Introduction
This essay explores the pivotal role of realism in the study and practice of International Relations (IR). Realism, as one of the foundational theoretical frameworks in IR, provides a lens through which to understand state behaviour, power dynamics, and global interactions. Its emphasis on the anarchic nature of the international system, state sovereignty, and the perpetual pursuit of national interest has shaped both academic discourse and policy-making. This piece will first outline the core principles of realism, before discussing its historical significance and application in contemporary IR. It will also evaluate the strengths and limitations of realism, particularly in comparison to alternative theories such as liberalism. By drawing on academic sources, this essay aims to demonstrate the enduring relevance of realism, while acknowledging its constraints in addressing complex, modern global challenges.
Core Principles of Realism in International Relations
Realism is grounded in the belief that the international system is inherently anarchic, lacking a central authority to enforce rules or ensure cooperation (Morgenthau, 1948). This anarchic structure, realists argue, compels states to prioritise their own survival and security above all else. Hans Morgenthau, often regarded as a father of classical realism, posited that states act as rational actors driven by national interest, which is primarily defined in terms of power (Morgenthau, 1948). Power, in this context, encompasses military might, economic resources, and political influence, all of which are seen as tools for safeguarding sovereignty.
Furthermore, realism is typically divided into classical and structural (or neo-realist) strands. Classical realism, associated with thinkers like Morgenthau, focuses on human nature as a source of conflict, suggesting that the innate drive for power leads to inevitable struggles between states. Structural realism, advanced by Kenneth Waltz, shifts the focus to the structure of the international system itself, arguing that the distribution of power—whether bipolar, multipolar, or unipolar—determines state behaviour (Waltz, 1979). Despite these variations, both strands agree on the centrality of self-interest and the inevitability of competition, often at the expense of cooperation.
Historical Significance of Realism
Realism has played a significant role in shaping IR theory and practice, particularly during the 20th century. Its prominence emerged in the aftermath of World War II, as scholars sought to explain the failures of idealist approaches that had dominated the interwar period. The collapse of the League of Nations and the outbreak of global conflict underscored the limitations of idealism, which emphasised diplomacy and collective security (Carr, 1939). Realism, by contrast, offered a more pragmatic framework, reflected in E.H. Carr’s seminal work, The Twenty Years’ Crisis, which critiqued utopian thinking and advocated for a focus on power politics (Carr, 1939).
During the Cold War, realism became the dominant lens for understanding superpower rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. The bipolar structure of the international system, as described by Waltz, provided a clear framework for analysing military build-ups, proxy wars, and détente strategies (Waltz, 1979). Realism’s focus on balance of power explained why both superpowers sought to maintain equilibrium through alliances such as NATO and the Warsaw Pact. This period arguably solidified realism’s relevance as a predictive and explanatory tool in IR, offering insights into why states prioritise security over moral or ideological considerations.
Realism in Contemporary International Relations
In the post-Cold War era, realism continues to provide valuable insights into global politics, despite the emergence of new challenges that test its assumptions. For instance, the rise of China as a global power can be understood through a realist perspective, as the United States seeks to counterbalance Beijing’s growing influence in the Asia-Pacific region through initiatives like the Quad alliance. Similarly, Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and subsequent conflicts in Ukraine demonstrate the enduring relevance of power politics and territorial security as drivers of state behaviour (Mearsheimer, 2014). John Mearsheimer, a prominent neo-realist, argues that such actions are predictable outcomes of great power competition in an anarchic system (Mearsheimer, 2014).
However, the applicability of realism in addressing non-state actors and transnational issues remains limited. The rise of terrorism, climate change, and global pandemics—issues that transcend national borders—challenges the state-centric focus of realist thought. For example, while realism might interpret state responses to climate change as driven by national interest (e.g., securing resources), it struggles to account for the cooperative mechanisms required to tackle such crises effectively (Keohane and Nye, 1977). This limitation suggests that while realism remains a robust framework for understanding traditional security dilemmas, its explanatory power is less comprehensive in a globalised world.
Critiques and Limitations of Realism
Despite its strengths, realism faces significant criticism for its narrow worldview. One major critique is its overemphasis on conflict and competition, often neglecting the potential for cooperation and mutual benefit among states. Liberal theorists, such as Robert Keohane, argue that international institutions and economic interdependence can mitigate anarchy, fostering collaboration rather than rivalry (Keohane and Nye, 1977). The European Union, for instance, represents a case where states have pooled sovereignty to achieve collective goals, a development that realism struggles to explain.
Additionally, realism’s state-centric approach overlooks the role of non-state actors, including international organisations, multinational corporations, and civil society groups, which play an increasingly significant role in global politics. The influence of entities like the United Nations or tech giants in shaping international norms and policies is generally sidelined in realist analysis. Moreover, realism’s focus on material power (military and economic) often disregards ideational factors such as culture, identity, and human rights, which constructivist scholars argue are equally important in shaping state behaviour (Wendt, 1999).
Conclusion
In conclusion, realism remains a cornerstone of International Relations, offering a compelling framework for understanding the dynamics of power, security, and state behaviour in an anarchic international system. Its historical significance, particularly during the Cold War, and its continued relevance in explaining great power competition underscore its enduring value. Nevertheless, its limitations—particularly its state-centric focus and neglect of cooperative or ideational dimensions—highlight the need for complementary perspectives, such as liberalism and constructivism, to fully grasp the complexities of global politics. Indeed, while realism adeptly identifies the root causes of conflict, its predictive and prescriptive capabilities are arguably constrained in addressing modern, transnational challenges. Future scholarship and policy-making might therefore benefit from a more integrative approach, combining realist insights with alternative theories to navigate an increasingly interconnected world.
References
- Carr, E.H. (1939) The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. Macmillan.
- Keohane, R.O. and Nye, J.S. (1977) Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Little, Brown and Company.
- Mearsheimer, J.J. (2014) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W.W. Norton & Company.
- Morgenthau, H.J. (1948) Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Alfred A. Knopf.
- Waltz, K.N. (1979) Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley.
- Wendt, A. (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge University Press.
