Explained: Realism In International Relations
Realism gives a pessimistic view of human nature. Realists draw evidence from the history. International relations are necessarily conflictual and those international conflicts are resolved by war. The focus of analysis is realism is struggle for power among the states in the anarchic international system.
Realism gives a pessimistic view of human nature. Realists draw evidence from the history. International relations are necessarily conflictual and those international conflicts are resolved by war. The focus of analysis is realism is struggle for power among the states in the anarchic international system.
The assumptions of realism are- The major actors for realism are the states. Other bodies like individuals and organisations do exist, but their powers are limited according to realism. Next, the states are rational and unitary actors. The national interests lead the state to speak and act in one voice. Next, the decision-makers are rational actors who make rational decisions to pursue the national interest of the state. Lastly, the states are in an anarchic system- meaning that there is no one in-charge of the states in the international sense. The states need to take care of their own security and national interests.
Unsplash
The Goal of the State in realism ins to maximise their power by maximizing their security. Security of the state is the main concern of every state in the international system. This is because humans are sceptical by nature and do not trust anyone.
STRUCTURAL REALISM:
According to classical realists, states behave in a certain way because of human nature. Structural realists say that the states act in a certain manner because of the structure of the international system.
The central theoretical conclusion of structural realism is that in an anarchy, the balance of power is necessary. The states also tend to balance rather than bandwagon. States will balance, both internally- by relocating resources to national security and externally- through alliances and other formal and informal agreements. States continue to strive towards the equal distribution of power so that no state can dominate over them. Balance of power is a core principle in realism.
There are two types of realism in structural realism:
Offensive Realism.
Defensive Realism.
OFFENSIVE REALISM
According to offensive realism, great powers are always seeking for opportunities to gain power over their rivals. This is because of the anarchic structure of the international system. John Mearsheimer is an American political scientist who argues that states are power maximisers and rejects the idea of status quo powers. Offensive realists seek to achieve security through dominance and hegemony. The anarchic nature of the international system compels states to maximise their share of world power to seek superiority.
The ultimate goal of very major power according to offensive realists is to become a hegemon. Mearsheimer says that states quickly understand that the best way to ensure their survival is to be the most powerful state in the anarchic system. Example- China.
Unsplash
DEFENSIVE REALISM
This is the opposite of offensive realism and focuses on maximising its security rather than power. This says that the anarchy of the international system encourages the states to adopt defensive, moderate and restrained strategies.In this, states seek to maximise security and preserve the existing distribution of power. States are not inherently aggressive and avoid relative losses due to the shifts in their relative position and ranking. So, only if survival is guaranteed can the states safely seek such other goals like profit and power. Defensive realists argue that the anarchical structure of the international system encourages the states to maintain moderate and reserved policies to attain security.
Realism is a theory that claims to explain the reality of the international politics. Realists see survival of the state as their main goal which explains why the actions of the states are judged according to the ethics of responsibility rather than the moral principles. However, there are some criticisms to this theory too.
