Does Realism still provide a convincing analysis of international relationships ?

Résumé du document

Realism arose as a theory after World War II because of the perceived failure of a world guided by Liberal Internationalist principles. The tension fraught era of the Cold War were ideal conditions for the stark, suspicious pragmaticism espoused by the likes of E.H. Carr and Hans J. Morgenthau. However, in today's increasing interdependent world where the use of force has been virtually outlawed and human rights have been brought more to the forefront than ever before, Realism looks past its expiry date. Its narrow-minded, state centric focus is striking for its inability to take into account the fact that ultimately, the people who make up the state are human beings, and like all human beings possess the faculty to dream.
...

Extraits

[...] While Realism no longer provides a convincing analysis of international relationships, far more alarming is that continuing to subscribe wholeheartedly to Realism is actually dangerous for states. This is because the virulent nature of this theory seeks to pin the world in primitive, conflict-laden circumstances and arrest its development. The primary foundation stone in all Realist thought is that human nature is essentially bad. It is an outlook that categorically condemns each and every one of us as selfish, greedy and single-mindedly devoted to survival. [...]

[...] For instance, the Khmer Rogue regime was likely one of the most successful graduates of the Machiavellian school. Realism can be construed to sanction the behaviour of states such as Nazi Germany. When one looks at the lengths modern day governments go to avoid unjust wars and hegemony there has to be a reason other than the fact that there no one state is capable of dominating the whole world (though one could argue that the United States is capable of such a task). [...]

[...] Jackson & G. Sorensen, Introduction to International Relations, p E.H. Carr, The Realist Critique, p R. Jackson & G. Sorensen, Introduction to International Relations, p H. Morgenthau, A Realist Theory of International Politics, p [vii] H. Morgenthau, A Realist Theory of International Politics, p. [...]

[...] And do we possess the “nasty, brutish” natures Realists contend we do? Besides, our virulent, competitive streaks, there is sometimes a peace-loving nature as well. The Realist world is one without heroes or ethics. One where it is impossible to conceive of anybody putting such ephemeral concepts such as justice before one's self interest. To an extent, this is a valid point. Likely, when self-interest and integrity collide, self-interest tends to triumph. A man cannot live on ideals alone, he must have bread as well. [...]

[...] While the Realist perception of the anarchy problematic still holds up, it is an anarchy that is being increasing tamed by international law and there is even a pseudo-hierarchy, while still falling short of an actual world governance body, established through state consent to the jurisdiction of courts like the ICJ and the binding power of the Security Council's resolutions. The Realist denial of any genuine international co-operation is belied when one examines the growth of mutual accords between states. [...]