Classical Realism in International Relations

Countries engage in a variety of relationships with one another, which can either be cooperative or confrontational. The field of international relations emerged after World War I to understand these diverse international phenomena and to shed light on the underlying causes and factors that contribute to their development. As a result, numerous theories of international relations were established to aid in the analysis of these dynamics, each addressing a spectrum of events rather than isolated incidents. These theories endeavor to provide explanations about the international system, its components, and the factors that influence it, while also examining the relationships of peace and war, as well as diplomatic interactions between nations.

International relations in the twentieth century underwent fundamental transformations regarding the scope of interactions, the diversity of issues, and the complexity of problems, rendering the field quite intricate and intertwined. Consequently, the theories that were dominant after World War I—idealism and realism—entered into a debate regarding their efficacy in understanding and explaining international realities.

From this context, the relationship between realism, which can be further divided into various schools such as classical realism, neorealism, structural realism, and neoclassical realism, and international relations gained a degree of cohesion. This relationship was particularly solidified following World War II, as realism emerged as the dominant model within the realm of international relations theories.

This paper seeks to explore traditional realism, examining its propositions for understanding and interpreting international realities. The central research question revolves around the impact of the emergence of realism on the international stage. It queries whether realism has contributed to the establishment of a precise scientific theory or whether it has fallen short of developing a rigorous theoretical framework to address phenomena within international relations.

The research questions surrounding realism include:

  1. What circumstances led to the emergence of realism as a new theory in international relations?
  2. What propositions and principles does classical realism present, particularly concerning human nature and the state?
  3. What is the perspective of realism on international politics? What viewpoints are articulated in this context?
  4. Have traditional realist assumptions proved accurate, or have they faced critique?

In response to these inquiries, the following points will be addressed:

  • The historical context of classical realism.
  • The assumptions underlying the realist theory.
  • The propositions of the theory and realism’s perspective on international policies.
  • Critiques of classical realism.

The Historical Context of Classical Realism

Realism is regarded as a theoretical approach in the study of international relations that arose primarily in American circles between the two World Wars. It is anchored in a set of theoretical postulates asserting that conflict is innate to international relations and that human beings are inherently self-serving. The roots of realist thought trace back to the writings of Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and other thinkers characterized by a stringent and pessimistic outlook, contrasting idealism.

The modern renaissance of realist thought in analyzing international relations is closely linked to a rebellion against the idealistic currents prevalent between the two World Wars.

The emergence of realism began in the fifth century BCE in Greece when the philosopher Thucydides laid its foundational principles, informed by his experiences in the Peloponnesian War. He identified the primary cause of the conflicts of his time as Athens’s power and Sparta’s fears. The concept of the state began to take shape during the Christian Roman Empire when a form of civil unity emerged in Europe between 1500 and 1800 CE.

During the Renaissance, realism became pronounced in the ideas of Machiavelli, who emphasized principles articulated by Thucydides. His ideas were grounded in the observation of what is, rather than what ought to be; a ruler seeking to maintain power must understand that he cannot rely solely on virtue but must instead utilize resources as necessitated by circumstances.

Realist thought was further expressed through the policies of the French minister Cardinal Richelieu, who led France into the Thirty Years’ War to curtail Habsburg power in Europe. This war ended with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which is considered the first agreement to establish the modern state system. The philosophical insights supporting realism were subsequently advanced by thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, military theorist Carl von Clausewitz, and philosopher Hegel.

Hobbes emphasized the selfish and aggressive nature of humanity through the notion of “the war of all against all,” positing that power is a decisive factor in human behavior. He posited that humans constantly seek to acquire more power, underscoring the importance of power in international relations and advocating for strong authority. However, he diverged from contemporary realism by emphasizing the role of political institutions in organizing power and preventing conflict.

Hegel was among the early pioneers of realism, asserting that national interest governs relations between states and that states exist independently of their citizens; he posited that states create their own morality and can act in ways that ensure their survival.

Despite the philosophical heritage the realist theory has drawn from European history, it was in the United States where it developed as a new perspective and became a competing theory against idealism, eventually establishing dominance in international relations.

In 1620, a group of English Puritan migrants fleeing persecution arrived in Massachusetts, discovering a new mission to build a new land. Thus, the first legend in American foreign policy emerged, as these settlers grounded their mission on controlling the political and intellectual trajectory of the emerging American society.

