Realism Theories In International Relations

Introduction

Throughout time the study of war has always been a focal point in the study of international relations. Over time, there have been many theories proposed to help us understand what actually causes wars. Some theories depend on social and mental nature of man or separate learners in general. Other theories focus on the decision making process of the regime or domestic politics to describe the theories of war (Reiter 2003). Nevertheless, the most dominant theories or perceptions of what causes wars are Realism and Liberalism. These two theories place emphasis that the state is a single rational actor. In simpler terms both theories are system level theories that place emphasis on the state being the main actor in international relations.

When looking at realism it can be sub-divided into three broad types: classical, modern, and neo-realism though they all share a number of core values. Realists have a pessimistic view of international politics. The writings of Thucydides (460-400BC), Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) are normally associated with a classical realist perspective. Their writings placed a great importance on not just the supremacy of the state but also compared the supposed greed, selfishness and “human nature” of egoism on the character of the state. Machiavelli particularly believed that ethics and morals had no position in politics. Statism, self-help and survival are all core ideas of classic realism. These such writings central to the thinking of modern realists like E.H. Carr and Kenneth Waltz, who were often called structural realists, acknowledged that the perception of human nature in the use of power in international relations, placed a bigger importance on the anarchic nature of the international system which “fosters jealousy, insecurity, suspicion and fear” between states (Dunne, Schmidt, 2008 pp. 11-103). Modern realists state that the primary actors in the international system are states, who will act rationally, and along with security and the expansion of power an essential purpose for each state in an anarchical system. These

Clausewitz was proposing that if states perceive war as something that is a necessary step so that they can promote their own interests and power, well then they will use it as a rational political tool. Kenneth Waltz and other modern realists have further built on Clausewitz idea of what causes wars and have also furthered and added to the idea. In Kenneth Waltz’s writing in “Man, the State and War”, he sets out three interconnected images of what causes wars. The first one, which keeps in line with a classical realist thought, is war has its origins in flawed human nature. This suggest that “the evilness of men, or their improper behaviour, leads to war” (Waltz, 2001, p.39). Waltz’s second image that he proposes is that the inner administration of the state component is essential for us to understand its tendency towards war. The image has two beliefs that state that for survival in central conflict or civil war, a state must endorse an entity that is homogenously unified. The third image that Waltz highlights the anarchy that exists in the international system. He proposes that as states have such interests that will all too often clash with the interest of other states, e.g. resources that may be scarce, and with no supreme authority to stop