Introduction:
George Kennan says, “Morality in governmental method, as a matter of conscience and preference on the part of our people – yes.” He goes on to say that morality as a criterion for measuring and comparing the behavior of states is flawed. Morality is a preference, not a requirement to govern in the international anarchic system, Kennan argues. Ethics and justice in the international system are measured by how states satisfy varying moral requirements. These moral requirements are defined by a variety of schools of thought, including: Realists, Morality of States theorists, and Cosmopolitans. Realists may validate some action where morality of state theorists and cosmopolitans are fundamentally opposed. In this paper I will examine such examples and detail the key differences between realists, morality of state theorists, and cosmopolitans. I will compare and contrast realists with the other two non-realists perspectives and explore how these theories apply to an international system of states and how these theories shape the way one state acts or reacts in an anarchic system.
Realists:
Kennan, a notable realist, famously said that morality should be a foundation for civic virtue and a condition for a successful democracy. He also argued that morality is a preference on the part of the people. He departs from non-realist theorists when he argues that morality has no place in measuring or comparing states with one another: “Here no other criteria, sadder, more limited, more practical, must be allowed to prevail.” Realists’ tenets, fundamentally, are that states should act in their self-interest and that states in the world have to focus on their survival. Realists hold that we live in an anarchic system, and as such...
... middle of paper ...
...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.
Niccolo Machiavelli, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill present three distinct models of government in their works The Prince, Second Treatise of Government, and Utilitarianism. From an examination of these models it is possible to infer their views about human nature and its connection to the purpose of government. A key to comparing these views can be found in an examination of their ideas of morality as an intermediary between government and human nature. Whether this morality must be inferred from their writings or whether it is explicitly mentioned, it differs among the three in its definition, source, and purpose.
In legal theory, there is a great debate over whether or not law should be used to enforce morality. The sides of the debate can be presented as a continuum. At one end, there is the libertarian view, which holds that morality is an individual belief and that the state should not interfere in the affairs of the individual. According to this view, a democracy cannot limit or enforce morality. At the other end, there is the communitarian position, which justifies the community as a whole deciding what moral values are, and hence justifies using the law to enforce community values. For libertarians, judges should play a prominent role in limiting the state, while for communitarians, judges should have as small a role as possible. In between these two extremes sit the liberal egalitarians, who attempt to reconcile democratic decision-making about moral values with liberalism. The problem is made more complex when one considers that both law and morality are contested concepts. Two recent cases where this continuum can be illustrated are Canada [Attorney-General] vs. Mossap, and Egan vs. Canada. In this essay, I will attempt to explore some of the issues produced in these two cases. I will begin with a summary each case, followed by an analysis of the major themes involved. I will then place the issues in a larger, democratic framework, and explore the role of law in enforcing morality in a democracy. I will then prove how the communitarian position - as articulated by Patrick Devlin - supports the decisions given in Mossap and Egan, and how even the great proponents of libertarianism - Mill and von Hayek - would agree that the decisions were just. A conclusion will then follow.
However, MacIntyre does not think that a state putting forth such a thin conception of the good can rationally settle competing theories of justice (chapter 17 in After Virtue is devoted to this argument). Just as debates in public morality, such as abortion, cannot be settled rationally by members of society, neither can philosophers or a nation’s citizens settle the debates on justice. Though interesting, the validity of this argument will not be explored here, as the objective of this section is not to carefully examine why MacIntyre thinks the neutralist state fails,
Followers of Realist school of thought argue the case of 2003 Iraq war from the standpoint of power and Security. The Bush administration’s rationale for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq was based on two misleading assumptions: firstly, Iraq had or was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (along with Iran and North Korea) and secondly, that it was aiding and protecting terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda. Such a conjecture based on unsubstantiated evidence helped Bush administration conjure up a dystopian situation which justified 2003 invasion of Iraq under the pretext of “security maximization”. This explanation was given in pursuance of the realist assumption that States’ as rational actors always act in accordance with their national security interests.
Somewhere near the heart of much contemporary liberal political theory is the claim that if the state restricts an agent's liberty, its restrictions should have some rationale that is defensible to each of those whose liberty is constrained. Liberals are committed to the "requirement that all aspects of the social order should either be made acceptable or be capable of being made acceptable to every last individual." But there are many kinds of claim which are particularly controversial, many about which we expect reasonable disagreement. Coercive policies should not be justified on the basis of such controversial grounds; rather, they should enjoy public justification. That coercive policy should enjoy public justification implies that political actors are subject to various principles of restraint, that is, that they should restrain themselves from supporting policies solely on the basis of excessively controversial grounds. The point of advocating restraint is to achieve a minimal moral conception, a core morality, which is rationally acceptable to all and which provides the ground rules for political association.
Realpolitik is a goal oriented and practical form of politics, which overlooks morals, ethicality, and ideals to attain the interests of the nation or country. It doesn’t view compromise of ideals or morals as wrong, if it brings about the achievement of the political and national goal. The only thing that makes any action or decision taken right or wrong is its level of success. Those who practice realpolitik will not hesitate to take the decisions needed, whether unethical, unidealistic, or amoral, to bring about the desired end result. To do this, a realistic appraisal of power must be made, and based on that information decisions are taken to realize the self-interests of the individual state.
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...
Realists disregard the fact that moral values guide ones foreign policy. They also believe that even though one might deceive themselves about considering democracy and morals, the matter of the fact is that people will always put their self-interest before anything else thus governments act upon things such as geopolitical, economic interests for example. According to realists, there is no higher authority to punish those countries that misbehave so a country can just do whatever it pleases.
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.
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.
When looking at normative theories of politics, the main distinction is between cosmopolitanism and communitarianism. In this essay the term community shall refer to political communities, or more specifically, states. It is important to note that these political communities have been defined territorially, and not necessarily by culture, although this is taken for granted to an extent by communitarianism. Communitarians say that each community is different, and therefore should act accordingly with each other. In other words, state autonomy should be absolute and law and moral standards should be self-determined by the community itself alone. Furthermore, communities should have no obligations to other political communities or any sort of international law. Contrastingly, Cosmopolitans say that there should be an overriding universal moral standard to which all states (or communities) should adhere. If a state is infringing on the rights of the individual or humanity, then intervention is appropriate and just. (Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A)
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.
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 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”.