On the other hand, pragmatism emerged from a burgeoning capitalist environment based on competition and conflict. This led to various justifications that were facilitated by evolutionary theory to shape a unique American philosophy that came to be known as social Darwinism. Social Darwinism primarily harnesses principles of natural selection and the struggle for survival to justify social conflicts and inequalities under the capitalist system, casting material success as an ethical virtue regardless of the circumstances and causes of that success.

From this pragmatic outlook, political leaders (power), business magnates (trade), and religious figures (values) aligned in America, forming the basis of national interest—the fundamental premise of realism for the United States—which subsequently dominated its foreign policy and role in international relations.

The Modern Renaissance of Realism

The end of World War I saw an idealistic phase dominate the system of international relations, epitomized by President Woodrow Wilson’s belief that conflict highlighted the futility of war. Wilson maintained that ultimately, it could not lead to desired goals, primarily land acquisition; hence he proposed fourteen principles to guide future peace. His principles included the prohibition of secret agreements, freedom of navigation and trade, disarmament, and the establishment of what later became known as the League of Nations.

In addition, the idealist current criticized the prevalent negative sentiments among nations, especially since leaders did not offer sufficient clarifications to their populations, who bore the brunt of the war. The idealists viewed potential tensions as removable through the establishment of parliamentary democracies, as conflicts traditionally arose from choices made by elites and autocrats. They perpetually aimed to achieve the overarching goal of advancing the welfare of humanity.

However, in the 1930s, a gap emerged between idealist theory and the political reality of international relations, exemplified by events such as the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931 and Italy’s occupation of Ethiopia in 1935. This revealed the failings of idealism, showcasing its inability to address and predict events effectively. The failure of the idealist school to impose and disseminate its values and its incapacity to control or anticipate unfolding events culminated in the outbreak of World War II, primarily due to its neglect of the role of power and reliance on it in explaining occurrences. Thus, traditional realism arose as a response to idealism, establishing itself as the dominant paradigm in the field of international relations, focusing on describing what exists rather than what ought to be in the international system grounded heavily in historical realities.

Several factors contributed to the emergence of realism, including:

  1. The outbreak of World War II.
  2. An existent state of conflicting interests.
  3. The arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Post World War II, international thought shifted from idealism to rational thinking, transitioning from law and organization to power dynamics in international relations. There was a marked emphasis on learning historical lessons to bolster viewpoints, dismissing public opinion’s ability to achieve global peace. Thus, realism established itself as a clear method in the sphere of international relations, particularly in the United States, beginning in the 1940s and 1950s.

In this framework, the state became the primary analytical tool for interpreting and analyzing numerous international phenomena. The state represented the fundamental unit of analysis in realist thought, emphasizing that state behavior must begin from the premise that anarchy is the foundational authority of the international system. The actions of states are considered responses to the opportunities and constraints provided by this anarchic international order. Realism began to evolve in the 1990s and into the early 21st century with the emergence of new realist currents.

Thus, the realist school of thought gained prominence in international politics post-World War II, instituting a pessimistic view of international relations that reflected stark realities among states, whether great or small, developed or developing, thereby reflecting the power dynamics resulting from the war.

Realism posits that international affairs revolve around a struggle for power among states pursuing their interests independently, reaffirming a pessimistic viewpoint that underlines conflicts, wars, alliances, and imperialism, while emphasizing the competitive aspects characterizing international relations.

Consequently, the advent of realism underscores the failure of idealism, which relies on international law and organizations for conflict resolution and the attainment of peace and prosperity. Instead, realism affirms the necessity for states to ensure their self-defense against any external aggression.

Hans Morgenthau laid the foundations of classical realism in his work “Politics Among Nations,” which became the theoretical framework guiding subsequent realist writings. Morgenthau aimed to establish a scientific theory of international relations divorced from human nature. His central propositions included the following:

  1. Nation-states are the most significant representatives of international relations.
  2. A distinction must be made between national politics and foreign policy.
  3. International politics is a struggle for power, and subsequently, a quest for peace.

