Is realism still a relevant theory?

Résumé du document

International Relations have traditionally focused on the State and its ability to survive. Major theories of international relations try to adequately explain and therefore predict security developments and constructing international relations in the world in which we live. The predominant theory during the second half of the 20th century has been Realism, which assumes that nation-states are unitary, geographically-based actors in an anarchic international system with no ultimate authority capable of regulating interactions between states. This is due to the non-existence of a world government. Secondly, it assumes that sovereign states, rather than international institutions, are the primary actors in international affairs. As such, a state acts as a rational autonomous actor in pursuit of its own self-interest with a primary goal to maintain and ensure its own security, and thus its sovereignty and survival. Realism holds that in pursuit of their interests, states will attempt to amass resources, and that relations between states are determined by their relative levels of power. That level of power is in turn determined by the state's military and economic capabilities.

Nevertheless, if Realism has shown its ability to be a parsimonious and very essentialist theory useful in accounting for historical actions, one of its major weaknesses remains that it is limited in both explaining systemic changes, such as the end of the Cold War, and predicting future events.

Extraits

[...] Terrorism, for example is a non-state actor. Therefore, applying the Realism theory leads to recognizing non- state actors. Furthermore, in a recent interview for the Institute of International Studies (UC Berkeley), John Mearsheimer observed that realists currently do not have a lot to say about terrorism, further suggesting that since terrorism will be played out in the international system, it will be played out in the state arena, maintaining a realist logic without acknowledging the real problem of security threat. [...]

[...] Mearsheimer and Walt when they examined the US-Israel relationship. And this was their finding: By any ‘objective' measure, American support for Israel is a liability. It inspires negative feelings among Arabs and Muslims towards America, and these feelings, in turn, serve as a paver for an environment of terrorism. The prime interest of the United States in the Middle East is the cultivation of cooperation with the Arabs and the Muslims, many of whom regard Israel as the sole cause for many of the region's problems. [...]

[...] Conclusion When all is said and done, can Realism be reformed or extended to address the 21st century threats which it overlooked? Realism failed in explaining many post-Cold War challenges, and the new issue seems to try to fit these new challenges into the Realist paradigm. Considering that international relations take place in an anarchic setting, power remains the key to state relations. Just as it is to the state, the accumulation of power is a means of survival for the violent non-state actors. [...]

[...] Peace is not even present in Realism and the evidence is the pursuit of more military power, like nuclear weapons. In fact, Realist explanations of nuclear proliferation have dominated thinking about nuclear weapons since the 1950s. This is partly because the realist theory provides a convincing justification for the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, and partly because, in the relative absence of reliable information about security decision making during the Cold War, Realism provided a framework for analysis based on the assumption that states are unitary actors that seek to maximize their power in order to survive in a competitive international system. [...]

[...] Only two schools of thought are most prevalent: Realism and Liberalism. However, increasingly, Constructivism is becoming mainstream and popular, particularly outside the United States. In fact, whereas Realism deals mainly with security and material power, and Liberalism looks primarily at economic interdependence and domestic-level factors, constructivism concerns itself with the role of ideas in shaping the international system. By ‘ideas', constructivists refer to the goals, threats, fears, identities, and other elements of perceived reality that influence states and non-state actors within the international system. [...]