Realism In International Relations

Improved Essays
Realism explains international relations in terms of power. According to the Pearson Revel e-textbook, it is a theory with international relations that bases its foundation is dominance. Within Realism, there are certain core assumptions about how the world and it’s states work. It firstly assumes that human nature is selfish, therefore believing that the causes of state behavior comes from a rational pursuit of self-interest. Realism also argues that the most important actors are states. Within international relations, the world itself is anarchic, meaning that there is no world government, and states must follow a “self-help” way of existence. Following from all these central assumptions, it is not hard to follow how realists pinpoint their …show more content…
One such example would be during World War II. America and Japan both had power, but America had long-term power (economic potential), while Japan only had short-term power (it’s military). Realists consider military force the most powerful capability, but it must be expandable and useable across several periods of time. Therefore, since America was able to use it’s power for a longer amount of time than Japan, it came out victorious. Another example of an argument for Realism would be considering it’s views on anarchy. Realists believe that the international system exists in a state of anarchy- a term that implies not complete chaos or absence of structure and rules, but rather the lack of a central government that can enforce rules. From this, states must rely on self-help. This self-help implies that states have to defend for themselves- therefore creating the hostile and self-serving atmosphere that realists believe the world resides in. Both of these examples run contrary to the realism theories and …show more content…
I have demonstrated examples where realism works, where other theories prevail, and the overarching pros and cons of the theory. I don’t believe that realism is simply a way to sell tanks and guns. Sometimes it is necessary to have that “power first and only” mindset. As in all different kinds of beliefs, it is best to keep an open mind and accept when another path may work better. Human nature cannot be defined by an overarching group, and therefore their actions cannot

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    In a rather stark contrast, one of the States’ prominent goals, in the realist theory, is to balance power. Realists believe that balancing power leads to greater international security because one state cannot overthrow all other states and force them into submission because of one state’s hegemony. Balancing power can be done by building up security in states since security is a function of power, and if all states have great power, none of them can be greatest. The ideology behind Realism stems from several philosophers. First, Thucydides, an Athenian historian, wrote about the balance of power in states through his work on the Peloponnesian War He said that power, if unchecked, will lead to desire for more and more power (Korab-Karpowicz).…

    • 753 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Realists do not believe that the states should achieve in perpetual peace and harmony in the world. Actors needed to be faced with the fact that the world is a diverse place and one must accept and live by it. Power to them is the centerpiece of a political life ensuring one’s safety in an environment with no central government protecting them from others. On the other hand, liberalists argue that realism is an outdated justification where the increase of globalization, the rise of communication technology and international trade are resources that cannot be relied on militaristic power. It is the international system that offers a collaboration within the political actors and states.…

    • 937 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In this case, the security dilemma only exists when states are not aware of the other states’ motives or intentions. While this defensive realist perspective appears to negate the realist concept of states seeking power, it still acknowledges the security dilemma as a self-imposed reality. Glaser acknowledges the theory’s use within IR for scholars attempting to understand many of the world changing historical events. To deny the security dilemma is to deny a realist’s interpretation of human nature. To encompass the both divergent realist ideas on a state’s hostile or protective nature, Jervis presents the offensive-defensive theory.…

    • 973 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    The only major actors in international politics are sovereign states. Due to the lack of higher authority to protect these states, they are forced into a self-help system. Under anarchy, states are thought to be alike in that they share the same goal: to pursue security and survival in a system which guarantees neither. As a result of this central goal, states are assumed to be unitary, rational actors whose behavior follows predictable patterns in pursuance of survival. The method by which states attempt to guarantee their security and survival is through the accumulation of power.…

    • 1443 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Liberalism Vs Realism

    • 1413 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The similarities between the two main theories enable a less complex explanation of international relations. Both the Liberalism theory and the Realism theory share views on the anarchical structure of global politics, the rationality of human beings, and the importance of state actors. One of the main similarities between the two theories that affects the way that states should act, is how they see the world structure. In this anarchical world, states should find ways to survive. How the state itself will do that signifies a major difference between Realism and Liberalism.…

    • 1413 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Constructivist Approach

    • 1374 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Constructivism, however, takes into account the influence of material power and “the power of knowledge, ideas, culture ideology, and language, that is discourse” (as cited in Hopf, 1998). This distinction is made clear by different theories’ approach to anarchy. Neorealism defines anarchy as the lack of central authority beyond state, and the survival of state depends on self-help (Wendt, 1922). Neoliberalism also accepts the notion of anarchy, but suggests that the key to survival under anarchy is through cooperation (Wendt, 1992). In both theories, anarchy is the material condition that constitutes the world, and states must rely on material power to thrive in this world.…

    • 1374 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    According to this theory, states should try to build order under anarchy. Anarchy is essentially a state that is without authority and in realism, due to anarchy they cannot rely on their allies to survive, and instead use an international system of checks and balances among states. The stronger the state, the more power they have to impose order on weaker states; essentially pushing their beliefs onto weaker states. (Shiraev and Zubok.41). Real politik is a policy that is based on realist assumptions that the foundation of a nation’s security is power and the threat of its use- a policy that staes no international order is perfect or lasts forever, when one falls, another rises.…

    • 1429 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Waltz considers the international system to be anarchic hence states must follow the principle of self-help and ensure their own security. Defensive realism believes that any action taken by a state to increase its security, be it military or diplomatic, is done in order to defend itself in hard times. It is not done with the intention of threatening another state but merely for saving itself. Hence defensive realism’s foundations are based on survivalism. On the contrary, offensive realism does not consider states as security maximisers but as power maximisers and its spokesperson is John mearsheimer suggested that it is impossible to be sure of any state’s intentions.…

    • 1349 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Various schools of international system theorists like Waltz and Wendt agreed that the international system is anarchic, meaning that there is no dominant authority, all states are considered sovereign and in juridical terms equal and non-existent or weak institutions. Yet, they disagree about what the definition of anarchy is, what constitutes anarchy, what about anarchy causes states to act in certain ways and if anarchy can even be overcome in a meaningful way. On the other hand, Kang and Gilpin argue that the international system is “hierarchic” and not anarchic. This short review essay will first, examine why many scholars of international politics view the international system as disorder, while others view the international system as one characterized by order, secondly what is cooperation in international system and why do states engage or not engage in cooperative behavior by the realists and liberals point of view and last, the main characteristics of the international system. A system is composed of a…

    • 1200 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    It is said that with neoliberalism, what works in the private sector will work in the public sector. John Locke is the father of classical liberalism. Neoliberalism uses the language and tenants of classical liberalism. Neorealism and neoliberalism are similar in the sense that both believe that within international relations the world is anarchical, meaning the world lacks supreme authority. This greatly has to do with rationalism.…

    • 1315 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays