Realist Theory in International Relations

Mathew Behnam

Intro to International Relations

Professor Waxman

Discussion Paper #1

Realist theory in International Relations

The theory of Realism has been the dominant theory in International Relations since the inception of the field of study almost a century ago. However over time the theory-which attempts to explain the actions of states, and the international system as a whole-has given rise to much criticism. Though it may have been the most rational way of looking at International Relations in the early 1900's, much has changed since then. The world has been through two World Wars, and many more regional conflicts and has seen how truly wrong things can go in the hunt for power. This in addition to the formation of the United Nations, NATO, and many other international organizations has made Idealism a more tenable candidate than Realism in providing a framework to explain International Relations.

Realists believe that states are power-hungry and self-interested, and that these characteristics are derived from human nature. There is no room for morals or ideologies in Realist theory because states act the way they do only in aims of being more powerful. To someone who argues that states do in fact use morals in forming policy, a Realist would rebuttal by saying that states are immoral and that any state who claims to use morals in forming a policy is just attempting to disguise its hunt for power. As a whole Realists believe that the International system is extremely conflictual and that international conflicts are only solvable through war.

Realism as a field of study was found within the past hundred years by a scholar name Hans Morgenthau, however one of the principle ideas of Realism was brought about long before then. Thucydides was a Greek historian who wanted to explain why Sparta had gone to war with Athens. He deduced that the war was caused for one very simple reason Sparta was afraid of the growing power of Athens and in order to protect its own power decided it was necessary to go to war.

It seems that over time a Idealism has begun to cement itself more and more as the theory of International Relations that best represents the real world. The world we live in today differs drastically from the one that existed 50 years ago. We now live in the information age. Most all people in the free world as well as a significant portion of those elsewhere has at least some knowledge of what the real costs of war are. Because of this and other technological breakthroughs in military equipment such as the Atomic bomb, and other 'weapons of mass destruction' was is becoming less and less acceptable, the costs in terms of lives lost are just to high for many people to swallow. Because of this changing world and lessons learned from the past (WWI,WWII, etc...) countries are much more inclined to try to solve disputes diplomatically, and attempt to avoid war at all costs. Instead the focus of most countries is to try to gain stability through International Organizations.

Organizations such as the United Nations, and NATO have given the international world much stability over the past half century. Many of these International Organizations were created in the Aftermath of the World Wars. It became evident that there was something wrong with the way the International System was working, countries were being forced at times to act in a way that may have been unethical or immoral in the hopes of garnering more power. But these International Organizations provided protection to states and helped to solve issues in a more amicable way. Every possible attempt is made by these organizations to avoid war, and with less fear of war as a possibility countries are free to focus on other things such as expanding there economy and giving there citizens a better quality of life.

The main critique of Idealism