Assumptions Underpinning Realist Theory

Traditional realism is built upon several assumptions that provide a framework for understanding and interpreting the various complex phenomena within international politics. These assumptions include:

  1. The state is the primary actor in international relations and serves as the fundamental unit of analysis.
  2. The state is perceived as a cohesive unit despite the decision-makers in foreign policy being multiple individuals (e.g., the head of state or the foreign minister). Nevertheless, the state interacts with the external world as a singular, cohesive entity.
  3. Alliances between states may enhance a state’s capability to defend itself, but there should be no mutual dependency or loyalty among allied states.
  4. Realism maintains that human nature is either constant or at least difficult to change; therefore, humans do not inherently value good and virtue, but rather tend toward evil, sin, and the acquisition of power.
  5. A state’s geographical location influences its capabilities and external political orientations. Some states may be more susceptible to invasion than others, while certain nations may occupy more strategically significant positions. Geography shapes climate, which, in turn, affects agricultural productivity and thus a state’s ability to mobilize resources against others.
  6. Social reality is grounded in communities, whereby individuals in a resource-scarce world confront each other not as individual persons but as members of organized groups that form the state. Consequently, political life centers around conflict groups, suggesting that even if these groups change, the fundamental nature of conflict remains constant.
  7. The morality of political action cannot be delineated by ethical considerations; thus, ethical principles are inapplicable to political behavior. Machiavelli supported this with the assertion that “morality is the product of power,” and Hobbes underscored the necessity of separating ethics from politics.
  8. Political theory emerges from political practice, analyzing and understanding historical experiences. For realists, politics is not a moral function, leading to the separation of ethics from politics.
  9. Public opinion is highly fluid; therefore, it does not serve as a reliable guide for decision-makers.
  10. Achieving peace through international law or global governance is exceedingly challenging; hence, alternative means must be sought, with the most prominent of these being the use of power.
  11. Ethics and religion are deemed irrational concepts, founded upon emotions and feelings, which do not govern state actions, thus lacking the importance attributed to them by idealists.
  12. Fixed and unchanging factors underpin international behavior, making it erroneous, as idealists do, to bet on knowledge and culture to easily alter human nature and public opinion.
  13. Political leaders are not viewed as inherently immoral. Realists do not assign this issue the same importance as idealists; the primary consideration is how effectively a political leader can achieve their foreign policy objectives without endangering the state they represent.
  14. Due to the absence of a central authority that monopolizes power and can impose its will on everyone, akin to the situation within a state, international relations tend to manifest absolute chaos. In this respect, ethical considerations exert minimal influence, if any. The fundamental reality in the relationships between states is power, and nations continually seek to augment their strength, rendering conflict a natural facet of inter-state relations. Any existing camaraderie is merely a product of converging interests. In this context, the British politician Disraeli remarked that “there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests.”

The behavior of conflicting states is attributed to two factors:

  1. Either the nature of humanity is driven by a primal urge for power—an animalistic instinct characterized by a desire for control and dominance that intensifies when shifting from the individual to the state level due to increasing available resources.
  2. Or it results not merely from a primal urge but from a yearning for security. The lack of safety in an anarchic international system compels states to seek greater strength to bolster their security. However, the pursuit of increased security often results in heightened conflict, leading to a paradox where security becomes less assured.

Realists reject the idea of harmony in the interests of various nations, asserting that states often clash in their competing interests, leading some into war. Thus, the core of social reality lies in the organized groups, with the premise that if the forms of these groups change, the fundamental nature of conflict between them remains unchanged, resulting in a lack of harmony in interests.

Propositions of Realism: The Realist Perspective on International Policies

The propositions of realism vary with the thinkers associated with its development. We can explore these propositions by examining the viewpoints of its notable scholars.

A. Early Thinkers

  • Machiavelli stressed the malign nature of individuals, suggesting that a ruler must adopt policies divergent from those of ordinary people to secure his state’s interest—namely, safety and survival.
  • Hobbes emphasized humanity’s evil nature, illustrating that individuals constantly engage in conflict for power. He also placed significant importance on power dynamics in international relations while highlighting the necessity of political institutions to prevent conflicts.
  • Hegel posited that national interest governs state relations and further suggested that a state exists independently of its citizens, maintaining that states create their own moral codes to ensure their continuity.

