Realism: International Relations (IR) can be broadly understood through two contrasting perspectives. One view posits that IR is inherently conflict-driven, while the other suggests that it is fundamentally cooperative and peaceful. The principal theoretical approaches to IR typically align with one of these perspectives. Additionally, there are frameworks that attempt to reconcile these opposing viewpoints, as well as alternative approaches that critique and seek to redefine traditional theories.
Here we explore the significance of national power and the conflict-prone nature of IR. A key focus is the Realist School, a long-standing and influential theoretical tradition in the study of IR. The discussion will address the following questions:
- What are the core theoretical assumptions of Realism?
- Who are the principal thinkers who have shaped the Realist School of IR?
- How does Realism respond to its criticisms?
- Is Realism still relevant for understanding and explaining the contemporary world?
Table of Contents
Realism: Core Assumptions and Their Implications
Assumptions are foundational beliefs that serve as the building blocks of any theoretical approach. In the context of Realism, these assumptions provide a framework to analyze and explain the complexities of International Relations (IR). For instance, one might assume that humans are inherently selfish or, alternatively, that they are cooperative social beings. Similarly, Realism operates on specific core assumptions to interpret the dynamics of IR (Legro and Moravcsik, 1999).
Key Assumptions of Realism
- States as Primary Actors in the International System
- Conflict-Centric Politics: International politics is characterized by conflict among sovereign states. This conflict is central to the nature of international relations.
- Sovereign, Unitary, and Rational States: States are sovereign entities with fixed political goals. They are unitary and rational actors that make decisions based on cost-benefit analyses.
- Self-Interest and Security: A state’s foremost interest is ensuring its own security and expanding its power. To achieve this, states prioritize power accumulation, often at the expense of others.
- Anarchy in the International System
- Realism assumes that the international system is anarchic, meaning there is no overarching authority or world government to regulate interactions among states.
- In this anarchic environment, states act in their self-interest to secure their survival, relying solely on their own capabilities—military, technological, economic, and political. This results in a perpetual arms race and mutual distrust among states.
- Material Resources as the Foundation of World Politics
- States strive to control material resources, as these resources enhance their coercive capabilities in an anarchic world.
- This drive is fueled by three factors:
- Lack of a central authority to equitably distribute resources.
- Scarcity of material resources.
- The critical role of resources in enhancing a state’s power.
Prominent scholars like E. H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau, and Kenneth Waltz have significantly contributed to Realist thought, despite differences in their perspectives. These foundational assumptions give rise to several key implications for understanding IR.
Implications of Realist Assumptions
- Sovereign States as Central Actors
- Drawing from Hobbesian ideas, Realism views states as selfish, rational entities prioritizing their own interests. States remain distrustful of one another and are driven to expand their power to ensure security.
- Anarchic Nature of the International System
- The absence of a supranational authority results in a system of self-help, where states interact based on their pursuit of power and survival. This inherently unstable system leads to persistent insecurity and competition.
- Security as a Primary Concern
- States prioritize accumulating power to safeguard their security. However, this creates a cycle of fear and distrust as other states perceive such actions as threatening, leading to an ongoing power struggle.
- Expediency in State Behavior
- States may follow international rules and norms when convenient, but they are quick to disregard them when these rules conflict with their pursuit of power and security. The lack of global enforcement mechanisms reinforces this behavior.
- Power Dynamics Shape the International System
- Realism emphasizes the importance of polarity—the distribution of power among states—in shaping the stability and dynamics of the international system.
- It explains the persistence of war by focusing on the core actors and interactions that drive conflict. War, seen as large-scale organized violence between states, is a natural outcome of the anarchic system.
Realists argue that their framework is grounded in empirical evidence and the observable behavior of states and elites, making it both practical and scientific. Despite its focus on conflict and power, Realism remains a key lens for analyzing the causes of war and the nature of international relations.
