Theories Of International Relations 2 Dersi 2. Ünite Özet

Introduction

Realism is considered as a suitable framework to analyze international politics by many scholars. The reason for this is that is focuses on fundamental questions like the reason of conflict and peace between nations and the necessary conditions of cooperation and peace at international scene.In this way the realist theory offers an opportunity to build comprehensible and multi-dimensional understanding of international relations.

Some important representants of this theory are Thucydides ,Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau, Clausewitz, Edward H. Carr and Reinhold Niebuhr.

Realist theory of international relations has four main assumptions upon which further various hypotheses are built to analyze certain events and/or phenomena:

1. States are the central and most important actors of world politics. Non-state actors have lesser importance for the study of world politics. International organizations have no capacity to do more than its member states want to do and they have very little influence on state behavior. Other nonstate actors such as terrorist groups, multinational corporations etc. play a secondary role in realist perspective.
2. State is seen as a unitary actor . In international issues a country speaks with one voice and faces the hostilities of international arena as an integrated unit. The government resolves domestic political differences and the state as a unitary actor, has one policy for every issue it has to deal with.
3. States, incarnated in the leader, are rational actors. They try to maximize their power and protect their interests in the international scene.
4. Hierarchy of issues according to which the ones related to national and international security are located at the top of the list . Military and strategic issues that concern security of state are often referred to as “high politics” whereas socioeconomic topics are in the field of “low politics’’.

Classical Realism

One of the pioneers of classical realism, Hans Morgenthau states six principles of realism. These principles show that the first classical realists do not deny the importance of anarchy, but underline the role of human nature.

1. Politics is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature.
2. Statesmen conduct themselves in terms of interest defined as power.
3. Interest determines political conduct.
4. Prudence is the most important quality in international politics.
5. Nations as unities pursue their interests as defined by power and should not be judged by universal moral principles. In this regard, “offense-defense balance” is of critical importance.
6. Political realism rejects the legalistic-moralistic approach to international politics.

States try to increase their security,but at the same time they decrease the security of others and in this regard, “offense-defense balance” is of critical importance.Classical realists claim the state is organized and equipped for war in order to be able to protect its citizens and ensure their welfare.

In foreign policy , the state’s only aim is its national interest which includes the

• values
• expectations
• aspirations
• the security from external threats
• the material well-being of the people of the state.

According to realist premises, national interest is more important in foreign policy than the moral or traditional considerations of a given state. This concept separates political issues from the ones that concern less critical fields such as economy, religion and ethics. This means, a successful statesman is the one who does not hesitate to be cruel if necessary.

In spite of this, realists accept the existence and necessity of a regulating mechanism called balance of power. The power of some states is intended to be balanced by the power of others and this is what generates the balance of power in the international system.

Structural Realism (Neorealism)

During the sixties there were critics towards realist theory. The wars in Algeria and Vietnam lead to a discussion about the legitimate right of sovereign states to use force.This caused a reinterpretation by certain realist scholars. Kenneth Waltz, considered as the precursor of neorealism, tried to develop a scientific approach to understand and explain the international political system. Waltzian structural realism does not completely refuse classical realist insights. The main difference between neorealism and the classical tradition is that it gives no account of human nature and that it disregards the statecraft ethics. Different from classical realism, which puts the emphasis on leaders and their decisions and actions at international level, neorealism’s center of attention is the systemic structure that is completely external to the actors and especially the relative distribution of power and capabilities.

To understand neorealist vision, it is really important to realize the difference between Waltz’s conception of international politics and foreign policy. An analysis of foreign policy is interested either in causes and consequences of state actions at international level or its decision-making process, but a theory of international politics (neorealism) searches primarily answers to questions of how and to what extent external factors play a role in shaping states’ international policy choices.

Classical realists consider absolute gain for a better position in the international scene as indispensable; however, nonrealists regard relative gain concept as the most critical preoccupation of state that is in search of security in anarchical system. At this point, it is vital to understand the two paradigms’ opinion about the polarity of international system.

In neorealist perspective particular international systems can be separated as multipolar, bipolar, and unipolar based on the number of major actors or the distribution of capabilities across units. According to Waltz only two great powers in the system are essential for a stable international environment.

With more than two great powers, states rely for their security both on their own internal efforts and on alliances they may make with others. Competition in multipolar systems is more complicated than competition in bipolar ones.There are four factors that encourage the limitation of violence in interstate relation which results in stability within a bipolar world:

1. There are no peripheries.
2. The scope of factors those included in the competition is extended as the intensity of competition increases
3. The nearly constant presence of pressure and the recurrence of crisis which means fighting small wars in the present may avoid large wars later.
4. The dominant power of major actors should be seen as sources of peace and stability.

These are also the characteristics of the American Soviet relations in the post-WWII era.

For defensive realists the main goal of international actors is not to increase their relative power but to preserve it. In contrast, in offensive realist perspective, states that are content with the existing status quo are difficult to find, because maximizing their relative power is the only way to maximize their security.

Classical and structural realism are founded on the same basic principles but show some differences in the following points:

• unit of analysis to be employed
• conception of balance of power
• their view related to polarity of international system

Creating one analytical framework that uses the best components of these two approaches in IR theory has been the most recent trend which is called neoclassical realism.

Neoclassical Realism

Neoclassical realists agree with the neorealist assumption that the primary factor that shapes foreign policy choices of states is their relative power at international level. They combine it with the classical realist view which believes in the importance of national level variables related to statecraft and state-society relations in forming the state’s external actions.

Neoclassical realism assumes that external behaviour of a state is a response ot sytemic factors in the long term. But in the short term, the decisions and the actions of a state are shaped by domestic factors like:

• perception and calculation of leaders,
• national resource extraction
• mobilization capacity of government authorities
• structure and effectiveness of civil society in foreign policy related issues

Neoclassical realist theory can explain political phenomena like

• short- term crisis decision-making
• foreign policy behavior
• patterns of grand strategic adjustment of individual states
• systemic outcomes
• the evolution of the structure of the international system itself

This approach takes the impact of domestic political factors on foreign policy action into consideration.

The most common critic toward neoclassical realism is about the determination of intervening variables to take into account to develop an analysis. However, in response to these critics, unit-level variables employed by neoclassical paradigm could easily be classified in four broad categories which are:

• images and perception of state leaders
• strategic culture
• state-society relations
• domestic institutional arrangements

In short, neoclassical realism can be seen as an approach that seizes the middle-ground in realist perspective.With its tendency to combine “outside and inside” elements for a solid analytical framework considering not only states’ foreign policies but also international politics in general, it offers a possibility for the study of international relations in the 21st century

Conclusion

At the beginning of 1990s, after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the significant victory of liberal and capitalist values over socialism ,the post Cold War world was supposed to be a peaceful place without a room for realism. There were also some claims about the end of history with this transformation. However, the terrorist attacks on 9/11 changed them.

Today, it is mostly believed that all different branches of realism are still relevant and offer vital insights to help develop the study of international relations.

Neorealism is considered as an ideology rather than a theory of international politics by certain scholars. Classical and neoclassical realism represent today the most promising future of realist research agenda. Realism still preserves its place among major theories of IR discipline although it lost its dominance during the Cold War period. It is supposed to keep its relevance in international affairs as long as its adherents continue adopting their analysis to the various transformations of twenty first-century issues.