B. Twentieth-Century Thinkers

  • Nero viewed human nature as inherently sinful, positing that individuals engage in constant struggles for power, leading to a reflection of such dynamics in international relations. He criticized utopian calls for a global government, contending that individuals only obey laws when the laws serve their interests. Nero argued that states must resort to using power to achieve justice, as foregoing power usage would prevent justice from being realized.
  • Hans Morgenthau, a leading realist theorist, emphasized the critical role of power in politics in his work “Politics Among Nations.” Morgenthau insisted that international politics must stem from empirical realities with pragmatic objectives, and he proposed six principles of realist theory:
    1. Politics parallels society, governed by objective laws. To effect change or reform in society, one must understand and grasp these laws while distinguishing between reality and opinion, and what is empirically verifiable.
    2. The definition of national interest tied to power is not static; it is embedded in the pursuit of self-preservation. Thus, national interest, akin to the essence or core of foreign policy, is fundamentally tied to survival.
    3. Universal ethical principles cannot be directly applied to state activities since states are governed by a moral framework distinct from that which governs individual interactions. Confusion between these ethics may lead to catastrophe for the state, as universal ethics must align with political realities.
    4. Realists reject equating ethical values with those of a specific state, even as each nation attempts to convince itself that its actions and principles align with the ethical goals presumed to govern the global order.
    5. The theory acknowledges the autonomy of political dimensions as distinct from others; Morgenthau divides international politics into three types focusing on preserving, enhancing, or projecting power. Thus, a state may pursue a preservation-oriented policy, imperial expansion, or a policy aimed at achieving prestige.
    6. When national interest supersedes all other considerations, a state can evaluate others devoid of any social or cultural context. In its external relations, a state resorts to a policy aimed at maintaining the status quo when it perceives that its capabilities and potential surpass threats to its system.
    7. Morgenthau differentiates between three international policies:
      • Power Preservation Policy: Aims to maintain the existing distribution of power, though it does not preclude any shifts, but strives to prevent drastic changes.
      • Power Augmentation Policy: States seek to enhance their power and assert dominance through various means, particularly military.
      • Influence Policy: This entails impacting others through the power a state possesses or believes itself to possess, achieved through demonstrations of strength or reputation among other states.
  • Frederick Schuman highlighted the erosion of trust among states, given that each lacks authority over others’ conduct and cannot predict their actions. Consequently, each nation anticipates the worst from its counterparts, leading to a necessity for every state to maintain its independence by competing with others and preparing for potential threats. If each state possesses sufficient power, it can overcome those it cannot resist.

For Schuman, power encompasses military strength and fighting capacity, underpinning a state’s strength. He believed smaller states could secure their independence within a balance of power framework, maintaining that a state’s ability to attain gains while preserving its power is contingent upon its skills and capacity to maintain that balance.

  • Henry Kissinger theorized two models of the international system: the stable model, stemming from international legitimacy and agreement among nations, wherein diplomacy plays a significant role in reinforcing it, and the revolutionary international model, characterized by the presence of a dissatisfied power seeking to alter the existing order. Kissinger suggested that in order to maintain stability in the international system when facing revolutionary states, those advocating for international legitimacy must negotiate from a position of strength, indicating a readiness to use force against them to avert total war; additionally, states upholding international legitimacy should employ specific means to achieve defined objectives.
  • Raymond Aron linked the phenomenon of war to the nature of the international system, outlining two models: homogeneous and heterogeneous. He contended that international stability hinges on this homogeneity, referring to the agreement among parties on shared goals and rules governing interstate politics. Aron maintained that international peace materializes in three scenarios:
    1. Balance of Power: Wherein a group of states are relatively equal in strength.
    2. Hegemonic Stability: One state is stronger than the others but does not achieve complete dominance over the system.
    3. Imperial Peace: A single state exerts total control over other states while imposing its will upon them.
  • Robert Strauß-Hoobe proposed that war acts as a critical factor in reshaping the characteristics of states; for example, the Peloponnesian War and the Roman Civil War led to the downfall of the civil state in that region, culminating in the emergence of the imperial state. The feudal war in Europe transitioned the era of imperial states into the nation-state system, contributing to the development of nationhood.
  • George Kennan focused on foreign policy, notably advocating for the containment of the Soviet communist threat, positing that this strategy could instigate internal changes within the Soviet Union, eventually leading them to abandon communist ideology.

Despite the diversity of opinions among realists, they converge on several key points:

  • The anarchic nature of the international system.
  • Conflict as a natural condition.
  • The state as the principal actor in international relations.
  • Treating the state as a singular entity.
  • Rational foundations underpinning state behavior.

