The Study of International Relations: Strengths and weaknesses of realism approach to International Relations

Introduction 

Nations and or states seek sovereignty at the international level as a way of showing identity, power, and independence. However, they can only manifest these attributes by pursuing different approaches and theories. Many international relations scholars have argued that the ultimate goal of establishing power and sovereignty is to protect national interests (Shiraev & Vladislav 2016). As a result, sovereignty remains one of the most important concepts in international relations studies. History, right from early dynasties, revolutions, and conquest wars, has demonstrated that nations show their power when there is anarchy and lack of government to justify their actions, especially waging wars (Shiraev & Vladislav 2016). Therefore, the essence of this paper is to critically assess strengths and weaknesses of two theoretical approaches to the study of international relations in a bit to justify why nations and or states behave the way they do. The paper considers realism and liberalism in justifying the conduct of countries. 

Strengths and weaknesses of realism approach to International Relations 

Realism has a paradigm based on the numerous commentators and their views or perspectives. However, realists believe that acquisition of power is the ultimate goal in international relations system. While these realists differ on the interactions of the concept, their different perspectives help to enrich the theory from various aspects (Shiraev & Vladislav 2016). For instance, classical realists believe that the desire for power among nations is a human characteristic while structural realists opine that states seek power because of the architecture of the international system. Additionally, defensive realists believe that it is pointless for nations or countries to seek power since they can be punished by the system if they exceed set limits. 

However, one would argue that these realists do not capture the concept of balance of power in international relations. For instance, the Cold War between the U.S. and Soviet was as a result of the need to have “balance of power” by the creation of foreign policies that favor each superpower. Each of the nations attempted to overcome the rise of the other through its influence in different parts of the world with its ideology (Dunne, Hansen & Wight, 2013). This demonstrates that realism is about a nation protecting its interests at all costs and the creation of harmony is a fallacy. 

Security competition is considered as one of the strengths of this theory. Nations compete to be secure for the purpose of their national interests. No country would want to feel weak in the international system. Gaining power ensures that such a country is secure and its borders are protected from its adversaries (Shiraev & Vladislav 2016). Realists opine that security competition is one of the fundamental aspects of the entire international system. For instance, the development of nuclear weapons underscores the need for nations to be secure and protect others. However, such developments have not altered the anarchic structure of the international political system. Therefore, the anarchic nature of international relations becomes one of the strengths of this theory. Security competition has made it impossible for wars and conflicts to stop in the world. For instance, the Syrian conflict, the ISIS terrorism, and many interstate conflicts demonstrate that realism theory is strong. Additionally, the US continues to have hundreds of thousands of troops in Europe, Asia, and around the world to ensure that wars are just few seconds away. Imperatively, as Claudia Sonda puts it in her article, security competition has never ended anarchy since the only motivation for the competition in security is survival of these countries (Sonda, 2014). No nation wants to die or belittled, yet the theory fails to capture this point. 

Realists believe that wars are inevitable as states seek to consolidate power and remain dominant players. It would be hard to convince a person otherwise, especially with the many conflicts that history has registered, right from revolutions, conquest wars, world wars, cold war, and many present day conflicts in different parts of the world (Shiraev & Vladislav 2016). Therefore, realists do not give solutions but attempt to offer explanations. For instance, wars occur between states because they are power hungry, fear for their survival and eliminating competition guarantees existence. 

Weaknesses of the theory 

Neo-realists have a rudimentary definition of power as they attempt to define it in terms of the population size, resource endowment, military strength economic ability and political stability. Classical realists believe that power is derived from military strength and it is only states or nations that can attain it (Shiraev & Vladislav 2016). However, these theorists fail to explain how terror organizations, for instance, Al Qaeda, who are not state actors, can manage to bring powerful nations, especially a superpower, United States, to its knees. Realists opine that it is only states that have power and are the only key players in international relations. However, they fail to tell us how non-state actors without a sizeable population, economic capabilities, or resource endowments like terror organizations, can manage to display power and compete for security with state actors. This clearly shows one huge weakness of the theory. 

Secondly, some states do not show their egoism as the theory advances. A good example is the NATO intervention in the Libyan conflict. NATO intervened and helped rebels oust Muammar Gadhafi. Realists would argue that the reason was to have absolute gain of the country because national interests. However, NATO’s intervention on the basis of establishing democracy proves that some nations are not egoistic as the theory explains. Therefore, realism fails to acknowledge the importance of international organizations, and cannot offer conclusive explanation for the Libyan conflict. 

Liberalism: Strengths and Weaknesses 

Liberalism is considered the main theory in international relations today. The theory is the foundation of those who belief in international organizations like the United Nations. The theory advances that international actors or states need o have cooperation, peace and guarantee political and civil freedoms to everyone (Shiraev & Vladislav 2016). It is a paradigm based on the need to have hope, reason and universal ethics in international relations. 

Strengths 

It proposes that international relations should lead to a more orderly, just, and cohesive world without anarchy and war through institutional reforms that give power to international organizations. Liberalism encourages state interdependence as states as international cooperation is the interest of every state as opposed to wars and anarchy (Shiraev & Vladislav 2016). Therefore, liberalism is viewed as an antithesis of realism. Liberals believe in an international community consisting of competing but peaceful states. 

Liberalism relies on what its proponents consider as rational motivations aimed at preservation of peace as states do not want to view themselves as destroyed by war or relics of war (Shiraev & Vladislav 2016). Therefore, they must keep peace. In most democratic communities, war is electorally unpopular and liberals believe that states and or nations must be rational actors. 

Liberalism can be credited for increased legislation, legalism, and moral advancement as demonstrated by civil society organizations. The fast rise in human rights in the recent past is a demonstration of the increased need for states to encourage moralism in the international system (Shiraev & Vladislav 2016). Additionally, states have continuously advocated for democratic governance leading to the establishment of international human rights organizations, for instance, the International Criminal Court (ICC). 

Weaknesses 

The core value of liberalism is the creation of peaceful co-existence and economic prosperity without military intervention. However, many view this approach as tantamount to imperialism. Some critics state that liberalism may lead to the collapse of the state system as their role as actors on the international stage has increasingly been taken by large multinational companies (Shiraev & Vladislav 2016). These multinationals seek economic prosperity and may be viewed as propagating state interests of their countries of origin. 

Critics opine that the theory advocates for peace yet international peace continues to be a pipedream, utopia. Yet, global prosperity cannot be guaranteed as state actors relinquish their mandate to organizations that control vast amounts of resources at the international level and can influence foreign policy (Shiraev & Vladislav 2016). These organizations are not rational as the proponents of the theory posit. 

Conclusion 

International relations are founded on the basis that state and non-state actors have a role to play in the international system. However these contradicting theories indicate that anarchy and peace share a thin line in international relations. 

References

Dunne, T., Hansen, L., & Wight, C. (2013). The end of International Relations theory? European 

Journal of International Relations , Vol.19, No.3, pp.405-425. 

Sonda, C. (2014). Guide to International Relations: Realism; The World Reporter. Accessed on 

October 14, 2016 from http://www.theworldreporter.com/2014/05/guide-international-relations-realism.html 

Shiraev, E., and Vladislav, Z. 2016. International Relations. New York: Oxford University 

Press.