International Relations Theory: Realism and Structural Realism

The Theory of International Relations

Realism

Realists believe that society and politics are governed by objective laws rooted in human nature. To improve society, we must first understand these laws. They also believe in the possibility of developing a rational theory that reflects these laws. They make a distinction between objective rational truth supported by reason and subjective judgment derived from prejudice and wishful thinking. For realism, theory consists in determining facts with reason. The character of a foreign policy must therefore be discovered through the examination of political acts and their foreseeable consequences.

They develop the concept of interest in power to understand international politics. This concept provides a link between reason and facts when trying to understand them. They thought this way of understanding international politics would provide the power to anticipate the steps a statesman will take in the future. The concept of interest defined as power infuses rational order when understanding politics. Realism assumes that interest defined as power is universally valid and unaffected by circumstances. Realism considers the moral significance of political action and the paradox between moral command and successful political action. They maintain that universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states, but rather, that they must be filtered through the circumstances of time and place. Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe. It distinguishes between truth and idolatry. There is a difference between the belief that all nations stand under the judgment of God and thinking that God is only on one's side.

Structural Realism

Kenneth Waltz is regarded as its most important author. Structural realism strides away from traditionalism and joins positivism and scientism. Before this current, the first principle of realism was that it is based on the flaws of human nature. This is a statement that is purely metaphysical. The idea of human nature is not necessary to explain international politics because we can explain it by understanding its structure. This current will try to understand which kind of structure produces a more peaceful environment/outcome than others. Its main ideas are:

• There is no centralized authority: actors work in an anarchic system.
• Every single state has some offensive capability: there is no easy war.
• States can never be sure about the intentions of others: this is a fundamental barrier to cooperation.
• The main goal of states is survival.
• States are rational actors: they can anticipate, consequently making them more dangerous.

An interesting debate within structural realism is offensive realism vs. defensive realism. What is best in the interest of states: accumulate as much power as possible or accumulate power to an optimum point (there is a point where too much power endangers survival: the rest of the states start fearing you)? An argument for defensive realism is that domination is very expensive for states. Being a hegemonic power is tiring; sometimes, a secondary role is more convenient. Offensive realism, on the other hand, believes that power and influence are necessary for successful international relations. Another matter of discussion is the structure of the worldwide political system.

A multipolar system has more actors, thus making war more likely. It is easier to miscalculate the power of others. In a bipolar system, it is easier to control: power is easily identifiable. Those who prefer a multipolar system think there is less hostility (the US vs. the USSR was a bipolar system). Does balanced or unbalanced power favor peace? Some thinkers believe that state hegemonic powers help provide peace (Pax Romana, Pax Americana?). Another idea of this current is that wars occur when we change the structure: declining and rising powers produce wars.