Realism (international relations)

The term realism or political realism collects a wide variety of theories and modes of thought about International Relations that have in common that the motivation of states is in the first place the strive for (mostly) military and economic power or security, rather than ideals or ethics. This term is mostly used as a synonym for power politics. Sometimes realism is also used to refer to classical realism, the oldest form of realism.

History of realism

Realism became a discipline in international relations during and after World War II. Realism is nevertheless similar to and perhaps even found its origin in earlier writers like:

Sunzi (or Sun Tzu), an ancient Chinese military strategist who wrote the Art of War.
Thucydides, an ancient Greek historian who wrote the History of the Peloponnesian War and is also cited as an intellectual forebearer of realpolitik.
Hanfeizi, Chinese scholar who theorised Legalism (or Legism) and who served in the court of the King of Qin - later unifier of China ending the Warring States Period. His writings include The Two Handles (about punishments and rewards as tools of governance). He theorised about a neutral, manipulative ruler who would act as Head of State while secretly controlling the executive through his ministers - the ones to take real responsibility for any policy.
Niccolò Machiavelli, a Florentine political philosopher, who wrote Il Principe (The Prince) in which he held that the sole aim of a prince (politician) was to seek power, regardless of religious or ethical considerations.
Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher who wrote Leviathan in which he stated that in anarchy there is a "war of all against all".
Otto von Bismarck, a Prussian statesman coined the term balance of power. Balancing power meant keeping the peace and careful realpolitik practitioners tried to avoid arms races.
Carl von Clausewitz was a 19th century Prussian general and military theorist who wrote Vom Kriege (On War).

See also: Cardinal Richelieu, Mercurino Gattinara, Count Camillo Benso di Cavour, Prince Klemens von Metternich.

Basic theory

Fundamental principles common to realist theories:

The international system is anarchy.
Sovereign states are the principal actors in the international system.
- Dismissal of the independent influence of international organizations, sub-state, or trans-state actors.
- Focus on the primary importance of nationalism, as opposed to sub-national groupings, or transnational ideological of cultural groupings.
States are rational actors, acting in their national interest.
- Distrust of long-term cooperation or alliance.
The overriding goal of each state is its own security and survival.
- Fundamental nature of the security dilemma.
State survival is guaranteed best by power, principally military in character.
- Focus on relative power (i.e. "zero sum") versus absolute power.

Realism makes several key assumptions. Primarily, it assumes that mankind is not inherently benevolent and kind but self centered and competitive, in contrast to other theories of international relations such as liberalism. It also fundamentally assumes that the international system is anarchic, in the sense that there is no authority above states capable of regulating their interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity (that is, no true authoritative world government exists). It also assumes that sovereign states, rather than international institutions, non-governmental organizations, or multinational corporations, are the primary actors in international affairs. According to realism, each state is a rational actor that always acts towards its own self-interest, and the primary goal of each state is to ensure its own security. Realism holds that in pursuit of that security, states will attempt to amass resources, and that relations between states are determined by their relative level of power. That level of power is in turn determined by the state's capabilities, both military and economic.

Moreover, Realists believe that states are inherently aggressive (offensive realism), and that territorial expansion is only constrained by opposing power(s). This aggressive build-up, however, leads to a security dilemma where increasing one's own security can bring along greater instability as the opponent(s) builds up its own arms. Thus, security is a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be made.

There is a distinction between structural realism and liberal realism (also known as "Neoliberal Institutionalism"):

The former emphasize the permanent condition of conflict. Thus, to ensure state security, states must be on constant preparation for conflict through economic and military build-up.

The latter holds that while the system is anarchical, through diplomacy, international law and society, order can be promoted. (English School) This gives credence to establish IGOs such as the United Nations.

Modern realism

Classical realism

Modern realism began as a serious field of research in the United States during and after World War II. This evolution was partly fueled by European war migrants like Hans Morgenthau who had a negative view of human nature, thought by some to be due to their experiences in WWII. Other important political realists include among others:

George F. Kennan - Containment
Nicholas Spykman - Geostrategy, Containment
Herman Kahn - Nuclear strategy
E.H. Carr
Reinhold Niebuhr
Hans Morgenthau
Arnold Wolfers
Charles Beard
Walter Lippmann

Liberal Realism

Hedley Bull - Liberal realism (sometimes called the "English School" or "Rationalism")

Structural or Neo-realism

Neo-Realism resembles Classical Realism on most accounts. However, Neo-Realism predominantly focuses on the international system rather than human nature. While states remain the principal actors, greater attention is given to the forces above and below the states through a Levels of Analysis or Structure-Agency debate - with the international system as a structure acting on the state and individuals below the level of the state acting as agency on the state as a whole.

Neoclassical realism

Neoclassical Realism can be seen as the third generation of realism, coming after the classical authors of the first wave (Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Morgenthau), and the neorealists (esp. Kenneth Waltz). Its designation of "neoclassical", then, has a double meaning: 1) It offers the classics a renaissance; 2) It is a synthesis of the neo and the classical approach.

Gideon Rose is responsible for coining the term in a Book Review he wrote Gideon Rose, "Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy", World Politics, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 144-172. In the article, Rose identifies Randall Schweller, Fareed Zakaria, Thomas Christensen, William Wohlforth and Aaron Friedberg as being the main Neoclassical Realist authors.

What primarily motivated these scholars to come up with a new theoretical model was the fact that neorealism was only useful to explain political outcomes (classified as being 'theories of international politics'), but had nothing to offer about particular states' behavior (or 'theories of foreign policy'). The basic approach, then, was for these authors to "refine, not refute, Kenneth Waltz", by adding domestic intervening variables between systemic incentives and a state's foreign policy decision. Thus, the basic theoretical architecture of Neoclassical Realism is:

Distribution of power in the international system (Independent Variable) >>> Domestic perception of the system and/or domestic incentives (Intervening Variable) >>> Foreign Policy decision (Dependent Variable)

While the Neoclassical approach has only been used for theories of foreign policy so far, Randall Schweller notes that it could be useful to explain certain types of political outcomes as well.Randall L. Schweller, "The Progressiveness of Neoclassical Realism", pp. 311-347 in Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman eds., Progress in International Relations Theory, (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003).

This new realist model is particularly appealing from a research standpoint because it still retains a lot of the theoretical rigor that Waltz has brought to realism, but at the same time can easily incorporate a content-rich analysis, since its main method for testing theories is the process-tracing of case studies.

Constructivist realism

Criticisms of realism

Non-State actors

Several critiques were raised against the realist school. While Realism does not deny the existence of international organizations, it emphasizes that these organisations have no autonomous role. In other words, Realism considers such organizations as tools that (only) serve state interests. According to this view, American efforts to receive U.N. support for the invasion of Iraq illustrate the power of the U.N. Had the U.N. no power, as realists would claim, it would have never played any role in the run-up to the war. In reality however, research has pointed out that these organizations often play an autonomous role. For instance, the IMF or the United Nations can define a problem or a concept, which would on its turn shape the way the world perceives and handles that problem or concept. E.g., the definition of genocide. This is a considerable, but often underestimated, influence.

Realism has also problems in explaining supranational organizations such as the European Union (EU). Realists respond that as the divisions within the EU on everything from agreeing on a constitution to agricultural policies, states may just be joining in pursuit of their own rational self-interest. Yet, laws of the European Parliament and court decisions of the European Court of Justice are applicable across all EU nations - suggesting that the EU is indeed a supranational government rather than an IGO.

Another critique emphasizes the growing role of multinational corporations, non-governmental organizations due to globalization. Some argue that the state-centric approach of international relations is inaccurate. Examples include the reality that many states have an economy smaller than many multinational corporations (MNCs) and some MNCs even employ their own quasi-military forces to protect their own installations and thus are more powerful than the state. An often heard Realist reply however is that weak states are not important in explaining international relations. The focus should lie on the powerful states, and 'outliers' (such as failed states) do not general explanatory power Realism would offer. Secondly, Realists argue that the percentage of government expenditures is rising (instead of declining) in almost every country in the world. This would reinforce or at least preserve the role of the state.

Unitary actor assumption

Further criticism of political realism says that realism has an incorrect concept of a state. States are not actors but rather a abstract whole of organizations. It is impossible, say the critics, to understand international relations without making this distinction. For instance, organizations within the same state often have different objectives and as a consequence one state can pursue contradictory goals.

Also, domestic interest groups often influence state decisions, which can cause policies that serve particular groups, but not the whole state. For instance: economic protectionism of a certain industry.

Democratic peace

Democratic peace theory advocates also argue that Realism is not applicable to Democratic states relations between one another, as these states have been shown to conduct relations with the absence of war in their foreign policies.

References

External links

The Realist Persuasion by Andrew J. Bacevich, for the Boston Globe, November 6, 2005
Debating IR Students at American University discuss international relations theory and its applications.

German loanwords | International relations | Political science terms

Realisme (international politik) | Réalisme (Relations internationales) | ריאליזם פוליטי | 國際關係現實主義

Gourt Home::Gourt :: Realism (international relations)