The Realism Theory of International Relations - Essay Example

? The Realism Theory of International Relations and Introduction The search for internationalpeace has been present since 1648 when European towns such as Westphalia struggled to maintain warm relationships with their neighbors. There were no governments to rule during this time because towns were led by religious leaders, and there were no political boundaries to separate towns and states. The revolutionary period intensified the search for international peace because of the complex developments of that time. The developments of this period acted as wake-up calls because nations started getting interested in owning resources, creating political boundaries, and ruling the world (Viotti, & Kauppi, 2012). Since then, war has been a part of life for some countries because of lack of peace with neighboring states, for example, Iran and Iraq. Other countries such as the European Union and America found peace by forming international organizations such as United Nations, which formulates the rules that govern the interaction between countries. Scholars have formulated theories to help states to determine how they should interact with others. The main theories of international relations include realism and idealism. The theory of realism has been embraced and criticized at the same time because of the contradictions in its tenets; this makes it useful to analyze the hypothesis and determine the differences in its arguments. Origin of Realism Theory The theory of realism bases its arguments on economic principles, and it argues that states aim at maximizing their utility relative to others. The utility of states increases when they own more resources and power contrary to their counterparts (Rengger, 200). This means that the techniques used to acquire power and resources are not questionable, even if they are against humanity and ethics. The founders of this theory include Nicholas Spykman, Carr, and Hans Morgenthau, all who are from the European Union. Watz and Alexander Hamilton of the United States later contributed to theory. The artistic works of Thucydides and Sun Tzu that existed before the foundations of the theory were used as the basis for the formulation of its principles (Donneley, 2000). Assumptions of the Theory The hypothesis assumes that the government is the highest level of power in a country, and that the leaders of the state make rational decisions. According to Machiavelli, rational decisions are those that increase wealth and power. Therefore, national leaders do not take courses that degrade the power and resources of the state because this would be irrational. This means that the theory disregards international organizations such as the United Nations and International Monetary Fund, which may dictate the actions of the government. The independence of the actions of states means that countries interact in an anarchical system; this is where each government aims at gaining comparative advantage in the acquisition of certain resources and powers (Resende, 2007). Tenets of the Realism Theory of International Relations The principles of the theory were developed by Morgenthau after the Second World War when international relations became a popular subject. However, the ideologies that were applicable during the war included those of Carr and Machiavelli. The first principle of the theory of realism argues that states are governed by the rule of law, and that it is the regulations that manage international relationships (Mary, Rosecrance, & Steiner, 2010). This means that states that do not have laws may not find peace with others, and even those that have inefficient regulations may also fail to find peaceful international neighbors. This then depicts that countries must concentrate on the formulation of logical and efficient laws, in order for them to prosper in the international economy (Machiavelli, & Marriott, 2010). This is because a country analyzes the laws of another state when determining whether to engage in foreign relations with others, especially in trade. Since trade is the main reason that brings foreign countries together, it means that the international trading laws of a country must be friendly to others. These laws include tariffs on exports and imports, trade quotas, and banning of goods among others. Tariffs should be low between a country and its trading partners. The European Union has succeeded in maintaining calm international relationships among member countries because of friendly trading laws. The international trading laws of this region are favorable for member countries because of low tariffs and reasonable amounts of quotas (Gray, 2010). The hypothesis, however, argues that the laws of a state should be logical meaning that they should not possess harmful consequences to international partners. This means that states may reject engaging in relations with others whose international trading laws possess detrimental consequences. The countries that fall into the trap of others through international laws may only blame themselves according to the theory. This is because there is no involvement of international peace-keeping organizations such as the United Nations. The unpredictable nature of the consequences of some laws indicates that the reliance on the ideology of the hypothesis may cause instability in an economy (Jackson, 2009). This tenet may be one of the reasons of the rejection of the theory by scholars who support other ideologies. The second and third principles argue that power is the force that drives politics to top levels, and that authority is flexible in nature. This means that without political power, a state may not acquire dominion in the international world, and authority changes with time. The changing nature of power arises because of the change in political interests. Morgenthau argues that the interest of state leaders should be rational for them to succeed in international relations (Gray, 2010). The scholar argues that unfruitful and illogical motives end lead to failure. An example of comparison of the level of success in various interests is the leadership of Churchill Winston and Neville Chamberlains of Britain. Chamberlain aimed at maintaining peace in the world through his policies; however, his policies fueled the Second World War. Winston, on the other hand, aimed at achieving only national and personal goals while ignoring international policies. The aftermath of Winston’s leadership was the foundation of superior and moral international relationships and policies. This indicates that even fine intentions may fail to achieve peace if their consequences are hazardous (Rossi, 2010). This also means that the followers of this theory need to take caution when determining their interests and powers. The fourth tenet of realism argues that political actions must take into account ethics and morality; while the fifth ideology postulates that power is the most essential factor that helps in judging a state’s actions (Donneley, 2000). The fifth principle indicates that morals and ethics are less superior to political power, and in the case where the two collide, authority is more superior. The fourth and fifth principles ensure that countries formulate laws that do not harm others, and this forms the basis for conductivity in the international environment. Researchers argue that the success of the European Union and America may be as a result of the fourth and fifth principles of realism. Morgenthau argues that countries should guard their political power so that it is not overtaken by morality and ethics (Viotti, & Kauppi, 2012). This is because power is the most superior factor, and it should be achieved using even unacceptable morals. The principles of Morgenthau were mostly based on the aftermath of the Second World War, which occurred as a result of the quest for international political power among nations. Other realists such as Machiavelli hold varying beliefs from those of Morgenthau, and this leads to the internal contradiction of the theory. The contradictions of the arguments of different realists lead to the criticism of the theory. This then leads to the loss of belief in the theory among nations. Difference in Morgenthau’s and Machiavelli’s views of Morality Morgenthau argues that morality is an essential factor in political power, and that rulers must ensure that their actions are ethical. The historian, however, contradicts himself when he argues that there is not globally acceptable code of ethics, and that power is more superior than morals (Gray, 2010). This means that countries follow nationally accepted morals without considering international relations. The argument also depicts that there is no relationship between the morals of various countries, and it indicates that ethics lack an international meaning. Machiavelli, who is also a realist, argues that morality and ethics are harmful international relations, and that they should not exist in this environment. The scholar postulates that leaderships that uphold ethics collapse because they lack power (Machiavelli, & Marriott, 2010). The Second World War that took place before the foundation of Morgenthau’s arguments may have been fuelled by the lack of international moral concern among states. The war lasted for almost a decade, and the participants acted unethically to the extent of limiting basic needs such as food. An example is Germany that limited the amount of food that it exported to countries such as China and America. The limiting of food indicated that the rulers of then who included Adolf Hitler did not uphold morals. The leaders of states during the Second World War followed Machiavelli’s advice that leaders should do whatever it takes to maintain their power (Mary, Rosecrance, & Steiner, 2010). Although Morgenthau brought the ideology of morality into existence after the war, there still lacks efficient international relationships in the world. Differences in the Meaning of Power Scholars such as Raymond and Aaron interpret the power differently from the way Morgenthau does, and this gives rise to another internal conflict in realism. While Morgenthau argues that political power is the main force that helps countries in ruling internationally, Aaron and Raymond argue that authority may be an end or a means to political ruling (Molloy, 2010). The argument by Raymond means that power may be beneficial and harmful at the same time, but its effects depend on the way leaders utilize the factor. Raymond argues that Morgenthau’s ideology means that the foreign policies of leaders such as Hitler, Louis XVI, and Napoleon aimed at increasing their power, but this was not true in reality. This is because leaders such as Hitler aimed at maximizing their personal benefits rather than international or state affairs. The difference in the interpretation of power among realists causes confusion among followers of this school of thought. This leads to the lack of heavy support for the theory, and it contributes to the lack of international peace among nations such as Iran and Iraq (Resende, 2007). Difference in Objectives of States The theory of realism also contains contradiction concerning the objectives of states. While Morgenthau argues that government aim at achieving political power, neorealist such as Watz argue that countries may pursue peace and security (Donneley, 2009). This indicates that there is lack of objectivity in the theory, and it leads to the pursuance of varying aims among nations. Neorealists also argue that international organizations such as United Nations are essential in maintaining order (Rossi, 2010). The usefulness of the institutions arises because of the interdependence that exists among nations. An example of dependence in the world is the reliance of United States on rubber from Libya. When these countries collide, Libya may limit or stop exporting rubber to the States. This may affect production in industries that use rubber such as shoe and automobile sectors. The profits of these industries would be affected negatively; hence, the growth of US would decline. The existence of United Nations that restores peace among countries reduces the negative consequences of collision between these nations (Jackson, 2009). Conclusion International relation is a topic that existed long before the globalization period of 1600 to 1800 when religions ruled the world. The concept refers to the struggle of nations to acquire power and rule over others in a peaceful manner. The theory of realism that has evolved from the reign of Machiavelli before World War 11 to presently is essential in the discussion of international relations. Researchers argue that the theory has been the most applicable in the formulation of international relationships, for example, the rulers of the Second World War made use of the ideologies of the hypothesis. The general argument of the theory is based on economic principles, and it argues that countries, just like consumers, aim at maximizing utility. The utility of a country increases when the state owns and controls more resources in the world. The contradictions of the theory arise from the ideologies of different contributors. For example, Morgenthau argues that leaders should uphold morality while Machiavelli advises rulers to ignore ethics and pursue the goal of attaining power regardless of the means. While Morgenthau argues that power is the greatest principle in realism, Raymond postulates that authority may be an end or a means to politics. These contradictions of the ideologies of various realists have led to the lack of trust in the theory. Countries such as Germany are adopting using other hypotheses such as the theory of idealism, which are more stable and objective. Other countries such as US and China prefer to adopt only essential ideas from different theories. This means that the founders of the theory should standardize its principles so that it may acquire more trust and support globally. References Donnelly, J., 2000. Realism and international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gray, C., 2010. Moral Advantage, Strategic Advantage? Journal of Strategic Studies, 33, 3, pp. 333-365. Jackson, W. A., 2009. Economics, culture and social theory. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Machiavelli, N., & Marriott, W. K., 2010. The prince. Shelbyville: Wasteland Classics May, E. R., Rosecrance, R. N., & Steiner, Z. 2010. History and neorealism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Molloy, S., 2010. From the twenty years' crisis to theory of international politics: A rhizomatic reading of realism. Journal of International Relations and Development, 13, 4, pp. 378-404. Rengger, N. J., 2000. International relations, political theory, and the problem of order: Beyond international relations theory. London: Routledge. Resende, J., 2007. Neorealism, states, and the modern mass army. New York: Cambridge University Press. Rossi, E., 2010. Review: Reality and imagination in political theory and practice: On Raymond Geuss's realism. European Journal of Political Theory, 9, 4, pp. 504-512. Viotti, P. R., & Kauppi, M. V., 2012. International relations theory. Boston: Longman. Read More