Realist Theory of International Relations

PPT for Class Presentation

Meaning and features of Realist Theory

Realism stands as one of the most influential and enduring theories in the study of international relations. It posits that the international system is essentially anarchic, lacking a central authority, and that states are the primary actors within it. Driven by a fundamental concern for their own survival and security, these states are seen as rational actors that prioritize their national interests and often engage in power politics to navigate this competitive landscape. Key concepts such as self-help, the balance of power, and the security dilemma are central to understanding the realist perspective, which views conflict as an inherent feature of international relations.

Realism is a theory of international relations that emphasizes the role of power and self-interest in shaping state behavior. It suggests that states act primarily to advance their own interests, often in competition with one another, rather than for moral or ideological reasons. Realists believe that the international system is anarchic, meaning there is no overarching authority to enforce rules, leading states to prioritize their security and survival above all else. Key thinkers in realism include Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz, and Thucydides.

definition

Hans Morgenthau: “Political realism believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature.”
Kenneth Waltz: “Realism is a theory of international politics that asserts that states, motivated by self-interest, compete with each other in an anarchic international system characterized by the absence of a central authority capable of enforcing binding rules.”
John Mearsheimer: “Realism is a view of international politics that stresses the competitive and conflictual side of international relations. It is pessimistic about the prospects for eliminating war and other forms of conflict among states.”

These definitions highlight the core tenets of realism, including the emphasis on state-centric behavior, self-interest, power dynamics, and the anarchic nature of the international system.

Key features of realism

1.Anarchy and State-Centric Focus: Realism emphasizes that the international system lacks a centralized authority (anarchy). States are the primary actors, and their actions drive global politics.

Realists believe the international system is anarchic not in the sense of chaos, but in the absence of a central authority to enforce rules, resolve disputes, or protect states. Here are some examples:

State Sovereignty: States possess supreme authority within their borders. There is no world government to tell them what to do. For example, a state’s decision to go to war is ultimately its own, even if the UN Security Council advises against it.
Self-Help System: In the absence of a global enforcer, states must rely on their own capabilities to ensure their survival. If a state feels threatened, it must increase its military strength or form alliances because there is no world police to protect it.
Security Dilemma: When one state increases its power for defensive purposes, it can make other states feel less secure, leading them to increase their own power. This creates a spiral of insecurity. For example, the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War both built up massive arsenals, each claiming it was for defense, but this buildup made the other side feel more threatened.
Lack of Enforceable Global Laws: International laws and treaties exist, but there is no guarantee that they will be enforced. For example, many states have signed treaties on human rights, but violations still occur because there is no world court with the power to force states to comply.
Great Power Competition: The competition between great powers demonstrates the anarchic nature of the international system. Throughout history, great powers have engaged in rivalries, conflicts, and wars for dominance because there is no central authority to manage their competition peacefully.

2.Self-Interest and Power: Realists argue that states act based on their national interest and seek to maximize their power. Rational pursuit of self-interest guides state behavior.

Here are some examples of how realists believe states act in self-interest and maximize power, drawing from the principles outlined in the immersive artifact:

Military Buildups: States increase their military strength to protect themselves and enhance their influence. The US, for example, maintains a large military and invests heavily in defense technology to ensure its security and project power globally.
Formation of Alliances: States form alliances with other countries to increase their collective power and security. NATO, for instance, is an alliance of North American and European states who have agreed to defend each other in the event of an attack, increasing their collective power.
Economic Expansion: States seek to increase their economic power through trade agreements, acquisition of resources, and control of strategic industries. China’s Belt and Road Initiative, for example, aims to expand its economic and political influence through infrastructure projects in other countries.
Territorial Expansion: Historically, states have sought to increase their power through territorial expansion. For example, Nazi Germany’s annexation of Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia was driven by a desire to increase its territory and power.
Development of Nuclear Weapons: States develop nuclear weapons to deter attacks from other powerful states, thereby enhancing their security and power.

3.Balance of Power: Realists advocate for maintaining a balance of power among states to prevent dominance by any single actor. This equilibrium helps prevent aggression and instability.

