Features of Realist Perspective - Essay Example

? Features of Realist Perspective Scholars and of International Relations have accepted realism as the most well established theoretical perspective. Realist ideas have been seen as a yardstick on views of international relations against which all other perspectives should be judged. Due to this understanding of world politics, realism is at the centre of both theoretical and global political disputes, offering a point of reference against which competing ideologies frequently identify themselves thereby making the theory a rhetorical and conceptual axis on which political and analytical debates revolve. This easy explores the defining features of realist perspective such as state actors, egoism, anarchy, power, security, and morality with the aim of presenting an assessment of their relevance to the analysis of contemporary world politics. In their analysis of international politics, realists assert the central role played by the state in dictating international relations as opposed to other theories of international relations like liberalism that accepts international institutions as being part of the actors day (Kegley, 2013). Realists saw the state as triumphant over other forms of political authority like feudal principalities, city-states, and empires such as the Soviet Union. According to the views of realists such as Hobbes, the state enjoys a distinctive monopoly of legitimate violence given that in the global arena, all the people regardless of nationality, language, culture, ethnic background or religion have accepted or have a state that force them to resolve their conflicts. Such a people also look for the state to protect their interests against aggressions from other states and international actors (Kolodziej, 2005). The assertion of the state as the main player in international relations means that actors in the international politics will put the importance of state interest the centre of any interactions with other players in the global area. Realist conception of the state as the central actor in international relations through its exercise of power in certain ways has far-reaching significances on the relationship between states and other actors on the international arena (Kaarbo & Ray, 2011). Such assumptions are essential in the contemporary world politics where such bodies as multinational corporations have no legal or political right to act as independent or autonomous actors in the international economy since they are only part of state power or instrument of foreign policy. Multinational corporations are not in themselves, substantial economic and political force, in their exercise of power and influence, they are only an extension and reflection of the power and might of specific states under which they act (Steans, Pettiford, & El-Anis, 2013). The main concern for realist is the state of anarchy, which stands for a situation where there is no international government to intercede on interstate conflicts. Realist believes that the main concern in international relations is the condition of anarchy, which is based on their view that the world lacks a central sovereign power to regulate relations between states. The absence of international body with the authority to create and enforce regulatory measures on interstate relationships, realists argue, means the states as main players put in place their own scheme for survival and are free to define their own interests and pursuit of power day (Kegley, 2013). Anarchy in the international politics therefore, leads to a circumstance where power has the superseding role of dictating interstate relations (Steans, Pettiford, Diez & El-Anis, 2013). Realists point out the failure of international institutions like the Permanent Court of International Justice and the League of Nation is because such international organizations exert minimal pressure on behaviour of states. This realist assumption is clear in the way contemporary states peruse their interests by choosing to overlook international organizations in making their decisions (Simpson, 2001). Therefore, it is not the international organization that can stop countries from pushing for their interests, but it is through calculating how each of their moves affects their relative position in the in global arena where stiff completion is the order of the day (Kegley, 2013). Even as realists picture the world of interstate dealings as anarchic, they as see security as a fundamental issue in curving the resultant interstate relations. Realists believe that in order to attain security, states strive to increase their power that results in power-balancing scenario with the purpose of fending off potential aggressors (Kegley 2013). For realists, war is an essential part of future peace since it is fought to prevent one state among competing nations from becoming militarily stronger. Realism asserts that the search for power is a continuous characteristic of international relations. Historically, realists point to the fact that balance of power politics is what has maintained peace among Europe countries especially after world war two where the US and soviet union become the two powerful states in the world (Kaarbo & Ray, 2011). For realists, the balance of power that exists among state actors in international relations has maintained global peace therefore limiting the chances of another world war. Realists use examples of events like what took place in the period leading to the Second World War, which they claim indicate the role balance of power politics plays towards establishment of world peace (Kaarbo & Ray, 2011). This balance of power politics as presented by realists depicts the international relations as it is in the current global trend. Countries control the balance of power through reading of other country’s intentions in order to come up with the necessary counter reactions that will enable them remain relevant in their dealings with global issues (Kegley, 2013). To realists, human nature and therefore states are bound to be inherently selfish, consequently, states will act to further their own interests even to the detriment of other state actors, which can often lead to conflict. These self-interests according to realists’, limits cooperation among different states given that states will always be sceptical when dealing with others. According to realism assumptions, countries peruse individual absolute gains, which make them indifferent to the gains that other countries seek to achieve. States with individualistic endeavours and selfish interests among nations greater level of cooperation might benefit their partners more them (Gujral, 2009). Therefore, even when a state is satisfied with the level of compliance with the bilateral agreements signed by the two states, the state following realists’ assumptions might nevertheless exit from such arrangements because the partner is achieving relatively greater gains (Tang 2010). Realists do not place their hopes on the ability of morality to dictate international politics; therefore, they claim there is no place for morality in international relations. Further, realists reject the notion that there is a strain between the demands of morality and the necessities of a successful political action, or that states have a different set of morality that is distinct from regular morality. Consequently, realists associate right with might eliminating attachment of justice to foreign relations Kegley, 2013). In addition to exclusion of morality from the determination of international relations, realist argue that national leaders had far less freedom to solve global challenges than advocates of idealism had initially claimed. Even though realists acknowledged that laws and morality were a part of the machineries of global politics, they assert that states will only respect the law if such regulations were backed by a threat of possible force. Realists further insist that a state’s chief obligation was to its citizens as opposed to international or morality (Steans, Pettiford, Diez & El-Anis, 2013). From the above discussion, in dealing with other states, realists believe that states are driven by a concern for their security and economic interest that makes the two essential component of state survival. The protection of state sovereignty is the central occupation of states they must act in a way that will not make them vulnerable due to exploitation by other states. These assumptions by realists inform most of the engagements among states since in the contemporary world, most states would not hesitate to go against international regulations when their interests are at stake. Given the emphasis of the state as the main actor in international relations, it is only the balance of power that will stand in the way of ambitions of particular states. Other states must be able to join hands and form an alliance that will stop any one particular state or group of states that aim to be more powerful than all the others. These realist assumptions have guided international relations for many years given the emphasis of the state as the main actors in international politics. References Gujral, K. (2009) Viewpoint: civilization, democracy, and foreign policy, Allied Publishers New Delhi, India. Kaarbo, J and Ray, J. (2011). Global Politics, Boston: Cengage Learning. Kolodziej, E. A. (2005). Security and international relations. Stamford: Cambridge University Press. Kegley, W. (2013). Update Edition for World Politics: Trend and Transformation, 2013-2014 Update. Connecticut, U.S: Cengage Learning. Simpson, G. (2001). The nature of international law, Ashgate, Farnham, UK. Steans, J., Pettiford, L., Diez, T., & El-Anis, I. (2013). An Introduction to International Relations Theory: Perspectives and Themes. London: Routledge. Tang, S. (2010). A Theory of Security Strategy for Our Time: Defensive Realism. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, Read More