The dominant approach in international relations theory for virtually the past two millennia, from Thucydides to Machiavelli to Morgenthau, has been Realism, also known as Political Realism. Realists come in many stripes. Most notably, they divide between Classical Realists and Contemporary Structural Realists or Non-realists…
Download file to see previous pages...
The state, for Realism, is a power-maximizer in a self-help environment where no one can be trusted and violence is endemic. Non-Realist IR theory is invariably also anti-Realist. It never ignores Realism, but always incorporates a critique of that paradigm to position itself intellectually. This is because Realism is about the state. Since we cannot evade the state, which is everywhere and all around us and the centre-piece of our political cosmology, neither can IR theory evade Realism.
Empirical "tests" may show that certain events in the world are (not in) consistent with the hard core of a realist research program. But that does not provide support in any strong sense of that term for choosing realism over some competing paradigm. Many events that are explained by one realist theory are also inconsistent with at least one other no less authentic realist theory. For instance, if balancing and bandwagoning exhaust the possible aligning bahaviours of states, as Waltz (1979) suggests they do, and if good realist theories predict each, as they do, then any piece of evidence simultaneously confirm and contradicts "realism".
Labs provide an extreme example of the perspective when he presents offensive (rather than defensive) realism as "the best realist theory available to go forward and do battle with competing approaches to international relations" (1997, p. 48). Neither, however, will get realist very far in such a battle.
Sovereignty is the primary concept of realism. It is taken as given that states enjoy unchallenged jurisdiction within their own boundaries. Realists make little attempt to theorize the impact a state's relationship with its civil society has upon its relations with other states. Waltz expresses this simplistic view when he writes that 'students of international politics will do well to concentrate on separate theories of internal and external politics until someone figures out a way to unite them (Rosenberg 1994, p. 5). Waltz is able to argue this because of his view of how the states sys operates. Waltz (1979) rejects explanations of international conflict which stress flaws in human nature. Rather it is the structure of the international system that creates tension between states: in the absence of a higher authority, states compete with each other to ensure their security. This may trigger an arms race, perhaps leading to full-scale war. This structure will determine a state's foreign policy, regardless of its internal political arrangements or the nature of the dominant belief system within civil society.
The strength of realism is that it highlights the irrationalities that underpin the login of a world divided into states. The conflicts between states, which are well documented by history, and which often transcend apparent commonalities of 'race' or ideology, present compelling evidence in support of the realist argument. It is increasingly clear, however, the realism's assumptions are inadequate to the task of explaining the nature of contemporary world politics. The problems of mainstream international relations theory lie mainly in its understanding of state sovereignty and security.
Realists and non-realists are tuned to account for different dimensions of international relations. As realist theories are especially well-suited to explain certain
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Cite this document
(“Realist and Neo-Realist International Relations Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/politics/1501849-realist-and-neo-realist-international-relations
(Realist and Neo-Realist International Relations Essay)
“Realist and Neo-Realist International Relations Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/politics/1501849-realist-and-neo-realist-international-relations.
The very basic principle of classical realism is that all states are looking for ways to increase their power and to decrease the power of their enemies. However, neo-realism accepts state reactions are not always based on the nature of the states, but based on the nature of the international system.
Introduced as early as 1948, classical realism came into being as a natural response when the proponents of this international relations theory, such as E.H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau, and Reinhold Niebuhr, came to recognize the failure of liberalism to maintain global peace during the World War II.
The arguments of these scholars have mainly followed three schools of thoughts. The three main schools of thoughts in international relations are the Liberalist school of thoughts, the Realist school of thoughts, and the World System School of thoughts (Goldstein & Pevehouse, 2011).
Political theories, particularly in relation to international relations are always a by-product of the desire to understand fully a certain social reality in a particular time. Oftentimes, political theories are born out of conflict and the motivation to unearth solutions and, in terms of international relations, maybe reconciliation.
It governs the concept of how countries behave with one another in general and the reasons they have for such behavior. International relations theories aim to explain this phenomenon by devising frameworks that illustrate how countries behave with one another, how they should behave, what effects it has upon the economic system, and how different countries can seek to survive in the international arena (Dougherty and Pfaltzgeraff, 2001, pp.
The study will also take the effects of the Cold War, and making of new contracts at regional, continental and global levels, which have introduced new alliances and rivalries among the nation-states. The study is also interested in exploring the causes behind the establishment of new alliances and rivalries, and consequences.
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.
Historically speaking, the international system initially coincided with the powerful Roman and Greek city states, later with the feudal organised state which therefore became the core of the nation state. This evolution is the result of the development of the historical environment, fact that transformed the state, becoming the main component of the international scene.
nt theories that have been adopted in this decade alone, and the current state of the world suggests that International Relations will continue to ebb and flow until society destroys itself or learns to get along. Liberalism was the prevailing practice prior to the Cold War,
There would be no need to have armies or foreign policies. But evolution and history have proved otherwise and the world of today is comprised of hundreds of countries divided on race, ethnicity, religion, geography etc. This realistic scenario has been fundamental in
5 Pages(1250 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Realist and Neo-Realist International Relations for FREE!