ULUSLARARASI İLİŞKİLER TEORİLERİ I

Politics Among Nations was written by Hans Morgenthau in 1948.

Realist theory of international relations has four main assumptions:

One of the pioneers of classical realism, Hans Morgenthau (1997) states six principles of realism that could help us comprehend profoundly the realist vision of international phenomenon. These six principles are: 1. Politics is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature. 2. Statesmen conduct themselves in terms of interest defined as power. 3. Interest determines political conduct within the political andal context which foreign policy is formulated. 4. Prudence is the supreme virtue in international politics. There can be no political morality without prudence. 5. Nations are entities that pursue their interests as defined by power and should not be judged by universal moral principles. 6. Political realism rejects the legalistic-moralistic approach to international politics.

Realists do not deny existence and necessity of a regulating mechanism at the center of an anarchical environment full of powerseeker, rational and amoral actors. This mechanism is called as “balance of power”.

Table 2.1: Morgenthau’s Concept of Statecraft

Human Nature (basic condition):Self-interest

Political Situation (means and context): Power politics, Political power, Political circumstances, Political skills

Political Conduct (goals and values): Political ethics (prudence, etc.), Human necessities (security, etc.), National interest, Balance of power

Types of BOP: RIGID BALANCE SIMPLE BALANCE MULTIPLE BALANCE LOCAL BALANCE REGIONAL BALANCE GLOBAL BALANCE FLEXIBLE BALANCE.

Offensive realism is built upon the assumption that “[G]reat powers… are always searching for opportunities to gain power over their rivals, with hegemony as their final goal”.

Realism has been the dominant theory of International Relations discipline since the end of the Second World War.

Starting with neo-realism (structural realism) of Kenneth Waltz, followed by offensive/defensive realism of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt and neoclassical realism of Gideon Rose, realists keep to exert relatively accurate and profound insights regarding the international politics and state behavior in the post-Cold War World.

Edward Carr wrote Twenty Years’ Crisis.

In  modern sense, realism is influenced the most by two authors, namely, Edward H. Carr and Reinhold Niebuhr.  Until today, there are many other names such as George Kennan, Hans Morgenthau, Nicholas Spykman, Henry Kissinger etc. who contributed to the development of the theory in its classical shape.

The statements in the first options are about the four assumptions that realist theory of international relations has. However, according to realist theory, socio-economic issues are considered low-politics as opposed to what is stated in the option E. Indeed, military, strategic issues that concerns security of state are often referred to as “high politics”.

First, let's have a look at the six principles:

1. Politics is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature.

2. Statesmen conduct themselves in terms of interest defined as power.

3. Interest determines political conduct within the political and cultural context which foreign policy is formulated.

4. Prudence is the supreme virtue in international politics. There can be no political morality without prudence.

5. Nations are entities that pursue their interests as defined by power and should not be judged by universal moral principles.

6. Political realism rejects the legalistic-moralistic approach to international politics.

As seen in these principles, first classical realists, without denying the importance of anarchy, underlines the role of human nature. To describe this nature, Thomas Hobbes uses these words:

“… in the first place, I put for a general inclination of all mankind a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death” (Hobbes, 2016).

Simply put, man is naturally egoist and in a world of limited resources, he is guided by an endless will to gain power and it is this will that shapes his relations with others. As an animus dominandi, he constantly seeks to make others the subject of his domination. In realist perspective, this egoism and powerseeker (domination-seeker) character of human-being is also found as a constitutive element in every association and organization created by man. So, if international politics is all about power, it is the inevitable result of the reflection of human characteristic on international actors.

Kenneth Waltz is considered as the precursor of neorelaism. Theory of International Politics (1979) is his seminal work and in this book he tries to develop a scientific approach to understand and explain the international political system.

In Waltzian perspective, having only two great powers in the system is a sine qua non condition to a stable international environment. “Significant changes take place when the number of great powers reduces to two or one. With more than two, states rely for their security both on their own internal efforts and on alliances they may make with others. Competition in multipolar systems is more complicated than competition in bipolar ones because uncertainties about the comparative capabilities of states multiply as numbers grow, and because estimates of the cohesiveness and strength of coalitions are hard to make”.

For defensive realists, international structure incites states to maintain the existing balance of power, the present status quo. So, in this regard, main goal of international actors is to preserve their relative power not to increase it. However, in offensive realist perspective, common belief is that it is extremely rare to find states that are content with the existing status quo. That is because the international structure compels them to maximize their relative power as it is the only way to maximize their security. In that sense, their aggressive actions should be considered as an implication of their natural desire to survive.

According to Walt, there are four elements that define perceived threat. The four elements of threat are aggregate power, geographic proximity, offensive capabilities, and offensive intentions. Basically, how powerful is it, how close is it, how much military might is it capable of, and is it acting aggressively? Those are the four criteria that states use to evaluate the threat posed by other states.

Neoclassical realism could be considered as an approach that seizes the middle-ground in realist perspective. Given the increasing importance of some domestic variables such as public opinion, civil society on foreign policy process, adding that the immaterial factors that have been mostly ignored by the other realist views, its inclination to combine “outside and inside” elements to establish a solid analytical framework for not only states’ foreign policies but also international politics in general, offers, without doubt, a promising prospect for the study of international relations in 21st century.

Neorealist paradigm of international relations is not capable of offering an “… explicit policy guidance to state leaders as they confront the practical problems of world politics. This is presumably because they have little or no choice owing to the confining international structure in which they must operate”.  It is not at all interested in developing a solid framework to facilitate foreseeing foreign policy moves of international actors. Waltzian argument, conforming to its determinist character, is simply that structure determines behavior and dictates policy.

There are “four factors that encourage the limitation of violence in interstate relations”, thus, the stability, within a bipolar world. First of all, as a natural result of an international system with only two major powers, there are no peripheries. Secondly, the scope of factors those included in the competition is extended as the intensity of competition increases and “increased intensity is expressed in a reluctance to accept small territorial losses.” As a third characteristic of bipolar world, one must point out “the nearly constant presence of pressure and the recurrence of crisis.” Although it may sound, at first glance, a bit odd that this condition of permanent tension is considered to be a factor that encourages peace and stability, this assumption emphasizes the fact that “to fight small wars in the present may be the means of avoiding large wars later.” These three factors as the stabilizing particularities of a bipolar world, combined with a fourth element which is the preponderant power of major actors that help to achieve, in one way or another, comprehension and absorption of revolutionary political, military, and economic changes within the bipolar balance, are to be seen as sources of peace and stability. These are also the characteristics of the AmericanSoviet relations in the post-WWII era and in that perspective, they are considered to be generally effective to maintain the relative stability of this period and relevance of each factor is proved by various crisis examples of different degree such as Korea, Formosa Strait, Cuba, Berlin, Indo-China, etc..