Idealism vs. Realism in International Relations Theory

Introduction

The theories of international relations have long served as mechanisms through which practitioners and scholars in international politics attempt to explain how 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 reflection on international politics, given the First World War and its aftermath. The idealist approach sought to explain state behavior following the end of that war and to characterize the inter-war period. The realist theory, by contrast, emerged in response to the Second World War and its aftermath. Although both theories engage with similar elements, their conclusions often stand in sharp contrast. There are four key issues that both theories address: sovereignty, the state as an actor on the international scene, the relationships between actors, and state behavior.

Sovereignty

Sovereignty represents the primary attribute of an independent state. It is the condition that allows a state to conduct its own foreign policy, to protect its citizens in relation to other states, and to maintain an independent position on the international stage. To this day, it is viewed as the cornerstone of the international system. The Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 established sovereignty as the most important rule of the international framework (Kissinger, 1994, pp. 50–56), following the Hundred Years' War. This is one of the central elements of realist thinking. Realists such as E.H. Carr argue that the sovereign state is the primary and most legitimate actor on the international scene (Guzzini, 1998, pp. 61–62). Sovereignty implies that no external power has the right to exercise legal jurisdiction over the internal affairs of a state.

By comparison, the idealist position on the state, while recognizing sovereignty as a sine qua non condition, dilutes it in order to allow states to enter pacts within the broader international political world. Idealism was formally recognized as an approach once the League of Nations came into being after the First World War. Although it maintained sovereignty as a paramount principle of the international system, it situated that principle within a broader collective international framework. Whereas realist thinking defined sovereignty through a balance of power, the idealist theory replaced that balance of power with multi-level diplomacy and common security. In his Fourteen Points, President Woodrow Wilson argued that states could cooperate to ensure that the First World War would never be repeated. The collective security system created through the League of Nations was intended to ensure that states would resolve their disputes through multilateral diplomacy rather than force (Kissinger, 1995). History, however, demonstrated that this approach would not succeed — the Second World War is, according to some analysts, a direct consequence of the failures of this inter-war arrangement.

The State as an International Actor

Both idealists and realists regard the state as the most important actor on the international scene, for reasons related to sovereignty, legitimacy, and capabilities. However, idealists view the state as a component within a broader international system. The League of Nations introduced the modern version of a world organization. Although the concept of international organization had roots in the Treaty of Westphalia and evolved through the Treaty of Vienna in 1815 (Kissinger, 1995), the League of Nations was the first genuinely global exercise. The earlier attempts were oriented strictly toward the European continent and its colonies, whereas the League of Nations, after enshrining sovereignty as a prerequisite for membership, admitted all sovereign states into the organization.

The realist position on the state holds that it is the most important and, in effect, the only true actor on the international stage. A state may participate in multidimensional constructions such as international organizations, but such membership would never supersede the state's role as a rational actor in world affairs. Unlike idealists, realists believe in the rationality of the state. More precisely, the state will always weigh its decisions against the elements that constitute its fundamental nature: security, balance of power, and sovereign interests. Idealists, by contrast, consider that state behavior is shaped by the collective character of the international arena.

Conclusion

Overall, idealism and realism are two distinct conceptual frameworks created out of the need to explain and anticipate the behavior of states and the development of international relations. Both were products of major historical events, and neither has proven fully capable of explaining or predicting state behavior on its own. Indeed, idealism and realism no longer exist in their purest forms; they have each adapted to the transformations of recent decades following the end of the Cold War and are now embedded within broader theoretical traditions such as neo-liberalism and neo-realism, among many others. Even so, idealism and realism remain foundational as the first theories to systematically attempt to explain the context of the two world wars and the international order that emerged from them.

References

Griffiths, M. (1999). Fifty key thinkers in international relations. Routledge, London.

Guzzini, S. (1998). Realism in international relations and international political economy: The continuing story of a death foretold. Routledge, London.

Kissinger, H. (1994). Diplomacy. Simon & Schuster, London.