Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on realism explaining the state of international politics
Essays on realism explaining the state of international politics
Differentiate between realism and neo realism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
As an International Relations’ theory, realism has a long and complicated history whose roots can be traced back to the writings of the antique philosophers of Greece, Rome, and China. However, political realism increased in usage in the twentieth century after Edward Hellet Carr’s Twenty Years Crisis came to lead the rest of the schools of thought present in the field of International Relations. Soon, others joined Carr’s views: Schuman (1933), Nicolson (1939), Niebuhr (1940), Schwarzenberger (1941), Wight (1946), Morgenthau (1948), Kennan (1951), Butterfield (1953), and Waltz (1969). Realism emphasizes the fact that the states should rely on themselves in order to guarantee their own security in the anarchic international system. The hostile security interests and the changes in the balance of power will lead to conflicts. As for the term, although it is unsure where its origins lay, most scholars have agreed that either E.H. Carr, or Hans Morgenthau might have coined it (????).
In his analytical study of the Peloponnesian War (431-415 B.C.), Thucydides presents the ancient Greek war between Athens and Sparta as a consequence of Sparta’s fear towards Athens’ growth, city-state that felt the need to guarantee its own security through violence. The emphasis is on human nature, which is reflected, in the behavioural pattern of the state, but it is connected to the domestic politics and to the national wealth. Followers of Thucydides’ type of realism, identified as neo-classical realism, base their fear on the idea that the more a state extends, so will its imperialist tendencies, because it will need more resources; and the more resources you have, the more your ambitions will grow. It is something similar to a vicious cycle.
Acco...
... middle of paper ...
...States’ emergence as a superpower with no opponent on the political, economic, and technological arena. However, even the United States’ hegemony was unable to avoid conflict in the new post-Cold War world.
The realist approach got a fresh boost with Waltz’s new interpretation of realism. To him, state behaviour was the product of competition between states. His book, Work Theory of International Politics brought a new debate to the fading realism. In the beginning of the 1990s, the relist approach lost most of its support, influenced by international events, the most notable one being the end of the bipolar world. Slowly, a new type of realism emerged: neorealism. If we take into account different stages of the Cold War and the post-Cold War era, we reach the conclusion that realism was, is and will be the dominating theory in the field of international relations.
The first school of thought that we will explore is the “Classical Paradigm” also known as “Realism”. Proponents of this school argue that its assumptions can be found as early as in the accounts of Thucydides nearly three millennia ago. (Nye 13) When examining Realism there are number of important factors to note. First Realists consider their perspective to be empirical rather than normative. Hans Morgenthau, one of the most influential figures in the realist school as established by recent polling amongst International Relations Experts (Maliniak, Oakes, & Tierny, 2007) stated, “Politics is…governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature.” (Morgenthau, 1967)
The causes of the Peloponnesian War proved to be too great between the tension-filled stubborn Greek city-states of Athens and Sparta. As Thucydides says in Karl Walling’s article, “Never had so many human beings been exiled, or so much human blood been shed” (4). The three phases of the war, which again, are the Archidamian war, the Sicilian Expedition and the Decelean war, show the events that followed the causes of the war, while also showing the forthcoming detrimental effects that eventually consumed both Athens and eventually Sparta effectively reshaping Greece.
The theory of Realism key actor is the state. The view of the state in Realism is power seeking and to make judgments based on the significant of national interests. Each state acts in a unitary way to increase its power by war, balance of powers, or through economy. The International System believes in anarchy. The distribution of power among states can be judged by its economy and military capabilities. However, the Realist theory does take in consideration that change can occur in the International System.
As a result from the Persian Wars, Greece felt the need to form an alliance to defend themselves against future attacks. In 478 BCE, the Greek city-states all united to form the Delian League and Athens became the leader of the league. Sparta, however, decided not to join, which led to extreme tension between Athens and Sparta. Due to Athens’ arrogance, such as collecting all the wealth and misusing funds on extravagant buildings, members of the league became unhappy which led to the collapse of the league and the start of the war. In the Melian Dialogue by Thucydides, one of our primary sources, it describes the scenario between the polis Melos and Athens when Melos wanted to withdraw from the league. Thucydides’ record claims, “Athenians: the fact that you are islanders and weaker than others rendering it all the more important that you should not succeed in baffling the masters of the sea. Melians: what is this but to make greater the enemies that you have already, and to force others to become so who would otherwise have never thought of it?” In this scenario, the Athenians are displaying their arrogance and power by referring to themselves as “the masters of the sea”, which is accurate because they did have the strongest navy. But like the Melians said, the Athenians are gaining more ene...
The realism that will be the focus of this paper is that of Kenneth Waltz. Kenneth Waltz presents his theory of realism, within an international system, by offering his central myth that, “Anarchy is the permissive cause of war”. Kenneth Waltz’s central myth helps answer the question as to why war happens in the first place. During the cold war, there was a heightened sense of insecurity between Russia and the United States due to presence of nuclear weapons. The Movie Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb used cold war tension between the two countries to tell the story of a general who went crazy and decided to unleash his fleet of nuclear bombers onto Russian military bases.
The bloody brotherhood war during the ancient Greek, known as “Peloponnesian War”, that remains and continues nowadays in different ways. The desire and the power to control everything, forever, it can be a tragic, as history has shown. Athenians and Spartans have conducted the greatest war in the humankind history. The long and comprehensive war through alliances and leadership for three decades, with different policy and strategies from the both sides politically and militarily, were the biggest determinants for the ends.
The prominent scholar of Political Science, Kenneth N. Waltz, founder of neorealism, has proposed controversial realist theories in his work. Publications such as "Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis", "Theory of International Politics” and “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate,” demonstrate how Waltz's approach was motivated by the American military power. In acquaintance of this fact, the purpose of this paper is to critically analyze Waltz theoretical argument from the journal "Structural Realism after the Cold War". Firstly, this paper will indicate the author's thesis and the arguments supporting it. Secondly, limitations found in theoretical arguments will be illustrated and thirdly, synergies between the author's thesis and this analysis will be exposed.
Neo-realism and Liberalism both provide adequate theories in explaining the causes of war, yet Neo-realist ideals on the structural level and states being unitary actors in order to build security, conclude that Neo-realist states act on behalf of their own self interest. The lack of collaboration with other states and balance of power among them presents a reasonable explanation on the causes of war.
"Should international relations theory be held accountable for explaining fundamental changes in the hierarchy of international politics and the emergence of new actors?" It seems absurd to answer that international relations theory should not be in the business of explaining fundamental changes in international politics. However, this response paper will argue on both edges of the question. First, it actually does make sense to attempt to hold as many things as possible constant, or as "givens" in attempting to craft explanations for events in international politics. Jumping to an explanation that involves a fundamental shift in the structure of the international system or nature of the actors, should be a last resort, rather than the first. This is a major component of Waltz's neorealism. On the other hand, this paper will demonstrate that although it is desirable to hold some variables constant in attempts to explain great variation with few premises, one must take a broad view (to either expand scope, or break the previous "givens," of neorealism) to create better explanations. Several alternative schools of thought are in fact pursuing this goal, to include rational choice, liberalism, and regime theory. These approaches attempt to craft explanations of change, while holding different elements constant. Finally, a brief word on constructivism must be considered.
The international system is a complex and constantly changing realm that requires assistance to understand. Theory helps to simplify this by providing a lens to look at the world through. Realism is the political theory that provides the best explanation for why actors in the system interact the way that they do. With a focus on the blood side of the system rather than the money side, acts of aggression make more sense with this outlook. Power is pivotal in this theory as it is the defining factor for what actions a state can perform. This theory has seven assumptions that it uses to describe, explain, and predict the outcome of situations that occur in the system.
During the latter half of the 20th century, the realist theory has been criticized as an outdated method which can no longer sufficiently explain the actions of the global community. Critics point to liberalism, another widely accepted theory, as the successor of realism as the dominant theory of international relations. Opponents of realism assert that the Democratic Peace theory is evidence that the theory of realism is no longer complete. If realism were to stand alone, this accusation might have some validity. The development of neorealism helps to explain what realism could not, accounting for global developments since the creation of the theory of realism. Thus, the realist philosophy, with aid from neorealism, remains a credible philosophy that is capable of dealing with the challenges put forth by liberalist critics. This essay will review the realist theory, examine challenges offered by its opponents through the liberalist theory, and discuss how the neorealist theory has negated these challenges and provided a new foundation for the claim that states are the most important actors in world politics in light of a world where armed conflict is no longer the primary fixation of the world’s states.
During cold war period, realistic scholarship has been dominating the stage in international policy making, which providing the guide and reason for American politician to start a military race with the Soviet Union. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union led the world into a new global stage of corporation in international relationship, so the liberalism theory that demonstrates corporation may seem more a appropriate theory in guiding policy making than realism theory. However, the essential in international relationship between states remains unchanged because the fundamental of human nature is the same. Hence, realism theory should be still considered the most important factor to formulate foreign policy in contemporary international
For the general features of realism in International relation, Thucydides (460 – 411 B.C.E) had explain its perspective concerning on state actors, egoism, anarchy, power, security and morality. The set of premises he made was the fundamental understanding on realism
This paper concerns the two main paradigms in international relations, realism and liberalism. It will first define the terms separately, then discuss the origins of each theory, then examine the strengths and weaknesses of each theory and demonstrate how the theories work on their own. At the same time, this essay will investigate the most convincing theory of the both as it incorporates the presumptions into the case study of the United Sates’ invasion of Iraq in regards to realism and liberalism. This essay will conclude by elaborating on why realism is the most convincing theory in international relations.
The main purpose of conservative theories can be seen as the “explanation of political reality” and that they “help us to understand the world, and nothing more” (McGowan, Cornelissen & Nel, 2006). Conservative analysts state that a good theory can also assist decision-makers into creating better policies. Under the category of conservative theories falls realism. Donnelly (2000: 09) referred to realism as a “general orientation” that sees “international relations largely as a realm of power and interest.” This concedes that there is no concrete definition for realism, but it is rather a perspective on how political reality is shaped. Realists make certain assumptions on which they...