Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The realist and idealist theory of international relations
Role of Political communication in society
Significance of political communication
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Refuting the State-Centric Realist Approach to International Relations
In the realm of international relations, there are many theories that propose a framework for analysis of the happenings of international relations. One of the predominant theories is the realist theory. The state centric Realist theory, rooted in ancient western philosophy is one of those theories that have been proven effective after centuries of use. The early 20th century however, marked the beginning of a time that would require advocates of realism to reevaluate its approach to international relations. Some events do not fit in the realist framework; as such some have questioned its validity in the current state of affairs. Predominantly, one of the forces at play is that of international non-governmental organizations or NGOs. The coalition to ban landmines, for example, was a joint effort on behalf of many actors and NGOs that eventually led to the policy changes of numerous countries worldwide. Through the use of NGOs women’s rights movements have also been successful at influencing governments in recent years with direct and indirect pressures on government. Consequently, through the effort of NGOs awareness has been brought to problems otherwise overlooked. Increased awareness on issues could lead to a widespread change in party preferences, if the government fails to act. Conformity may be the government’s only choice when faced with these pressures. Though the state centric realist approach to international relations has been widely accepted, this paper will illustrate how the realist framework falls short in explaining some of the dynamics of global politics today. This will be done through the analysis NGOs, the Ottawa Convention, and the Wom...
... middle of paper ...
...s, in turn has influenced international relations. This transition has occurred alongside heightened means of communication. Communication as we have seen has been a fundamental aspect in creating these organizations and networks. Likewise, as all of this is in relation to realism, we begin to see a trend emerging. Times have changed, communication has evolved and participation has increased. The example of the Landmine ban convention, The Women’s Movement, and impact of other successful NGOs result in change that have most definitely has had a strong impact in the unquestioned realism of international relations. Considering the above, one conclusion remains: The fact that realism cannot account for the aforementioned changes and developments in regards to NGOs goes to show how realism may lack theoretical framework to fully assess today’s international politics.
...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.
The United Nations General Assembly 36-103 focused on topics of hostile relations between states and justification for international interventions. Specifically mentioned at the UNGA was the right of a state to perform an intervention on the basis of “solving outstanding international issues” and contributing to the removal of global “conflicts and interference". (Resolution 36/103, e). My paper will examine the merits of these rights, what the GA was arguing for and against, and explore relevant global events that can suggest the importance of this discussion and what it has achieved or materialized.
In no field other than politics does the justification for action often come from a noteworthy event and the true cause stays hidden behind the headlines. The United States’ transformation from a new state to a global superpower has been a methodical journey molded by international conditions (the global terrain for statecraft), the role of institutions and their programmed actions, and ultimately, the interests of actors (the protection of participants in making policy’s items and i...
The world order as it is currently known is the entangled product of centuries of complicated and gruesome history of the interactions among people, one forever stained by human rights violations, morbid wars, and encroachments of power. Although these actions cannot be erased from history, they can be prevented from recurring. Acclaimed authors Kate Nash, in her book The Culture of Politics of Human Rights: Comparing the US and the US, and Hannah Arendt, in her chapter “The Decline of the Nation-State and the End of the Rights of Man,” explain their respective views regarding skepticisms of international institutions and global solidarity campaigns to address human rights matters and delineate the limits of the practicality of a post-national
To understand the international relations of contemporary society and how and why historically states has acted in such a way in regarding international relations, the scholars developed numerous theories. Among these numerous theories, the two theories that are considered as mainstream are liberalism and realism because the most actors in stage of international relations are favouring either theories as a framework and these theories explains why the most actors are taking such actions regarding foreign politics. The realism was theorized in earlier writings by numerous historical figures, however it didn't become main approach to understand international relations until it replaced idealist approach following the Great Debate and the outbreak of Second World War. Not all realists agrees on the issues and ways to interpret international relations and realism is divided into several types. As realism became the dominant theory, idealistic approach to understand international relations quickly sparked out with failure of the League of Nation, however idealism helped draw another theory to understand international relations. The liberalism is the historical alternative to the realism and like realism, liberalism has numerous branches of thoughts such as neo-liberalism and institutional liberalism. This essay will compare and contrast the two major international relations theories known as realism and liberalism and its branches of thoughts and argue in favour for one of the two theories.
According to realist view ordering principle of the international system is based on anarchy. There is no higher authority other than the states themselves to check and balance their actions. Consequently, nation-states are the main players in this system. In other words, sovereignty inheres in states, because there is not a higher ruling body in the international system. This is known as state centrism. Survival is an obligation continuing to be sovereign. On the other hand, sovereignty is the characteristic feature of states and its meaning is strongly tied to use of force. According to the most of the realist variants, states are “black boxes”; the determinative factor is states’ observable behavior, not their leaders’ characteristics, their decision making processes or their government systems.
