International relations among countries point to diplomacy as a means of establishing world peace. One controversial issue that nations seek to avoid is that of conflicts that may lead to devastating effects derailing the sustainability efforts and progress towards a cohesive global society. Structural realism and classical realism explains the pervasiveness of war with a variation in the understanding of the subject issuing contrasting yet converging schools of thought.
The world entails memories of two major wars that capture the degradation of systems, which makes the topic of comprehending the allure to such adverse situations an essential initiative. Classical and structural realists entail a grim outlook to the cohesiveness of society with the allusion of history repeating itself as they opine that “hubris leads to war give communal bonds are fragile and easily undermined by those seeking a unilateral advantage by either individuals or states” (Tang & Feng, 2016). The two entail a variation in their framework as classical realists peg motivation to power to human nature. According to them, the state functions as individuals where every person occupies the space to yearn for power in their system that sets the platform for the eruption of war as one would always seek dominance over others (Tang & Feng, 2016). Structural realists, on the other hand, view the will to power as a rational occurrence of states as they find adequate power for defense in the event of an attack (Tang & Feng, 2016). They focus on the international system that sets the incentives for superpowers.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The classical and structural realist school of thought depict the pervasiveness of war as centered in human nature and international systems, respectively. The two exhibit converging yet diverging issues in the issue as the former capture the submission of power as an end in itself while the latter has its framework reflecting the notion of power as a means to finality as survival is the ultimate end.
Reference
Tang, H., & Feng, Y. (2016). International anarchy in perpetuity? A re-examination based on the perspectives of classical political thinkers and ancient historical experience. Issues and Studies, 52(3), 1-21.
