Theoretical Approaches to the Study of International System

Realism

Realism is a school of thought that explains international relations in terms of power. Some
scholars refer to the exercise of power by states toward each other as realpolitik or power
politics. As a political theory, realism‘s intellectual root can be traced to Thucydides (460- 406
B.C.) and Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527). Thucydides, an ancient Greek historian in his work,
History of the Peloponnesian War, has espoused views that have been the basis of Realists’
assumptions and is also cited as an intellectual of realpolitik. Niccolò Machiavelli, a Florentine
political philosopher, 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. Realism,
frequently referred to as the power theory in some quarters, is also identified with scholars such
as Hans Morgenthau, Henry Kissinger and Kenneth Waltz.

In the thinking of the realists the international system is defined by anarchy. This is because
there is no central authority to settle disputes among contending actors as it is in domestic
political systems. Thus, in such anarchical situation, state power is the key. There is the belief
that it is only through power that states can defend themselves and hope to survive. Realism
believes power can be in variety of ways: militarily, economically and diplomatically. It also
emphasizes the possession of the coercive capacity as the ultimate determinant of international
politics.
Realists believe that survival is the principal goal and motive of every state actor. The primary
obligation of every state is to promote national interest, defined as acquisition of power sufficient
enough to deter attack by potential enemies of the state. They contend that given the anarchical
nature of the system, states are to ensure that they have sufficient power to defend themselves
and advance their interest that is required for survival in the system. Realists assume states to be
rational actors who will do all it takes to remain in existence. It is the duty of states to calculate
rationally the most appropriate steps to be taken to perpetuate the life of a state in a hostile
environment.
The realist subscribe to the view that the state is the only actor in the international system. This is
often referred to as state-centric. Statism is the term given to the idea of the state as a legitimate
representative of the collective will of the people. Outside the boundaries of the state, realist
argue that a condition of anarchy exists. In a state of anarchy, states compete with one another
for security, market influence and resources. And the nature of the competition is often seen in
zero-sum terms; in other words, more for one actor, less for another .The first move of the state
is to organize power domestically. And the second is to accumulate power internationally, what
then is power? According to Morgenthau in his work’ politics among nations’ (1948) ―Power
means man‘s control over the minds and actions of other men‖. Two important points are clear
about the concept power.
First power is a relational concept. One must exercise power in relation to another entity and
second, power is a relative concept; calculations need to be made not only about one‘s own
power capabilities but about the power that other state actors possess.
Realists believe that all states possess military capabilities and as such no state can know the
intentions of another precisely. This is based on the presupposition that the world is dangerous
and uncertain, where only countries with greater power can prevail. Realists do not subscribe to
the view that universal moral principles exist and therefore warn state leaders against sacrificing
their self-interest in order to adhere to a notion of ethical conduct. Survival require states to
discard tenets of traditional morality which attaches a positive value to caution, piety and the
greater good of human kind.
Realists believe that international politics is a struggle for power and war of all against all
leading to a zero-sum game therefore states should never entrust the task of self-protection to
international organizations or international law. Given that states seek to maximize power,
stability will result from maintaining a balance of power lubricated by a fluid alliance system.
For all realists, calculations about power lie at the heart of how states think about the world
around them. Realism is all about seeing things as they are, rather than as they ought to be, and
to recognize that Power is the currency of great-power politics, and states compete for it among
themselves.
Realist theorists assume that certain largely immutable factors such as geography and the nature
of human behavior shape international conduct. Realism holds that human nature is essentially
constant, or at least not easily altered. From Thucydides to Morgenthau, political statesmen are
advised to demonstrate prudence and practicability in their foreign policy objectives. Indeed, the
strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept.

