Realism in international relations theory

Niccolò Machiavelli's work The Prince is an antecedent to realist thinking.

Realism in international relations theory is one of the dominant schools of thinking within the international relations discipline. Realism or political realism prioritizes national interest and security over ideology, moral concerns and social reconstructions. This term is often synonymous with power politics.

Common assumptions

Realist theories share the following key assumptions:

• The international system was developed a long time ago.
• The international system is in a constant state of anarchy. There is no actor 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.
• In pursuit of national security, states strive to attain as many resources as possible.
• States are rational unitary actors each moving towards their own national interest. There is a general distrust of long-term cooperation or alliance.
• The overriding 'national interest' of each state is its national security and survival.
• Relations between states are determined by their levels of power derived primarily from their military and economic capabilities.
• The interjection of morality and values into international relations causes reckless commitments, diplomatic rigidity, and the escalation of conflict.
• Sovereign states are the principal actors in the international system and special attention is afforded to large powers as they have the most influence on the international stage. International institutions, non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, individuals and other sub-state or trans-state actors are viewed as having little independent influence.

In summary, realists believe that mankind is not inherently benevolent but rather self-centered and competitive. This perspective, which is shared by theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, views human nature as egocentric (not necessarily selfish) and conflictual unless given the right conditions under which they can coexist, contrasts with the approach of liberalism to international relations. Further, they believe that states are inherently aggressive (offensive realism) and/or obsessed with security (defensive 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 security can bring along even greater instability as the opponent(s) builds up its own arms in response. Thus, security becomes a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be made. There are no universal principles which all states can use to guide their actions. Instead, a state must always be aware of the actions of the states around it and must use a pragmatic approach to resolve the problems that arise.

History and branches

Historic antecedents

While Realism as a formal discipline in international relations did not arrive until World War II, its primary assumptions have been expressed in earlier writings:^[1][2]

• Sun Tzu (or Sunzi), 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.
• Chanakya (or Kautilya) early Indian statesman, and writer on the Arthashastra.
• Han Feizi, 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.
• Cardinal Richelieu, French statesman who destroyed domestic factionalism and guided France to a position of dominance in foreign affairs.
• Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher who wrote Leviathan in which he stated the State of Nature was prone to a "war of all against all".
• Frederick the Great, Prussian monarch who transformed Prussia from a second-rate power to a great European power through warfare and dubious diplomacy.
• Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, French diplomat who guided France and Europe through a variety of political systems.
• Prince Klemens Wenzel von Metternich, Koblenz-born Austrian statesman opposed to political revolution.
• Carl von Clausewitz was a 18-19th century Prussian general and military theorist who wrote On War (Vom Kriege).
• 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.
• 20th century proponents of realism include Henry Kissinger, the National Security Adviser and Secretary of State to President Richard Nixon, French General and President Charles de Gaulle, and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin.

Classical realism

Classical realism states that it is fundamentally the nature of man that pushes states and individuals to act in a way that places interests over ideologies. Classical realism is defined as the "drive for power and the will to dominate [that are] held to be fundamental aspects of human nature".^[3]

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.

• George F. Kennan - Containment
• Nicholas Spykman - Geostrategy, Containment
• Herman Kahn - Nuclear strategy
• E.H. Carr

Liberal realism or the English school or rationalism

The English School's holds that the international system, while anarchical in structure, forms a "society of states" where common norms and interests allow for more order and stability than what might be expected in a strict realist view. Prominent English School writer Hedley Bull's 1977 classic entitled The Anarchical Society is a key statement of this position.

Prominent liberal realists:

• Hedley Bull - argued for both the existence of an international society of states and its perseverance even in times of great systemic upheaval, meaning regional or so-called "world wars".
• Martin Wight

Neorealism or structural realism

Neorealism derives from classical realism except that instead of human nature, its focus is predominantly on the international system. While states remain the principal actors, greater attention is given to the forces above and below the states through levels of analysis or structure-agency debate. The international system is seen as a structure acting on the state with individuals below the level of the state acting as agency on the state as a whole.

While neorealism shares a focus on the international system with the English School, neorealism differs in the emphasis it places on the permanence of conflict. To ensure state security, states must be on constant preparation for conflict through economic and military build-up.

Prominent neorealists:

• Robert Jervis - Defensive realism
• Kenneth Waltz - Neorealism
• Stephen Walt - Defensive realism
• John Mearsheimer - Offensive realism
• Robert Gilpin - Hegemonic theory

Neoclassical realism

Neoclassical Realism can be seen as the third generation of realism, coming after the classical authors of the first wave (Thucydides, Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes), 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 neorealist and the classical realist approaches.

Gideon Rose is responsible for coining the term in a book review he wrote.^[4]

The primary motivation underlying the development of neoclassical realism 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 neoclassical realism 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.^[5]

Neoclassical realism 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.

Prominent neoclassical realists:^[4]

• Randall Schweller
• Thomas J. Christensen
• William Wohlforth
• Aaron Friedberg
• Norrin Ripsman

Realism in statecraft

Modern realist statesmen

• Henry Kissinger^[6]
• Zbigniew Brzezinski
• Brent Scowcroft

The ideas behind George F. Kennan's work as a diplomat and diplomatic historian remain relevant to the debate over American foreign policy, which since the 19th century has been characterized by a shift from the Founding Fathers' realist school to the idealistic or Wilsonian school of international relations. In the realist tradition, security is based on the principle of a balance of power and the reliance on morality as the sole determining factor in statecraft is considered impractical. According to the Wilsonian approach, on the other hand, the spread of democracy abroad as a foreign policy is key and morals are universally valid. During the Presidency of Bill Clinton, American diplomacy reflected the Wilsonian school to such a degree that those in favor of the realist approach likened Clinton's policies to social work. According to Kennan, whose concept of American diplomacy was based on the realist approach, such moralism without regard to the realities of power and the national interest is self-defeating and will lead to the erosion of power, to America's detriment.^[7]

Criticisms

Democratic peace

Democratic peace theory advocates also that Realism is not applicable to democratic states' relations with each another, as their studies claim that such states do not go to war with one another. However, Realists and proponents of other schools have critiqued both this claim and the studies which appear to support it, claiming that its definitions of 'war' and 'democracy' must be tweaked in order to achieve the desired result. This is along with Archaic rule of law.

Federalism

The term refers to the theory or advocacy of federal political orders, where final authority is divided between sub-units and a centre. Unlike a unitary state, sovereignty is constitutionally split between at least two territorial levels so that units at each level have final authority and can act independently of the others in some area. Citizens thus have political obligations to two authorities. The allocation of authority between the sub-unit and centre may vary. Typically the centre has powers regarding defence and foreign policy, but sub-units may also have international roles. The sub-units may also participate in central decision-making bodies.

The basic idea behind federalism is that a unifying relationship between states should be established under a common system of law. Conflict and disagreement should be resolved through peaceful means rather than through coercion or war. Its most important aspect is in recognizing that different types of institutions are needed to deal with different types of political issues.

Post-realism

Post-realism suggests that Realism is a form of social scientific and political rhetoric. It opens rather than closes a debate about what is real and what is realistic in international relations.

Prominent Post-Realists:

• Francis A. Beer
• James Der Derian
• Robert Hariman
• Michael J. Shapiro

See also

• Complex interdependence
• Consensus reality
• International legal theory
• Flipism
• Game theory
• Global justice
• Negarchy
• Peace through strength
• Real politik
• Reinhold Niebuhr, (1892-1971), American theologian

Further reading

• Ashley, Richard K. "Political Realism and the Human Interests," International Studies Quarterly (1981) 25: 204-36.
• Barkin, J. Samuel Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International Relations Theory (Cambridge University Press; 2010) 202 pages. Examines areas of both tension and overlap between the two approaches to IR theory.
• Bell, Duncan, ed. Political Thought and International Relations: Variations on a Realist Theme. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
• Booth, Ken. 1991. "Security in anarchy: Utopian realism in theory and practice", International Affairs 67(3), pp. 527–545
• Crawford; Robert M. A. Idealism and Realism in International Relations: Beyond the Discipline (2000) online edition
• Donnelly; Jack. Realism and International Relations (2000) online edition
• Gilpin, Robert G. "The richness of the tradition of political realism," International Organization (1984), 38:287-304
• Griffiths; Martin. Realism, Idealism, and International Politics: A Reinterpretation (1992) online edition
• Keohane, Robert O., ed. Neorealism and its Critics (1986)
• Lebow, Richard Ned. The Tragic Vision of Politics: Ethics, Interests and Orders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
• Mearsheimer, John J., "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics." New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001. [Seminal text on Offensive Neorealism]
• Meyer, Donald. The Protestant Search for Political Realism, 1919-1941 (1988) online edition
• Molloy, Sean. The Hidden History of Realism: A Genealogy of Power Politics. New York: Palgrave, 2006.
• Murray, A.J.H., Reconstructing Realism: Between Power Politics and Cosmopolitan Ethics. Edinburgh: Keele University Press, 1997.
• Rosenthal, Joel H. Righteous Realists: Political Realism, Responsible Power, and American Culture in the Nuclear Age. (1991). 191 pp. Compares Reinhold Niebuhr, Hans J. Morgenthau, Walter Lippmann, George F. Kennan, and Dean Acheson
• Scheuerman, William E. 2010. "The (classical) Realist vision of global reform." International Theory 2(2): pp. 246-282.
• Schuett, Robert. Political Realism, Freud, and Human Nature in International Relations. New York: Palgrave, 2010.
• Smith, Michael Joseph. Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger (1986)
• Tjalve, Vibeke S. Realist Strategies of Republican Peace: Niebuhr, Morgenthau, and the Politics of Patriotic Dissent. New York: Palgrave, 2008.
• Williams, Michael C. The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

References

External links

• Comparing and Contrasting Classical Realism and Neorealism by Arash Heydarian Pashakhanlou
• Global Power Barometer
• The Realist Persuasion by Andrew J. Bacevich, for the Boston Globe, November 6, 2005
• The National Interest
• The Indian National Interest
• Interview with neorealist Robert Jervis by Theory Talks (July 2008)
• The Neocons vs. The Realists