Realists view the balance of power as a crucial mechanism for maintaining stability in the anarchic international system. Here’s how they see its importance, with examples:

Preventing Domination: Realists believe that states seek to prevent any single state from becoming too powerful and dominating the others. They achieve this by balancing against potential hegemons through alliances or increasing their own capabilities.
- For example, in the 19th century, European powers formed alliances to balance against the rising power of Napoleon’s France.
Maintaining Stability: A balance of power, even if unstable, is seen as preferable to a unipolar system (dominated by one state), which realists believe is more prone to conflict.
- The Cold War period, characterized by a bipolar balance between the United States and the Soviet Union, is often cited as a period of relative stability (albeit with proxy wars) compared to the post-Cold War unipolar moment.
Deterring Aggression: The idea is that if states are roughly equal in power, they will be less likely to initiate conflict because the potential costs outweigh the benefits.
- The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) during the Cold War, where both the US and the Soviet Union had enough nuclear weapons to destroy each other, is an example of how the balance of power was supposed to deter direct conflict.
Self-help: In a self-help system, states cannot rely on international organizations for their survival. Therefore, they engage in balancing behavior to ensure their own security.
- For example, Japan has increased its defense spending and strengthened its alliance with the United States in response to the rise of China, demonstrating a balancing act to preserve its security.

4.Historical Roots: Realism draws inspiration from classic authors like Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. Their writings highlight enduring power dynamics in state interactions.

Realist theory in international relations draws heavily from historical roots, using insights from past events and writings to inform its understanding of contemporary state behavior. Here are some key examples:

Thucydides and the Peloponnesian War: The ancient Greek historian Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BCE) between Athens and Sparta is considered a foundational text for realism. His analysis of power politics, the pursuit of self-interest, and the role of fear and security in interstate relations provides enduring insights that realists still draw upon. For instance, the “Melian Dialogue” in Thucydides’ work is often cited to illustrate the realist concept that in a power struggle, might makes right.
Machiavelli and The Prince: Niccolò Machiavelli’s 16th-century work The Prince offers a pragmatic guide for rulers on how to acquire and maintain power. Machiavelli’s emphasis on the importance of political expediency, the use of force, and the idea that the ends justify the means resonates with realist thinkers. His work informs the realist emphasis on realpolitik (practical politics) and the notion that states often prioritize survival and power over morality.
Hobbes and the State of Nature: Thomas Hobbes’s 17th-century work Leviathan describes a “state of nature” where individuals exist without a central authority, leading to a “war of all against all.” Realists apply this concept to the international system, arguing that the absence of a world government creates an anarchic environment where states are primarily concerned with their own security and survival.
20th-Century Classical Realists: Hans Morgenthau, a key figure in the development of 20th-century realism, explicitly drew upon classical thinkers like Thucydides and Machiavelli. His work, Politics Among Nations, articulated key realist principles, including the idea that states are primarily motivated by the pursuit of power and that international politics is governed by objective laws rooted in human nature. E.H. Carr, another influential realist, analyzed the interwar period and argued that the failure of idealism and the League of Nations demonstrated the enduring relevance of power politics, a perspective deeply informed by historical analysis.

5.E.H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau: Realism emerged during the mid-20th century, inspired by British scholar E.H. Carr. It challenged liberal idealism and emphasized power and self-interest.

E.H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau were pivotal figures in shaping 20th-century realist thought in international relations. Here’s how they influenced the theory:

E.H. Carr: Carr, in his work The Twenty Years’ Crisis, critiqued the idealism that prevailed after World War I. He argued that this idealism, which underpinned the League of Nations, failed to grasp the importance of power politics. Carr emphasized that international relations are fundamentally driven by the pursuit of power and that morality and ethics are often secondary to states’ interests. His analysis of the interwar period and the failure of the League of Nations provided a historical basis for realist skepticism towards idealistic solutions and highlighted the enduring relevance of power in international affairs.
Hans Morgenthau: Morgenthau, in his seminal work Politics Among Nations, provided a comprehensive framework for realist theory. He argued that international politics is governed by objective laws rooted in human nature, and that states are primarily motivated by the pursuit of power. Morgenthau defined national interest in terms of power and stressed the importance of understanding the limits of morality in international politics. His work established classical realism as a dominant paradigm in the study of international relations, emphasizing the centrality of power, the rationality of states, and the constraints imposed by the anarchic international system.

In summary, Carr’s critique of idealism and emphasis on the role of power, and Morgenthau’s articulation of realist principles and systematic theory, were crucial in establishing realism as a leading perspective in international relations.

6.Pessimism about Systemic Reform: Realists are generally pessimistic about radical systemic change. They focus on the perennial role of power in shaping state behavior.