Realism is based on a view of the individual as primarily selfish and power seeking. Individuals
are organized in states, each of which acts in a unitary way in pursuit of its own national interest,
defined in terms of power.
Four of the essential assumptions of realism are found in Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian
War. The state is assumed to be a unitary actor: once a decision is made to go to war or
capitulate, the state speaks and acts with one voice. The state is the principal actor in war and
politics in general. Decision makers acting in the name of the state are assumed to be rational
actors. Rational decision making leads to the advancement of the national interest. A state needs
to protect itself from enemies both foreign and domestic. States augments their security by
building up their economic prowess and forming alliances with other states. The world view of
the Realists rests on the assumption that, first; survival is the principal goal of every state actor.
And given the anarchy of the international system, states require to, constantly, ensure that they
have sufficient power to defend themselves and advance their interest that is required for
survival. Second, Realists take states to be rational actors. This means that, given the goal of
survival, states will act as best they can in order to maximize their likelihood of continued
existence.
Third, Realists believe that all states possess military capacity, and no state knows what its
neighbors intend precisely. This presupposes that the world is dangerous and uncertain.
Fourth, in such a world only countries with greater powers that can prevail. Thus, the
international system is a system of power exercise .The realist thinking that came to dominate
academic discourse in the 1940s and 1950s fit the mood of that period; World War II, the outset
of the rivalry between the U.S.A. and the former Soviet Union, the expansion of the Cold War,
confrontation between the emergent super powers in the struggle between East and West, the
stock piling of nuclear weapons, the periodic crises that threatened to erupt into global crises, all
confirming the realist image of world politics.
The Medieval International System

This was system where a strong tribal group or nation overrun many nations and imposed a
political control on them. Thus, it has been appropriately described as empire or hegemonic
international system. In this sense, the conquered territories became extensions of the nation that
conquered them and the people of the conquered territories invariably became subjects of the
conqueror nation. Conquest and political hegemony were therefore, the prevalent pattern of
political organization in the medieval era. The period in focus witnessed the emergence of such
empires as Alexander’s Empire, the Roman Empire, the Mogul Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the
Chinese Empire, the Assyrian Empire, the Persian Empire, and the Graeco – Byzantine Empire.

Apart from the Roman Empire, there exited other empires in what is today known as Asia.
According to him, the oldest empire which survived under different dynasties for about 4,000
years until the early twentieth century was the Chinese Empire. If the argument is anything to
count, then the empire in question has since transmuted to what is known today as the Chinese
Communist state. Overall, the middle age was unarguably an era of empires which were
authoritarian and brooked no equal justice and freedom and were fated to collapse when the time
came.

Amongst these empires, the Roman Empire was much more powerful. Gradually, the Romans
developed a huge empire in the course of conquering, occupying, and ruling most of Europe and
a larger part of the Middle East and North Africa. They were brutal in suppressing the numerous
political communities that fell under the Roman dominion. But as Marx had remarked, every
epoch conceives within its womb the seed of its own destruction. Every epoch in the recorded
human had eventually developed internal contradiction and become part of sad or memorable
history. The seeming pessimistic prophecy of Karl Marx was vindicated when the misrule of the

Roman Empire could no longer be endured provoked rebellion that brought it to ruins.
Eventually the groaning peripheries of the empire began to revolt and the Roman army were over
– stretched that they could not suppress the revolts any longer. Instead, they began to retreat, and
on several occasions the city of Rome itself was invaded and destroyed by the ‘barbarian’ tribes.
In that way the Roman Empire was finally brought to an end after many centuries of political
success and survival.

Treaty of Westphalia
The historical end point of the medieval era and the starting-point of the modern international
system, speaking very generally, is usually identified with the Thirty Years War (1618-48) and
the Peace of Westphalia which brought it to an end. This was the product of the conference that
declared the obituary of the Hoy Roman Empire. The conference was necessitated by the Thirty
Years War (1618 - 1648) that ravaged much of the Europe to the point of near extinction. As
Schumann observed, the war turned Europe into “A wilderness of ruins drenched with the blood
of the slain, rent with agonized cries of torment, and looted by pitiable bands of refugees among
whom mass madness and cannibalism were not infrequent”. As a result, the conference of
Westphalia was convened to explore an end to the raging internecine war by identifying and
eliminating the factors that provoked the war in the first place. Based on the findings that the war
was a consequence of revolt by Protestants over religious unfreedoms meted by the papacy in
cahoots with the Roman Emperor as well as over the subjugation of the nations of Europe under
Roman hegemony, the Peace of Westphalia was then signed by the statesmen at the conference
to stop religion from plunging the world into future war.
The highpoints of the Treaty include that rulers should choose the religion of their country. By
this is meant that no outside power can impose religion on another nation and by implication
interfere in the religion and internal affairs of other states. Following from this, the Treaty
unbundled the Roman Empire thereby, allowing the hitherto peripheral territories to acquire
sovereign status, independent of Rome. As a resulted, the Westphalia Treaty became engrained
in the sand of times for according a decent burial to the Roman Empire and for recognizing every
geographically defined area in which people with a shared sense of common identity . Against
this backdrop, the Peace of Westphalia often called the Westphalia Treaty of 1648 officially
midwifed the birth of the contemporary international system of sovereign states. Essentially, the
emergent multi – state system became a mid – course between the amorphous city – state system
and the authoritarian hegemonial system of the Medieval era. Significantly, for instance, by
virtue of the Treaty, European rulers liberated themselves from the overarching religious –
political authority of Christendom. They also freed themselves from their dependence on the
military power of barons and other local feudal leaders. On the flip side, the kings subordinated
the barons and defied the Emperor and the Pope. This enabled them to play the role of defenders
of the sovereignty of their states against internal disorder and external threat.

In a turn of event, peasants withdrew their loyalty to local feudal rulers and became the direct
subjects of the King, thereby assuming eventually the status of ‘the people’. From then
henceforth, power and authority became concentrated on the King who now ruled a territory with
borders which were defended against outside interference. The King became the supreme
authority over all the people in the country, and no longer had to operate via intermediate
authorities and rulers. That fundamental political transformation marks the advent of the modern
era.

INDIVIDUAL ANCESTORS

HUGO GROTIUS

Grotius wrote most of his major works in exile in France. Some of them include De Jure Belli ac
Pacis (i. e. On the Law of War and Peace) which, was published in 1625 and dedicated to his
patron, King Louis XIII of France where he was then in self - exile and De Jure Belli, meaning
the Law of War published shortly after, precisely in 1631. These two books and his third major
work Mare Liberum (The Free Seas) have had a lasting impression on the field of international
law and the views effectively fertilized the foundations of the contemporary international law. In
the light of this, Adediran (1980) had noted, it will smack of ingratitude to discuss the origins of
international law without making reference to Hugo de Groot, commonly known as Grotius, of
the 17th century. This explains why he is often regarded as the founder of international law even
though, as noted above there seems to be no one founder of international law. But it is difficult to
ignore Grotius’s pace – setting role in putting international law together into a single book.
Contributions to the Contemporary International System
The contributions of Grotius to the contemporary international system derive from his treatises
which systematized customs usage and state practices that existed. The treatises contained three
importance principles that were all preserved and developed in modern international law:
• • Restitution for harm done must be made;

• • Promises given must be kept (pacta sunt servanda);

• • Freedom of the seas must be guaranteed.

In the De Jure Belli ac Pacis, Grotius made tremendous efforts to restrain conflicts on the basis
of a broad moral consensus. Having witnessed the Eighty Years’ War between Spain and the
Netherlands and the Thirty Years’ War (1618 – 1648) between Catholic and Protestant European
nations, Grotius lamented:
Fully convinced … that there is a common law among nations, which is valid, alike for war and
in war, I have written upon the subject. Throughout the Christian world I observed a lack of
restraint in relation to war, such as even barbarous races should be ashamed of; I observed that
men rush to arms for slight causes, or no cause at all, and that when arms have once been taken
up there is no longer any respect for law, divine or human; it is as if, in accordance with a
general decree, frenzy had openly been let loose for the committing of all crimes.
The treatise advances a system of principles of natural law, which are held to be binding on all
people and nations regardless of local custom. The work is divided into three books:
i i. Book I advances his conception of war and of natural justice, arguing that there are
some circumstances in which war is justifiable.

i ii. Book II identifies three ‘just causes’ for war: self defense, reparation of injury, and
punishment; Grotius considers a wide variety of circumstances under which these rights of war
attach and when they do not.

iii. Book III takes up the question of what rules govern the conduct of war once it has begun;
influentially, Grotius argued that all parties to war are bound by such rules, whether their cause is
just or not.