In summary, the foremost propositions of classical realism include:

  • The evil nature of individuals striving for power and dominance, and the impossibility of eradicating this instinct, which transfers from individuals to states.
  • Political life, akin to general social life, operates under objective laws rooted in human nature; thus, international politics embodies a power struggle, suggesting that aspirations for power define international relations.
  • National interests stem from political necessities emerging from unregulated competition among states, with calculations based on these necessities illuminating policies that align with state interests, facilitating state success in achieving such goals.
  • Each state operates as a distinct decision-making center, with multiple centers arising from the absence of a monopoly over the tools of power in the international environment.

Core Concepts in Realist Theory

Realism relies on specific concepts that inform its framework for interpreting various complex phenomena in international politics, including foreign policy and the external behavior of states. These concepts include:

  1. Balance of Power: According to realism, from a classical perspective, the balance of power guarantees peace. If the balance tilts favorably toward a state, it is likely to declare war. Furthermore, the contemporary interpretation suggests a strong correlation between economic growth and military power, indicating that the nature and speed of economic growth enhance a nation’s capabilities, potentially leading to conflict and war.
  2. Power: Realist theory posits power as a primary determinant of international behavior. In the absence of institutions or procedures for resolving conflicts internationally, states remain powerful either because they are strong or backed by other states for protection. Consequently, maintaining or augmenting one’s power becomes a chief objective, as power equates to the capacity to engage in warfare; hence, states consistently emphasize the importance of bolstering their military capabilities. Thus, the quest for power constitutes the root cause of international conflicts. Morgenthau asserts, “Politics in the international field is solely a struggle for power,” and this struggle is akin to domestic politics, with the power struggle being the enduring reality across time and place, the essence of international relations distilled down to power dynamics.
  3. National Interest: Achieving national interest remains the ultimate, sustained goal of a state’s foreign policy, rendering national policy the principal focus and driving force behind any nation’s international endeavors. This includes several dimensions:
    • Dependence on the concept of “national interest” strips foreign policy objectives of superficial justifications or ideals that lack realism.
    • The notion of national interest elucidates the continuity of state foreign policies even amid shifts in political leadership or prevailing ideologies, or predominant social and political values.

From the above discussion, it becomes evident that realists perceive the international political landscape as one characterized by anarchic disorder and warfare. Within this context, there are no overarching authorities to impose order or safeguard collective security. Importantly, no global state governs the world, and relationships among states possess a dynamic quality, shifting as power relations evolve. Consequently, this dynamic may advance some states in the competitive hierarchy while hindering others from participating effectively in the conflict.

Thus, classical realists operate from the fundamental premise that individuals possess an inherently malign nature, which drives them to seek power and exert dominance—a belief consequent to the conviction that these instincts are impossible to eradicate. Morgenthau emphasizes that the primary driver of diplomatic relations among states is the malevolent tendencies inherent in human nature, rendering this nature complex to analyze.

The supreme objective for states centers on security, compelling nations to strive relentlessly for self-preservation and to reinforce their security through diverse means, including sometimes soliciting the assistance of other states.

Consequently, realism perceives international relations and the global community as a continuous struggle for state power, with a focus on leveraging this power according to national interests and strategic imperatives to ultimately advance the aims and objectives of the state.

In the realist framework, the international community comprises numerous states devoid of a unifying power, characterized inherently by chaos, where each state diligently seeks to secure its interests, often at the expense of others to ensure its own endurance.

Critiques of Traditional Realism

Despite realism’s embrace of a scientific understanding of international phenomena and situations, which may silence its critics, the emergence of alternative theories has posed significant challenges to realism, including new liberalism, postmodern theories, and critical and constructivist approaches. These schools contend that realism can no longer dominate the international relations field, highlighting its limitations and endeavoring to address neglected aspects while seeking solutions to numerous challenges to supplant realism.

In general, critiques of traditional realism can be elaborated at two levels:

  1. Methodological Criticism
  2. Conceptual Criticism

Firstly: Methodological Criticism The critiques leveled against traditional realism on a methodological level include:

