What are the core assumptions of realism and why has it been so influential in the study of international relations

 However, according to realists there are other means of achieving security. Santos argues actors can either emulate the methods of the most powerful states or they can innovate (Santos 1996: 204). But many realists agree with Waltz and argue “survival depends upon a states material capacity and alliances with other states” (Waltz 1979: 103-4). The development of the North Atlantic Trade Organisation in 1949 illustrates this argument. Created to counter communism, the organisation established a system of collective member defence against any non-member actor who attacked a member. Those in the North Atlantic Area realised that it was in their best interests to unite against the larger power of the Soviet Union ultimately benefitting each member state as each were provided with a larger amount of resources to defend whilst retaining individual sovereignty thus demonstrating a modern interpretation of realism in the twentieth century.

During the second half of the twentieth century Neo-Realism emerged as a new explanation of recent international events from a realist perspective. Neo Realists believe that the effects of the structure of the international system are what shape all foreign policy choices. This was seen during the Cold War where the USSR and the USA dominated the international political system as they were the two most powerful actors within it. These two powers created a set of ‘rules’ which the other states act according to and modify their behaviour. In order for Britain to do so it maintained close ties with the USA as a means of increasing its nuclear capabilities. President Kennedy sold the MacMillan government Polaris missiles in order to establish a nuclear deterrent against the USSR. However, Neo-realists see power as far more than an accumulation of military resources and the ability to coerce other states. It is seen as “the combined capabilities of a state” (Baylis and Smith 2006: 209). Neo-realists believe it is anarchy which defines the international system as all states are “functionally similar units” (Baylis and Smith 2006: 209) who therefore all suffer the same constraints from an anarchical system and are all striving to maintain their position in the system.

Realism may seem like an effective explanation of state behaviour in the international sphere, however when considering it in a more modern context it becomes clear that the theory no longer provides an effective political explanation as was seen in the 19th and early 20th centuries. A key concept of realism is the belief that states are primarily motivated by their national interests and will constantly seek power. However, it is the elites who determine these interests, Morgenthau’s argument that states have objective national interests such as power and security are not always true. Morgenthau regarded power as the drive for humans, but other realists such as Gilpin argue that whilst power can become the primary goal of a leader it is more effectively seen as a means of states achieving other goals such as security.

Realism focuses all its attention on the state as a core actor internationally, according to realism there are no supreme bodies above the state and as such it is the key political unit. Frankel argues that the state no longer bears such relevance. He argues that “the nation state has become an economic anachronism” (Frankel 1996: 8). Contemporary economic develop is no longer driven by the state at a national level, it takes place on the international stage and this is demonstrated by an increase in transnational forces which decrease the autonomy of states, integrating them into a mutually dependent global economy. The realist views of self reliance may have been economically effective in the 19th century but in the 1930’s they led to extreme economic nationalism. States ran their own economies without regard to a global market resulting in a fragmented international economy of rival blocs. These issues were so severe that they were eventually confronted by the formation of Bretten Woods institutions such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947 which was formed as a means of regulating trade as part of a larger plan for economic recovery following the end of World War II.  The GATT was founded upon the ideal that free trade would “promote domestic welfare and contribute to world peace” (Frankel 1996: 9). Institutions such as the GATT would not be possible within the realist model of international relations as states are said to rely on self help rather than a more globally cooperative model of international relations.

Following this theme of global economics, Frankel further argues that globalisation has led to a technological revolution. This revolution has led to massive advances in communication and transport thus removing barriers of society. Combined with a modern emphasis on free trade, this revolution has “created a highly interdependent global economy” (Frankel 1996: 14) which the realist perspective would not be able to account for. As a result international regimes have been created to manage this ‘global economy’ which involve the forfeit of sovereignty from those states who wish to become a member. For realists this notion is abhorrent, states are the supreme sovereign body and according to their perspective, would not under any circumstances release sovereignty to an overarching global institution. Realists counter this criticism by highlighting that it is a common misconception that realists believe “nation economies in the modern era have been autonomous and isolated from one another” (Frankel 1996: 14). During the ‘high tide’ of realist states in the 19th Century, national economies were held together by a system named the Gold Standard. This was a monetary system in which the standard economic unit is a set weight of gold. Governments that employ such this set unit, which redeem their gold from other governments therefore, share a fixed-currency relationship, thus highlighting the fact that interdependence existed alongside realism.

However, the increase in global interdependence is not limited to economic affairs; towards the end of the twentieth century it began to involve more social aspects. The state is increasingly being displaced by non state actors as it is “both too small and too large to serve contemporary mankind” (Frankel 1996: 18). In terms of being large the state is divided according to a diffuse ethnic groups thus making it difficult to command the loyalties of those within the state effectively fragmenting the state in a collection of ethnic groups. In terms of being too small, the scale of the economy now requires reorganization of global political affairs, as was seen in 1993 when the European Union was created, signaling a move away from the nation state and towards an increasingly integrated Europe, both socially and economically. For the realist this outcome causes many problems, states seem to naturally form these institutions in order to make better use of the resources they have, once again these institutions require some surrender of state sovereignty to a higher autonomous body – a notion the realist has difficulty explaining when it is occurring regularly and naturally and integration especially in terms of Europe appears to be taking a more social dimension. As such realists respond to this criticism by highlighting the fact that member states of these institutions, particularly the EU, may surrender some sovereignty but they have retained a large proportion of it in terms of a nation right to taxation and defence as well as the ability to ‘veto’ proposals by other members. As such, realists would argue that these institutions are controlled by those members who hold the most national power and the decisions the institutions make will reflect the balance of power of their own member states.

Realism began its downfall after the end of the cold war. As a political science it lost credibility, by being unable to predict the end of the war it did not fulfill its primary function. Realism was a theory which majorly influenced international relations where it was still relevant but in the 21st century it is nothing more than archaic. States no longer see the international sphere as a struggle for power, they see it was a means of opening free markets and creating political unions. Supranational institutions are increasing in number and power as a reflection of this. And as this happens realism loses more and more credibility as a theory of international relations in the 21st century.  

Bibliography

1. John Baylis and Steve Smith (2001), The globalisation of World Politics, Oxford University Press, Oxford
2. Edited by Benjamin Frankel (1996), Realism, Restatements and Renewal, Frank Cass and Co. Ltd, London
3. Robert Jackson and Georg Sorensen (2006), Introduction to international relations: Theories and approaches, Oxford University Press, Oxford
4. Iain Hampsher Monk (1992) A History of Modern Political Thought, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford
5. Oxford Dictionaries (1996) A Concise Dictionary of Politics, Oxford University Press, Oxford
6. Andrew McGrew (1992) Global Politics, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Cambridge
7. C Weber (1995), Stimulating sovereignty: intervention, the state and symbolic exchange, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
8. Kenneth Waltz (1979), Theory of International Relations, McGraw-Hill Higher Education, London
9. Wheeler and Booth (1992), ‘The Security Dilemma’, Oxford University Press, Oxford
10. Morgenthau (1948a + 1955), Politics Among Nations: The struggle for Power and Peace 2nd Edition, Knopf, New York