Government theory of atonement

This is embedded in his treatise on restitution. Grotius developed this particular view reparation
from the atonement of Christ. He theorized that Jesus sacrificial death occurred in order for the
Father to forgive while still maintaining his just rule over the universe. This idea, further
developed by theologians such as John Miley, became one of the prominent views of the
atonement in Methodist Arminianism.
Freedom of the seas

Grotius’s one of the enduring contributions consists in his postulation of the freedom of the seas.
In his Mare Liberum, he remorselessly condemned the “closed seas” concept of the Portuguese
and declared a right of passage to all nations on the high seas which he labeled as a terra nullius,
that is, a territory belonging to one. The implication is that the nations lacked the right to
appropriate to themselves the high seas because they belonged to all .
Pacta sunt servanda

Grotius attributed the wars of his time to the failure to keep agreements by rulers. He therefore,
formulated the principle of pacta sunt servanda to define expressly the idea of one society of
states, governed not by force or warfare but by actual laws and mutual agreement to enforce
those laws. That idea which he propounded was given concrete expression in the peace of
Westphalia, and that may be why Grotius has been considered as the intellectual father of this
first general peace settlement of modern times (Bull 1999).

IMMANUEL KANT

Kant was an exponent of the idea that perpetual peace could be secured through universal
democracy and international cooperation, and that perhaps this could be the culminating stage of
world history. In his Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, Kant listed several conditions that
he thought necessary for ending wars and creating a lasting peace. They included a world of
constitutional republics. His classical republican theory was extended in the Science of Right, the
first part of the Metaphysics of Morals (1797). Kant believed that universal history leads to the
ultimate world of republican states at peace, but his theory was not pragmatic. The process was
described in Perpetual Peace as natural rather than rational: Kant's political thought can be
summarized as republican government and international organization. In more characteristically
Kantian terms, it refers to the doctrine of the state based upon the law (Rechtsstaat) and of
eternal peace. Indeed, in each of these formulations, both terms express the same idea: that of
legal constitution or of 'peace through law'. Kant's political philosophy, being essentially a legal
doctrine, rejects by definition the opposition between moral education and the play of passions as
alternate foundations for social life. He conceived the state as the union of men under law. By
this he meant that the state is constituted by laws which are necessary a priori because they flow
from the very concept of law. He further assumed that a regime can be judged by no other
criteria nor be assigned any other functions, than those proper to the lawful order as such.
Kant’s influential views and contribution to the international system were articulated in his
Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch (1795) where offered three propositions as follows:
i i. First Definitive Article: The civil Constitution of Every State shall be Republican.
If, as is inevitably the case under this constitution, the consent of the citizens is required to
decide whether or not war is to be declared, it is very natural that they will have great hesitation
in embarking on so dangerous an enterprise… But under a constitution where the subject is not a
citizen, and which is therefore not republican, it is the simplest thing in the world to go to war.
For the head of state is not a fellow citizen, but the owner of the state, and a war will not force
him to make the slightest sacrifice so far as his banquets, hunts, pleasure places and court
festivals are concerned ….

i Second Definitive Article: The Right of Nations shall be based on a Federation of

Free States. Each nation, for the sake of its own security, can and ought to demand of the others
that they should enter along with it into a constitution, similar to a civil one, within which the
rights of each could be secured…. But peace can neither be inaugurated nor secured without a
general agreement between the nations; thus a particular kind of league, which we will call a
pacific federation, is required. It would be different from a peace treaty in that the latter
terminates one war, whereas the

i Third Definitive Article: Cosmopolitan Right shall be limited to Conditions of

Universal Hospitality. The peoples of the earth have thus entered in varying degrees into a
universal community, and it has developed to the point where a violation of rights in one part of
the world is felt everywhere. The idea of a cosmopolitan right is therefore not fantastic and over
strained; it is a necessary complement to the unwritten code of political and international right,
transforming it into a universal right of humanity.

