Realism In Security Studies

Introduction to Realism

Realism is one of the major theoretical perspectives in the study of international relations. It emphasizes the competitive and conflictual side of international politics, arguing that the fundamental nature of international politics is defined by power politics among states in an anarchic international system.

According to realism, states are the most important actors in the international system. The key assumptions of realism include:

• Groupism - States are unified rational actors that have national interests. Domestic factors such as political ideology, culture, and economic structures influence how the national interest is defined. Nationalism binds the people together and allows the state to act as a unitary actor.

• Egoism - States act to further their own national interests rather than common interests. They seek to maximize their own power and security. Morality and ideology play little role in shaping state behavior.

• Power-centrism - Power is the currency of international politics. The distribution of power shapes state behavior and sets the parameters for cooperation or conflict. Power is both a means to an end and an end in itself for states.

• Statism - States are the dominant units in the international system. Non-state actors such as international organizations have minimal influence over state behavior and the course of international relations.

• Survival - States are preoccupied with security and survival in the international system. Self-preservation is the foremost goal that shapes foreign policy.

Realism views international politics as an endless struggle for power among self-interested states in a hostile environment. It contends that the pursuit of state interests propels world politics, not ideologies, values, or international law. With no higher authority above states, the international system is anarchic, forcing states to ultimately rely on their own capabilities to survive. This creates a security dilemma, whereby actions taken by states to increase their own security threaten others. This competitive dynamic fosters conflict and wars.

KeyAssumptions

The realist paradigm operates on three key assumptions that characterize how states interact in the international system:

Groupism

Realism emphasizes the central role of the state as the primary actor in international relations. States act as coherent unitary entities, driven by national interests and nationalism. International politics is viewed as interactions between competing groups defined by cohesive identities and solidarity that supersedes individual interests. Intra-state divisions are overlooked in favor of presenting a united front to deal with other states in an anarchic global environment.

Egoism

The realist view posits that states act in a self-interested manner in pursuit of power and security. National interests take precedence over moral concerns or ideological affinities in determining foreign policy. Leaders make rational calculations to maximize and further the interests of their respective states. Altruism has no place in the realist conception of global politics.

Power-centrism

Realism highlights power and its distribution as the main currency of international relations. The international order is shaped by configurations of material power capabilities. Hard power in terms of military and economic prowess is seen as the ultimate arbiter in interstate relations. Power is both an end itself, with states seeking to maximize it, as well as a means to achieve security. The unequal distribution of power contributes to global conflicts as states compete for power and influence.

Classical Realism

Classical realism emerged in response to the dominant liberal approaches to international relations in the 1930s-1940s. This perspective, as exemplified by Hans Morgenthau’s 1948 book “Politics Among Nations,” posits that the inherent flaws in human nature lead states to engage in a perpetual struggle for power in the international arena.

According to classical realists, the selfishness and lust for power that characterize human nature mean that international politics is ultimately driven by each state’s desire to dominate others. This creates a constant competition for power and resources among states in an anarchic global system with no overarching authority to maintain order.

Morgenthau, considered a founding father of classical realism, argued that international politics should be understood as aiming to maximize power rather than idealistic goals like human rights or democracy. He contended that morality has little influence over foreign policy, which is shaped mainly by considerations of interest defined in terms of power. This produces an endless jockeying for power and advantage between states that contributes to global instability and the ever-present potential for conflict.

The classical realist perspective stands in stark contrast to liberalism by dismissing notions of progress, shared interests, and international cooperation. Instead, it views the international system as one of ceaseless struggle, where states must rely on the pursuit of national interests defined in Machiavellian terms to survive. This bleak outlook served as an influential counterpoint to liberal idealism in the early Cold War period.

Structural Realism

Structural realism, also known as neorealism, was developed as a critique of classical realism by Kenneth Waltz in his book “Theory of International Politics”. Waltz argued that the outcomes of international relations are shaped more by the structure of the international system than the internal characteristics of states.

Unlike classical realists who emphasize human nature as a cause of conflict, neorealists focus on how the anarchic structure of the international system fosters competition and conflict between states. In an anarchic system with no overarching authority, states must rely on self-help to ensure their survival. This drives them to pursue power and engage in balancing behavior to prevent other states from achieving hegemony.

Waltz proposes that the distribution of capabilities among great powers is the key force that shapes international outcomes. States in an anarchic international system aim to maximize their share of world power relative to other states. However, the system pressures states to achieve a balance of power rather than hegemony. This is because balancing behaviors by other states will emerge to counter rising powers.

