Understanding Realism in International Relations

Image from: https://images.app.goo.gl/RBhgEDniC7QQZRqNA

Introduction

Realism, as an International Relations theory, is an ancient and most popular theory to comprehend the real politics and the true nature of the international system. This theory perceived the world as it is rather than as it ought to be. Scholars like Machiavelli, Thucydides, Kissinger, Morgenthau, among the host of others gave distinct but related perspectives concerning the true nature of what transpires in the international arena in contrast to the perspectives of the idealist school of thought. Therefore, the realist theory offers a pragmatic lens through which the modern interstate conflicts can be analyzed. The central tenet of the realist theory revolves around anarchy, state-centrism, rationality of state actors, and power politics.

How Realism Perceives the International System

The realists view the international system as anarchic. Here, the word ‘anarchic’ does not simply mean disorder and chaos, it rather depicts the absence of central or supreme authority to control and regulate the affairs of interstate relations at the international level unlike within the territorial boundary of a state. The goal of every state remains to protect their national interests through every possible means, and as such, power play essential roles. This could be compared to Hobbes state of nature, where the life of man is solitary and short, and there is war of all against all. Every state is susceptible to threats and shivers of war. Thus, as states try to survive in such a world, their survival becomes their principal motivation. In order to survive, a state will try to reduce any external threats that could endanger its existence either through her alliance with a greater power or other means of balancing power (Griveaud, 2011). According to the realists, every state bears its burden in the international system because there is no permanent friend. Morgenthau in 1973 assert that "international politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power. Whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is always the immediate aim" (Baehr, 1977). By this he means that states act in a rational manner to pursue their national interests, primarily defined in terms of power. He emphasizes the competitive and conflictual nature of international relations, where the absence of a central authority compels states to rely on state-ism and self-help.

Similarly, John Mearsheimer 2001 described the international system to be a brutal arena in which states are in search of opportunities to outsmart one another, therefore, they have no trust towards one another. He further explained that states strive not only to become powerful, but also to ensure that no other state attains it. The realist theory never ceases to remain a profound tool of analysis for issues that transpires within the international space since its inception. However, the realist theory is classified into three major strands which are:

1. Classical Realism: The progenitors of this strand include Thucydides, Hans Morgenthau and the host of others. Classical realism focuses on the inherent selfish and power-seeking nature of human beings, which translates into the behavior of states. It emphasizes the role of human nature in driving states to seek power and act in their national interest. This theory emphasizes that humans are egoistic and power seeking in nature, and they are prone to repeating this behavior within their realm of leadership. Therefore, because interstate relations are controlled by humans, then the relationships are susceptible to a clash of interest and possibilities of conflicts. This means that war is inevitable in the course of interstate relations due to their egoistic and power-seeking nature.
2. Neo Realism/ Structural Realism: Neorealism, or structural realism, shifts the focus from human nature to the structure of the international system. Kenneth Waltz, the key proponent, argues that the anarchic structure of the international system compels states to be rational and prioritize survival thereby engaging in power balancing (Baripedia, 2024). This theory posit that it is unlikely for the world to experience constant peace rather than temporary peace, because the constant struggle for power will continue to attract the need for balance of power which can only be done through the means of war. The neorealism is further classified into offensive and defensive. 
• Offensive Neo Realism: Offensive Neo realism, often associated with John Mearsheimer, posits that states are inherently aggressive and seek to maximize their power to achieve hegemony. This theory emphasizes the pursuit of power as a means to ensure security in an anarchic world. In other words, Offensive Neo Realism argues that the best option for survival of states amid the brutish nature of the international arena is to maximize potential and become the most feared in order to perpetuate threats rather than becoming a victim of horrors. 
• Defensive Neo Realism: Defensive realism often associated with Robert Jervis and others, suggests that states are primarily concerned with maintaining their security rather than maximizing power. It highlights the security dilemma, where states' efforts to defend themselves can inadvertently threaten others and result in arms races and conflicts. This explains that the best way of ensuring survival in the international system is to invest in security aids. This however attracts security consciousness of other states and promotes arm race. In other words, the fear of getting attacked awakes the security consciousness of other states which eventually increases arm races. This gives explanations to the manners at which modern states invest in nuclear weapons. 
3. Neo Classical Realism: Neoclassical realism combines elements of classical realism and neorealism, emphasizing both the international structure and domestic factors in shaping state behavior. Proponents argue that internal characteristics, such as leadership, and state-society relations influence how states respond to the international system.

References

Baehr, P. R. (1977). Power and Influence in International Politics. Netherlands International Law Review, 24(1–2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0165070X00016120

Classical Realism and Its Implications in Modern Geopolitics. (2024, January 19). Baripedia. https://baripedia.org/index.php?title=Classical_Realism_and_Its_Implications_in_Modern_Geopolitics&oldid=66470.

Griveaud, M. (2011, May 22). Is the Anarchical International System the Cause of War. E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2011/05/22/is-the-fact-that-man-lives-in-an-international-system-defined-by-anarchy-the-cause-of-war/

Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W.W. Norton & Company.

Morgenthau, H. J. (1973). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (5th ed.). Alfred A Knopf.