Realists' Belief: Force For Diplomacy — Friend Or Foe?

Realism in international relations is a theory that assumes mankind is not inherently benevolent but self-centred and competitive. Realists believe that human nature is egocentric and conflictual, and that individuals are motivated by a desire for power. This view contrasts with the approach of liberalism to international relations, which emphasises the accumulation of power to ensure security. Realists believe that sovereign states are the principal actors in the international system and that there are no universal principles to guide their actions. Instead, they argue that states must be pragmatic and focus on their national interests. This has led to the criticism that realists encourage leaders to act based on suspicion, power, and force, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of a violent and confrontational world. Realists, however, argue that their theory is practical and that leaders face many constraints with few opportunities for cooperation. This perspective influences their views on the use of force in diplomacy, with some realists believing that diplomacy can be a substitute for force, while others, like conservative internationalists, argue that force empowers diplomacy.

Explore related products

The Eccentric Realist: Henry Kissinger and the Shaping of American Foreign Policy

$25.11 $32.95

Kissinger, Angola and US-African Foreign Policy: The Unintentional Realist (Routledge Studies in US Foreign Policy)

$42.55 $55.99

Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938

$13.28 $21

The Atlantic Realists

$22.88 $32

Understanding Foreign Policy Decision Making

$32.42 $46

Righteous Realists: Political Realism, Responsible Power, and American Culture in the Nuclear Age (Political Traditions in Foreign Policy Series)

$25

Realists believe that mankind is not inherently benevolent but rather self-centred and competitive

Realism is a theory that claims to explain the reality of international politics. It is often utilised in the world of policymaking, perhaps more than any other international relations theory. Realists believe that mankind is not inherently benevolent but rather self-centred and competitive. This view is shared by theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, who see human nature as egocentric (but not necessarily selfish) and conflictual unless there exist conditions under which humans may coexist.

Realists believe that the highest goal is the survival of the state, which explains why states' actions are judged according to the ethics of responsibility rather than by moral principles. They believe that sovereign states are the principal actors in the international system, and that international institutions, non-governmental organisations, multinational corporations, individuals and other sub-state or trans-state actors have little independent influence. This is because realists believe that there is no international authority and states are left to their own devices to ensure their own security.

Realists believe that states are inherently aggressive (offensive realism) and obsessed with security (defensive realism). Territorial expansion is only constrained by opposing powers. This aggressive build-up leads to a security dilemma, where increasing one's security may bring about even greater instability as an opposing power builds up its own arms in response (an arms race). Realists believe that our selfishness, our appetite for power and our inability to trust others lead to predictable outcomes, which is why war has been so common throughout history.

Realism is often criticised as excessively pessimistic, and for perpetuating the violent and confrontational world that it describes. Critics argue that by assuming the uncooperative and egoistic nature of humankind, realists encourage leaders to act in ways based on suspicion, power and force. Realism can thus be seen as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Realists believe that sovereign states are the principal actors in the international system

Realism in international relations is a theory that assumes that sovereign states are the primary actors in the international system. Realists believe that states are primarily concerned with their own security and the pursuit of their national interests, often equating "right" with "might". This perspective holds that there is no universal morality or set of principles that guide state actions, and that each state must be pragmatic and self-interested in its decision-making.

Realists view the international system as anarchic, with no overarching authority to enforce laws or mediate between states. This perspective is often contrasted with idealism or liberalism, which emphasise cooperation and the potential for universal moral principles, such as the spread of democracy, to guide foreign policy. Realists, however, believe that states are fundamentally egoistic and driven by a desire for power, and that this leads to predictable outcomes, including conflict.

Realists argue that states must rely on their own resources and strategic alliances to guarantee their security, employing two main strategies: the balance of power and deterrence. The balance of power strategy involves forming flexible alliances with other states to maintain a favourable distribution of power in the international system. Deterrence, on the other hand, relies on the threat or use of force to compel other states to act in accordance with one's interests.

The realist perspective has been influential in American foreign policy thinking, particularly during the presidencies of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. Critics of realism argue that it overly focuses on states as unitary actors, neglecting other actors and forces within states, as well as international issues that do not directly impact state survival.

Realists believe that conflict follows from human nature

Classical realists believe that conflict arises from human nature. This perspective is shared by theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, who views human nature as egocentric (but not necessarily selfish) and conflictual unless there are conditions under which humans can coexist. Realists believe that mankind is not inherently benevolent but rather self-centred and competitive. This view stands in contrast to liberalism in international relations, which champions cooperation.

Realists believe that humans are egoistic and have a desire for power. They are also fearful and self-reliant, motivated by self-interest and the pursuit of more power. This perspective is summed up by the idea of "animus dominandi", or the desire to dominate. Realists believe that our selfishness, appetite for power, and inability to trust others leads to predictable outcomes.

