What are the main differences between classical realists and neorealists? Why did most realists tend to criticise the US invasion of Iraq in 2003?

Authors Avatar by kriziaong (student)

MIR701                 Krizia Mai Elizabeth Ong

Krizia Mai Elizabeth Ong

Student No. 2764659

MIR701 International Relations Theory for the 21st Century

Essay 1

Due date:  2 September 2012

Simon Leitch

Word count (3170 words)

Topic

What are the main differences between classical realists and neorealists? Why did most realists tend to criticise the US invasion of Iraq in 2003?

Defining a long-standing and deep-rooted theory like realism may seem to be an easy job. However, different definitions reveal considerable diversity. This should not be surprising because even in traditions such as Marxism and Christianity with recognized and valid texts, it is still common for these traditions to have different interpretations and opposing emphases. Thus, we should anticipate the same for realism. Realism is not a single theory, but a general approach to international relations which has intellectual roots to Thucydides,  the chronicler of the ancient Peloponnesian Wars, who wrote, ‘The strong do what they have the power to do, the weak accept what they have to accept’ (Leitch 2012). Although different versions became apparent to provide better explanations for a rapidly changing world, realism continues to be one of the foremost and leading approaches in the study of international relations until this day. This essay aims to give a brief definition and to examine the main differences between the two dominant strands of realism, classical realism and neorealism. The main differences between classical and neorealism can be seen in their contrasting views regarding human nature and structure, power and conflict, the role of morality, and the role of science in international conflict and war. This essay also aims to answer why most realists criticise the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Most realists argue that deterrence and containment, and not military campaign, would be the right way to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing and using weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, realists oppose the notion of spreading democracy in Iraq. Most realists see nations or great powers imposing their ideologies on others as a threat to peace and security.

Definition

In popular usage, realism is associated with ‘being realistic’, that is, taking a realistic and convenient course of action that deals with things based on practical rather than theoretical considerations, and whether or not it is improper or immoral. In professional and popular discourse, a realist forms policies based on cynical calculations about the best method to maintain the balance of power (Gvosdev 2005, pp. 17-18). In other words, realists are infamous for lacking ethical and/or moral compass. Realists concentrate on advancing policies that are sustainable and achievable.

Below are some diverse traditions of realism (as cited in Donnelly 2007, pp.50-51).

Morgenthau 1954, pp 4-10

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

Power and interest are variable in content.

Universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states.

Mearsheimer 1994, pp. 9-10

The international system is anarchic.

States inherently possess some offensive military capability, which gives them the wherewithal to hurt and possibly destroy each other.

Gilpin 1996, pp. 7-8

The fundamental unit of social and political affairs is the ‘conflict group’

Power relations are a fundamental feature of international affairs.

Smith 1986, pp. 219-221

Realists assume an ineradicable tendency to evil.

Realists assume that the real issues of international politics can be understood by the rational analysis of competing interests defined in terms of power.

Wayman and Diehl 1994, p.5

Primacy of balance of power politics

Nation-states pursue their own national interests define primarily in terms of power.

All realists focus on military and geo-strategic issues, as well as issues of high politics. Realists emphasized that problems in politics are caused by human nature and the lack of international system. As a result, realists make international relations mainly a domain of power and interest.

Main Differences

While there are core elements common to all realists, it is important to be aware of the significant differences among scholars who are referred to as such. This essay examines the main differences between the two dominant strands of realism: classical realism and neorealism.

Join now!

Human Nature and Structure

First, classical realists believe that the cause of international war and conflict is attributed by an imperfect human nature, while neorealists locate its roots in the anarchic international system. Jackson and Sorensen said that part of the aspect of human condition is competition and uncertainty, and these are constant and fixed parts of the human life (Jackson and Sorensen 2007). Hans Morgenthau, one of the chief advocates of classical realism who took inspiration from earlier scholars like Thomas Hobbs and Machiavelli, proposed what he believed to be the six principles of political realism. First, Morgenthau was ...

This is a preview of the whole essay