The 20th century realism was response to idealist approach that dominated international relations scholarship in the aftermath of WWI. The key contributors of 20th century realism are Edward Hallett Carr (1892–1982) and Hans Morgenthau (1904–1980).
E.H Carr in his notable work “The Twenty years’ crisis” (1939), criticizes idealist approach and describes it as “Utopianism”. According to Carr, “morality can only be relative, not universal”. In addition, he argues that there are neither Universal values nor Universal Interests. Moreover, The Idealist perspective of harmony of interests, which is based on the notions that all humans rationally accepts that they have certain common interests and cooperation is therefore possible. On the contrary, Carr has given the concept of Conflict of Interest. According to Carr, the particular interests of different individuals and groups tear the world apart.
Therefore, in such a conflictual environment, order is based on power, not on morality. (Carr, 1946)
Hans Morgenthau developed political realism into a comprehensive international relations theory. Morgenthau’s “Politics among Nations” is undisputed standard-bearer for political realism. Morgenthau’s theory of political realism based on his six principles.
(1) Politics is governed by objective laws based on human nature (which is selfish), and the Pursuit of power.
(2) The primary aim of state is to ensure their own survival and security.
(3) States are rational actors that act in their own self-interest.
(4) Power is the central currency in International Relations.
(5) The balance of power is crucial for maintaining stability.
(6) Morality should not override the pursuit of national interest in world politics. (Morgenthau, 1952)
Morgenthau’s principles provides a comprehensive framework to understand the dynamics of international relations through realist perspective.
Hans Morgenthau (1904–1980)
Born: Coburg, Germany
Died: New York City, USA
Education: Ph.D. at the University of Geneva
Neo-Realism / Structural Realism
The realist retort came most prominently from Kenneth Waltz, who reformulated realism in international relations in a new and distinctive way. In his book “Theory of International Politics” published in 1979, Waltz responded to the liberal challenge and attempted to cure the defects of the classical realism of Morgenthau with his more scientific approach, which has become known as structural realism or neorealism. Waltz argues that systems are composed of a structure and their interacting units. Political structures have three elements: First, an ordering principle (anarchic or hierarchic), second, the character of the units (functionally alike or differentiated), lastly, the distribution of capabilities. According to structural realism, Drive for power is there in human beings but it is not innate and not the immediate cause of state behavior. External factors or the international system is cause of states’ behavior in international relations: Moreover, International system holds four basic elements:
(1) states as unitary actors.
(2) Nature of international system.
(3) Principle of self-help.
(4) distribution of power among major units.
States are the unitary actors in that all sovereign states constitute an international system of states. “All states are functionally identical in that they seek power to ensure their security/survival”. The absolute sovereignty of state gives birth to anarchy in the event of no central authority over states at international level as opposed to states’ internal political environment, which is hierarchical, authority to regulate the behavior of individuals. The anarchical international political system leaves with no option but self-help as the only principle to ensure their survival, which ultimately lead all states to maximization of their military power. (Waltz, 1979) The way power is distributed amongst major units of the system shapes the foreign policy behavior of other units as well as devise the structure of the system. This phenomenon is also known as the Agent-Structure Debate.
Security Dilemma
German scholar John H. Herz in his book Political Realism and Political Idealism published in 1951 coined the term Security Dilemma. It refers to a situation in which, under anarchy, actions by a state intended to enhance its security, such as increasing its military capabilities or making alliances. This can lead other states to respond with similar measures, producing increased tensions that create conflict, even when no side really desires it. (Herz, 1951)
Defensive Realism
Defensive Realism was proposed by Kenneth Waltz. The security dilemma is the core assumption of Waltz’ defensive realism. According to Waltz, because of the anarchic international system, survival is the main motivation of states. States are distrustful of other states’ intentions and as a result, States always try to maximize their security. Moreover, Waltz emphasis on bipolar world order to stabilize the international order. (Waltz, 1979)
Offensive Realism
John Mearsheimer is the father of Offensive Realism. In his book “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” published in 2001, argue that anarchy encourages all states to maximize their power. Moreover, Offensive realism emphasis on the balance of power as a stabilizing mechanism in the international system. According to Mearsheimer, “Uncertainty about the intentions of other states is unavoidable, which means that states can never be sure that other states do not have offensive intentions to go along with their offensive capabilities”. According to him, though achieving hegemony by any state is not likely in today’s international system, there is no such thing as a status quo and “the world is condemned to perpetual great power competition”. Furthermore, Mearsheimer argues that war is a recurring phenomenon in international relations because states, in their pursuit of power, will inevitably come into conflict with each other. (Mearsheimer, 2001)
John Mearsheimer (b. 1947)
Born: New York City, USA
Education: B.A. from West Point; M.A. and Ph.D. from Cornell University
Criticism on Neo-Realism
First, neo-realism relies on oversimplified assumptions, for instance, assumption that states are unitary actors with clear, rational goals. However, in reality, states are complex entities with internal politics, varying interests, and diverse decision-making processes. Secondly, Neo-realism tends to focus predominantly on the international system and the distribution of power among states, often neglecting the role of domestic factors in shaping foreign policy. Factors like type of government, economic structure, public opinion, and most importantly, perception of leader can significantly influence a state’s behavior. Third, Neo-realism primarily focuses on the behavior of states, often neglecting the role of non-state actors, like international organizations (IGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Multinational corporations (MNCs) and Terrorist Organization. In the contemporary global landscape, these actors play a significant role, and their influence cannot be completely understood within the framework of neo-realism. Fourth, neo realists believe that state are rational actor. However, not all states are rational, leaders may decide to go into war to stretch their stay in power. Hence, states may behave in both ways. Lastly, neo-realism emphasis on security concerns and state survival, neglecting the significance of other motives, like economic interests, identity, or ideology, in shaping state behavior.
