Realism in International Relations

• What is Realism
• Origins of Realism
• Carr
• Morgenthau
• Waltz

Divisions of opinion exist between the classical (or traditional) Realists and the structural Realists (neorealists); and within these broad groupings there are further variations and shades of opinion. All share a large part of a common body of thought, but many have particular aspects on which they differ. Too precise a definition excludes some individuals; too broad loses some common threads of thought.

Of the threads that make up the Realist school, the most important ideas include:

• International relations are amenable of objective study. Events can be described in terms of laws, in much the way that a theory in the sciences might be described. These laws remain true at all places and times.

• The state is the most important actor. At times the state may be represented by the city-state, empire, kingdom or tribe. Implicit in this is that supra-national structures, sub-national ones and individuals are of lesser importance. Thus the United Nations, Shell, the Papacy, political parties, etc, are all relatively unimportant.

• The first corollary is that the international system is one of anarchy, with no common sovereign.

• A second corollary is that the state is a unitary actor. The state acts in a consistent way, without any sign of divided aims.

• Further, state behaviour is rational - or can be best approximated by rational decision-making. States act as though they logically assess the costs and benefits of each course open to them.

• States act to maximise either their security or power. The distinction here often proves moot as the optimum method to guarantee security is frequently equated to maximising power.

• States often rely on force or the threat of force to achieve their ends.

• The most important factor in determining what happens in international relations is the distribution of power.

• Ethical considerations are usually discounted. Universal moral values are difficult to define, and unachievable without both survival and power.

I draw this list with caution, for many Realists will find some statements here redundant while omitting important aspects. This list, for example, omits the assumptions about human nature that are essential to some classical realists. Equally, it says too much about the state and too little about the international system to fully satisfy neorealists.

There are those that argue that the subject is too amorphous to be encapsulated in any list.

It was not until the early 1500s that a political philosopher of the Realist tradition could share the status of Thucydides. Machiavelli was widely condemned at the time, and since, for his cynical and amoral advice on the way government should be conducted. Nevertheless, what he captured in his writings became the essence of what we know today as Realism:

But since my intention is to say something that will prove of practical use to the inquirer, I have thought it proper to represent things as they are in real truth, rather than as they are imagined. Many have dreamed up republics and principalities which have never in truth been known to exist; the gulf between how one should live and how one does live is so wide that a man who neglects what is actually done for what should be done learns the way to self-destruction rather than self-preservation. The fact is that a man who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous. Therefore if a prince wants to maintain his rule he must learn how not to be virtuous, and make use of this or not according to need.

In the sphere of diplomacy, Realism (under the name raison d’état) was introduced through the policies of the French minister Cardinal de Richelieu. He led France into the bitter Thirty Years War to ensure that the various states controlled by the Habsburgs did not dominate Europe. That war ended in the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) which is widely credited with establishing the modern system of states.

From that time there were sporadic writings promoting Realism. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes and the military theorist Carl von Clausewitz were among the best known. Yet, by and large, international relations was a field that was practiced rather than theorised on. Increasingly, raison d’état, Realpolitik, balance of power and other Realist terms entered the lexicon of diplomacy - and rulers framed their actions in terms of national interests.

The First World War presented a major challenge to Realism. Realist practices were increasingly challenged, particularly in the United States whose national experience to date differed markedly from the European states. The US President, Woodrow Wilson framed his Fourteen Points as the basis for the subsequent peace. These points included banning secret treaties, freedom of navigation and trade (aimed at increasing interdependence), arms reductions, self-determination and the formation of what became the League of Nations. The allies largely acquiesced. The postwar era was one of optimism and pacifism. The "war to end all wars" had been fought, and the Kellogg-Briand Pact had outlawed war. The discipline of international relations was founded in a climate that saw a responsibility of academia being to contribute a further nail in the coffin of armed conflict.

Virtual War College recommends

Buy from Amazon.com Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War

Buy from Amazon.com Machiavelli, The Prince

Buy from Amazon.com Hobbes, Leviathan

In this climate the historian and former diplomat, E.H. Carr launched an attack on the liberal principles that had marked the young international relations theory of the inter-war years. According to Carr, every field of study passes through a naive phase of "utopianism". He offered as an example the efforts of early alchemists, which eventually gave way to the physical sciences.

Carr argued that the antidote to utopianism was "realism":

The impact of thinking upon whishing, in the development of a science, follows the breakdown of its first visionary projects, and marks the end of the specifically utopian period, is commonly called realism. Representing a reaction against the wish-dreams of the initial stage, realism is liable to assume a critical and somewhat cynical aspect. In the field of thought, it places its emphasis on the acceptance of facts and on the analysis of their causes and consequences.

Yet while Carr, argued his case strongly, he saw that as the discipline matured there was scope for the blending of realism and utopianism.

Virtual War College recommends

Buy from Amazon.com Carr, Twenty Years Crisis 1919-1939

Morgenthau starts with the claim that he is presenting a "theory of international politics". He sees his theory bringing "order and meaning" to the mass of facts. It both explains the observed phenomena and is logically consistent, based on fixed premises. Like Carr, he sees this Realism as a contrast to liberal-idealism.

Morgenthau’s theory is based on six principles he enumerates in his first chapter. In summary, these principles were:

1. International relations "…is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature".
2. The key consideration "…is the concept of interest defined in terms of power’.
3. "…Interest defined as power is an objective category which is universally valid", although its exact meaning may change with time and circumstance.
4. While moral principles have a place, they cannot be defined identically at every time and place, and apply differently to individuals and the state.
5. "The moral aspirations of a particular nation…" are not "moral laws that govern the universe".
6. Politics is an autonomous sphere that needs to be analysed as an entity, without being subordinated to outside values.

Virtual War College recommends

Buy from Amazon.com Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations : The Struggle for Power and Peace

While classical Realists saw international politics in terms of the characteristics of states and their interaction with each other, Waltz believed that there was a level above this. According to Waltz, "The idea that international politics can be thought of as a system with a precisely defined structure is Neorealism’s fundamental departure from traditional realism". The conditions of the system as a whole influenced state behaviour, not just state level factors.

By concentrating on the nature of the system-level structure, Waltz avoided the need to make assumptions about human nature, morality, power and interest. Neorealists were thus able to see power in a different way. For the classical Realists power was both a means and an end, and rational state behaviour was simply accumulating the most power. Neorealists found a better guide was provided by assuming that the ultimate state interest was in security, and while gathering power often ensured that, in some cases it merely provoked an arms race. Yet while power was no longer the prime motivator, its distribution was the major factor determining the nature of the structure.

Virtual War College recommends

Buy from Amazon.com Waltz, Theory of International Politics

Other useful links

Buy from Amazon.com Waltz, Man, the State and War: a Theoretical Analysis

Buy from Amazon.com Robert J. Art and Kenneth N. Waltz, The Use of Force : Military Power and International Politics

Buy from Amazon.com Robert O. Keohane (Editor), Neorealism and Its Critics (The Political Economy of International Change)

Buy from Amazon.com Barry Buzan, Charles Jones andRichard Little, The Logic of Anarchy : Neorealism to Structural Realism

Buy from Amazon.com Michael E. Brown, Sean M. Lynn-Jones and Steven E. Miller (editors), The Perils of Anarchy : Contemporary Realism and International Security

Buy from Amazon.com Charles W., Jr. Kegley, Controversies in International Relations Theory : Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge