Hans Morgenthau Defensive Realism Essay

Hans Morgenthau Defensive Realism Essay
I. Introduction
The field of International Security Studies has evolved from the discipline of International Relations as a passage to apprehend the driving forces within
international politics. The increases of traditional and non–traditional security threats and problems have made security studies vital to academics,
governments, and policymakers. In addition to that, the theory of realism has been a long prevailing paradigm in international security studies.
Moreover, realism is more than a single theory, but this school of thought has flowered and has generated many new branches and sub–branches within
realism. Among this school of thought, prominent works in the theory of realism include the highly influential classical realism ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Waltz's postulate focuses on the anarchic environment of the international system and grounds his analysis on the consequence of the anarchic
structure in the international system, which ultimately dictates how states behave. In this chapter, Waltz contends that the balance of power theory is a
unique concept in international politics. The balance of power concept is laid upon two prerequisites, that the international system is anarchic and that
the international system is filled with units wanting to survive. This theory claims that the basis of the balance of power does not result from actor's
interests but arises inevitably from the anarchic nature. With that being said, Waltz's realist account is essentially different from Morgenthau realism
model in that he presents a more systemic theoretical foundation for realism, in where state actions or balance of power is dictated and predicted from
the anarchic nature of the international system.
On the other hand, 'Anarchy and the Struggle for Power' in Tragedy of Great Power Politic, by John Mearsheimer possess several basic assumptions in
common with Morgenthau's and Waltz's model of realism. Although, Mearsheimer shares some basic assumptions with the two authors, he presents a
critically different postulate about the fundamental dynamics of international politics. His model of realism contends that the discernible behavioural
patterns of great
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

The Contradiction Between Neorealism And Realism
Events which took place after the end of the "Cold War" and the disintegration of the USSR, and in particular for the first year of the XXI century,
demanded political scientists, sociologists, geopolitics, as well as psychologists revision of views on the theory of international relations. The variety of
theories and attitudes existing today can ultimately be reduced to three known paradigms: realist (including classical realism and neorealism), liberal
(traditional idealism and neo–liberalism) and neo–Marxist, each of which comes from its understanding of the nature and character of international
relations. I suppose that today it is relevant to look at the contradiction between neorealism and neoliberalism.
For the theory of political realism, "the concept of interest defined in terms of power" is the central, as well as the related concept of balance of power,
geopolitical strategy, etc. In neorealism, which was first outlined by Kenneth Waltz, these accents are slightly displaced. Defending a structural
understanding of power, neo–realism does not reduce the balance of power to the military component, and includes economic, information and ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
With the end of the "cold war" the credibility of political realism was seriously shaken. Some of the representatives of neorealism began to call
themselves "liberal realists" or "utopian realists", thus showing a certain willingness to revise certain provisions of the realist paradigm. Many scientists
without questioning the realist thesis about the radical difference of political interactions within the state and in the international arena, believe that the
whole nature of international relations is changing in the direction of "mature anarchy" in which Western liberal–democratic States are able to play the
role of guarantor of international security and progress is made available to all, including fragile states and ordinary

Surrealism And Neorealism
The possibility of change and cooperation within the international system is a topic that has been hotly debated amongst different professional theorists
and political scientists for centuries. Many have talked about the need for peace, meanwhile trying to formulate solutions to help prevent wars and
conflicts but most have concluded that there are definite deterrents that preclude cooperation between states. Neorealists argue that due to the absence
of an overriding sovereign authority in the international system, cooperation between states is exceptionally difficult to achieve. Constructivists assert
that ideas and norms of individual states matter because they shape the identity of the actors and therefore the structure of the international system, in
turn allowing for some kind of change and possible cooperation. This essay will analyze different obstacles that can impede states' ability to cooperate
while outlining the underlying assumptions of each theory by first evaluating neorealists' pessimistic view of change and by secondly illustrating a
different perspective offered by constructivists.
Neorealism, first delineated by Kenneth Waltz, argues that the nature of change within the international system can be abridged to the distribution of
capabilities amongst great powers. Neorealism attempts to answer and explain big picture questions in International Relations by focusing on the system
level of analysis, actively disregarding individual and state levels of

Latin America Foreign Policy Essay
Latin America cannot be categorized as one homogenous block. In spite of sharing multiple aspects–culture, language, and history–there is not a single
standard culture that distinguishes the region. One aspect of Latin American culture, regarding foreign policy, is a prevalent respect for the norm of
sovereignty and non–intervention. There exists a strong disposition to follow international law as a means to prevent war or at the very least ward–off
potential intervention by extraregional powers. Accordingly, the factor of self–interests and self–preservation creates a divergent spectrum of foreign
policies within these countries. Thus, there is a unique propensity of domestic politics–primarily from those leaders in... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
A comparative analysis will be made between a legalistic and pragmatic/realistic approaches. Taking into account that each country is independent from
each other, and with differing interests, this essay will give multiple reasons as to why such a variety in policy exists. Accordingly, this essay will show
a propensity for states to apply the foreign policy development strategy that best fits their needs. Although there may be a sense of preferential treatment
for some strategies, Latin American countries are not inherently bound to a specific development scheme.
The Legalistic Nature of Latin America
Legalism as a cornerstone of Latin American norms has effectively shaped the relationship between how these states relate to each other and the world.
According to Arie Kacowicz, it was considered honorable for a country to meet its lawful commitments "not divorced from considerations of national
interests such as prestige and reputation." When a region's identity relies so much on traditional legacies, the trend is to lean towards the accepted
norms that culturally tie the region. In its simplest terms, norms are standards of behavior or laws that oversee the behavior of a societal block.
Although, Latin America cannot be studied as a homogenous block, countries in the region vary in their alignment patterns independently of each
other in an attempt to pursue self–interests. There is, however, enough of a social

The Balance Of Power Theory
Balance of power theory represents a body of interrelated concepts for achieving security and stability by maintaining an equal distribution of power
throughout the international system. Some critics contend that the theory cannot provide guidance to states in a unipolar system since it developed
out of centuries of multipolarity and decades of bipolarity. This assessment is incorrect. Although a specific conception of balance of power theory
may not provide guidance, an appraisal of the concepts within its various forms suggests continuing relevance. This paper discusses balance of
power theory by examining the evolution of its structural and ideational variants, and asserts that the concept remains relevant in a unipolar
international system. The balance of power is a historical concept with a variety of meanings. In Thucydides' account of the Melian dialogue, he
indirectly refers to countries balancing in response to growing Athenian power and aggression (Thucydides, 1972). Over 1200 years later, Hobbes
described balancing in reference to the ability of a confederacy of the weak to overwhelm the strong (Hobbes, 1996). Both Thucydides and Hobbes
reference a type of balancing aimed at reestablishing an equilibrium of power within the international system. Gulick refers to this behavior by states as
a doctrine of counterpoise, designed to ensure the survival of individual states and to prevent a state from accruing predominant power (Gulick, 1955).
During the 19th

Comparing War And Osiander's The Peace Of Westphalia
The Peace of Westphalia incorporates the two treaties, the Treaty of MГјnster and the Treaty of OsnabrГјck, that ended the Thirty Years' War. The
Peace put to rest a stalemate between the Holy Roman Empire and its enemies. It effectively limited the power of the Empire and, in regard to France
in particular, enhanced the strength of the opposing states. These details could only be disputed with difficulty. The overriding debate concerning the
Thirty Years' War, however, is one that is discussed in the articles presented by Leo Gross and Andreas Osiander. Both authors write in exploration of
the legacy of the Peace of Westphalia. Gross and Osiander argue that the Peace either established the basis for international law and international
relations, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In Osiander's opinion, the Peace of Westphalia simply could not have provided the foundation for international relations because the terms of the two
treaties of the Peace concerned only the specific belligerents and their concerns, not the legal aspects that would have provided the foundation.
Instead, Osiander argues that the terms, like religious tolerance for example, that scholars like Gross examine, are merely the widely regarded beliefs
of the Peace known as the Westphalian Myth: "[The Peace of Westphalia] is silent on the issue of sovereignty...There is nothing in it about the balance
of power...it is because of the arbitrary habit of regarding 1648 as a milestone in the evolution of sovereignty that this concept is projected". Because
the Peace, according to Osiander, did not mention sovereignty–related terms, it could not have established sovereignty for modernized Europe, but did
establish "a system of mutual relations among autonomous political units", not based on sovereignty, but the legal system. Osiander concludes that
modern day sovereignty is not a result of the Peace of Westphalia, but of the emergence of industrialization that lessened the importance of international
factors due to improved independent economies and

The Theories of International Relations
INTRODUCTION
The theories of international relations are the end results of good international relations and system in the world today, most of this theories are not
well implemented in most countries which has resulted on conflicts among nations, political instabilities, secessions and all other political unrest.
This essay will shed more light on the phases of international relations from the individual stage to the international stage.
Firstly, this essay will explain what the theories of international relations are and then proceeds to give you the overview of what theoretical perspective
provides the best account in international relations
Liberalism idealism
Liberalism is a society which is characterized by freedom of thought ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
"В…the security of one is the concern of allВ…" and this is where collective responsibility comes in, in which aggression by one state would be
countered by collective action by the other state, embodied in a league of nations.
The League of Nations illustrated the importance the theory have placed on international institutions to deal with war and the chance for collective
problem solving in a many–sided forum (Mingst,2004:63).
Where we could see the weakness of this theory was when the Liberals is seen to have failed to make the world safe for democracy' as President
Woodrow Wilson, who authored the covenant of the League of Nations, claimed it could during WW1, even when its doctrine were institutionalized
into international organizations like the League of Nations and later the United Nations. Mingst also added that the League of Nations proved
incompetent of maintaining collective security and many questions of the basic goodness of humanity came up, leaving liberalism under intense
scrutiny. These questions made liberalism as a theoretical perspective fall out of favour.
Realism
This theory believes people to be sinful and wicked by nature and man's aggressive power seeking and lustful nature has implications on the state.
Individual in states are organised to act in a unitary way in pursuit of its own national interest in terms of power (Mingst, 2004:65). Mingst also wrote
that the

International Security And International Law Essay
International security studies offer several concepts to facilitate comprehension of the complex international order. Transnational identities, balance of
power and international institutions and law are the most applicable concepts to describe the international security system. They best reflect the
thinking of political leaders even in contrary forms of governments in different parts of the world, in sum, they consider the most dominant paradigms
in the study of world politics and they supplement each other in executing a variegated set of policies. This essay will discuss those concepts following
their related main actors from individuals via states to international organizations. Each paragraph gives a short characterization of the respective
concept, links it with the most appropriate paradigm and shows the application of the concept in both democratic and more autocratic states while
referencing the other concepts.
The concept of transnational identities is mainly associated with the paradigm of constructivism and describes both the essential politics of the
democratic United States of America (USA) in internal and foreign affairs and the behavior of the more autocratic governed state of Iran in the Middle
East. The term transnational identity stands for identities or ideologies based on culture. In addition, the beliefs and values do not necessarily align
with national borders. On the one hand, the identities depend on the interests and preferences in the

Kennan's Analysis
Kennan understanding of the driving forces of international relations effects how he understands the hostilities between the United States and the
Soviet Union. Realism is central to his argument of the structure international relations. In viewing realism as driving force of international relations, it
became the base for his development of US foreign policy of containment. He frames containment to address the issues of maintaining US security, by
containing the Soviets attempts to expand their power, and restoration of the global balance of power.
Kennan argument is that the fundamental driving force of international relations is realism. He views state actions as working for their own security,
and self–interest. It means that actions undertaken by states are for the maintenance or expansion of state security. The focus is not on state's ideology
or internal structure as a determinate of actions. Rather it is about perseveration of security, and self–interest in the long–term as the base for actions. It
gives a flexibility to state policy, given, it does not focus on the short term. Instead, a state will take 'hits' that harm short–term interest, but not the
long–term goal of power for security. As well, to maintain state sense of security is having a... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
State motives are working for their self–interest, specifically, to work for their security. Kennan's view is that the Soviets hold a flexible agenda
(Sources of Soviet Conduct, 574). Kennan argument and the base of containment is because the Soviet are working for their self–interest of security,
not ideology. The Soviet Union has a history of invasion and a feeling of "capitalist encirclement" with which eventually can be no permanent peace
(The Long Telegram, Kennan). It means that the state's actions are going to center on maintaining and expanding their own power to feel

The Balance Of Power Theory
The balance of power theory represents a body of interrelated concepts for achieving security and stability by maintaining an equal distribution of
power throughout the international system. Some critics contend that the theory cannot provide guidance to states in a unipolar system since it
developed out of centuries of multipolarity and recent decades of bipolarity. This assessment is incorrect. Although a specific conception of balance
of power theory may not provide guidance, an appraisal of the concepts within its various forms suggests continuing relevance. This paper discusses
balance of power theory by examining its evolution, and asserts that the concept remains relevant in a unipolar international system. The balance of
power is a historical concept with a variety of meanings. In Thucydides' account of the Melian dialogue, he indirectly referred to countries balancing
in response to growing Athenian power and aggression (Thucydides, 1972). Over 1200 years later, Hobbes described balancing in reference to the
ability of a confederacy of the weak to overwhelm the strong (Hobbes, 1996). Both Thucydides and Hobbes reference a type of balancing aimed at
reestablishing an equilibrium of power within the international system. Gulick referred to this behavior by states as a doctrine of counterpoise,
designed to ensure the survival of individual states and to prevent a state from accruing predominant power (Gulick, 1955). During the 19th Century,
European powers

The Cold War System Theory: Demise of the USSR and Changes...
International relations have been one of the most interesting and at the same time controversial areas of study since the Cold War. The world silent
conflagration determined a reconsideration of the way in which politics was conducted and the relations between states at the level of the balance of
power and the importance of international actors.
One of the most important aspects defined by the theory of international relations takes into account the fact that the balance of power represents a
volatile reality that is always determined by the external factors that make up international politics. In this sense, the Cold War has been a significant
historical experience that best defines the balance of power in the terms of the two political, military, and economic blocks, the US and the USSR and
their silent yet obvious confrontations at this level.
In order to better understand the volatility of the balance of power, it is important to consider the Cold War in its historical background, which can
be stated to have dated since the end of the First World War. Hence, the present research considers the confrontations between the US and the USSR
during the Cold War as a clear example of both the legacy of a historical background and the way in which relations change in time due to political
events. However, the point of the research represents the post Cold War era and how the demise of the USSR affected the balance of power, as a
further exemplification of the volatility of