Neo Classical Realism
Gideon Rose (b. 1963)
Born: United States
Education: B.A. from Yale University; Ph.D. from Harvard University
Neo Classical Realism emerged as a response to the criticism of structural realism. Neo classical realism seeks to bridge the gap between Classical Realism and Structural Realism by combining the both internal and external factors, and provides a comprehensive theory of state’s behavior in international relations. Gideon Rose in his article “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy” published in 1998, combines the scholarly work and provides a theoretical framework of neo classical realism. According to neo classical realism, the scope and ambition of state’s foreign policy is driven primarily by its relative material power. Moreover, What European states did against the Soviets was not balance of power but balance of threat (Concept given by Stephan Walt) they felt from opposing political system, ideology and value system. Domestic factors and individual factors matter. Neo classical realism include ideology, domestic factors, type of leadership, and institutional factors. Therefore, Neo classical realists asserts that the state’s foreign policy is influenced not only by the anarchic international system but also by domestic factors like type of regime, leaders’ perceptions etc.
Realism in the Context of Islamic Perspective
First, Realism views human nature in a pessimistic way. Realists believe that human is born by flawed and egoistic elements. This led him to go against others for absolute gain and survival. Realists see human as a self-interested creature who has a “perpetual and restless desire for power after power that ceases only in death.” On the contrary, Islam perceives man as a vicegerent of Allah, who bestowed upon man all capabilities to live and comprehend the world around him. Man is created pure and with no sin attached to him beforehand. He is bound to bring good in the world and forbid or even eliminate evil from the earth.
Second is the concept of the Self-Interest. State is the most prominent actor in realist thought, motivated by egoism (classical realism) and self-help (neorealism) notions in the anarchic international system. State needs to maximize their power to ensure its own security against possible attacks. In addition, states frequently form alliances to maintain the balance of power and mitigate the perceived threats arising from adversaries. In doing so, how does Islam view all those elements?
In this regard, Islam rejects the egoistic element of state in pursuing foreign policy. Islam does acknowledge state interest. However, it primarily aims to ensure peace, protect the state from invasion, and prevent injustice to prevail. Moreover, Islam considers morality as the highest supremacy. In addition, Islam does not consider state as the most prominent actor. Islam endeavors to maintain a balance between an individualism and State. Islam aims to promote individual liberty and does not allow state crafting that surpasses individual rights. Lastly, on the contrary to absolute gain, Islam emphasizes on mutual-cooperation, compassion, pursuit of common welfare and encourages state to prioritize justice in their interactions, and fostering a sense of shared responsibility for the well-being of the international community.
Lastly, the concept of anarchic international system and self-help. Islam advocates for the establishment of a just and harmonious World order, where states urged to collaborate rather than engage in perpetual competition. The concept of self-help, as promoted by neorealist scholars, has overshadowed by Islamic principles of collective security and shared responsibility.
References
Carr, E.H. (1946). The Twenty Years’ Crisis.
Geuss, R. (2017). Realism, wishful thinking, utopia. In Political uses of utopia: New Marxist, anarchist, and radical democratic perspectives (pp. 233-247). Columbia University Press.
Herz, J.H. (1951). Political Realism and Political Idealism.
Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.
Morgenthau, H.J. (1952). Politics Among Nations.
Raekstad, P. (2018). Realism, utopianism, and radical values. European Journal of Philosophy, 26(1), 145-168.
Rose, G. (1998). Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy.
Schroeder, P. (1994). Historical reality vs. neo-realist theory. International Security, 19(1), 108-148.
Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of International Politics.
Williams, M.C. (1993). Neo-realism and the Future of Strategy. Review of International Studies, 19(2), 103-121.
