Realism in International Relations (IR) is a theoretical perspective that emphasizes the competitive and conflictual aspects of international politics. It contrasts with idealism or liberalism, which focus on cooperation and ethical norms.
Key Concepts of Realism
State-Centric View: Realism posits that states are the principal actors in international relations, primarily concerned with their own security and national interests. They engage in power struggles to ensure their survival in an anarchic international system, where no overarching authority exists (, 2013; Behr, 2020; Lomia, 2020).
Power and Security: Realists argue that the pursuit of power is a fundamental aspect of international relations. This pursuit often leads to conflicts and wars, as states act to secure their interests and maintain their sovereignty (, 2013; Camisão, 2020; Lomia, 2020).
Skepticism of Morality: Realism is often skeptical about the role of ethical norms in international politics, viewing them as secondary to the pragmatic concerns of power and security. However, classical realists do not entirely dismiss moral considerations, advocating for prudence in political actions (, 2013; Behr, 2020).
Variants of Realism
Classical Realism: Focuses on human nature and the inherent desire for power. Key figures include Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes, who highlighted the anarchic nature of international politics (, 2013; Camisão, 2020; Behr, 2020).
Neorealism: Also known as structural realism, it shifts the focus from human nature to the international system’s structure, emphasizing the distribution of power among states. Kenneth Waltz is a prominent figure in this school (, 2013; Behr, 2020).
Neoclassical Realism: Integrates both systemic and domestic factors, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of state behaviour by considering internal dynamics and leadership perceptions (Foulon and Meibauer, 2020).
Criticisms and Evolution
Realism has faced criticism for its perceived Western-centric perspective and its focus on power politics. However, it remains a dominant theory in IR, continually evolving to incorporate new insights and address global challenges (Jervis, 1998; Foulon and Meibauer, 2020; Legro and Moravcsik, 1999).
Conclusion
Realism in International Relations provides a framework for understanding the competitive nature of global politics, focusing on state power and security. Despite criticisms, it remains influential, adapting through variants like neorealism and neoclassical realism to address contemporary international dynamics.
References
, 2013. Political realism in international relations. **.
Jervis, R., 1998. Realism in the Study of World Politics. International Organisation, 52, pp. 971 – 991. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550707
Foulon, M., & Meibauer, G., 2020. Realist avenues to global International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 26, pp. 1203 – 1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066120926706
Legro, J., & Moravcsik, A., 1999. Is Anybody Still a Realist?. International Security, 24, pp. 5-55. https://doi.org/10.1162/016228899560130
Camisão, I., 2020. Introducing Realism in International Relations Theory. **.
Behr, H., 2020. The Tale of a ‘Realism’ in International Relations. **.
Lomia, E., 2020. Political Realism in International Relations: Classical Realism, Neo-realism, and Neo-Classical Realism. **, 7, pp. 591-600. https://doi.org/10.46291/ijospervol7iss3pp591-600