Classical Realism
Realism boasts a long and rich intellectual tradition, with its principal claims rooted in the works of thinkers from ancient Greece, Rome, India, and China. For example:
- Thucydides, the Greek historian, in History of the Peloponnesian War, emphasized Realism’s skepticism about morality’s restraining power, arguing that “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”
- Kautilya, in the Arthashastra, focused on the survival and expansion of the state, advocating for a balance of power system and spheres of influence.
- Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) advised rulers to prioritize power and security over morality, justifying any action necessary for the state’s survival.
- Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) described a “state of nature” where individuals, driven by self-interest, live in perpetual conflict. Hobbes’s rational, self-centered individual parallels the modern state, which pursues power and security in an anarchic international system.
Over time, these ideas evolved into the core elements of Realism, emphasizing the anarchic nature of international relations, the rationality of states, and their pursuit of power and resources. These concepts gained prominence between the World Wars, shaping Realism as both a theoretical framework and a guiding principle for the actions of powerful states.
Edward Hallett Carr and the Foundations of Realist Thinking
E. H. Carr’s seminal work, The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939, is a cornerstone of Classical Realism. Carr sought to develop a foundation for international politics rooted in “realist thinking,” critiquing what he termed the “utopian wishing” of liberal idealism.
- Liberal Idealism: After World War I, liberal idealism, epitomized by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points, emphasized collective security, disarmament, international law, and self-determination. These ideas culminated in the creation of the League of Nations in 1919.
- Carr’s Critique: Carr dismissed such idealism as detached from reality, labeling it as “utopia.” He argued that disarmament and collective security were impractical in the anarchic and competitive international system. Events, such as the failure of the League of Nations and the resurgence of conflict leading to World War II, validated his skepticism.
Carr’s Realism emphasized grounding international politics in empirical analysis, advocating for a discipline and practice of IR that reflected the realities of power and competition among states.
Hans Morgenthau and the Rise of Political Realism
The publication of Hans Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace in 1948 solidified Classical Realism as a dominant framework for understanding IR. Morgenthau’s work extended Carr’s ideas, presenting power as the fundamental currency of international politics.
Key tenets of Morgenthau’s Realism include:
- Human Nature: The drive for power is inherent in human nature, and states, as extensions of human behavior, reflect this tendency.
- Struggle for Power: States continuously seek to increase their capabilities, leading to competition and conflict.
- Conflict and War: The tendency for conflict and war arises from human nature and is further exacerbated by aggressive leaders or domestic political systems that enable expansionist policies.
Core Ideas of Classical Realism
- Anarchic International System: The absence of a central authority creates an environment where states, acting in their self-interest, engage in perpetual competition.
- Power as Central: The pursuit and accumulation of power are necessary for survival and are often achieved at the expense of others.
- Conflict as Inevitable: Human nature and the anarchic system ensure that conflict and war are persistent features of international relations.
Classical Realism thus frames IR as a realm shaped by power dynamics, competition, and the inherent limitations of morality in the face of survival imperatives. This perspective continues to influence the study and practice of international politics, providing insights into the causes of conflict and the behavior of states in the global arena.
Tenets of Classical Realism
A) International Politics as Power Politics
Classical Realism, often referred to as Political Realism, provides a practical and “realistic” perspective on international relations (IR), free of idealism or wishful thinking. It views global politics fundamentally as a competition for power driven by self-interest, often referred to as the “power politics” model. Hans Morgenthau famously stated:
“Politics is a struggle for power over men, and whatever its ultimate aim may be, power is its immediate goal, and the modes of acquiring, maintaining, and demonstrating it determine the technique of political action.”
B) State Egoism and Conflict
Realists believe egoism—the inherent selfishness and competitiveness of human nature—also defines state behavior. Combined with the lack of a central authority in the international system (anarchy), this results in a system of relentless power politics.
Key arguments include:
- Anarchy and the ‘State of Nature’: With no global government to enforce rules, the international system resembles a dangerous and uncertain “state of nature,” as described by Hobbes.
- State-Centric Approach: Realists view states as rational, self-interested actors and the primary units of analysis in international politics.
- Human Egoism Translates to State Egoism: States, led by inherently self-centered individuals, reflect those traits in their behavior. As Morgenthau noted, “The social world is but a projection of human nature onto the collective plane.” Consequently, international politics is marked by rivalry, competition, and the pursuit of power for survival.
Egoism and anarchy together ensure that conflict, competition, and self-preservation dominate international relations. States prioritize their security and often resort to military and strategic means to achieve their goals, which fosters a system prone to conflict.
C) Rational Statecraft and National Interest
Classical Realism emphasizes the importance of pragmatic statecraft in serving the national interest. Both E. H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau criticized the idealism of initiatives like the Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations for ignoring the role of power in international politics. Morgenthau’s Six Principles of Political Realism outline the framework for understanding international relations:
- Politics is governed by objective laws rooted in human nature.
- The concept of interest, defined in terms of power, is central to understanding international politics.
- While the forms and nature of state power may vary, the concept of interest remains constant.
- Universal moral principles do not dictate state behavior but must be considered in the context of power.
- Moral aspirations are context-specific, not universally applicable.
- International politics operates autonomously, with power and national interest as the primary concerns.
Effective statecraft, grounded in these principles, ensures that leaders prioritize national security and strategic interests over abstract ideals or moral aspirations.
D) Political Morality as National Interest
Realists argue that statecraft should prioritize the national interest, which they view as the highest form of political morality. This entails protecting the life, liberty, and well-being of a state’s citizens. While critics accuse Realism of being amoral, Realists reject universal moral principles as impractical in the anarchic international system. Instead, they focus on morality tied to the national interest. Realists believe that pursuits like defending human rights or promoting democracy often conflict with a state’s primary obligation to its own citizens.
E) Power Politics and the Avoidance of Endless War
While Realism is often associated with war and conflict, Classical Realists argue that wars should be fought only when vital national interests are at stake. Decisions to go to war must be based on a cost-benefit analysis of strategic outcomes.
For example:
- Many Realists opposed the Vietnam War in the 1970s and the Iraq War in 2002, viewing them as inconsistent with U.S. national interests.
- Realists emphasize calculated restraint in foreign policy, often advocating for diplomacy over unnecessary aggression.
Thus, while the anarchic international system perpetuates conflict, Realists believe that the rational pursuit of national interest can limit unnecessary wars and promote stability.
Core Principles of Classical Realism
The foundation of Realism lies in three fundamental ideas:
- Statism: The state is the central actor in international relations.
- Survival: The primary objective of every state is ensuring its survival.
- Self-Help: In an anarchic system, states cannot rely on others for security and must prioritize their own interests.
Classical Realism simplifies international behavior to focus on power dynamics and the persistence of war, offering a lens through which to understand the competitive and conflict-prone nature of global politics.
Neorealism: A New Perspective on International Relations
In the 1970s, new ideas emerged that challenged the assumptions of Classical Realism, leading to the development of Neorealism, also known as Structural Realism. Kenneth Waltz’s seminal work, Theory of International Politics (1979), introduced the concept of Structural Realism. Unlike Classical Realism, which focuses on state behavior and human nature, Neorealism explains international relations through the structure of the international system.
Key Tenets of Neorealism
- Levels of Analysis: Waltz identified three levels of analysis for understanding international politics: the individual, the state, and the international system. While Classical Realism centers on the state and attributes state behavior to human egoism and national interest, Neorealism shifts the focus to the international system, emphasizing the impact of its structure on state actions.
- The Role of Anarchy: Neorealism highlights the anarchic nature of the international system—defined by the absence of a central authority. This condition compels states to operate in a self-help system, where survival is their primary goal. Anarchy leads to tension and conflict because states cannot rely on others for their security and must prioritize their self-interest.
- Structural Characteristics: Drawing from systems theory, Waltz identified three elements of political structures:
- Ordering Principle: Anarchy is the organizing principle of the international system.