Both states have certain tools that they prefer to wield and one of these is secrecy. On the American side, spies, observation flights, and suppressed journalism were used to achieve American goals, and the Soviet Union paralleled this. The Soviet Union continuously denied placing offensive weapons in Cuba, then resorted to attempting to prevent evidence from being revealed (though unsuccessfully). Secrecy is used by both states to coerce the other into certain actions by putting them in unfavourable positions. This tool is in line with neorealism’s ideas. Neorealism believes that the anarchic system in place “makes it impossible for governments to fully trust each other.” Within both the film and the theory, such a sentiment translates into secrecy. There can be no cooperation between the two on matters of international interest and all actions that are taken must be done without the other’s knowledge. Neorealism advocates the use of secrecy as a tool of international relations and this tool is depicted within the film.
In conclusion, Realism is able to explain the outcomes, actual and hypothetical, of NK policies, since its common assumption matches the centrality of the nuclear issue to the agenda of the country. In addition to that, Neoclassical Realism also provides a valuable explanation for some of the nation more relevant foreign policy patterns of behavior.
Classical realism originates from the ancient times of the Greek empires. This theory in international relations has dominated the sphere and the conception of world politics for centuries. Classical realists such as Morgenthau and Thucydides outline different factors in explaining politics at all levels and emphasize that politics is described throughout the theory of classical realism. Like every theory in international relations, classical realism has strengths and weaknesses that define its impact in the international level. In our current age of diplomacy, classical realism is not a common theory in current international politics. Although it is not as relevant as it has been in the past, there is potential for classical
However, Hedley Bull, in his most famous analysis ‘The Anarchical Society’, rebuts these realist criticisms, writing about the primacy of International Law and insists that it is a ‘negligible factor in the actual conduct of international relations’ alongside the fact that states ‘so often judge it in their interests to conform to it’. This directly opposes the idea that realists put forward, as it suggests that states are actually inclined to adhere to international law, and it is crucial to the success of it. Although there is an element of truth in realists’ analyses, it is not to the extent of which realists contend and it should be noted that they fail to acknowledge the fact that the favourable conditions order would bring serves an incentive for states to cooperate within the realms of an international society. Furthermore, realist critiques do not actually deny the existence of an international society, but there critiques revolve around an evaluation of its effectiveness. Opposing the popular conception of neo-realists that the current political climate consists of an anarchical system with all else following from this by chance, therefore assuming that it is a contingent, is Brown’s emphasis on there being ‘a reason we have and need an international society’: to achieve a good amongst all states. This is shown by international organisations such as the European Union and United Nations, the latter of which has the ability to impose sanctions and other punishments on states if it does not adhere to international laws. The United Nations mandate explains how it seeks to ‘save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’, as it was initially born out of the League of Nations which was set up after the end of World Wa...
In International Relations it is commonly accepted that there is a wide range of different theoretical approaches which attempt to provide an explanation for the different dynamics of the global political system. Realism and Liberalism are well known theories which are considered to be two of the most important theories in international relations. They are two contrasting ideas when it comes to explaining how two states relate to each other in the absence of a world government. Both theories agree that the world is in anarchy and therefore it is helpful to start with a definition of anarchy and what it implies. This essay aims to discuss the contrasts between Liberalism and Realism as well as how these two theories agree that the world is anarchy.
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.
To conclude, there are four main components of the realist approach to international relations, they are: state which includes egoism as the states are composed by the selfish people, self-help which includes balance of power as power is used to enhance the survival rate, survival which includes hegemony in order to maintain its position and anarchical system which related to lust for power and led to security dilemma.
The international system is an anarchical system which means that, unlike the states, there is no over ruling, governing body that enforces laws and regulations that all states must abide by. The International System in today’s society has become highly influential from a number of significant factors. Some of these factors that will be discussed are Power held by the state, major Wars that have been fought out in recent history and international organisations such as the U.N, NATO and the W.T.O. Each of these factors, have a great influence over the international system and as a result, the states abilities to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development”.
“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.” Globalization and the increasing role of non-state actors have shifted the position of states, the traditional “main players” in global governance. However, whether this change undermines states is debatable. In one sense, states’ roles have somewhat diminished: Non-governmental entities – namely transnational corporations (TNC), but also global non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and others – have an increasing voice in global policy debates, which may lessen states’ influence in governmental affairs. But in several other key ways, states’ retain their powerful role.