Realist school Theories of International Politics

Realist Theory: Theories of International Politics

• Dominant school of IP – Realist school.
• Realist school of IP can be called as power view of IP. The realist school of IP is based on Westphalian world order (state centric model).
• Realist do not give importance to any other actors except states, for realist even terrorists are proxies of state. Hence they reject multidimensional view.
  • IP is in the state of anarchy.
  • States are key actors.
  • Objective of every state is protection of national interest.
  • Survival is key national interest.
  • In the state of anarchy nations have to depend on self help for survival.
  • The only way to self help Is by acquiring power.
  • When one state acquires power, the other becomes powerless, hence other state will also go for acquiring power, hence there will be struggle for power.
  • Since there is a continuous struggle for power, nations can’t overcome the security dilemma. This reflects trust deficit on other nations.
• IP is such that country which trusts the other is bound to suffer, therefore the country that don’t trust will be better in protecting their national interest.
• In IP the situation of states is like prisoners in dilemma. Nations behave like prisoners in dilemma hence they are unable to choose best course of action.
• In IP the rational choice is not the one which maximises benefit rather which minimises loss.

• East – Kautilya – Mandal Theory.
  • Kautilya is supporter of expansionist FP (offensive realism).
• Sun Tzu – The Art of War
  • His views are very similar to Kautilya, he has also discussed strategies of war.
  • “Love your enemy”.
    Until and unless you don’t know your enemy you won’t be able to conquer your enemy.
• Thucydides – The History of Peloponnesian War
  • There is no role of ethics in politics.
  • Human nature is power seeking.
  • The consideration of right or wrong is never strong enough to turn the people away from benefits, which money and power brings.
  • What matters is power and not appeals to justice. Even god does not help. Only self help works.
  • Thucydides – Strong do, what they have power to do, weak accept what they must accept.
• Machiavelli – Justified the primacy of national interest, he has given principle of Raison’d etaat.
• Hobbes – Gives pessimistic view of human nature, man has limited reason, hence power is the only way to survive. From Hobbes concept of anarchy realist have taken concept of security dilemma.
• Schools of Realism – 
  • Classical Realism – 
    • Scholar – Morgenthau – Known as father of realism in IR.
      • First person to give systematic view of realist school.
      • He has given six principles of realism.
      • His book “politics among nations” published in 1948 is called as first textbook in IR.
      • He was inspired by Machiavelli.
      • Purpose of his book was to give advices to American FP makers as Machiavelli gave advices to Prince.
      • Morgenthau feared that American FP makers may turn idealists.
        • America has won the WW2. The human psychology is to get complacent.
        • When someone becomes winner, he or she develops the feeling of pity or sympathy for those whom they defeat. Hence Morgenthau was fearful that Americans may turn towards magnanimity. Hence he wants to remind FP makers not to get emotional.
      • American leaders like Roosevelt were talking about world order – the so called new world order. Morgenthau feared may compromise Americans national interest.
      • Morgenthau’s 6 principles of Realism – 
        • Scientific basis of his theory – Like all politics even international politics is a result of human behaviour. Human nature is power seeking. Man is Animus Dominandi in the same way states are power seeking.
        • National Interest – The primary motivation of Fps is protection and promotion national interest, the only way national interest can be protected is by power. Hence national interest can itself be defined as power. Thus power is a means to achieve national interest. Since national interest is power, power is having a dual character. Power is both means and end. Power is an end in itself and hence there is a continuous struggle for power and no amount of power is enough.
        • Nature of national interest – National interest is dynamic and hence keeps on changing. The constant objective of every FP is the protection of National Interest, this remains constant. However NI is dynamic because situations change very fast. Hence a country has to be very fast, flexible, adaptive.
        • Role of ideology in IP – Ideology has no relevance in IP. Ideologies are just to hide real intentions. Hence countries should not pay attention to pronouncement made by other countries. Neither nation should bring its own moral and ethics not impose it on others.
        • On role of ethics – There is no role of ethics in IP. The actions in IP can’t be judged by any universal standards of ethics. IP has its own ethics. Ends justify means. In politics one should not search for what is universally correct rather what is correct in a given situation. Pragmatism is ethics of IP.
        • On the nature of IP – Politics is neither ethics, nor law, nor economics. Politics is not inspiring. It has its own rules. Thus for Morgenthau ethics has no role in politics. Morgenthau had no trust in international organisation as a means to protect NI. The only way country can protect NI is by Diplomacy, BoP, Deterrence.
      • Morgenthau categorises countries on basis of FP in 3 types –
        • Status-quoist states – USA
        • Revisionist – China
        • Imperialist – Germany under Hitler, Russia under Putin (expansionist)
      • Critics of Morgenthau – 
        • Feminist Criticism – Cynthia Enloe
          • Emphasises on human security rather territorial.
          • Imp of ethics –
            • She disagrees with the description of human nature as given by Morgenthau. The description that man is power seeking is cultural or historical rather than real.
            • The realist view of NI is narrow, NI can’t be defined only in terms of territorial integrity. NI also demands human security.
            • NI can’t be defined only in terms of power.
            • Realist view of power is too narrow. Power is not just coercive, power should be seen in a constructive way, means in terms of empowerment.
            • IP can’t be separated from ethics, every political action has ethical consequences. We should not exclude politicians from moral consequences of their decision.
            • Politics are not autonomous of ethics, it is extremely narrow view of politics.