International Relations
AIS 3121 Theories of International Relations
Are companies more powerful than nation–state in international relations?
Chak Shu Fai, 52626878
Introduction
This essay will focus on the influential relations between companies and nation–states in international relations. It is a serious issue because companies
have raised the importance in international relations, especially non–governmental organizations (NGOs) and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs).
According to the data collected by the Union of International Associations, there were over 66,000 international organizations, include NGOs and
IGOs, in 300 countries and territories in 2013. More approximately 1,200 new organizations are added each year (Sheldon, 2014). The major increasing
numbers of the international organizations is one of the evidence to show their powerful status in international relations. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
For instance, it functions as a response to problems of incomplete information, transaction costs and other barriers to improve the efficiency and welfare
for their members (Barnett & Finnemore, 1999). The concept of powerful international organizations also can be found from professor Weiler (2003),
international organizations have increasingly themselves interpreted their powers in an expansive manner that blurs the role of State consent, and
States have increasingly conferred broader public powers of governance on international organizations. There is no doubt that international
organizations have taken a deeper role in international relation, but it has different degrees of influence toward small nation states and big countries. In
order to have a clearer picture of international organization's influence in international relations, the essay is divide in two part. First, it comments on
small nation–state would be largely affected by

Realism, Liberalism, And Social Constructivism
Because global politics guarantees only anarchy and interaction, scholars must analyze the international system using a variety of theories. Realism,
liberalism, and social constructivism are only a handful of lenses through which we view global affairs. Realism suggests that anarchy causes states to
fight for survival and the balance of power. Liberalism suggests that while states do fight to survive, anarchy creates an environment conducive to
cooperation. On the other hand, constructivism suggests that people constructed this system of international relations and anarchy is what states make of
it. Although each theory is different, they still seek to explain both history and the contemporary world.
The realist approach to anarchy treats it as the main mode of the international system. Realist theory states that because the international system is
anarchic, survival acts as a state's primary interest. Without a higher authority to regulate the actions of states, much like a government regulates the
actions of its citizens; states are free to do whatever they please. Realism suggests that given this amount of power, along with the primal and violent
nature of humans, states must constantly fight to survive. The self–interest of the state comes before anything else, so conflict is always possible.
States only gain relative to other states because there can be no absolute winnings for all states; a zero–sum approach to power. Also, in the anarchic
system states strive to put

Levels Of Analysis And The Stu Essay
Three levels of analysis, each with its own distinct strength, reveals three different ways of understanding international relations. The first states that all
nation–states behave similarly, the second emphasizes the unique internal factors of a nation–state, while the third level of analysis focuses on the
individual deciding a state&#8217;s course of action. Each level of analysis is useful in the study of international relations. Indeed, used all
together, it is not long before arriving at a point where a vast number of explanations for the actions of a country are brought to light. However, to best
understand international relations, one level of analysis is more useful than the rest, because it provides the most comprehensive ... Show more content
The third level of analysis also has the ability to, within the models that can view the state as non–monolithic, presume that the different groups have
similar interests and share the same hierarchy of goals by use of the organizational model; or, it can explore the presumption that the different groups
have different interests by use of the bureaucratic model. Furthermore, because the focus of level three analysis is on the participants in the decision
making process, the psychological aspects that influence the actions of the groups and individuals who influence the actions that the state are
considered as well. These psychological aspects can include the perceptions of an individual that are shaped by their past experiences, stereotypes
formed through those experiences and their own personal values. The third level of analysis, because of all that it takes into consideration, has a
completeness in understanding international relations than cannot be matched by the first and second levels of analysis.
Examples of how the third level of analysis is more useful in better understanding international relations can be seen in examining the Cuban Missile
Crisis. A conclusion that would be drawn from a level two analysis is that the US chose the blockade to deal with the discovery of Soviet missiles in
Cuba,

Hans Morgenthau : The Balance Of Power In International...
Nearly all of us wish to have a peaceful world free from wars and struggles for our generation. However, as far as the world is divided into many
nations, such as the Middle East, the West, Far East Asia and African origin, the realisation of such a peaceful world seems far from being possible
in the near future. Even though the United Nations Organisation was established for the purpose of ending power politics it has not been able to
function so well as supposed or intended in its inception. Thus the world has remained just the same as before and we still live in an age of power
politics. In the general international relations literature, realism stands out for its central focus on the idea of power. The balance of power endlessly
debated and variously defined and it is the core theory of international politics within the realist perspective. In "Politics Among Nations" (1948), Hans
Morgenthau, "the father of realism" in international relations, defined international politics as "The aspiration for power is the distinguishing element
of international politics. The struggle for power is universal in time and space and is an undeniable fact of experience." Politicians have practiced
realism as long as states have existed. Most scholars and politicians during the Cold War viewed international relations through a realist lens. Neither
the United States nor the Soviet Union trusted the other, and each sought allies to protect itself and increase its political and military

The Between 1879 And 1980
Throughout the period between 1879 and 1980 the relationships between the powers changed greatly in their nature, coinciding with a shift in the
balance of power. The Entente Cordiale of 1904 can certainly be seen as a key turning point, along with other factors such as Neville Chamberlain's
policy of appeasement, the Cuban Missile Crisis and the SALT I and II agreements. The signing of the Entente Cordiale in 1904 epitomised the
ever–growing division on the European stage in the early 1900s, and certainly contributed to a pre–war alliance which precipitated the outbreak of
World War One. At the time, the highly unlikely signing of an Anglo
–French agreement can be seen by Gavin as a, "construct as an affront towards
Germany". However, from the point of German interests, they had no objections to the treaty and had no reason to suppose that the alliance was
directed against any one power. The period of Britain's largely mythical 'splendid isolation', formally ending by the 1902 Anglo–Japanese Alliance,
Britain began to expand its relations with European countries. The signing of the Entente Cordiale can certainly suggest that Germany ought to be
concerned, and is certainly significant when determining any alteration in the relationships of the powers and shift in the balance of power. A way in
which the Entente Cordiale was significant was that it was firstly tested in the 1905 Morocco Crisis, only 13 months within the signing of the cordiale,
suggests German objection

How International Orders Emerge And How They Change
The survival instinct is part of human nature; compels us to promote security through fight or flight. One manifestation of this instinct may be seen in
the way humans form societies of like–minded individuals to gain more power for defense. That society will claim territory and sovereignty to
become a state. When that state interacts with other states on the international scene, they become central actors in the international system. Since
that international system is anarchic in its nature, every state will seek to gain more power in order to protect itself. States which gain more power,
will be major players in the international system and those great power states will form an order, which we call an international order.2 International
orders emerge when one great power state gains enough power to dominate or set rules for other great powers, and they change when the balance of
power shifts from one great power state to another. In order to explain how international orders emerge and how they change, we must first explain
what international order is. We can describe the international order as "a pattern of activity that sustains the elementary or primary goals of the society
of states, or international society."3 Sovereign states in an anarchic world are the key actors in that pattern of activity that we call balance of power,
and the primary goal of every state is their sovereignty and survival. Since there is no overreaching authority in an anarchic world

The Realist and Liberalist Perspectives on International...
The Realist and Liberalist Perspectives on International Relations and US Policy Stance Toward Iraq
There are two prominent stances in International Relations. The schools of thought are commonly referred to as realist and liberalist. There are various
names that they are called, and they can also be split further into subdivisions. However, for the purposes of this question I will just refer to the main
schools of thought, and the main aims of both the paradigms. At a first glance at this question, my gut feeling is that the United States aims to achieve
the same as the liberalists, that of world peace. But the current stance of the US policy is to achieve this utopia by realist methods, pre–emptive ... Show
The Iraq question has proven that with the emphasis on security, living in fear of attack, the realist stance brings us closer to war.
States wishing to arm themselves against attack may be seen as mobilising for war. This happens because there is no distinction between offensive
and defensive weapons. In such a case a "security dilemma" is raised.[2] Such a question has been raised over Iraq; is Saddam Hussein arming for
war against the West or for defence against the West? This is difficult to show because of the lack of distinction between offensive and defensive
weapons.
The mutual distrust of Iraq and the United States of America can be explained by the fact that under the realist paradigm power is a chief aim. This
power is achieved by defending themselves against possible aggressors and also at the expense of their rivals. In the current climate, the United States
is defensive and aggressive towards Iraq and vice versa.
With the struggle for power, or at least a balance of power, it is inevitable that there will be a number of small wars that ensue. The realist viewpoint
proved this pre–1914 when the intricate alliance systems of the Ententes of France and Britain, the Dreikaiserbund of Germany, Russia and
Austria–Hungry. These two alliances produced several minor wars that helped maintain

