Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Do international organisations matter
Liberalism and realism comparison
Liberalism and realism comparison
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Do international organisations matter
Realism - The State is the Most Important Actor
Introduction
During the latter half of the 20th century, the realist theory has been criticized as an outdated method which can no longer sufficiently explain the actions of the global community.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.
Background
Realism is a theory, which while formalized in the 20th century, has a long history, dating back thousands of years (Kegley, 27). The theory of realism states that “all [states] must have survival as independent agents as their primary interest” (Waltz ctd. Grieco 602). As the primary interest of any state is its survival, states are compelled to protect their individual interests and maintain an independence critical to that end (Grieco, 602)....
... middle of paper ...
... themselves as the most important actor. Yet neorealists are quick to disavow the Leviathan and a controlling international power, instead suggesting a set of rules for coexistence and a principle of non-intervention (Walter 73). Neorealism maintains a strong opposition to the claim of any international actor having equal or greater power than the state. It does not deny the existence of international actors, but makes the claim that these actors cannot be more powerful than the state. International actors exist only at the behest of their state sponsors. State actors share the costs of running international organizations and ultimately have control over how international organizations are run (Grieco 618). Thus, while the international institutions exist and have the appearance of independent operation, in reality they are dominated by their state benefactors.
...heories outlined in this paper. One of the defining principles of realism is that the state is paramount to anything else, including morality. Realists argue that deviation from the state interests in an anarchic system creates vulnerability. Morality of state theorists uphold state sovereignty and argue that intervention is not permissible unless the circumstances are crass and warrant action. They talk about aggression as the only crime that one state can commit to another and suggest that aggression should only be allowed as a retaliatory measure. Finally, cosmopolitans believe that morality can be achieved at the individual level and that morality can be somewhat universally applied. Non-realists do not support preemptive actions or intervention under almost any condition, and the criteria by which intervention is warranted aligns with the principles of justice.
Realism, in philosophical terms, refers to the concept that there is a reality beyond our perception. This means that how we see things and what we believe about them has no impact on the nature of said things. For example an individual may see an object as blue and another see the same object to be red, this is merely a disagreement between both parties about how they should label the colour. This wouldn’t mean that both parties are discussing different objects, this shows that no matter what individual’s beliefs or thoughts on the real world are only ever approximations and do not accurately capture reality. (O’Brien, M and Yar, M, 2008)
Realism claims that what we can review about our surrounding is established in the fact that they absolutely exist. What we believe about gathered information is what we think about the actual world. It states that there is an actual world that assimilates directly with what we think about it.
By definition neo-liberalism is “a reinterpretation of liberalism that posits that even in an anarchic international system, states will cooperate because of their continuous interactions with each other and because it is in their self-interest to do so; institutions provide the framework for cooperative interactions.” (Mingst, 2011) The theory (neo-liberalism) relies on the prisoner’s dilemma, the initiation and use of institutions, and the common interest of one’s self to gain power and/ or advance without hurting themselves.
What neorealism believes is fear and distrust originated from the anarchy of international system, resulting in the pursuit of power for survival. As stated by Mearsheimer (2010), power is the currency of international politics. The statement addressed a simple but important question: “why do states want power?” While “human nature” is always claimed by the classical realism, the neorealists, or the structural realists such as Mearsheimer specified the structure or architecture of the international system which forces states to pursue power. All states desire sufficient power to protect th...
middle of paper ... ... Unfortunately, this idea of a zero sum military power game does not match up with reality. Each state takes actions based on the given situation and neo-realism misses this nuance. Constructivism actually considers this more by analyzing the actors at play and their identities and interests.
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.
In realism, states are seen as rational, unitary actors. Realists assume that the actions of a state are representative of the entire state’s population, disregarding political parties, individuals, or domestic conflict within the state (Goldstein & Pevehouse, 2010). Any action a state takes is in an effort to pursue national interest. National interest is “the interest of a state overall (as opposed to particular political parties or factions within the state)” (qtd. in Goldstein and Pevehouse, 2010, p. 355). If a state is rational, they are capable of performing cost-benefit analysis by weighing the cost against the benefit of each action. This assumes that all states have complete information when making choices (Goldstein & Pe...
The two states also used diplomacy in both a public and private forum. Publically, the two condemned one another in the UN, but the most significant diplomacy occurred in private. The duo interacted with each other most meaningfully through secret telegrams and backchannel negotiations, and it was through secret diplomacy that an agreement was reached. Once again, neorealism is displayed as its ideas about international organizations are reinforced. For neorealists, international organizations exist and can be utilized, but are not significant in situations of national interest or survival. The film depicts this concept for while the UN is used to try to gain public support, the ...
Both of these are international relations theories. International relations theories aid the individual in better understanding why states behave the way in which they do and “several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize” (Slaughter 1). That being said, to understand offensive neorealism, one must firstly be able to know the basis of realism in itself, as well as differentiate neorealism from neoclassical realism. Stephen G. Brooks argues in his article “Dueling Realisms” that both “neorealism and postclassical realism do share important similarities: both have a systemic focus; both are state-centric; both view international politics as inherently competitive; both emphasize material factors, rather than nonmaterial factors, such as ideas and institutions; and both assume states are egoistic actors that pursue self-help” (Brooks 446). Structural realism is another term for neorealism, and both will be used interchangeably in the following case study. Aside from these shared values that both reflect, the two forms of realism both present very different or conflicting views on state behaviour. For one, neorealists believe “the international system is defined by anarchy—the absence of a central authority” (Slaughter 2) and that states take action based on the possibility of conflict, always looking at a worst-case scenario, whereas postclassical realists believe that states make decisions and take actions based on the probability of an attack or act of aggression from other states (Brooks 446). To expand on neorealism’s possibility outlook, Kenneth Waltz argues, “in the absence of a supreme authority [due to anarchy], there is then constant possibility that conflicts will be settled by force” (Brooks 447). Neorealists look at the possibility of conflict due to the potential cost of war, due to
Many argue that Realism or Neorealism explains the war most efficiently, however Constructivists claim that Realism’s disregard of the missing link between nation and state, identity and sovereignty, and statesmen and the international system shows that Realism is incapable of explaining the causes of the Six Day War (Wendt). Although both Realism and Constructivism explain most of the causes of Middle Eastern conflict, I argue that studying the Six Day War from a Neoclassical Realist viewpoint provides a more thorough working analysis because it clarifies aspects of the conflict included in all three levels of analysis to explain the motives, rationale, and behavior of the states and individuals involved. Neoclassical Realism provides the most thorough explanation of the conflict through its inclusion of relative power, state capacity and intentions, domestic politics, and, most importantly, the ability of state leaders to perceive the capabilities, intentions, and relative power of states in an effort to explain foreign policy
From the realist point of view, the international political system is considered as anarchic. There is a lack of external authority among states that ensures peace, stability and balance of power. In the analyzed document, the author's main thesis states that changes of the system would alter the international political system. However, changes within the system will maintain its anarchism. In order to support his thesis, the author replies to liberal critics, who consider the neorealism as obsolete taking into account three important arguments against the neorealism.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
Realism is one of the important perspectives on global politics, it is a notion about the conservative society and political philosophy (Heywood 2011: 54; Shimko 2013: 36). Besides, Gilpin (1996) claims that “realism…, it is not a scientific theory that is subject to the test of falsifiability, therefore, cannot be proved and disproved.” (Frankel 1996: xiii). The components of the realist approach to international relations will be discussed.
“The process of globalization and the increasing role of non-state actors in global governance are undermining the role of the state as the principal actor in global policymaking.”