Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Merits and demerits of realism theory of international relations
Merits and demerits of realism theory of international relations
Realism and neo --realism theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
For the purpose of this essay, I will assess the strengths and weaknesses of Neo-Classical Realism; focusing on the theory’s core assumptions about the International System and how it interacts with units. I will discuss the theory in relation to the international politics of the region, with particular reference to the build up to the Iran-Iraq war.
Neo-Classical Realism has updated and systematized certain insights from Classical Realism , as well as incorporated key tenets from other Realist paradigms. For Realists, the International System is anarchic; creating the conditions of self-help and a balance of power, both of which determine state behaviour . Proponents of Neo-Classical Realism contend that it is relative power in particular which determines a state’s foreign policy . These relative power concerns then indirectly effect domestic (dependent) variables which in turn influence the decision making process.
From a theoretical standpoint, Neo-Classical Realism is balanced between pure systemic theories, and those which prioritise Units. It is both an extension and response to Waltzian neorealism; particularly in the acceptance of the primacy of systemic variables, whilst adding domestic level variables. In particular, opening up the ‘black box’ of the state whilst maintaining the importance of systemic pressures gives Neo-Classical Realism a much wider context of motivations and variables from which to explain state behaviour, and consequently overcome the limitation of classical realism which makes no claim to explain specific events or foreign policy . However, the theory’s core assumptions are in themselves problematic when looked at from outside of the Realist paradigm, constructivism in particular presents a nu...
... middle of paper ...
...ed by David W. Lesch (Westiview Press 2007)
Wohlforth, William, ‘The elusive balance, power and perceptions during the Cold war’ (CUP 1993)
Journals:
Sterling-Folker, Jennifer, ‘Realist Environment, Liberl process, and Domestic-Level Variables’ (International Studies Quaterly vol.41 1997)
Parasiliti, Andrew, ‘The causes and timing of Iraq’s Wars: A power cycle Assessment’ (International Political Science Review vol.24, no.1, Jan 2003)
Rose, Gideon ‘Neo-Classical Realism and theories of Foreign Policy’ (World Politics, vol.51 no.1 Oct 1998)
Wendt, Alexander, ‘Anarchy is what states make of it’ (International Organizations, vol.46, no.2, 1992)
Websites:
‘Another Crisis for the Shah’ Time, Nov 13, 1878. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,946149,00.html
US National Security Archives: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/summary.pdf
...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.
...ot afford to lose its predominance in oil rich gulf region. Saddam’s defiance challenged American supremacy and consequently, a planned invasion of Iraq was launched by U.S. and her allied forces in 2003. The invasion had two-fold objectives: one was to secure oil resources in Iraq and other was to reassert its Political-economic dominance in the region which is of great strategic importance to US. Realist theory narrows down the scope of interpretation of war to power politics characterized by military capability while critical and Marxist thinking employs “historical structures” to understand why power is being exercised in a certain way. It broadens the scope of concept of power beyond military perspective. Thus, Iraq war which was fought beyond the scope of “offensive realism” can be better understood within the theoretical framework of Critical/ Marxist theory.
...issue. In this case, neoliberalism not only helps states to make a more rational decision, but also gives a birth of the institution forming the norms for the states’ solving crisis in the future. To conclude, both of them are important, while they are not contradictory, but complementary.
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.
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.
I say this because it is very evident that there is no single ruler of the world and that there is not one institution that enforces laws throughout the entire international system. Neorealism acknowledges the struggle for power between states, but not in an animalistic manner as realism views. I do not believe that human nature is innately evil and for which that is the reason why all states act rationally by trying to overpower the other. I believe that the realm of anarchy creates an environment that promotes conflict over conflicting values or laws. Each state has their own set of laws that may or may not agree with the laws and culture of another state. Anarchy in the international system forces the theory of realism to concentrate on absolute gains from conflict and how necessary it is to engage in conflict with another state (34 Walt). Neorealism provides a basic, all-including analysis that encompasses many aspects of the international system without excluding
All branches of realism share some central tenets. Realists believe that the world exists in a state of anarchy. Since there is not a world government to keep states from attacking each other, or to punish them when they do, it becomes very important for each government to be able to protect itself and ensure its survival. It is also why states are considered the most important actors in realism. Due to the anarchy, the world operates in power is extremely important. If a state has military power, and to a lesser extent economic power, they are able to defend themselves and even influence other states. Realism stresses the importance of one state being more powerful than its competitors.
Ashley, Richard K. “Political Realism and the Human Interests”, International Studies Quarterly, No. 25, 1981, pp. 204-36
Realist thought on international relations fit comfortably within the context of the great wars of the twentieth century. Powerful nations possessing massive military forces took aim at one another to affect the hierarchical structure of the international system for the good of their own security and power. These wars, however, differ greatly from today’s unconventional war on terrorism. Therefore, the realist theories of yesterday, while still useful, require at least some tweaking to fit the present situation.
The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state.
The abrupt end of decade long dominating regime in three weeks had created a political vacuum, that is evident in shifting coalitions and divisions among religious groups, ethnic groups, regional groups and even classes (Barnett et al. 2003, 25). US did not realize, moreover, the depth of the hostility between Kurds and Arabs, Sunnis and Shiites, and the members of different tribes and local religious groups. Furthermore, to deal with destruction in Iraq new plan was decided by the US. The plan was to pull out all troops and hand over the responsi...
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.
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.
Weber, Smith, Allan, Collins, Morgan and Entshami.2002. Foreign Policy in a transformed world. United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited.