Realism in International Relations Explained
Uploaded by
gashok529Realism in International Relations Explained
Uploaded by
gashok529Common questions
Powered by AIRealism explains the stability of the Cold War through the concept of bipolarity by pointing to the balance of power between the United States and the Soviet Union. Neorealists argue that a stable balance emerges when power is concentrated among a few states. In a bipolar system, the distribution of capabilities is more predictable and manageable, reducing the likelihood of miscalculations that could lead to major conflict .
The core assumptions of Realism are: (a) the international system is anarchic, meaning there is no supreme authority to enforce rules; (b) states are the primary actors, possessing sovereignty and making war and peace decisions; (c) states pursue national interests defined as power and security; (d) states act rationally by calculating costs and benefits; and (e) world politics are inherently conflictual, with cooperation being fragile and power-driven .
Classical Realism attributes international conflict to the flaws of human nature. Thinkers like Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes argue that humans are driven by fear, ambition, and self-interest, which are reflected in state behaviors. Hans Morgenthau's Politics Among Nations further asserts that politics is governed by objective laws rooted in human nature, and that states seek to maximize power as it is the currency of international politics. Therefore, international conflicts arise from these innate human traits being manifested in state actions .
Neoclassical Realism integrates domestic-level variables into the analysis, arguing that states respond to international pressures unevenly based on their political institutions, leadership perceptions, state capacity, and public opinion. According to thinkers like Gideon Rose, Fareed Zakaria, and William Wohlforth, the ability of a government to extract and mobilize resources influences how a state projects its national power, which is not merely the sum of its material capabilities .
In Realist thought, Relative Gains refers to states being concerned not just with their own gains from cooperation but with how much more or less they gain compared to others. This aspect limits cooperation even when mutual benefits exist, as states fear that more significant gains by others could alter the balance of power against them, potentially threatening their security .
Critics argue that Realism is gender-blind because it fails to consider how gender identities and norms influence international relations, often neglecting feminist perspectives that highlight these dimensions. It is considered ahistorical because it overlooks the historical and evolving nature of norms and identities that shape state behavior. This criticism suggests that Realism's focus on power dynamics and state-centric analysis might overlook important cultural and normative factors that can alter international outcomes, potentially reducing its descriptive power in explaining phenomena driven by identity and norms .
The Security Dilemma posits that measures one state takes to increase its security, such as arms buildup or forming alliances, can cause other states to feel insecure. This often triggers arms races and increases instability, as other states may take similar measures in response, creating a cycle of insecurity. This dilemma persists even when states have purely defensive intentions, affecting international relations by making cooperation difficult and increasing the likelihood of conflict .
Critics argue that Realism neglects the role of non-state actors such as international organizations, multinational corporations, NGOs, and transnational movements. This oversight limits Realism's ability to account for the influence these actors have on international relations and policy-making. Such actors often promote cooperation, interdependence, and address global issues like climate change, which realists tend to overlook, leading to an incomplete understanding of global dynamics .
Defensive Realism suggests that states are primarily security maximizers, and excessive power accumulation can provoke counter-balancing by rivals. Scholars like Stephen Walt and Robert Jervis argue that prudent foreign policy avoids unnecessarily provoking others. Conversely, Offensive Realism, as proposed by John Mearsheimer, suggests that states seek to dominate the international system and aim for hegemony as the best guarantee for survival. In this view, maximizing power is essential due to the uncertainty of others' intentions .
Neorealism, unlike Classical Realism, attributes the causes of international conflict to the structure of the international system rather than human nature. Kenneth Waltz, a proponent of Neorealism, argues that anarchy in the international system compels states to seek security through self-help strategies. The distribution of power across states, such as unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar systems, determines strategic outcomes. Therefore, Neorealism focuses on structural pressures instead of human-driven impulses, which Classical Realism emphasizes .