  1. The marginalization of international law and the excessive emphasis on the abstract quality of international relations devoid of any ethical or value-related implications. This indicates that war and the quest for power ignore ethical considerations, to the point that morality in this context is deemed futile; as Kissinger phrased it, “morality holds no weight here.”
  2. Realism fails to incorporate new actors into the international arena, meaning it overlooks non-state actors emerging post-World War II. It also neglects the role of middle and small powers in international politics and does not adequately address interdependence phenomena.
  3. Reality suggests that a state is an amalgamation of various internal actors shaping its identity, leading to varying responses based on domestic political orientations, shifting the analysis to a level beyond the systemic, namely the national level.
  4. The realist school tends to overlook numerous factors that influence or dictate objectives; for instance, it fails to clarify why a decision-maker occasionally opts for specific actions over others.
  5. An excessive focus on the concept of power results in a one-dimensional analysis of international policy, evaluating international relations solely through a singular variable.
  6. Power cannot solely serve as an analytic tool without consideration of other factors, as numerous elements affect states’ external behavior:
    • International cooperation, as manifested in various international and regional organizations.
    • Integration conflicts in international politics, as evident in Western Europe. Both entail various values and ideas extending beyond mere power considerations.
  7. Traditional realism eschews addressing emerging complex themes in the international relations discourse, failing to assert that military security issues will persist indefinitely while neglecting the impact of macro-level security political factors on political outcomes. Consequently, it forgoes analyses distinguishing traditional political-security dimensions from regional issues.
  8. A mechanistic view of international relations encompasses the realist school’s disregard for studying the societal structures of states and the internal factors influencing state power. The implications suggest that policymakers’ or leaders’ actions must adapt a state’s power and concomitant behavior to external realities.
  9. The overarching static nature of this theory presumes an unchanging international system, positing that individual interests are perpetually dictated by power dynamics, thereby framing the global system as perennially governed by power struggles. In this static nature, a disconnect arises between power conflicts in international politics and the dynamic international conditions driven by various institutions.
  10. Realism’s philosophy is inherently conservative, reflecting a belief in the existence of immutable factors and unchangeable patterns that typically signal a lack of enthusiasm or interest, as highlighted by E.H. Carr, who alluded to the notion of change resistance against existing realities. Carr also emphasized that realism is abstract, overlooking essential elements vital for any effective political theory, such as:
    • A defined objective.
    • A lack of moral appeals.
    • The legitimacy of moral judgments.
    • A foundational basis for action.

Secondly: Conceptual Criticism

  1. The realist school predominantly focuses on the past rather than addressing future propositions through:
    • Historical utilization.
    • Employing outdated political concepts for current international system analyses, such as secret diplomacy, separating domestic politics from foreign policy, and power balance as a conflict management strategy, which attributes limited relevance to contemporary international relations.
  2. The vagueness in defining fundamental concepts such as power, balance of power, national interest, and the balance of power, compounded by challenges in establishing precise criteria to accurately define these concepts.

In this context, Hoffman contends that it is impractical to use a single term to encapsulate the various dimensions of power as a political determinant, including power as a measure of policy, power as utilized, power as the outcome of numerous resources, and power as a collective of processes.

The key criticisms leveled against these concepts are as follows:

  • First Critique: The Concept of National Interest: Studying foreign policy without regard to the notion of national interest is challenging, as it represents a crucial variable; however, it is complicated to assign practical meaning to this concept because each political leader attributes differing meanings. National experiences contribute to varying interpretations of national interest. Observably, national interest delineation shifts depending on the criteria applied for this interpretation, which underscores:
    • That national interest is defined within the context of widely agreed goals across the existing political system, providing specific content.
    • While national interest may also manifest through preferences exhibited by segments of public opinion (e.g., interest groups), presenting an entirely different meaning.
    • Furthermore, national interest may be guided by the interpretations of official entities responsible for delineating values applicable to society at large.

In this regard, Hoffman states, “The concept of national interest holds significance during stable periods when parties contest particular objectives via specific means. However, when the very existence of the state is threatened, all such objectives become subsidiary to the primary goal. Consequently, it becomes challenging to delineate a specific meaning during uncertain times.”

  • Second Critique: The Concept of Power: Despite realism’s assertion that power is the primary focus for states, the notion of power remains inadequately defined. Moreover, power is neither exclusively linked to nor proportional to national interest, with Hoffman asserting, “It is difficult to comprehend the differences between power as a political determinant, power as a policy measure, power in application, power as a result from many resources, and power as a collection of processes, as they ultimately signify distinct phenomena.”

Realism has also fallen short in differentiating between various interpretations of power and distinguishing power as a political outcome from power as a tool or power as a driving force.

  • Power as a Political Outcome: The capacity of a state to affect changes in the behavior of others.
  • Power as a Tool: The employment of power to achieve various goals.
  • Power as a Driving Force: The motivation pushing a state to acquire power.