Realists believe that there are no universal principles to guide the actions of states. Instead, a state must be aware of the actions of other states and use a pragmatic approach to resolve problems. This lack of certainty regarding intentions prompts mistrust and competition between states. Realists see states as inherently aggressive (offensive realism) and obsessed with security (defensive realism). Territorial expansion is only constrained by opposing powers, and this aggressive build-up can lead to a security dilemma, where increasing one's security may bring greater instability as opposing powers build up their own capabilities.

Realism, as a school of thought in international relations theory, views world politics as an enduring competition among self-interested states vying for power and positioning within an anarchic global system devoid of centralised authority. It centres on states as rational primary actors navigating a system shaped by power politics, national interest, and a pursuit of security and self-preservation. Realism involves the strategic use of military force and alliances to boost global influence while maintaining a balance of power.

Realists believe that leaders are faced with endless constraints and few opportunities for cooperation. They emphasise the use of power and force in international relations, and critics argue that they help perpetuate the violent and confrontational world that they describe.

Explore related products

Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World

$14.99 $82.99

Do Morals Matter?: Presidents and Foreign Policy from FDR to Trump

$9.72 $28.99

Decision-Making in American Foreign Policy

$31 $40

Foundations of American Foreign Policy: A Realistic Appraisal from Franklin to McKinley

$15.95

The Realist Tradition and Contemporary International Relations (Political Traditions in Foreign Policy Series)

$19.95

Ethical Foreign Policy?: US Humanitarian Interventions (Ethics and Global Politics)

$65.54 $68.99

Realists believe that security is based on the principle of a balance of power

Realism is a school of thought in international relations theory that views world politics as a competition among self-interested states vying for power and positioning within an anarchic global system devoid of centralized authority. Realists believe that sovereign states are the principal actors in the international system, and they emphasize the role of power politics, national interest, and the pursuit of security and self-preservation. In the realist tradition, security is based on the principle of a balance of power, and reliance on morality as the sole factor in statecraft is deemed impractical.

Realists argue that mankind is inherently self-centered and competitive, with human nature viewed as egocentric and conflictual unless conditions for coexistence are met. This perspective aligns with the ideas of theorists such as Thomas Hobbes and is reflected in Thucydides' "History of the Peloponnesian War." Realists see humans as egoistic and self-interested, prioritizing self-interest over moral principles. This egoism is a key premise of classical political realism, along with anarchy, power, security, and ethics.

The balance of power in realism involves the strategic use of military force and alliances to enhance global influence while maintaining stability. Realists recognize that states build up their militaries to ensure survival, which can lead to a security dilemma. They also acknowledge that war is inevitable due to the anarchic conditions of world politics. To manage insecurity, realists employ strategies such as the balance of power through flexible alliances and deterrence through the threat or use of force.

Realists believe that there are no universal principles guiding state actions, and each state must be pragmatic and responsive to the actions of other states. This perspective contrasts with idealism or liberalism, which emphasizes cooperation and the spread of democracy abroad. While realism has been criticized for its focus on the state as a solid unit, it remains a dominant and influential theory in international relations, particularly in policymaking, due to its perceived alignment with the realities of power politics.

Realists believe that the use of force is necessary to maintain American dominance

Realists believe that human nature is fundamentally egoistic and competitive, with individuals seeking to accumulate power and ensure security in a world devoid of any overarching authority. This belief extends to the international system, where states are regarded as the principal actors, driven by self-interest and the pursuit of power. In the absence of a higher power or international authority, states are left to their own devices to ensure their security, leading to a focus on national interests and a reliance on force as a means of coercion or self-defence.

Within this context, realists argue that the use of force is indeed necessary to maintain American dominance and protect national interests. This perspective, often referred to as offensive realism, asserts that states are inherently aggressive and obsessed with security. Realists point to the frequent use of military force by the United States, especially after 9/11, as an example of this mindset. They argue that American dominance is perceived as a permissive condition that enables the country to interfere in distant lands without repercussions.

Additionally, realists advocate for a highly activist foreign policy, which includes spreading democracy, defending human rights, preventing proliferation, and maintaining American dominance by force if deemed necessary. They are hostile towards so-called "rogue states" and are willing to use American power to coerce or overthrow weaker powers. Realists also believe that America's power and political virtues entitle it to lead the world, and they are sceptical of international institutions like the United Nations, seeing them as a constraint on America's freedom of action.

Furthermore, realists emphasise the importance of strength in diplomacy. They argue that force empowers diplomacy and vice versa. Historical examples, such as Jefferson's dealings with Napoleon and Polk's actions during the Mexican-American War, illustrate how force can be utilised to strengthen a country's diplomatic position. Realists also recognise the significance of balancing foreign powers against each other, as practised by Teddy Roosevelt, to defend free countries.

However, it is important to note that critics of realism argue that this perspective can perpetuate a violent and confrontational world. By assuming the uncooperative and egoistic nature of humankind, realists may encourage leaders to act based on suspicion, power, and force. Additionally, some critics suggest that realism is excessively pessimistic and fails to integrate force and diplomacy effectively.

Frequently asked questions