Realist Theory of International Relations

¶ … realist theory of international relations is considered to be one of the most important paradigms of international politics. Developed under the pressure of the idealist conceptions on politics and foreign affairs, the realist beliefs represented the cornerstone of the political analysis of the Cold War period. It has been argued however that the lack of flexibility that describes its paradigms has made it incapable of foreseeing the end of the bipolar world and the demise of the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, despite its limitation, it can be argued that its perceptions maintain their validity in describing the world today. Although there are particular elements that are inconsistent with the nature of today's politics, the general framework it presents points out the most important aspects of international politics.

First and foremost, realism promotes the idea of power politics (Kissinger, 1995). The "father" of this pragmatic approach, Hans Morgenthau viewed power as representing the goal of any state. While subsequent beliefs on the role and its mission in the world changed especially should one consider the neorealist line of though, the idea of reaching power remains untouched. In this sense, Kenneth Waltz, in the beginning of the 70s, viewed the need of the state to be the survival and not its attainment of power (1979). Therefore the perspective changed from the will to dominate to the will to survive in an international system that became more and more rigorous in its demands. However, while the issue of survival can explain the situation in certain countries at the moment, such as those in Africa or in the poor regions of the world, the idea of supremacy and domination still characterizes particular states such as Iran and even North Korea. Therefore, it cannot be argued that there is no exception to the neorealist though about the survival rather than the domination of the state. On the other hand, it is an intrinsic issue the desire of the state to evolve and to compete, hence the urge to dominate whether it is a political or economic domination. From this point-of-view, the realist perspective is met.

Secondly, in the realist theory, the state is the main and most important actor on the international scene. Its legitimacy is given by the territory on which it exercises its authority, by the form of government which creates internal authority and external sovereignty, and the population. These elements give the state the right to dispose of its territory in a sovereign manner and, at the same time, to take any necessary means to protect it from foreign intervention or assault. While the realist theory supports such a statement, institutionalism considers that the sovereignty of the state is no longer a defining characteristic for the international system. In this sense, states no longer represent the main actors of the international politics, institutions do. They are the main elements of the system (Nye, 2005). However, this is a debatable subject due to the fact that the intergovernmental institutions are the results of the freely expressed will of the states to join them. More precisely, the sovereignty promoted by the realists acknowledges the fact that the state has the right to accept or refuse to take part in a regime. Therefore, event the regimes promoted by institutionalism still depend on the actual will of the states.

The United Nations represents a valid example in this sense. Therefore, its structure was indeed created on the basis of the idealist line of thought, giving equal representation rights to nations all over the world. However, the Security Council structure is reminiscent of the realist beliefs of the powerful ruling over the weaker ones. In this sense, while the institutional approach was used in creating the idea of a global organization that would discuss war issues and would engage in peaceful resolution of conflicts, the SC is the classical structure of the balance of power situation. This is one of the reasons for which the United Nations system worked only partially during the Cold War. While the Realist theory could not full account for the existence of the UN, institutionalism couldn't either. However, the realist perception also considers the existence of institutions, just not as essential parts of the system, whereas institutionalism does not view the maintenance of the balance of power to be an option.