International Relations: Idealism vs. Realism the Theories

¶ … international relations: idealism vs. realism

The theories of international relations have been seen as a mechanism thru which practitioners in the area of international politics as well as scholars tried to explain the way in which international politics function and how the behavior of states and actors on the international scene can be anticipated.

The beginning of the 20th century was a period of deep consideration for international politics, given the First World War and its aftermath. The idealistic approach on international politics tried to explain the behavior states had after the end of the war and also define the period between the two conflagrations. The realist theory on the other hand appeared as a result of the Second World War and its aftermath and, although it took into account similar elements, the points made in reference to these elements were somewhat in contrast. There are several key issues that both theories take into account: sovereignty, the state as an actor on the international scene, the relationship between the actors, and the behavior of the states.

Sovereignty:

Sovereignty represents the main attribute of an independent state and is the condition that allows the state to conduct its own foreign policy, to protect its citizens in relation to other states and to have an independent stand on the international arena. It is to this day viewed as the cornerstone of the international system. The Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 established sovereignty as most important rule of the international framework (Kissinger, 1994, pg 50-6), after the 100 years war. This is one of the main elements of the realist line of thinking. More precisely, realists such as Carr believe that a sovereign state is the main actor on the international scene and the most legitimate (Guzzini, 1998, p61-2). Sovereignty implies that no external power has the right to exercise legal jurisdiction over the internal affairs of a state.

By comparison, the idealist belief concerning the state, although recognizing sovereignty as a sine qua non-condition, dilutes it in order to allow states to enter pacts in the international political world. Idealism was officially considered an approach once the League of Nations came into being after the end of the First World War. Although it maintained the notion of sovereignty as a paramount principle of the international system, it considered this principle inside a broader perspective of collective international scheme: the League of Nations. Whereas in the realist line of thinking sovereignty was defined thru a balance of power, the idealist theory replaced this balance of power with multi-level diplomacy and common security. American president Woodrow Wilson believed in his 14 Points that states could cooperate to ensure that the First World War would not repeat itself. The feeble collective security system created thru the League of Nations would ensure that states would not need to react to force, but rather would solve their matters thru multilateral diplomacy (Kissinger, 1995). History however proved that this approach would not be successful as the Second World War was, according to some opinions, the result of this inter-war period.

The state:

Both idealists and realists believe that the state is the most important actor on the international scene, for reasons that relate to sovereignty, legitimacy, and capabilities. However, idealists see the state as a tool inside an international system. The League of Nations introduced the modern version of world organization. Although this term was somewhat used since the Treaty of Westphalia and thru the Treaty of Vienna in 1815 (Kissinger, 1995), the League of Nations was a global exercise. The first two attempts were oriented strictly to the European continent and its colonies, whereas the League of Nations, after promoting the principle of sovereignty as a pre-requisite for states, allowed al sovereign states to be part of the organization.

The realist approach in terms of the positioning of the state is that the state is the most important and the only actor on the international arena. Indeed, the state can be part of multidimensional constructions such as international organizations but this membership would never supersede the state as a rational actor on the international scene. Unlike idealists, realists believe in the rational of the state. More precisely, the state would always take into account when making a decision the most important elements that constitute the nature of the state: security, balance of power, sovereign interests. Idealists consider that state behavior is determined by the collective nature of the international arena.

Relationship between actors

Idealist thought considers the relationship between actors to be fully oriented towards a collective approach. International organization and international law for idealists is above the interests of the state. Realists however view this in an opposite manner. More precisely, they believe that the sovereign nature of the state ensures a fully independent national and foreign policy (Griffiths, 1999). This approach determines a rational choice for the state in which the national interest always prevails. In reality this can be transposed in historical events that took place after the end of the Second World War and during the Cold War. Although the United Nations was set in place and it represented the core values of an idealistic approach, the balance of power was at its best during the Cold War. The realist approach viewed the UN as a means through which balance of power can be maintained between the U.S. And the U.S.S.R.

State behavior