Based on the information in the provided immersive artifact, realist theory in international relations is pessimistic about the prospects of systemic reforms due to the following key reasons:

Anarchy: Realists view the international system as anarchic, meaning there is no overarching central authority to enforce rules or maintain order. This leads states to prioritize their own survival and security, fostering a self-help system where cooperation is often difficult and limited.
State-Centrism: Realism emphasizes the state as the primary actor in international politics. States are seen as rational, unitary actors that prioritize their national interests, which often conflict with the interests of other states. This focus on state sovereignty and self-interest makes it difficult to achieve substantial cooperation needed for systemic reforms.
Power Politics: Realists believe that international relations are fundamentally driven by a struggle for power. States constantly seek to enhance their relative power position, leading to competition and conflict. This pursuit of power makes states wary of reforms that might diminish their own power or benefit rival states.
Human Nature: Classical realists, like Morgenthau, posit that human nature is inherently self-interested and power-seeking. They argue that this nature shapes state behavior, making cooperation and lasting peace difficult to achieve.
Focus on Survival: The primary concern of states, according to realists, is survival. In a self-help system, states prioritize actions that ensure their continued existence, even if those actions hinder broader cooperation. This focus on immediate survival often overshadows the potential benefits of long-term systemic reforms.

8.State Security and Survival: Realists prioritize the state’s security and survival. National security interests guide policy decisions.

Here are some examples that illustrate why realist theory in international relations emphasizes state security and survival:

Anarchy and Self-Help: In the absence of a world government, states cannot rely on any higher authority for protection. For example, if a state faces an external threat, it cannot depend on international law or global institutions to guarantee its security. Instead, it must rely on its own resources and strategies, such as building up its military or forming alliances, to ensure its survival.
State-Centrism and Conflicting Interests: States are the primary actors in the international system, and they often have conflicting interests. For instance, one state’s pursuit of economic growth or territorial expansion may threaten another state’s security. In such situations, states prioritize their own security and survival, even if it means compromising on cooperation or engaging in conflict.
Power Politics and Security Dilemma: States constantly seek to enhance their power to protect themselves. However, this pursuit of power can lead to a security dilemma, where one state’s efforts to increase its security can be seen as threatening by other states, leading them to take countermeasures. For example, an arms race between two states can be seen as each state trying to ensure its survival.
Focus on Survival: The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US and its allies can be seen through the lens of state security and survival. The US government stated that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and was a threat to its security, justifying the invasion as a means to protect its national interests and ensure its survival.

9.Power Politics and Military Force: Realism involves strategic use of military force and alliances to boost global influence while maintaining a balance of power.

Here are some examples of how power politics and military strategy are important for realist theory in international relations:

Balance of Power: Realists believe that states constantly seek to maintain or alter the balance of power. This concept suggests that states will form alliances or increase their military strength to prevent any one state from dominating the international system. A historical example is the formation of alliances against Napoleon in the early 19th century and against Hitler in the mid-20th century.
Deterrence: Military strength is often used to deter potential adversaries. The possession of nuclear weapons by several states is seen by realists as a way to prevent large-scale wars because the threat of mutual destruction makes any potential aggressor think twice.
Coercion: States may use military force or the threat of force to coerce other states into taking certain actions. For example, a powerful state might use its navy to blockade a weaker state to force it to comply with its demands.
War as an Instrument of Statecraft: Realists, such as Clausewitz, view war as a continuation of politics by other means. In this view, war is a tool that states can use to achieve their political objectives. For example, a state might initiate a war to seize territory, resources, or to change the regime of another state.
Security Dilemma: The concept of the security dilemma illustrates how power politics and military strategy can create instability. When one state increases its military capabilities to enhance its security, other states may perceive this as a threat and increase their own military power, leading to an arms race. A classic example is the Cold War arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union.

10.Dominance in IR Scholarship: Realism has dominated the academic study of international relations since World War II, providing insights into state behavior and global power dynamics.

Morgenthau’s Six Principles of Realist Theory

Hans J. Morgenthau, a prominent figure in political realism, outlined six key principles that form the foundation of this theory:

1. Politics Governed by Objective Laws: According to Morgenthau, politics, like society, operates under objective laws rooted in human nature. These laws are essential for understanding international politics. By studying the history of human relations, we can formulate a rational theory of international politics based on these objective laws.

2. National Interest Defined in Terms of Power: The core of Morgenthau’s realism lies in the concept of national interest, which is always defined in terms of power. Nations act to secure their interests by leveraging power. This principle highlights the autonomous character of international politics.

3. Dynamic Nature of National Interest: Morgenthau recognized that national interest is not fixed; it evolves over time. Nations adapt their interests based on changing circumstances and power dynamics.

