Constructivist realism CRITICISMS OF REALISM Several critiques were raised against the realist school. One problem is that there are in fact authorities above states capable of regulating inter-state relations. There are organizations like the U.N. , WTO , ISO as well as multitudes of multinational organizations and companies. While none of these organizations has the powers of a full government, they do have a considerable influence over the actions of states. According to this view, American efforts to receive U.N. support for the invasion of Iraq illustrate the power of the U.N. Had the U.N. no power, as realists would claim, it would have never played any role in the run-up to the war. Further criticism of political realism says that realism has an incorrect concept of a state. States are not actors but rather large organizations. It is impossible, say the critics, to understand international relations without making this distinction. An illustration of this phenomenon can be found in the difficulties involving signing the CAFTA . In particular, the agreement was ratified by United States Senate only after a considerable delay and uncertainty about the outcome. With increased Globalization , some argue that the statist nature of realism has proven wrong, as states cannot be considered as unitary actors in pursuit of rational self-interest. Examples include the reality that many states have an economy smaller than many multinational corporations (MNCs) and some MNCs even employ their own quasi-military forces to protect their own installations and thus are more powerful than the state. Realists maintain that MNCs are legitimized by other states and thus cannot be considered as independent entities. Yet, this places doubt on the state as a unitary actor - as surely interaction between non-state actors (for example, between MNCs) is becoming increasingly commonplace. Critics also argue that the success of the European Union (EU) shows that states are capable of cooperation and indeed the European Union is an example of a supranational government - ''above'' the level of the state. Realists respond that as the divisions within the EU on everything from agreeing on a constitution to agricultural policies, states may just be joining in pursuit of their own rational self-interest. Yet, laws of the European Parliament and court decisions of European Courts are applicable across all EU nations - suggesting that the EU is indeed a supranational government rather than an IGO. Democratic Peace Theory advocates also argue that Realism is not applicable to Democratic states relations between one another, as these states have been shown to conduct relations with the absence of war in their foreign policies. SEE ALSO Modern realist statesmen REFERENCES EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|