Introduction
This essay critically evaluates the assertion that realism is the sole International Relations (IR) theory capable of explaining how the international system operates in reality, as opposed to idealistic aspirations. Realism, with its emphasis on power, state-centric interests, and the anarchic nature of the global order, has long been a dominant framework in IR scholarship. However, this claim dismisses alternative theories such as liberalism and constructivism, which offer distinct perspectives on international dynamics. The essay will first outline the core tenets of realism and its explanatory strengths, particularly in contexts of conflict and security. It will then examine the limitations of realism in addressing non-state actors and normative issues. Finally, it will compare realism to other theories, using historical and contemporary examples such as the Cold War and global responses to climate change, to assess whether realism uniquely captures the workings of the international system. Ultimately, while realism provides valuable insights, this essay argues that it is not the only theory equipped to explain global politics.
The Strengths of Realism in Explaining the International System
Realism, rooted in the ideas of thinkers like Hans Morgenthau and later refined by neorealists such as Kenneth Waltz, posits that the international system is anarchic, with states as the primary actors pursuing their self-interest through power and security (Waltz, 1979). This perspective arguably offers a robust framework for understanding state behaviour in conflict and competition. For instance, the Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union exemplifies realism’s explanatory power. Both superpowers engaged in an arms race and proxy wars, driven by the imperative to maintain a balance of power and prevent domination by the other (Gaddis, 2005). Such actions align closely with realism’s assertion that states prioritise survival and security above moral or ideological considerations.
Furthermore, realism’s focus on structural constraints within the international system provides clarity on why cooperation is often limited. The concept of the ‘security dilemma,’ where one state’s efforts to enhance its security threaten others, explains persistent tensions, such as those between India and Pakistan over nuclear capabilities (Herz, 1950). These examples suggest that realism effectively captures the harsh realities of international politics, where trust is scarce, and power dynamics dominate. Indeed, realism’s emphasis on how the system ‘actually works’—grounded in observable state behaviour—makes it a compelling lens for IR analysis.
Limitations of Realism in a Complex Global Order
Despite its strengths, realism’s explanatory scope is limited when addressing aspects of the international system beyond traditional state-centric power struggles. One significant critique is its neglect of non-state actors, such as international organisations, multinational corporations, and terrorist groups, which play an increasingly prominent role in global affairs. For instance, the influence of the United Nations in peacekeeping or the impact of groups like ISIS in shaping security policies challenges realism’s state-focused paradigm (Weiss and Daws, 2007). These entities operate outside the realist framework, yet their actions demonstrably shape international outcomes.
Moreover, realism struggles to account for normative and ideational factors that drive state behaviour. Issues like human rights or global health crises reveal cooperation that realism cannot fully explain. The international response to the COVID-19 pandemic, where states collaborated through the World Health Organization to share resources and data, contradicts realism’s expectation of relentless competition (WHO, 2020). While realists might argue that such cooperation serves national interests, this interpretation often feels forced, failing to capture the complexity of motives beyond power. Thus, realism’s lens, while insightful in certain domains, appears incomplete in addressing the full spectrum of global interactions.
Comparing Realism to Alternative Theories
To assess whether realism is uniquely capable of explaining the international system, it is essential to consider alternative IR theories, notably liberalism and constructivism. Liberalism, with its emphasis on cooperation, international institutions, and economic interdependence, offers a contrasting view. The establishment of the European Union, for example, demonstrates how states can prioritise integration and shared governance over conflict, challenging realism’s inevitability of competition (Keohane and Nye, 1977). The EU’s success in fostering peace among historical adversaries like France and Germany suggests that liberalism better captures certain systemic dynamics, particularly in regions where institutional frameworks mitigate anarchy.
Constructivism, meanwhile, highlights the role of ideas, identities, and norms in shaping international relations. The global movement to combat climate change, exemplified by the Paris Agreement of 2015, reflects how shared values and collective identities can drive state behaviour, rather than mere power calculations (Wendt, 1999). States like Sweden and Germany have adopted ambitious environmental policies not solely for strategic gain but due to normative commitments, a phenomenon realism struggles to explain. Constructivism thus provides a valuable perspective on how the international system evolves through social interactions, revealing dimensions of global politics that realism overlooks.
These alternative theories do not negate realism’s relevance but rather complement it. For instance, while realism explains the competitive dynamics of the US-China relationship over technological dominance, liberalism might better account for their economic interdependence through trade. A holistic understanding of the international system, therefore, arguably requires integrating insights from multiple theories rather than relying solely on realism.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the claim that realism is the only IR theory capable of explaining how the international system actually works is an oversimplification. Realism undeniably offers a powerful framework for understanding state behaviour in contexts of conflict and security, as illustrated by the Cold War and ongoing regional rivalries. However, its limitations in addressing non-state actors, normative influences, and cooperative dynamics—evident in cases like the COVID-19 response and the Paris Agreement—reveal its incomplete explanatory scope. Alternative theories such as liberalism and constructivism provide critical insights into aspects of global politics that realism cannot fully capture, suggesting that no single theory holds a monopoly on understanding the international system. The implication for IR scholarship is clear: a pluralistic approach, drawing on the strengths of multiple perspectives, is essential for a comprehensive grasp of global affairs. While realism remains a foundational lens, it is not uniquely sufficient to explain the complexities of how the world operates.
References
- Gaddis, J.L. (2005) The Cold War: A New History. Penguin Books.
- Herz, J.H. (1950) Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma. World Politics, 2(2), pp. 157-180.
- Keohane, R.O. and Nye, J.S. (1977) Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Little, Brown and Company.
- Waltz, K.N. (1979) Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley.
- Weiss, T.G. and Daws, S. (eds.) (2007) The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations. Oxford University Press.
- Wendt, A. (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge University Press.
- World Health Organization (2020) WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard. World Health Organization.