Woodrow Wilson
Contributions to the Contemporary International System
Wilson sought to move away from the foreign policy of his predecessors, which he viewed as
imperialistic, and he rejected Taft's Dollar Diplomacy. Nonetheless, he frequently intervened in
Latin American affairs, saying in 1913: "I am going to teach the South American republics to
elect good men. The 1914 Bryan–Chamorro Treaty converted Nicaragua into a de facto
protectorate, and the U.S. stationed soldiers there throughout Wilson's presidency. The Wilson
administration sent troops to occupy the Dominican Republic and intervene in Haiti. Wilson also
authorized military interventions in Cuba, Panama, and Honduras.
Wilson took office during the Mexican Revolution, which had begun in 1911 after liberals
overthrew the military dictatorship of Porfirio Díaz. Shortly before Wilson took office,
Conservatives retook power through a coup led by Victoriano Huerta. Wilson rejected the
legitimacy of Huerta's "government of butchers" and demanded Mexico hold democratic
elections. After Huerta arrested U.S. Navy personnel who had accidentally landed in a restricted
zone near the northern port town of Tampico, Wilson dispatched the Navy to occupy the
Mexican city of Veracruz. A strong backlash against the American intervention among Mexicans
of all political affiliations convinced Wilson to abandon his plans to expand the U.S. military
intervention, but the intervention nonetheless helped convince Huerta to flee from the country. A
group led by Venustiano Carranza established control over a significant proportion of Mexico,
and Wilson recognized Carranza's government in October 1915.
Carranza continued to face various opponents within Mexico, including Pancho Villa, whom
Wilson had earlier described as "a sort of Robin Hood. In early 1916, Pancho Villa raided the
village of Columbus, New Mexico, killing or wounding dozens of Americans and causing an
enormous nationwide American demand for his punishment. Wilson ordered General John J.
Pershing and 4,000 troops across the border to capture Villa. By April, Pershing's forces had
broken up and dispersed Villa's bands, but Villa remained on the loose and Pershing continued
his pursuit deep into Mexico. Carranza then pivoted against the Americans and accused them of
a punitive invasion, leading to several incidents that nearly led to war. Tensions subsided after
Mexico agreed to release several American prisoners, and bilateral negotiations began under the
auspices of the Mexican-American Joint High Commission. Eager to withdraw from Mexico due
to tensions in Europe, Wilson ordered Pershing to withdraw, and the last American soldiers left
in February 1917.
Policy of neutrality in World War I
World War I broke out in July 1914, pitting the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, the
Ottoman Empire, and later Bulgaria) against the Allied Powers (Britain, France, Russia,
Serbia, and several other countries). The war fell into a long stalemate with very high casualties
on the Western Front in France. Both sides rejected offers by Wilson and House to mediate an
end to the conflict. From 1914 until early 1917, Wilson's primary foreign policy objectives were
to keep the United States out of the war in Europe and to broker a peace agreement. He insisted
that all U.S. government actions be neutral, stating that Americans "must be impartial in thought
as well as in action, must put a curb upon our sentiments as well as upon every transaction that
might be construed as a preference of one party to the struggle before another. As a neutral
power, the U.S. insisted on its right to trade with both sides. However, in January 1917, the
Germans initiated a new policy of unrestricted submarine warfare against ships in the seas
around the British Isles, which expectedly provoked U.S. entrance into the war after Wilson had
asked Congress for a declaration of war against Germany, arguing that Germany was engaged in
"nothing less than war against the government and people of the United States”.
The Fourteen Points
Wilson sought the establishment of "an organized common peace" that would help prevent future
conflicts. In this goal, he was opposed not just by the Central Powers, but also the other Allied
Powers, who, to various degrees, sought to win concessions and to impose a punitive peace
agreement on the Central Powers. On January 8, 1918, Wilson delivered a speech, known as the
Fourteen Points, wherein he articulated his administration's long term war objectives. Wilson
called for the establishment of an association of nations to guarantee the independence and
territorial integrity of all nations—a League of Nations. Other points included the evacuation of
occupied territory, the establishment of an independent Poland, and self-determination for the
peoples of Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire.
Midwifing the League of Nations (Versailles Peace Conference)
After the signing of the armistice, Wilson traveled to Europe to lead the American delegation to
the Paris Peace Conference, thereby becoming the first incumbent president to travel to Europe.
Although Republicans now controlled Congress, Wilson shut them out. Senate Republicans and
even some Senate Democrats complained about their lack of representation in the delegation.
Save for a two-week return to the United States, Wilson remained in Europe for six months,
where he focused on reaching a peace treaty to formally end the war. Wilson, British Prime
Minister David Lloyd George, French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau, and Italian
Prime Minister Vittorio Emanuele Orlando made up the "Big Four," the Allied leaders with the
most influence at the Paris Peace Conference. Wilson had an illness during the conference, and
some experts believe the Spanish flu was the cause.
Unlike other Allied leaders, Wilson did not seek territorial gains or material concessions from
the Central Powers. His chief goal was the establishment of the League of Nations, which he saw
as the "keystone of the whole programme. Wilson himself presided over the Committee that
drafted the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Covenant bound members to respect
freedom of religion, treat racial minorities fairly, and peacefully settle disputes through
organizations like the Permanent Court of International Justice. Article X of the League
Covenant required all nations to defend League members against external aggression. Japan
proposed that the conference endorse a racial equality clause; Wilson was indifferent to the issue,
but acceded to strong opposition from Australia and Britain. The Covenant of the League of
Nations was incorporated into the conference's Treaty of Versailles, which ended the war with
Germany, and into other peace treaties.
Aside from the establishment of the League of Nations and solidifying a lasting world peace,
Wilson's other main goal at the Paris Peace Conference was that self-determination be the
primary basis used for drawing new international borders. However, in pursuit of his League of
Nations, Wilson conceded several points to the other powers present at the conference. Germany
was required to permanently cede territory, pay war reparations, relinquish all of her overseas
colonies and dependencies and submit to military occupation in the Rhineland. Additionally, a
clause in the treaty specifically named Germany as responsible for the war. Wilson agreed to
allowing the Allied European powers and Japan to essentially expand their empires by
establishing de facto colonies in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia out the former German and
Ottoman Empires; these territorial awards to the victorious countries were thinly disguised as
"League of Nations mandates". The Japanese acquisition of German interests in the Shandong
Peninsula of China proved especially unpopular, as it undercut Wilson's promise of self-
government. Wilson's hopes for achieving self-determination saw some success when the
conference recognized multiple new and independent states created in Eastern Europe, including
Poland, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia.
The conference finished negotiations in May 1919, at which point the new leaders of a
Democratic Germany viewed the treaty for the first time. Some German leaders favored
repudiating the peace due to the harshness of the terms, though ultimately Germany signed the
treaty on June 28, 1919. Wilson was unable to convince the other Allied powers, France in
particular to temper the harshness of the settlement being leveled at the defeated Central Powers,
especially Germany.
Ratification debate and defeat
Ratification of the Treaty of Versailles required the support of two-thirds of the Senate, a
difficult proposition given that Republicans held a narrow majority in the Senate after the 1918
elections. Republicans were outraged by Wilson's failure to discuss the war or its aftermath with
them, and an intensely partisan battle developed in the Senate. Republican Senator Henry Cabot
Lodge supported a version of the treaty that required Wilson to compromise. Wilson refused.
Some Republicans, including former President Taft and former Secretary of State Elihu Root,
favored ratification of the treaty with some modifications, and their public support gave Wilson
some chance of winning the treaty's ratification.
The debate over the treaty centered on a debate over the American role in the world community
in the post-war era, and senators fell into three main groups. The first group, consisting of most
Democrats, favored the treaty. Fourteen senators, mostly Republicans, were known as the
"irreconcilables" as they completely opposed U.S. entrance into the League of Nations. Some of
these irreconcilables opposed the treaty for its failure to emphasize decolonization and
disarmament, while others feared surrendering American freedom of action to an international
organization. The remaining group of senators, known as "reservationists," accepted the idea of
the League, but sought varying degrees of change to ensure the protection of American
sovereignty and the right of Congress to decide on going to war. Article X of the League
Covenant, which sought to create a system of collective security by requiring League members
to protect one another against external aggression, seemed to force the U.S. to join in any war the
League decided upon. Wilson consistently refused to compromise, partly due to concerns about
having to re-open negotiations with the other treaty signatories.

