Realism (international relations)
Realism, a school of thought in international relations theory, is a theoretical framework that views world politics as an enduring competition among self-interested states vying for power and positioning within an anarchic global system devoid of a centralized authority.
It centers on states as rational primary actors navigating a system shaped by power politics, national interest, and a pursuit of security and self-preservation.
[1][2] Realism involves the strategic use of military force and alliances to boost global influence while maintaining a balance of power.
In contrast to liberalism, which champions cooperation, realism asserts that the dynamics of the international arena revolve around states actively advancing national interests and prioritizing security.
[3] Carl von Clausewitz (early 19th century), another contributor to the realist school of thought, viewed war as an act of statecraft and gave strong emphasis on hard power.
[1] The 20th century brand of classical realism, exemplified by theorists such as Reinhold Niebuhr and Hans Morgenthau, has evolved into neorealism—a more scientifically oriented approach to the study of international relations developed during the latter half of the Cold War.
Realpolitik, however, is an older prescriptive guideline limited to policy-making, while realism is a wider theoretical and methodological paradigm which aims to describe, explain, and predict events in international relations.
Power is a concept primarily thought of in terms of material resources necessary to induce harm or coerce other states (to fight and win wars).
International institutions, non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, individuals and other sub-state or trans-state actors are viewed as having little independent influence.
In the realist tradition, security is based on the principle of a balance of power and the reliance on morality as the sole determining factor in statecraft is considered impractical.
[24] While realism as a formal discipline in international relations did not arrive until World War II, its primary assumptions have been expressed in earlier writings.
This evolution was partly fueled by European war migrants like Hans Morgenthau, whose work Politics Among Nations is considered a seminal development in the rise of modern realism.
Classical realism is an ideology defined as the view that the "drive for power and the will to dominate [that are] held to be fundamental aspects of human nature".
Prominent liberal realists: Neorealism derives from classical realism except that instead of human nature, its focus is predominantly on the anarchic structure of the international system.
The basic approach, then, was for these authors to "refine, not refute, Kenneth Waltz",[30] by adding domestic intervening variables between systemic incentives and a state's foreign policy decision.
Samuel Barkin, for instance, holds that "realist constructivism" can fruitfully "study the relationship between normative structures, the carriers of political morality, and uses of power" in ways that existing approaches do not.
[32] Similarly, Jennifer Sterling-Folker has argued that theoretical synthesis helps explanations of international monetary policy by combining realism's emphasis of an anarchic system with constructivism's insights regarding important factors from the domestic level.
[37] John Ikenberry and Daniel Deudney state that the Iraq War, conventionally blamed on liberal internationalism by realists, actually originates more closely from hegemonic realism.
Where liberal internationalists reluctantly supported the war, they followed arguments linked to interdependence realism relating to arms control.
[38] John Mearsheimer states that "One might think..." events including the Bush Doctrine are "evidence of untethered realism that unipolarity made possible," but disagrees and contends that various interventions are caused by a belief that a liberal international order can transcend power politics.
[46] Scholar Aaron McKeil pointed to major illiberal tendencies within realism that, aiming for a sense of "restraint" against liberal interventionism, would lead to more proxy wars, and fail to offer institutions and norms for mitigating great power conflict.
[50] The mainstream version of realism is criticized for abstract theorizing at the expense of historical detail and for a non-consensus foundation of the moral principles of the "rules of international conduct"; as evidenced in the case of Russian invasion of Ukraine.
