1

Course: International Relations Theory, Graduate Studies in International Affairs, ANU

Course Convenor: Greg Fry
Essay Title: The Relevance of Realism in International Relations Theory


Realism has been under serious theoretical attack for the last twenty years facing charges of
irrelevance to and simplification of the world it tried to describe and systematize (Burchill). Yet,
it appears too soon to talk about realisms demise no matter how vehemently its critics try to
prove the contrary. It is true that, like any other theory of international relations, realism has its
own imperfections and cannot claim to be able to present universal solutions to universal
problems. Nevertheless, like any other theory of international relations, it is able to make a
contribution to understanding the contemporary world and addressing the challenges it now
faces.

In this respect it appears expedient to explore some of realisms key concepts that still can be
seen as pertinent to present-day international realities, trace this line of succession and say how
we can understand the world today looking through realist glasses. Afterwards we will try to
prove that realism is capable of providing practicable solutions to a number of major issues
confronting the international community today.

Firstly, the balance of power derived from the concept of power as the central element of realism
seems valid and workable to the present day. It is not hard to retrace this chain of events taking
Europe as a starting point. The Treaty of Westphalia after the Thirty Years War, the Congress of
Vienna after the Napoleonic Wars, the world order established after the Franco-Prussian War
leading to a strong, unified Germany, the Versailles-Washington world order after World War I
and the Yalta-Potsdam world order after World War II are those milestones that enable one to
discern a certain logic in the historical process (Carr) and some continuity in world politics
(Buzan). There have always been great powers, coalitions, the struggle for power, balancing,
equilibrium, and wars served as punctuation marks dividing different epochs and bringing into
existence new ones. The actors (states, great powers on the international scene) changed but the
script and decorations did not. This is what Morgenthau called an astounding continuity in
foreign policy (Morgenthau). Besides, war has contributed to shaping the nature of the modern
state, the state makes war and war makes the state (Rotberg & Rubb).

2
Now that the Cold War is long over, many of todays theorists and policy-makers are welcoming
the advent of a new era which will never witness war again. This may prove true but on one
condition that the balance of power is maintained. After the end of the Cold War no new
balanced world order was established or, to be precise, there was one world order with the
United States at the helm, with the tacit approval of all others. That, however, does not mean that
such an order is capable of generating a truly peaceful environment for all nations. There is still
much tension worldwide, not least because of discontent with US foreign policy. According to
Waltz, there is now a grave imbalance of power in the world (Waltz). It seems reasonable to
argue that 9/11 has contributed to or even become a pretext for extending American power and
military capabilities all across the globe, which in turn continues to contribute to instability in
different parts of the world as a whole. In this context intensified terrorist activity can be viewed
as a consequence of rather than a reason for Americas current foreign policy (Waltz). Even
looking at the composition of the United Nations Security Council, one can say that the world is
not represented proportionately. New centers of power have emerged and it is not indicated in
the UNSC in any way.

Some may object that the balance of power implicitly means resorting to war, conflict, calamity
because power politics is only about violence, the use of force and bringing misery (Dougherty
& Pfaltzgraff). But the question is not about banishing power politics from reality and denying
its existence but rather bringing about a genuine balance of power that would maintain the
easily-broken peace, stability and satisfy many who would in turn help the rest cope with their
problems (e.g. Third World countries). This line of argument is in agreement with so-called
defensive realism, which postulates that it is in a states interest to preserve the existing balance
of power rather than trying to shift it in its favor thus creating instability and conflict (Waltz).
That is what guarantees security.

In answering the question why the balance of power is so important in contemporary
international relations, the argument seems fairly obvious. Putting aside the debate over why
nations, especially great powers, strive for power, one sees that, despite the emergence of new
international actors such as NGOs, transnational corporations, various movements and even
individuals, the state remains the major independent element of the international system
(Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff).. This is supported and confirmed by the fact that sovereignty and
territorial integrity are still the main, most treasured, attributes of a state and they are protected
by international law. That is why there is so much controversy over two of the fundamental
principles of international law the right to sovereignty and independence and the right to self-
3
determination, not to mention the issue of humanitarian intervention. Furthermore, try to ask the
questions why are the feelings of nationalism and patriotism still so strong across the globe and,
therefore, astutely exploited by national leaders and other individuals and why are there so many
peoples and nationalities out there dreaming of a state of their own and aspiring to be recognized
as independent nations and you will see that the state is a value in itself. Nationalism, which
glorifies the state, remains a powerful political ideology to the present day (Mearsheimer).

Even if one considers international organizations as no less important actor in the international
arena independent in its everyday activities and judgments, it is important to remember that
international organizations are composed of states and its representatives and, therefore, to a
certain extent affected by their decisions.

Thus, it is not surprising that in the absence of a universal governing authority or body (that is,
according to realists, in the condition of anarchy) states are left alone to get along in the world
and grapple with their problems and tribulations (Burchill). This is where the concept of the
national interest flows from. States find themselves in a competitive environment (Buzan). No
sensible nation or its leader would claim that the survival and independence of a state are not its
primary goal and the very condition of its existence. The national interest equals security and
survival. Being a true and wise statesman means being able to promote ones countrys national
interests, which is a moral duty defined in political terms and guided by the considerations of
prudence, the supreme virtue of politics (Morgenthau). In this context a head of state is free to
have recourse to universal moral principles only if they serve the needs of the current foreign
policy and contribute to it if possible. Thus, the morality of international politics amounts to the
ability to adjust to concrete circumstances at a particular time and to take advantage of
opportunities at your disposal in order to ensure that the states interests are considered. That is
what Weber called the ethic of responsibility (Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff) . Sometimes political
leaders even tend to portray war as a moral crusade or an ideological competition rather than as a
struggle for power (Mearsheimer). In addition, it would not be irrelevant to note that statesmen
are often affected by and exposed to many forces, such as their upbringing and surroundings,
which influence their decision-making and the way they interpret and promote the national
interest. However, what should be borne in mind is that the task of the statesman consists in
establishing political frameworks within which the human inclination to engage in conflict can
be minimized (Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff).

4
With no intention to denigrate liberal postulates and values, it would not be wrong to say that
sometimes politicians and nations who pursue power politics and act aggressively resort to
liberal views to justify their behavior in the eyes of their own people and the international
community as a whole (Carr). To put it crudely, it appears very convenient to exploit liberal
concepts in order to promote whatever policy one pursues. This is not to say that there may not
be people and statesmen who are sincere in their intentions. However, moral principles prove to
be serviceable to the national interest (Mearsheimer) and states sometimes obey moral norms
both for their own sake and out of consideration of the costs of not obeying them. Thus, states
realize that in some circumstances they can afford to be moral (Donnelly). Moreover, as Carr
argues, international morality is something that cannot be given a proper and specific definition
simply because it is the product of a dominant group in a particular historical period (Carr).
Hence, every epoch has its own morality and accompanying values. Machiavelli goes so far as
to claim that morality is the product of power (Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff). For example, the
United States of America was conceived as a messianic state different from all others, which
makes it unique in a sense. But the fact that America has democracy, human rights etc. as its core
values may give it a legitimate right, or so it thinks, to use these values as a pretext for advancing
purely national interests, which, in essence, sometimes do not diverge from universal morality.
Niebuhr warned America against being blinded by the notion of its exclusiveness and mission
(Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff ). To draw a parallel with modern history, in the nineteenth century the
British Empire was thought to be conducting the mission of extending the fruits of enlightenment
to allegedly inferior peoples, which was commonly known as the White Mans burden and
served the long-term interests of the Empire.

Thus, realism seems to be still alive in present-day international relations since such everyday
aspects of political life as the national state, sovereignty, legitimacy, power, national interests,
security, conflict, war have not sunk into oblivion. While it is obvious that realism can be easily
challenged by other, more optimistic and humane, theories, it has the right to existence, at least
because it can complement other perspectives and produce interesting results in combination
with them. As Donnelly contends, there is nothing wrong with theory being too abstract. The
questions that need to be asked are how often, in what instances and for what purposes does
realism help understand the world (Donnelly). In this respect, Aron argues that realism serves as
a good starting point for understanding the world since at least it can prove a good hindrance
to wishful thinking (Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff). Moreover, Buzan believes that, although
realism is instrumental in revealing the fundamentals of political and international life, the
narrowness and primitiveness of the realist paradigm can be overcome (Buzan). Kegley speaks
5
about a possibility of cooperation between realism and liberalism, particularly a likely merger of
the concept of the national interest with the necessity of cooperation among states (Kegley).

There is another side to realism its normative attraction (Buzan). Realism can be viewed as
favoring different values such as ideological, cultural, political diversity, political independence,
self-reliance.

It is, therefore, evident that realism has something to offer to the world it attempts to describe
and there are some things that one can either accept or disagree with. At present, the world seems
to be entering a profoundly new stage in its development. The current economic crisis, which
affects almost everyone across the globe, is certain to have a tremendous impact on all aspects of
human life, from very inconsequential to genuinely important. States are trying to protect the
interests of their people in the face of the impending disaster, which may lead to serious
consequences on a larger scale. Now nationalism is on the rise. It can stir up a lot of negative
feeling across many nations and roll over national boundaries causing conflict and strife. In such
circumstances, it may be useful to turn to realism to find some answers and learn its lessons.
Realism may be making a huge comeback. Nevertheless, it is its basic tenets that we need in
order to never let this comeback happen.

























6
References:

Burchill, Scott, et al., Theories of International Relations, London, Palgrave, third edition, 2005.

Buzan, Barry, The Timeless Wisdom of Realism? in Smith, Steve, Booth, Ken and Zalewski,
Marysia, eds., International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge University Press,
1996.

Carr, E.H., The Twenty Years Crisis 1919-1939: An Introduction to the study of International
Relations, (London: Papermac, 1995).

Dougherty, James and Pfaltzgraff, Robert (eds), Contending Theories of International Relations,
1981.

Kegley, Charles, The Neoidealist Moment in International Studies? Realist Myths and New
International Realities, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 37, 1993.

Leslie H. Gelb, A Realist Rally, The National Interest, Sept./Oct. 2008

Mearsheimer, John, Structural Realism in Tim Dunne et al, eds., International Relations
Theories, Oxford, 2007

Mearsheimer, John, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, 2001

Morgenthau, Hans, A Realist Theory of International Politics in Politics Among Nations: The
Struggle for Power and Peace, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 5ed 1973).

Muravchik, Joshua, The Future is Neocon (The Neocons versus The Realists), The National
Interest, Sept/Oct 2008

Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory, Journal of International Affairs, vol. 44, no. 1
Spring/Summer 1990.

The Origins of War in Neo-Realist Theory, in R.I. Rotberg and T.K. Rabb (eds), The Origin and
Prevention of Major Wars, Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Waltz, Kenneth N., The Continuity of International Politics, in Ken Booth and Tim Dunne.eds.,
Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of Global Order, (London, Palgrave, 2002)