Non Proliferation Treaty And The Universal Declaration Of...
The functioning of an international order refers to the "rules of the game" that delineate how states act toward each other. These rules or governing
arrangements are intentionally constructed by states to promote their goals and interests (Bull 1977: 8) These rules may be formal, operating through
mechanisms like international law, international treaties and alliances, and international organizations, or they may be informal, based on more
nebulous concepts like norms, principles, and values regarding acceptable or legitimate behavior. These rules of the game identify the rights and
obligations of states, and they provide mechanisms for regulating conflict among states. The post–1945 international order comprises a large number of
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Thus, there is no central political authority that can establish rules, force states to obey them, punish states that break the rules, or otherwise arbitrate
among states (Jervis 1985). However, the major theoretical paradigms draw different implications from anarchy.
Realism is a dominant theory of international relations focuses on state 's security and power primarily. Besides, states are considered the only unitary
rational actors where its survival and interests is the cornerstone of interstates relation highly based on might rather than on right. Hence, realists
believe that people are by nature sinful and instinctively seeking power to dominant others. Power will be everlasting in the human 's nature and the
possibility to be eradicated is a utopian aspiration (Kegley, 1993). On the other hand, Liberalism as a dominant theory of international relations
emphasizes peaceful interstates relations where the preference of states goes beyond politics to economic and social interaction to achieve a
harmonious environment and reducing war conflicts. Basically, the liberals underline that states are not unitary actors and non–states actors are
significant to take a part in the realm since states are not rational and all actors will function better together. Additionally, power and security dilemma
is a secondary objective.
For realists, power and the distribution of power are the only important factors in IR. It is

Realism and Neo-Realism Essay
INTRODUCTION
The most historically entrenched theoretical perspective in international relations theory is that of classical realism. Surprisingly though classical
realism was not sensationalized in the international relations arena until World War II despite its existence in fifth–century Athens. Many great
philosophers such as Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes developed the basics of classical realism and in 1948 Hans J. Morgenthau made the great
leap into contemporizing classical realism theory with his six principles of political realism, the basics placing the state as the central power in the IR
system.
Barely three decades later the world has developed so rapidly that theorists such as Kenneth Waltz went on to address a new ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
With that Morgenthau insists "...all politics is a struggle for power that is inseparable from social life itself." (Lebow, 2010) "[Power's] content and
its use are determined by the political and cultural environment." (Morgenthau, 2004) For that reason war becomes a regular condition of IR in the
classical realist's theory, simply because war is the nature of human beings and power is the end all means by which national interests are secured and
advanced rather than as a consequence of a possible lack of understanding about historical circumstance, their level of understanding or even perhaps
because their leaders were objectively flawed themselves.
While classical realists recognize that states exist in an anarchical "self–help" system where they must rely on power to protect and control their
existence it is there that they suddenly divorce the state from its domestic civil society as well as any other international actors aside from other
nation states proclaiming autonomy in their own political realms. This is in order to "recognize and pursue the interests of the nation [state] as a
whole, and not those of particular powerful groups within the community...". (Grieco, 1997) This comes as no surprise so long as we recall that states
are and will always be obsessed with their own national security, their ability to be able to protect and at best advance themselves in whatever
capability possible which means having the choice and independent

The Effects Of The Balance Of Power
The Effects of the Balance of Power
Introduction
In the breadth of International Relations, political theorists have been seeking a solution to maintain peace and stability among states. As conflict
among states is imminent, it is impossible to fully eliminate war and aggression. However, the scope of international relations is to create an effort to
minimize conflict by using communicative techniques and strategies. The best way to create diplomatic resolutions is to understand the function of the
actors and their roles. The "balance of power" is a strategic concept that offers a feasible solution to bring about stability and harmony to conflicting
states.
The primary instrument that engages the prospect of war, peace, and the balance of power is the amount of actors who possess power on the
international stage. There are three main systems to classify the allocation of power in the international community. The three systems include a
unipolar, bipolar, and multipolar world. Many realists' theorists correlate multi–polar systems as destructive and problematic in causing wars.
Meanwhile, it is widely agreed that bipolarity encourages stability and a unipolar world is the most ideal in maintaining peace. The objective of this
paper is to analyze these three concepts of distribution of power and how it has affected the international stage after World War II.
Conceptualization: Balance of Power
The "balance of power" theory is considered a rudimentary concept in the field of

Balance Of Power In International Relations
Balance of power is a key concept in international relations. There are many different arguments about this concept that disagree on whether or not
it causes or disrupts peace in the world. Two main arguments include those made by realists and liberals. While realist theory holds that a balance
between the major powers will create peace, liberals point to many examples in which this isn't true. There have been many shifts in world power
since the first world war that can serve as examples of peace compared to types of power in the international system. While no theory may be
completely right, examples from the past century or so seem to prove that liberalism has the most accurate explanation of balance of power and how
it relates to peace in the world through democracy, norms, and institutions. Because of this, states should not follow the advice to balance against
power, but instead seek peace in different ways such as democratization to maintain democratic peace. As I stated earlier, balance of power is a very
important concept in international relations. It is a realist theory that can be defined as an "arrangement in which capabilities are fairly evenly
distributed among the major actors" (Kinsella 79). Basically, international stability exists when no major power dominates the international system. A
balance of power can exist in multipolar systems by alliances between major powers, and in bipolar systems by two states matching each other's
military capabilities.