Overall, neorealism diverges from classical realism by explaining international political outcomes based on the pressures exerted on states by the structure and distribution of capabilities in the international system. Internal factors like human nature are downplayed. Neorealism instead focuses on how systemic, structural factors shape the competitive behavior of rationally acting states within an anarchic international environment.

Defensive Realism

Defensive realism, as exemplified by Stephen Walt’s “balance of threat” theory, asserts that states, driven by rational choice, seek to maintain the status quo, focusing on an offense-defense balance. States are primarily concerned with their own security and survival within the international system. According to defensive realists, the anarchic structure of the international system compels states to pursue defensive strategies aimed at preserving power and influence rather than maximizing power.

Defensive realism diverges from offensive realism in viewing the international system as one of status quo rather than revisionist powers. States are inclined to maintain existing spheres of influence rather than expand. According to Walt’s balance of threat theory, states ally to balance against threats rather than sheer power alone. Threats are determined based on factors like aggregate power, geographic proximity, offensive capabilities and perceived intentions. Defensive realism emphasizes that states balance against the most significant threats to their security through internal efforts or external alliances. The distribution of power alone does not predict outcomes. Defensive realists contend that the international system remains in equilibrium through this continuous process of balancing against threats.

Offensive Realism

Offensive realism, represented by John Mearsheimer, contends that in an uncertain international environment, relative capabilities are paramount, advocating for the acquisition of power to enhance security.

Offensive realism diverges from defensive realism in its emphasis on power maximization over the status quo. In Mearsheimer’s theory, the international system’s anarchic structure compels states to seek as much power as possible to ensure their own survival. With no central authority to mediate disputes, states cannot be certain of each other’s intentions.

Mearsheimer argues that the best way for a state to survive in such a self-help system is to be as powerful as possible relative to potential rivals. Offensive realism asserts that states are rational actors that will take opportunities to gain power over their competitors. It is the structure of the international system, not human nature, that pushes states to act offensively and aggressively.

According to Mearsheimer, the ultimate goal for great powers is to achieve regional hegemony. By maximizing their relative power capabilities, states can deter attacks from rivals and influence international politics. However, because all states vie for dominance, balancing tendencies emerge, causing ceaseless security competition.

Offensive realism provides an alternative structural perspective to defensive realism in explaining state expansionism and patterns in the global distribution of power. It serves as an influential theory in the study of international security dilemmas and power politics.

Rise and Fall Realism

Rise and fall realism challenges the balance of power theories, suggesting that peace is associated with unchallenged supremacy, not power parity. This perspective views the historical trajectory as a succession of rise and fall of great powers.

A key concept in rise and fall realism is the role of hegemony in maintaining stability in the international system. Hegemony refers to the dominance of one state over others. Rise and fall realists argue that an international system with a hegemon, or dominant state, is more stable and peaceful. The hegemon sets the rules and norms of the system.

The power transition theory, developed by A.F.K. Organski, is an important component of rise and fall realism. This theory asserts that the probability of war increases when a rising challenger approaches the power capabilities of a declining hegemon. The theory suggests that power transitions create greater incentives for the declining hegemon to confront the rising power through war before it gains too much strength.

According to power transition theory, the international system goes through cycles of war and peace. Periods of peace occur when there is a dominant hegemonic power. But eventually the hegemon will decline as other nations grow stronger. This leads to a power transition as the rising challenger approaches parity with the hegemon, resulting in greater potential for war. After such a war, a new hegemon typically emerges to usher in another period of relative peace and stability.

Rise and fall realism provides an alternative perspective to balance of power theories by emphasizing the stabilizing role of hegemony. The likelihood of major wars is seen as higher during power transitions between a declining hegemon and a rising challenger. This viewpoint shaped understandings of great power cycles throughout history.

Neoclassical Realism

Neoclassical realism asserts that systemic pressures interact with domestic variables at the unit level to shape foreign policy decisions. While recognizing the anarchic structure of the international system and the distribution of capabilities as the primary drivers of state behavior, neoclassical realists argue that identifying threats and opportunities within the system can be complex.

As a result, domestic factors play a crucial intervening role between systemic incentives and foreign policy outcomes. These unit level variables include public opinion, strategic culture, perceptions of leaders, state-society relations, and government institutions.

Neoclassical realism posits that foreign policy is not directly determined by the international system. Rather, systemic pressures create potential behaviors for states, but domestic variables serve as transmission belts and filters for translating systemic pressures into foreign policy.

Leaders play a key role in this process by interpreting international threats and incentives based on their own perceptions and domestic considerations. However, their freedom of action is constrained by both international and domestic constraints. In this view, foreign policy is the result of strategic choice under the pressure of systemic forces filtered through domestic politics.