- Character of Units: States are functionally similar, performing the same basic tasks, despite differences in capabilities.
- Distribution of Capabilities: Variations in power among states create a hierarchy within the anarchic system, shaping international relations.
- Systemic Impact: Neorealism posits that the international system has properties that influence state behavior beyond the sum of individual state actions. Changes in one part of the system can have widespread effects, leading to unintended and often ironic outcomes. For Neorealists, the system’s structure, not individual state motives, explains patterns of conflict and cooperation.
Implications of Anarchy
Neorealists argue that international anarchy fosters conflict and limits cooperation for three main reasons:
- Self-Help: States must rely on their own resources to secure their interests, as no overarching authority exists to ensure their safety.
- Security Dilemma: Efforts by one state to enhance its security—such as building military capabilities—are often perceived as threats by others. This mutual suspicion creates a cycle of arms buildups and persistent insecurity.
- Relative Gains: States prioritize relative over absolute gains, focusing on maintaining or improving their position compared to others. This hinders cooperation and reduces the effectiveness of international institutions.
Balance of Power and Polarity
Neorealists view the balance of power as a natural outcome of the international system. Unlike Classical Realists, who see it as a result of prudent statecraft, Neorealists argue that it arises from structural dynamics. Waltz emphasizes the role of power distribution—whether unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar—in determining stability:
- Bipolar Systems: Associated with stability, bipolarity reduces the likelihood of miscalculations and great power conflicts. Waltz viewed the Cold War bipolarity as a relatively stable “long peace.”
- Multipolar Systems: Considered less stable, multipolarity fosters shifting alliances and increases the risk of miscalculation and war.
Neorealists disagree on the relationship between system instability and war. Offensive Realists argue that instability in a multipolar world leads to conflict, while Defensive Realists believe states prioritize security and are generally reluctant to engage in war.
Criticism and Evolution
Waltz’s theory sparked debates about relative gains, cooperation, and the stability of different power structures. By the 1990s, Neorealism faced challenges as global events, such as the end of the Cold War, the rise of the European Union, and increasing economic integration, appeared to support Liberal and Constructivist theories. Critics argued that Realism, in both its Classical and Neo forms, struggled to account for these transformations.
However, Realism experienced a resurgence after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, as concerns about state security regained prominence. Ironically, this revival was driven in part by threats from non-state actors like transnational terrorist networks—entities that Realism had traditionally overlooked.
Neorealism brought a systemic perspective to the study of international relations, shifting the focus from individual state motives to the structural constraints imposed by an anarchic international system. While it shares Classical Realism’s emphasis on conflict and power, Neorealism offers a broader framework for understanding the persistent challenges of global politics. Despite criticism, its insights into the dynamics of power and security remain influential in contemporary debates.
Criticism of Realism
Realism, with its emphasis on power-centric international relations, has faced significant criticism for its limitations and assumptions. Its focus on states as power-seekers renders conflict and war seemingly inevitable, portraying states as inherently aggressive in their external behavior. This perspective overlooks the potential for cooperation and mutual assistance among states, which new approaches in International Relations (IR) highlight. These alternative frameworks recognize that states can exhibit both aggressive and cooperative tendencies, offering fresh critiques of Realism and presenting pathways for transforming IR.
Overemphasis on Anarchy and Power
Realism’s foundational assumption that the international system is anarchic dismisses the possibility of transnational institutions fostering cooperation or enforcing decisions. While Realists might label other worldviews as “utopian,” the existence and role of the United Nations (UN) challenge the Realist vision of perpetual anarchy. Since its establishment in 1945, the UN has served as a platform for global cooperation and collective security, deterring large-scale wars. While the UN is not a world government, it symbolizes humanity’s aspiration for peace and collaboration, providing mechanisms for enforcing decisions under Chapter VII of its Charter.
