Realist_Theory_in_Ir

Why do realists insist the state is the most important actor in international politics' Realist theory within international relations can be traced back to the mid seventeenth century Thomas Hobbes book Leviathan asserted that people sought their own self interest when there was no government and/or monarchy in place, he called this condition “the state of nature”. The implication being that a state of nature (or “state of war”) replaced internal rules when there was no government to apply them, the end product being anarchy (Goldstein J. S 2005). A significant time later Morgenthau expanded on this theory after World War 2 applying his similar theory to that of international relations by describing all nations devoid of universal morality, in his words “no nation has God on its’ side”(Morgenthau. H 1985). In this essay i aim to identify why realists insist that the state is the most important actor in international politics. The concept of each state controlling its own sovereignty is a cornerstone of realist theory, it is seen as the actor with which other states interact. Realist thinkers maintain that it is the lack of global governance that determines the anarchical structure of international politics, in turn this situation encourages states (actors) to act in a manner to to human nature, inherently selfish and insecure. The actors self interest is the overriding motivation, where secuirity of sovereignty and the pursuit of power are the goals to satisfy this “selfish” nature. Waltz defined power by describing actors as powerful to the extent that they affect others more than they are able to affect them (Waltz. K 1979). A good example of this can be seen in the relationship between Soviet Russia and the USA during the arms race, two “super-powers” each attempting to tip the balance of power in their favour whilst both looking to increase their power bvase by recruiting strategic allies from around the world. Power can be measured in several ways, economically, militarily, influencially or territorially, because the state acts in a self interested way (to protect its sovereignty) little regard is given to the nature of each states domestic political system. Democracies, Dictatorships, Military governments all are seen in the realist perspective as rational actors with the same fears and desires as each other. Because of this international organisations and transnational corporations are recognised as having some degree of power but because their motivations are different from a states ultimate goal this power is insufficient to change the sovereignty of a state. Realist thinking would deduce that the most important actor would therefore be the state as their incentive is to survive, therefore the relationship between states is of paramount importance as this is the only way secure sovereignty and gain power. For smaller states the concept of achieving national security from larger states aggression could involve allying themselves with similar states (often bordering) where differences can be reconciled in pursuit of balancing power, either globally or regionally. Mearheimer (2001) suggests that a state with the opportunity to achieve hegemonic power would never pass it up, however he recognised that for a state to realise global hegemonic power was unlikely, nevertheless it was possible to achieve regional hegemonic power nonetheless it would be inevitable that other states (understandably) would seek to frustrate or prevent this from happening as they attempt to equalise the balance of power. This idea reinforces the realists assumption that non state actors influence less power than a state regardless of size when the agenda of all states is self preservation and the pursuit of power. Mearheimer mentions that populations without a state (Kurdistan, Chechnya, Palestine) naturally feel insecure in their quest to form a state (Mearheimer 2005) he argues that idealist views critised by E.H Carr still hold firm today and that the concepts of states chasing power still stand today as they did in 1939 even in relative world peace. Idealist theory doesn’t appear to hold water as regional governments fears of populations without states outweighs fears from non state actors. The EU presents a problem to the classical realist as independent bstates appear to relinquish sovereignty willingly, however the counter arguement would be that European Union members do this to address the balance of power from Russia or the USA (and possibly China). The realist perspective doesn’t allow for non state actors to influence the sovereigny of a state, indeed realist governments would seek to exploit these organisations with a view to expanding its power. It coulod be argued that the USA has exploited NATO to express increased power over communist Russia (and to a certain extent China). Military power being the realists predominant yardstick to measure a states level of power. This doesn’t necessarily equate to a states economic, technological or strategic power, it is the perceived strength of its military capabilities that determines a states place in international politics, for example Iran or North Korea, both countries deemed as underdeveloped (North Korea particularly) but both militarily strong. As is proved non state actors intervention to prevent nuclear proliferation has been unsuccseful it is larger states ( and their allies) that can influence these developments by use of (or threat of) war. In conclusion it is hard to deny that realist theory, whilst sometimes simplistic has some core theories that cannot be disregarded. The situation of international anarchy and the overriding significance of the state as the main protagonist in international relations being the foremost concept that is reasonably inescapable to all theorists regardless of their view . Word count: 990 References Goldstein J.S. International Relations 6th Ed, Pearson Longman, New York 2005 Mearsheimer J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, W.W. Norton, New York, 2001 Mearsheimer J. E.H Carr vs Idealis: The Battle Rages On, International Relations 19 (2)139, 2005 Morgenthau H.J. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle For Power and Peace 6th Ed, New York Knopf, 1985 Waltz K. Theory of International Politics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1979