This amalgamation and confusion of concepts hinder in-depth analysis regarding all dimensions of this phenomenon and its various international implications. Thus, realism’s narrow perspective of power centers on it being merely a driving force.

  • Third Critique: The Concept of Balance of Power: According to Inis Claude and Ernest Haas, critiques of the balance of power concept utilized by realists suggest that it encompasses multiple meanings:
  1. A policy oriented toward achieving specific objectives in foreign relations.
  2. A description of realist conditions.
  3. Equitable distribution of power or equilibrium within the international system.
  4. A pursuit of hegemony.
  5. An overarching and comprehensive law.
  6. A definition of power distribution.

Consequently, due to the multitude of meanings embedded in this concept, it offers limited practical utility. Thus, the balance of power concept emerges as unclear, lacking definitive methodologies to measure this balance. Furthermore, this concept rests on a rationality principle, positing that the pursuit of power equilibrium requires a cultural framework; this culture thrived during the diplomacy of the 19th century.

Overall, realists have not accorded the concept of international balance of power the attention it merits; realist theorists have overextended their explanations regarding international system stability and structural power distribution without arriving at a logical conclusion. Following their various interpretations and accumulated arguments, a singular agreed-upon definition of balance of power has yet to materialize.

As mentioned earlier, divergent theories have occasionally posed challenges to realism, including functionalism, new functionalism, liberalism, new liberalism, new institutionalism, systems theory, postmodern theories, and critical and constructivist theories. The presence of opposing intellectual currents underscores that realism can no longer dominate international relations discourse.

This assertion is evidenced by the following:

  • New Liberal Institutionalism: Regarded as a core challenge to realism, scholars such as “Randal Schweller” and “David Brooks” have noted that no issue in international relations theory is as contentious as the role of global institutions. They argue that transnational actors, especially multinational corporations and non-governmental organizations, have progressively usurped state authority, thereby undermining state power.

Thus, the notion that “the state is the sole actor in international relations” must be reconsidered in light of increasing influence from non-state actors, now vital determiners of international relations, which include non-governmental organizations, individuals, non-national corporations, media institutions, and specialized international organizations.

  • Neorealism: Neorealism represents an extension of traditional realism, with prominent theorists including Kenneth Waltz, Stephen Krasner, Robert Gilpin, and Robert Tucker. These scholars distinguish themselves from classical realism through their endeavors to construct a scientific theory while seeking to move beyond the fragmented empirical analysis characteristic of classical realism. Notably, the criticisms received by traditional realists about their delineation of new, complex topics within international relations revolve around:
  1. The ambiguous and shaky nature of concepts and arguments.
  2. Lack of clarity in distinguishing between objective and subjective matters within international political life.
  3. Limiting their analysis to security-political domains in international relations.
  4. Overlooking theories and knowledge from other social sciences that could provide a comprehensive understanding of international politics.
  • Critical and Postmodern Theories: The foundational structures of international politics are deemed more social than material, which directly contradicts the materialist philosophy of realists. Furthermore, these social structures shape interests and identities, impacting behavior rather than merely informing it. Critical theorists adeptly highlight areas overlooked within realist theory.
  • Constructivism: Constructivism critiques realism’s interpretation of anarchy, contending it fails to explain the causes of international conflicts. The pertinent issue invites discourse on how this anarchy is understood. In this respect, constructivists emphasize that anarchy results from states’ actions, not as an inherent condition. They focus on the future of states, proposing that transnational communication and shared civil values undermine traditional national loyalties.

Thus, Wendt argues that there is no intrinsic basis for anarchy; concepts that seem invariant, like sovereign power, self-help, and sovereignty, are fundamentally socially constructed institutions, not inherent traits demarcating an anarchical system.

In sum, classical realism remains a potent theoretical framework in international relations, enduring through criticisms and evolving discourse, yet its challenges invoke a continually evolving landscape reflective of global interdependencies and complexities, which future theorists must navigate and integrate into the broader theoretical analysis.

Please subscribe to our page on Google News

SAKHRI Mohamed
SAKHRI Mohamed

I hold a Bachelor's degree in Political Science and International Relations in addition to a Master's degree in International Security Studies. Alongside this, I have a passion for web development. During my studies, I acquired a strong understanding of fundamental political concepts and theories in international relations, security studies, and strategic studies.

Articles: 15220

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *