The Globalizatoo of World Politics An Introducton to Internatonaa Reaatonn
By: John Baylis, Steve Smith & Patricia Owens
Chapter 6: Realism
Afer the second world war, a new rroup o sel iid entifed realist scholars rose to prominence in the
feld o nnternational Relations. These scholars were hirhly critical o the approach prominent d urinr
the interiwar period , whom they d ubbed ‘id ealists’ and ‘utopians’.
Accord inr to these realists, international politics is a constant strurrle or power, it is a state
o war in which political actors have litle choice but to be concerned with their own security. The
d octrine reacoo of ctate tells the statesman what he must d o to preserve the health and strenrth o
the State. Most importantly, the state, which is id entifes as the key actor in international politics,
must pursue power, and it is the d uty o the statesperson to calculate rationally the most appropriate
steps that should be taken to protect and prolonr the li e o the state in a hostile and threateninr
environment. Realists are sceptical o the id ea that universal moral principles exist and there ore
warm state lead ers arainst sacrifcinr their own sel iinterests in ord er to ad here to some
ind eterminate notion o ‘ethical’ cond uct. Proponents o the reason o state ofen speak o a dual
moral ctaodard: one moral stand ard s or ind ivid ual citiiens livinr insid e the state and a d iferent
stand ard or the state in its external relations with other states. The theory arrues that the state
itsel represents a moral orce, or it is the existence o the state that creates the possibility or an
ethical political community to exist d omestically.
Thucyd id es (History o the Peloponnesian War): nnternational politics is d riven by an end less strurrle
or power, which has its roots in human nature. Justice, law, and society either have no place or are
circumscribed .
Machiavelli (The Prince): Political realism recorniies that principals are subord inated to policies; the
ultimate skill o a state lead er is to accept and ad apt to chanrinr political and power confrurations in
world politics.
Hobbes (Leviathan): Human beinrs have an insatiable lust or power. Li e in the state o nature,
which is similar to the cond ition o world politics, is ull o ear and worry about violent d eath.
Rousseau (The State o War): nt is not human nature but the anarchical system that osters ear,
jealousy, suspicion and insecurity.
Rousseau was critical o how Hobbes d epicted human nature (which was quite pessimistic),
he too recorniied the necessity o human beinrs leavinr the state o nature and orminr a social
contract. Unlike Hobbes however, Rousseau was d eeply concerned that the contract establishinr
sovereirnty would refect the reneral will o the people; he arrued that thus was the only way in
which the exercise o authority could be d eemed leritimate. Thucyd id es hold s that the d esire or
power and the need to ollow sel iinterest are held to be und amental aspects o human nature. The
behaviour o the state as a sel iseekinr eroist is und erstood to be a refection o the characteristics
o human beinrs. Thus, the three core elements that we id enti y with realism are statism (( the id ea
o the state as the leritimate representative o the collective will o the people), survival and sel i
help. Outsid e the bound aries o the state where the states acts accord inr to the will o the people,
realists arrue that aoarihy exists, which means that international politics takes place in an arena that
had no overarchinr central authority above ind ivid ual sovereirn states. Realists arrue that it is not to
entrust its sa ety and survival to another actor like an international institution.
,20thicentury classical realism
The main thinker o this orm o realism was Morrenthau (1948) with his work Politics among
Nations. His bir id ea was that politics is roverned by laws that are created by human nature. The
mechanism we use to und erstand international politics is the concept o interests, d efned in terms
o power. He claimed that the roal o every state, as o every ind ivid ual, was to maximiie its power.
Realists throurhout the ares have consid ered a balaoie of power to be essential to preservinr the
liberty o states. The most common d efnition o the balance o power hold s that i a state’s survival
is threatened by a heremonic state or coalition o stronrer states, it should join orces with other
states and they should establish a ormal alliance and seek to preserve their own ind epend ence by
checkinr the power o the opposite sid e.
Neorealism/ structural realism
The main thinkers o neorealism or structural realism were Walti (1979) with Theory of International
Politics and Mearsheimer (2001) with Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Walti’s theory was that
anarchy lead s to a loric o sel ihelp in which states seek to maximiie their security. Balances o
power recurrently orm. Mearsheimer held that the anarchical, sel ihelp system compels states to
maximiie their relative power positions as they can never be sure o other states’ intentions.
Accord inr to structural realists, the relative d istribution o power in the international system is the
key ind epend ent variable in und erstand inr war and peace, alliance politics and the balance o power.
Accord inr to Walti, power is a means to an end , the end beinr security. Mearsheimer conclud es that
all states are continuously searchinr or opportunities to rain more power at the expense o other
states.
Neoclassical realism
The main thinker o this branch o realism was Zakaria (1998) with From Wealth to Power. The main
id ea was that the systematic account o world politics provid ed by structural realism is incomplete. nt
need s to be supplemented with beter accounts o unitilevel variables such as how power is
perceived , and how lead ership is exercised . So, while the relative d istribution o power is recorniied
to be an important infuence on the behaviour o states, so are actors such as the perceptions o
state lead ers, stateisociety relationships and state id entity.
Realists have two important points about the concept power. First, power is a relational concept: one
d oes not exercise power in a vacuum, but in relation to another entity. Second , power is a relative
concept: calculations need to be mad e not only about one’s own power capabilities, but about the
power that other state actors possess.
Key Points o Realism
Realism has sirnifcantly infuences both the theory and practice o world politics.
Outsid e the acad emy, realism had a much lonrer history in the work o classical political
theorists such as Thucyd id es, Machiavelli, Hobbes and Rousseau.
The uni yinr theme around which all realist thinkinr converres is that states fnd themselves
in the cond ition o anarchy such that their security cannot be taken or rranted .
Statism, survival and sel ihelp are the three core elements o the realist trad ition.
There is a lack o consensus as to whether we can meaninr ully speak about realism as a
sinrle coherent theory.
There are rood reasons or d elineatinr d iferent types o realism.
, Structural realism d ivid es into two camps: those who arrue that states are security
maximiiers (neorealism) and those who arrue that states are power maximiiers (ofensive
realism).
Neoclassical realists brinr ind ivid ual and unit variation back into the theory.
Statism is a central assumption o realism. This involves two claims. First, the state is the prei
eminent actor in world politics. Second , state sovereirnty sirnifes the existence o an
ind epend ent political community, one that has jurid ical authority over its territory.
Key criticism: statism is fawed on both empirical rround s (challenres to state power rom
‘above’ and ‘below’) and normative rround s (the inability o sovereirn states to respond to
collective rlobal problems such as amine, environmental d errad ation and human rirhts
abuses).
Survival is the primary objective o all states: this is the supreme national interest to which all
political lead ers must ad here.
Key criticism: are there no limits to what actions a state can take in the name o necessity?
Sel ihelp: no other state or international institution can be relied on to ruarantee a state’s
survival.
Key criticism: sel ihelp is not an inevitable consequence o the absence o a world
rovernment; it is a loric that states have selected . Moreover, there are examples where
states have pre erred collective security systems, or orms o rerional security communities,
in pre erence to sel ihelp.
Chapter 7: Liberalism
Liberals arrue that power politics itsel is the prod uct o id eas, and id eas can chanre. Liberalism can
be best explained by a ourid imensional d efnition o liberalism. First, all citiiens are jurid ically equal
and possess certain basic rirhts. Second , the lerislative assembly o the state possesses only the
authority invested in it by the people. Third , a key d imension o the liberty o the ind ivid ual is the
rirht to own property. Fourth, liberalism contend s that the most efective system i economic
exchanre is one that is larrely market d riven and not subord inate to bureaucratic rerulation and
control. We can see a stark contrast between, on the one hand , liberal values o iodividualicm,
tolerance, reed om and constitutionalism, and on the other, conservatism, which places a hirher
value on ord er and authority and is willinr to sacrifce the liberty o the ind ivid ual or the stability o
the community.
Historically, liberals have arreed with realists that war is a recurrinr eature o the anarchic
system. However, they d o not id entity anarchy as the cause o war. Certain strand s o liberalism
atribute the causes o war to imperialism, other to the ailure o the balance o power, and still
others to the problem o und emocratic rerimes.
For Kant, the imperative to achieve perpetual peace required the trans ormation o ind ivid ual
consciousness, republican constitutionalism, and a ed eral contract amonr states to abolish war.
Accord inr to Doyle, in line with Kant’s claims, there is a d emocratic peace, meaninr that d emocratic
states rarely or d on’t at all ro to war with each other. There are several arruments or this thesis, but
perhaps the most compellinr one is the simple act that liberal states tend to be in relations o amity
with other liberal states. Francis Fukuyama wrote an article entitled ‘The End o History’, which
celebrates the triumph o liberalism over all other id eolories, contend inr that liberal states were
more stable internally and more peace ul in their international relations. Cobd en’s id ea that ree
trad e would create a more peace ul world ord er is a core id ea o nineteenthicentury liberalism.
There was never an ad mission that ree trad e amonr countries at d iferent stares o d evelopment