Race relations
Wilson was born and raised in the South by parents who were committed supporters of both
slavery and the Confederacy. Academically, Wilson was an apologist for slavery and the
southern redemption movement, and one of the foremost promoters of lost cause mythology.
Wilson was the first Southerner elected president since Zachary Taylor in 1848 and the only
former subject of the Confederacy. Wilson's election was celebrated by southern segregationists.
At Princeton, Wilson actively dissuaded the admission of African-Americans as students.
Several historians have spotlighted consistent examples in the public record of Wilson's overtly
racist policies and the inclusion of segregationists in his Cabinet.

Nicollo Machiavelli

Perspective on the imperative of military strength

The overriding Machiavellian assumption is that the world is a dangerous place. But it is also, by
the same token, an opportune place too. If anybody hopes to survive in such a world, he or she
must always be aware of dangers, must anticipate them, and must take the necessary precautions
against them. And if they hope to prosper, to enrich themselves, and to bask in the reflected glory
of their accumulated power and wealth, it is necessary for them to recognize and to exploit the
opportunities that present themselves and to do that more quickly, more skillfully and if
necessary-more ruthlessly than any of their rivals or enemies. The conduct of foreign policy is
thus an instrumental or ‘Machiavellian’ activity based on the intelligent calculation of one’s
power and interests as against the power and interests of rivals and competitors.
The shrewd outlook is reflected in some typical Machiavellian maxims of realist statecraft,
including the following: Be aware of what is happening. Do not wait for things to happen.
Anticipate the motives and actions of others. Do not wait for others to act. Act before they do.
The prudent state leaders act to ward off any threat posed by his or her neighbors. He or she
should be prepared to engage in pre-emptive war and similar initiatives. The realist state leader is
alert to opportunities in any political situation, and is prepared and equipped to exploit them.
Above all, according to Machiavelli, the responsible state leader must not operate in accordance
with the principles of Christian ethics: love thy neighbor, be peaceful, and avoid war except in
self-defense or in pursuit of a just cause; be charitable, share your wealth with others, always act
in good faith, etc. Machiavelli sees these moral maxims as the height of political irresponsibility:
if political leaders act in accordance with Christian virtues they are bound to come to grief and
they will lose everything. He rationalized his position on his perception of worse aspects of
human behaviour and so stressed that those who wish to be successful must protect themselves
against the evil which others may and probably will commit. The power politics view of
Machiavelli also does not believe in honouring treaties that do not protect the national interest. In
advising the Prince not to keep agreements which have ceased to be in his interest, he explained
that, If men were all good, this precept would not be a good one; but as they are bad and would
not observe their faith with you, so you are not bound to keep faith with them
He therefore argued further that in addition to losing everything, complacent state leaders will
equally sacrifice the property and perhaps the freedom and even the lives of their citizens, who
depend upon their statecraft. The implication is clear: if a ruler does not know or respect the
maxims of power politics, his or her statecraft will fail and with it the security and welfare of the
citizens who depend absolutely upon it. In other words, political responsibility flows in a very
different vein than ordinary, private morality. The fundamental, overriding values are the
security and the survival of the state: that is what must guide foreign policy.
Machiavelli’s realist writings are sometimes portrayed as ‘manuals on how to thrive in a
completely chaotic and immoral world’. But that view is misleading. It overlooks the
responsibilities of rulers not merely to themselves or to their personal regimes but also to their
country and its citizens: what Machiavelli, thinking of Florence, refers to as ‘the republic’. This
is the civic virtue aspect of Machiavellian realism: rulers have to be both lions and foxes because
their people depend upon them for their survival and prosperity. That dependence of the people
upon their ruler, and specifically upon the wisdom of his or her foreign policy, is owing to the
fact that their fate is entangled in the same state: that is the normative heart not only of
Machiavellian realism but of classical realism generally.

Morgenthau’s Realism

These Morgenthau’s idea of statecraft form the building block of his theory of International
Relations as embedded in the ‘six principles of political realism outlined below.
• Politics is rooted in a permanent and unchanging human nature which is basically self-centered,
self-regarding, and self-interested.
• Politics is ‘an autonomous sphere of action’ and cannot therefore be reduced to economics (as
Marxist scholars are prone to do) or reduced to morals (as Kantian or liberal theorists are prone
to do). State leaders should act in accordance with the dictates of political wisdom.
• • Self-interest is a basic fact of the human condition: all people have an interest at a
minimum in their own security and survival. Politics is the arena for the expression of those
interests which are bound to come into conflict sooner or later. International politics is an arena
of conflicting state interests. But interests are fixed: the world is in flux and interests change over
time and over space. Realism is a doctrine that responds to the fact of a changing political reality.

• • The ethics of international relations is a political or situational ethics which is very

different from private morality. A political leader does not have the same freedom to do the right
thing that a private citizen has. That is because a political leader has far heavier responsibilities
than a private citizen: he is responsible to the people (typically of his country) who depend on
him; he is responsible for their security and welfare. The responsible state leader should strive
not to do the best but, rather, to do the best that circumstances on that particular day permit. That
circumscribed situation of political choice is the normative heart of realist ethics.