4. Moral Principles Do Not Apply to State Actions: Realism rejects the direct application of abstract moral principles to international politics. States prioritize their interests and power over moral ideals.

5. No Alignment Between National Aspirations and Universal Moral Laws: Morgenthau emphasized that a nation’s moral aspirations do not necessarily align with universal moral laws. States act pragmatically to achieve their goals, regardless of moral considerations.

6. Autonomy of the Political Sphere: International politics exists as an autonomous sphere, separate from other aspects of human life. It operates by its own rules, driven by power dynamics and state interests.These principles provide valuable insights into the behavior of states in the complex arena of international relations.

Merits of Realist Theory

The realist theory of international relations has been influential and widely studied.

1. Accurate Explanation of State Behavior: Realism provides a robust framework for understanding how states interact in the international arena. It emphasizes the rational pursuit of power and security as driving forces behind state actions.

2. Focus on Anarchy: Realists recognize that the international system is inherently anarchic, lacking a central authority. This perspective helps explain the dynamics of state behavior, alliances, and conflicts.

3. State-Centric Approach: Realism places states at the center of analysis. By focusing on state interests, capabilities, and power, it offers a clear lens through which to examine international relations.

4. Balance of Power: Realists advocate for maintaining a balance of power among states. This equilibrium helps prevent dominance by any single actor, reducing the likelihood of conflict².

5. Pragmatic Policy Prescriptions: Realism suggests practical policy recommendations, such as power balancing, to manage international relations. These prescriptions aim to stabilize the system and prevent major disruptions

6. Historical Validity: Realism has historical validity, as it aligns with patterns observed in past international relations. Great power rivalries, alliances, and strategic calculations support realist claims.

7. Critical of Utopian Ideas: Realism emerged as a response to utopian ideas prevalent during the interwar period. By grounding itself in practical considerations, it critiques idealistic approaches to international relations.

8. Emphasis on National Interest: Realists argue that states act primarily in pursuit of their national interest—whether it’s power, security, or survival. This focus on self-interest provides a clear lens for analysis.

9. Explains Conflict and Competition: Realism effectively explains conflicts, competition, and security dilemmas among states. It highlights the role of power struggles in shaping global politics³.

10. Influence on Policy and Strategy: Realist theories have influenced policymakers, diplomats, and military strategists. Their insights into state behavior inform decisions related to alliances, security, and foreign policy.

In summary, realism’s emphasis on state-centric analysis, power dynamics, and practical policy recommendations contributes significantly to our understanding of international relations.

Demerits of Realist Theory

1.Simplistic Assumptions: Realism often relies on simplistic assumptions about human behavior, assuming that states act solely out of self-interest and power calculations. This overlooks the complexity of motivations and values in international relations

2.Neglect of Morality: Realism tends to downplay the role of morality in state actions. By prioritizing national interest and power, it may justify actions that conflict with ethical norms and human rights

3.Static View of Human Nature: Realists often adopt a fixed view of human nature, assuming that conflict and competition are inherent. This pessimistic outlook may hinder efforts to promote cooperation and peace

4.Underestimation of Non-State Actors: Realism primarily focuses on states, neglecting the influence of non-state actors such as NGOs, multinational corporations, and international organizations. These actors play significant roles in global affairs

5.Limited Scope for Cooperation: Realism’s emphasis on self-interest and power struggles can hinder cooperative efforts among states. It discourages collective action on global challenges like climate change or pandemics

6.Inability to Explain Alliances: While realism acknowledges alliances, it struggles to fully explain their formation and dynamics. The balance-of-power logic doesn’t always account for complex alliances and shifting allegiances

7.Overemphasis on Military Power: Realism tends to prioritize military power as the ultimate measure of state strength. This focus may overshadow other forms of power, such as economic, technological, or cultural influence

8.Lack of Prescription for Conflict Resolution: Realism provides little guidance on conflict resolution beyond power balancing. It doesn’t offer comprehensive strategies for preventing or resolving disputes

9.Ignoring Transnational Issues: Realism’s state-centric approach often overlooks transnational issues like migration, terrorism, and environmental degradation. These issues transcend national borders and require cooperative solutions

10.Resistance to Systemic Reform: Realists are generally skeptical about the possibility of radical systemic reform. Their focus on enduring patterns of power and anarchy may hinder efforts to transform the international system

In summary, while realism offers valuable insights, its limitations underscore the need for a more nuanced and holistic approach to understanding international relations.