Bibi Nasima
Realism remains one of the most influential theoretical frameworks in the field of international politics. It emphasizes the significance of power dynamics, national interests, and the anarchic nature of the international system. This article examines the fundamental principles of realism, its historical development, prominent proponents, and its contemporary relevance in global affairs. The analysis encompasses classical realism, neorealism, and critiques of the theoretical paradigm. Furthermore, the article investigates realism’s impact on major global conflicts, diplomatic strategies, and the policies of superpowers, demonstrating its continued significance in the 21st century.
Realism constitutes a predominant paradigm in international relations (IR) that underscores the significance of power politics and the competitive nature of international interactions. Grounded in historical statecraft and political philosophy, realism posits that states operate within an anarchic international system wherein survival and self-interest govern their behavior. The foundations of realism can be traced to ancient and classical political thought, as well as to contemporary international relations theory. In the continuously evolving global political landscape, realism persists in offering valuable insights into state behavior, foreign policies, and geopolitical strategies.
Realism, as a theoretical framework, rests on several fundamental principles that guide its interpretation of international relations:
- Anarchy and State-Centrism: In the absence of a global governing entity, nations are compelled to rely on their own resources to ensure their continued existence (Waltz, 1979). Proponents of realist theory regard countries as the primary actors, with other entities exerting minimal influence. (Morgenthau, 1948).
- Power and Interest: Nation-states prioritize military and economic power as mechanisms to secure national interests and exert influence on other actors in the international system. (Carr, 1939).
- Rationality and Security Dilemma: Nation-states engage in strategic behavior; however, their security measures have the potential to precipitate conflicts and escalate arms races. (Mearsheimer, 2001; Jervis, 1978).
Realism traces its roots to thinkers like Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes, who emphasized power struggles and inevitable conflict.
In The History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides (c. 400 BCE) posited that the struggle for power between Athens and Sparta was dictated by the self-interest of states rather than morality.
In The Prince (1532), Machiavelli emphasized pragmatism, deception, and power as essential tools for statecraft.
In Leviathan (1651), Thomas Hobbes contended that human nature is driven by competition and a desire for self-preservation, leading to an anarchic global order where power struggles are inevitable. The modern formulation of realism emerged in the 20th century as a response to idealist theories that emphasized international cooperation and moral diplomacy. The interwar period, particularly the failures of the League of Nations, reinforced the realist perspective that power politics governs international relations.
Hans Morgenthau (1948), the progenitor of classical realism, significantly influenced contemporary realist thought through his work, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Morgenthau posited that politics adheres to objective laws grounded in human nature, with national interest defined in terms of power. He contended that morality alone cannot guide political decision-making and emphasized the role of power balance in ensuring stability and preventing conflict. Morgenthau’s framework gained prominence during the Cold War, as the United States and Soviet Union engaged in power-balancing strategies.
Kenneth Waltz (1979) introduced neorealism, emphasizing the anarchic international system over human nature. He posited that the distribution of power shapes global stability. While Waltz focused on maintaining power, Mearsheimer (2001) asserted that states seek to maximize it for security purposes.
Notwithstanding the emergence of alternative theoretical frameworks such as liberalism and constructivism, realism continues to maintain its position as a predominant paradigm for the analysis of international relations. Several contemporary geopolitical events serve to underscore the persistent relevance of realist theory:
The paradigm of realism maintains its relevance in contemporary global politics. The strategic rivalry between the United States and China exemplifies power-based competition, while Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine demonstrates security-driven state actions. Furthermore, the tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia illustrate ongoing struggles for regional hegemony.
Realism faces critiques despite its pragmatic approach to international relations. Scholars argue it neglects ethical considerations (Keohane, 1986) and underestimates international cooperation, as seen in organizations like the United Nations and European Union (Keohane & Nye, 1977). Constructivists challenge realism’s focus on power politics, emphasizing the influence of ideas, identity, and norms on state behavior (Wendt, 1999).
Realism remains a fundamental theoretical framework in international relations, emphasizing the primacy of power, national interest, and strategic competition. This paradigm elucidates the nature of conflicts and interstate rivalries; however, it faces substantive critiques from alternative perspectives such as liberalism and constructivism, which accentuate the importance of cooperation and global governance. A nuanced approach that synthesizes power politics with diplomatic engagement offers a comprehensive methodology for addressing global challenges and ensuring international stability.
Bibi Nasima is Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Selçuk University Konya, Turkiye.
