Despite its numerous interpretations, all realists follow the same three core elements: statism, survival, and self-help. The realist approach to the study of International Relations is not a theory defined by an explicit set of assumptions and propositions it has emerged gradually through the work of a series of analysts (Donnelly, 2004: 1). Finally, the conclusion will group up these arguments to prove that there is a limit to the realist pessimism towards the prospects for peace. To pursue this idea, we will focus on Waltz’s defensive realism, as well as Morgenthau’s view on the importance of the balance of power. This opens up the essay’s counter-arguments, based on the idea that some realist thinkers were only moderately cynic, staying within rationality. However, it is also important to note how the realist view can appear to be too bitter despite the actual turn of historical events. In this section, the nature of Mearsheimer’s offensive realism will also be considered. For this we will base our study on the works of Machiavelli and Hobbes. Secondly, it will depict the ways in which realist pessimism may be too overwhelming: looking at classical and structural realism, and observing how the pessimistic level of each differs. Firstly, it will present the foundations on which the realist dogma is built, focusing on its three core elements: statism, survival, and self-help. This essay will be looking at how and why ealism is characterized as being so negative, as well as limiting that trait in certain aspects. This essay will use established arguments to explain that the cynic nature of the realist approach can be, at times, unreasonably excessive, but it still has its limitations. We can thus ask ourselves, focusing on the issue of the prospects for peace, to what extent realists are, perhaps, too pessimistic. Hence realist pessimism and idealist optimism usually come in direct opposition of each other over issues such as the handling of the role of power, human nature, and Man’s natural position towards war and peace. Liberalism on the other hand does not see the international realm as an anarchical one, but “seek to project values of order, liberty, justice, and toleration into international relations” (Dunne, 2008: 111). On one hand, the main realist theme is that “states find themselves in the shadow of anarchy such that their security cannot be taken for granted” (Dunne, Schmidt, 2008: 95). Realism and Liberal Internationalism (which, for the continuation of this essay, will also be referred to as liberalism or idealism) are identified as the two extremes of the academic arena. All of these dogmas have distinct outlooks on the nature of the state, on war, and on the international society. When studying the subject, one is confronted with three main approaches: Liberal Internationalism, the English School, and finally, realism. It is from these that various interpretations are drawn and used to understand events and conflicts that shape how the world functions today. International Relations, as an academic discipline, is considered an ever changing subject which has greatly evolved through the years due to the emergence of different and diverse political theories.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |