Realism

Realism has dominated IR since 1945

Introduction

It arose in reaction to Idealism.

Idealism provided the intellectual basis for explaining international

relations during the inter-war period (1919-39). It was a tradition

concerned with preventing war, especially a world war. Its concern

was the promotion of peace and security.

The theory inspired policies of appeasement. WWII exposed the

problems of this policy.

Common components of Realist Theory 1

Anarchy

There is no legitimate world governing body or a world government

capable of governing the world.

State-centric

States are the main actors on the world stage.

States take no orders from any external agency.

States are unitary actors. States are “unitary” actors = domestic

considerations are irrelevant.

States are rational actors. Cannot explain their behaviour in superhuman

(magical or godlike) or subhuman (animalistic) terms.

Self-help for Survival

States seek their own survival. States strive for power for survival.

Survival is the most important component of national interest.

You cannot entrust your survival to anyone else. The use of force in IR is legitimate. Force is a legitimate instrument of

statecraft.

Power

Power is defined primarily in military terms.

The power of a state is also affected by several factors such as

geography, natural resources, military capability, population & the quality

of diplomacy, etc.

Peace?

There is no moral or ethical code in international politics as Idealists

wanted to create.

The standard of justice depends on the ability to compel. “The strong do

what they have the power to do, the weak accept what they have to

accept.”

In the struggle for power, states create a kind of balance of power, which

stabilizes the international system.

No belief that international institutions can advance the cause of peace.

You cannot entrust your survival in anyone’s hands.

States advance their interests through international institutions.

Scholars

Morgenthau

Mearsheimer

Walt

Pape

Kissinger

There are at least two main versions of Realism.

Classical Realism2

This focuses on power-seeking as an inherent tendency of human beings.

Like human beings, states always want more power.

Because it is conducted by human beings, international relations is

essentially about power.

States love their own interests more than those of any others. Thus, states

are self-interested.

Neo-realism3

Generally, neo-realists share most of the assumptions of classical realism

(anarchy, the state, etc.).

Two differences:

(i) International politics is a struggle for power and influence. But

states do not always seek to have more power: they can just

defence their interests.

Leads to power-maximisers = Offensive Realism. For states

acquiescent to status quo = Defensive Realism.

(i) Power need not be understood in such military terms. Can be

cultural and economic.

Criticism of the Realism School

Are states such dominant actors? Not for smaller states, surely.

Supranational and non-state actors are influential, too.

Interactions among states and other actors based not solely on power,

but on economics and other cultural factors.

The concept of power is overemphasised. It is also viewed as an end-initself,

rather than a means to an end.

Cannot explain charity and/or sacrificial behaviour of states. Aid,

humanitarian intervention.

The notion of the state as a unitary actor is suspect.