Realism and politics

Résumé du document

Now that the Cold War is over, Realism starts to show its weaknesses. Many issues have appeared after 1990, and realism seems to be not enough to explain them.

Extraits

[...] Realism thus does not even think of a tiny possibility of democracies not fighting each other. The threat posed by nuclear proliferation In order to explain the causes of nuclear proliferation, political realism stresses on external pressures. States want to protect their interest, since security represents the ultimate challenge to a state's survival. According to Kenneth Waltz, nuclear proliferation does not threaten anyone: once more than a state has acquired nuclear weapons, nuclear war is unlikely to occur according to the rational deterrence theory. [...]

[...] Davis gave another explanation. According to him, a state will acquire nuclear weapons only if it considers that it would be beneficial for its security. This approach represents an important advance but it does not explain why some state decide to acquire nuclear weapons despite the fact that it is disadvantageous for their security, and why others do not do so even if they would have strong incentives in doing so. In 1993, Betts comes and seems to understand the importance of domestic politics and the internal characteristics of the state indirectly. [...]

[...] MEARSHEIMER and Stephen M. WALT, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, from London Review of Books. - Walter LAQUEUR, The terrorism to come, Policy Review, August/September 2004. - Bruce RUSSETT, Grasping Democratic Peace Principles for a Post-Cold War World Princeton University Press. - Hans J. MORGENTHAU, Politics among Nations The Struggle for Power and Peace, 1993. [...]

[...] Realism and politics “Realism was arguably the dominant theory of international relations during the Cold War. Considering the utility of realism in explaining terrorism, the "democratic peace," the threat posed by nuclear proliferation and American support for Israel. Is it still relevant today, now that the Cold War is S. R. David Now that the Cold War is over, Realism starts to show its weaknesses. Many issues appeared after 1990 and realism seems to be not enough to explain them. [...]

[...] Realists and neo-realists set a dichotomy between domestic and international politics. Neo-liberal institutionalists reduce it by saying that the internal characteristics of a state are likely to play a vital role in determining its attitude towards nuclear weapons and non-proliferation. In 1994, Etel Solingen refers to states that choose to develop a “nuclear option but not an overt nuclear arsenal”. They do so because they are liberal democratic states pursuing liberal economic policies and thus relying on the global economy: they decide to keep their options open. [...]