State-Centric Focus
Realism’s treatment of the state as the sole actor in international politics has been increasingly criticized, particularly in the post-Cold War era. The rise of non-state actors, global institutions, and transnational entities has blurred the boundaries of political participation, undermining the Realist notion of the state as the exclusive wielder of power. As the number and influence of these actors have grown, the state-centric model of Realism appears increasingly outdated.
Challenges in Adapting to Change
To address these criticisms, Realism has attempted to adapt to evolving global dynamics, incorporating elements from idealist and liberal theories. These reformulations, aimed at integrating concepts such as democratic peace and economic development, have sparked further critiques. Scholars like Jeffrey Legro and Andrew Moravcsik argue that Realism’s theoretical boundaries have been stretched to the point of losing coherence and distinctiveness. They provocatively question, “Is everybody now a realist?”—highlighting the dilution of the Realist paradigm.
Decline of Realism
The decline of Realism is particularly evident in the post-Cold War era, characterized by democratization, the expansion of global trade, and the growing influence of international organizations. As Thomas Walker and Jeffrey Morton observe, the contemporary world no longer aligns neatly with Realist concerns. Theoretical research in IR has diversified, embracing a plurality of perspectives and moving beyond the singular paradigm of Realism.
While Realism has played a foundational role in shaping the study of international relations, its rigid assumptions and state-centric framework struggle to account for the complexities of a globalized, interconnected world. The rise of alternative theories underscores the need for more inclusive and flexible approaches to understanding international politics, signaling a shift away from Realism’s dominance in the field.
Conclusion
Among the competing perspectives on conflict and cooperation in International Relations (IR), Realism firmly aligns itself with the inevitability of conflict and war. This focus on conflict is rooted in Realism’s core assumptions, which are explored below:
- State-Centric Actors: Realism posits that states are the primary actors in the international system, each pursuing its own security and power, often at the expense of others. Classical Realists emphasize the overarching goals of states, particularly the aggrandizement of power.
- Anarchy in the International System: According to Neorealists, the international system is inherently anarchic, meaning there is no overarching authority to enforce order. This anarchic structure drives states to behave in ways that prioritize their survival and power.
- Material Power Over Ideals: Realism underscores the importance of material resources as the foundation of power. Emotions, ideals, and moral considerations are deemed irrelevant in the realm of world politics. Hans Morgenthau’s “six principles” of Political Realism highlight the centrality of power in IR, while Kenneth Waltz’s analysis identifies three causes of conflict: the individual (man), the state, and the international system. Waltz argues that the anarchic nature of global politics generates security threats and compels states to maximize their power.
Criticism of Realism does not imply its obsolescence. Despite significant changes in the global landscape, the state remains the dominant actor in international politics, continuously validating key Realist assumptions. While Realism has sought to adapt by engaging with other theoretical paradigms, this has been done to avoid being labeled outdated in evolving circumstances.
Realism’s enduring relevance is evident in contemporary discourse on international politics. For instance, the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent actions by the United States, such as the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) and interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, reflect Realist thinking. The emphasis on “homeland security” as a justification for foreign policy actions illustrates the influence of Realist principles in shaping U.S. policy and underscores the continuing significance of power-centric strategies in IR.
Realism, despite its critics, remains a vital framework for understanding conflict and power dynamics in IR. Its adaptability and persistent focus on state behavior ensure that it continues to inform both theoretical debates and practical policymaking in a world where the struggle for power remains a defining feature.
References
- Legro, Jeffrey W., & Moravcsik, Andrew. (1999). Is Anybody Still a Realist? International Relations, 24(2), Fall, pp. 5–55.
- Morgenthau, Hans. (2007). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (6th ed., Revised by K. W. Thompson). Kalyani, New Delhi.
- Walker, Thomas C., & Morton, Jeffrey S. (2005). Re-Assessing the “Power of Power Politics” Thesis: Is Realism Still Dominant? International Studies Review, 7(2), June, pp. 341–356.
- Waltz, Kenneth. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
- Wendt, Alexander. (1992). Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, 46(2), Spring, pp. 391–425.