International Relations Essay
The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of Realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self–interest and the balance of power. Realism is
also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo–realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed
that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of
analysis to evaluate the power of a state. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the
decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power... Show
The power of a state is always contextual and relative. The final level of analysis Morgenthau considers to be important is whether or not the power is
legitimate and moral or if it is illegitimate and immoral. Legitimate and moral power carries considerable weight in the international community.
However, if the power of a state is derived from illegitimate sources such as a dictatorship the international community will be less responsive to that
state, weakening its power. Weak or small states may enter into alliances with stronger states to increase their power and influence within the
international community (Kleinberg 2010, 33–34). Morgenthau also believed that the charisma and personality of a leader was very important when
reviewing the balance of power and understanding a state's self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). Realism focuses on the balance of power and how it
impacts of actions of state actors within the international political system. Morgenthau said that, "The aspirations for power on the part of several
nations, each trying to either maintain or overthrow the status quo, leads of necessity to a configuration that is called the balance of power and to
policies that aim at preserving it" (Morgenthau 1967,131). He goes on by explain that not only is the balance of power and the policies that protect it
inevitable but also that they are essential for

In The First Theory,Realism, The International System Is
In the first theory, Realism, the international system is defined by anarchy and the lack of a central authority, meaning that states are independent
from each other and no structure or system can establish a forced relation among them. In this type of system, power is the main objective that each
state plans to accomplish because only by achieving this power they can protect themselves and survive. According to this theory, there are different
powers that a state plans to achieve for example the military power, the economic power or the diplomatic power. States seek to achieve the
instruments of "hard" and "soft" power, to gain influence over other states and to accomplish this goal may be necessary to engage in war, conflicts or...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Realism theory explain that even if all the countries appear to have different objectives according to particular circumstances, in reality they have
common intentions, which are focused on re–building the logic of policy makers. And the last assumption sees a country as a "unitary actor". The
nature of the international system defines the main problems that a country can face (Holsti, 1985) .
Realism was a dominant model of explaining the concept of international relations during the past six decades and was considered to be a framework
in order to analyses and understand better the First World War, The Second World war, and theCold War. But, Classical Realism is described as a
pessimistic theory of understanding the human nature, when is distinguished that egoism and self–interested attitude are base of the phenomenon
known as "homopoliticus". According to Classical Realism, the question of why exists conflict and war in the world is founded on human nature
characteristics. In order to eliminate this problem, later was developed a new theory, the Modern Realist theory, which pointed out that the structure of
the international system can be used as an instrument to explain and understand more the state behavior. The Modern Realists realized that words like
"power", "national interests" or "balance of power", are contradictory concepts. According to Classical Realism theory, power is an important element,
but the relation among power balance and political output,

Early Approaches to Interantional Relations
Early approaches to international relations can be found in the works of the Greeks and Romans. Plato and Aristotle, who wrote on the concept of war
and the defense of the city–state. Partially as a result of the decline of the Greek city–states, the idealist concept of cosmopolitanism and world
citizenship took hold. Roman scholars later developed the law of nations, which consisted of a body of legal principles and practices common to
those societies associated with Rome. French writers, particularly those during the Enlightenment Era, focused on the roles of diplomacy, arbitration,
and adjudication in the achievement of perpetual peace, and tended to prefer to achieve policies goals through trade and commerce rather than war
(Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff, Jr. 2001). In the 1500s, Jean Bodin (1992) wrote about the principle of sovereignty, which held that a monarch was
supreme internally, but equal to other rulers externally. English political philosophers, including Hobbes, Spinoza, and Locke, agreed with the French
writers on the concept of sovereignty but not on the prospects for international government. The period of European history from the end of the
Thirty Years War in 1648 to the beginning of World War I in 1914 was known as the Golden Age of Diplomacy, and scholarly writings from this time
focused on the balance of power, alliances, and international law in a state system characterized by numerous wars (Dougherty and Pfalztgraff, Jr.
2001). The Inter–War Period

Morality In International Relations
International relations have always been a very important topic. Knowing and understanding the history of international relations is vital to learning
how it has evolved and how we can handle it today and in the future. However today our historical egoism, or the idea that we believe we are better
and more advanced than those in the past can blind us. In reality, history is a bit more complicated. We often ask if it is a never–ending march of
progress or one conflict after another? The best we can do is learn and try to create a better future. With that said, we will be looking at two important
factors in international relations: power and morals. It has been a widely–debated issue whether it is better to use power or morals in international
relations. Some argue that power is the answer to international relations, and others believe that morals are the answer. In the end, several theories,
authors, and examples can lead us closer to the aptness of international relations.
To begin with, many have argued that power is what maintains a balance between nations and what can also lead to war. First, let's look at two major
powers in the world: Europe and United States. Their international relation structures are very different. America is more realist than Europe in the
way they use, desire, and view power. Europe's perspective is more diplomatic and sophisticated. Europe tends to turn away from power and focuses
on a creating laws and rules that world should follow. When an

Balance Of Power Essay
"The Italians, had discovered the method of preventing any monarch from rising to such a degree of power as was inconsistent with the general
liberty" articulates the author of The History of the reign of Charles V, one of the many books, that I surveyed for my undergraduate research paper
entitled "British Foreign Policy in the XVIII Century: The Struggle for an European Balance of Power". As indicated by the title, this project explores
a provocative but yet scarcely studied, other than the works of renowned military historian Jeremy Black, facet of British Foreign policy which made
Britain a global power and through for example American Independence laid the foundations for the current state of international relations. In brief my
research paper argues two main points, the history of the balance of power theory predates modern Europe and its current state, and how British
foreign policy was influenced not only by British desire for balance of power in Europe, but by geographic, historical, parliamentary, political and
economic influence on foreign policy.
This research paper was the first venture into serious scholarship that has affirmed my passion for international relations, world politics and British
diplomatic history; and it has given me the confidence to assert and contest my opinions about international relations theory, diplomacy and the current
state of international relations across the globe. Continuing along these avenues of research in graduate school, I

International Relations For Modern World Politics Essay
Introduction: From the European colonial era to the Syrian refugees' crisis, the motion of modern international system always moves forward with
the changes of world politics. There is a number of scholars would use "Eurocentric" as a key word to define this system because of several reasons.
Since Karl Haushofer (NV & Leiden, 2006) firstly wrote "Europe–centric" in German during the 1920s, the debate of this topic has been one of the
most crucial projects for every scholar of international relations in these centuries. More precisely, "Eurocentric" could be explained as the centre of
modern international system is in Europe or the current order of international society is given by European communities. However, there are more and
more studies showed the political importance and influence from oriental world. This essay is going to discuss whether the terminology of
"Eurocentric" could be a good idea t o explain the international system of international relations for modern world politics by focusing on both the
historical reasons and political issues. For instance, the effects of the European colonial era to the world politics and international system. In my
opinion, although "Eurocentric" was a reasonable idea of international system for a long time. With the development of goblobalization indeed changed
the order of world politics such as the rise of Chinese economy. In fact, the argument that evolution of international system in international relations are
Eurocentric

International Relations : A Important Form Of Relationship
International Relations is a very important form of relationship in world politics today. So far as the world is made up of individuals, states, countries
and various cultures there will also be a form of interactions with one another thereby leading to International Relations. Over the years, International
Relations has been governed by two major theories. These theories are known as Idealism and Realism. In addition, theories are very important in
international relations this is because theories are made to have contributions and solutions to world issues. Also, Theories can be defined as the
development of series of statements about rational behaviour based upon a dominant motive such as Power; such theory provides a description of the
political behaviour of rational actors. (Akinboye & Ottoh, 2005:53). Theories are also seen as a set of norms or values indicating how political actor
ought to behave. The essence of theory for realism and idealism is to show their views on International Relations Issues. These two approaches have
been seen as competing traditional approaches, furthermore, each of these approaches wants to be recognised as the major and sound approach to the
study of International Relations (Dinesh). Each of these theories has its particular views on International Relations therefore believing they can explain
and understand, International Relations. Idealism also known as Liberalism is a theory of International that majorly believe that the interactions

The Ability Of A Classic Book
The ability of a classic book is to be reinterpreted. A classic is something that is 'Judged over a period to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its
kind' (kimsunjin, 2013). A classic book is a book accepted as being paradigmatic or prominent, for instance, books like Pride and Prejudice, To Kill a
Mockingbird, Of Mice and Men and so forth, are listed in a list of great books. Either through an imprimatur or a reader's opinion. Per Henrik Blidal,
Casper Sylvest and Perter Wilson in 'Classics of international Relations: Essays in criticism and appreciation' they define a classic in five key ways;
'the acknowledged or undisputed classic", "the archetypal classic", "the classic in the making"," the overlooked classic" and lastly the "Alternative
format classic". Kenneth Waltz's neo–realist 'Theory of International Politics' is arguably the utmost significant book in International relations, as Jack
Donnelly argues it is "causing a fundamental discursive transformation and conveying the notion of anarchy to the forefront" (Donnelly, n.d.).
Similarly, Keohane and Nye's 'Power and Interdependence' re–examined the military and economic interests of state and non–state actors. The authors
widened the dominant realist worldview of the time and contributed to many of the advances in our modern era of globalization.
* Waltz's 1979 "Theory of International politics" fits into the category of the 'acknowledged or undisputed classics', perhaps because it replaced
Morgenthau's

The Governing Principles Of The Balance Of Power Theory...
Case Study The governing principles of the balance of power theory and polarity failed to predict the outbreak of the first world war. To understand
the dangers of grand simplifications such as the two aforementioned principles it's best to contrast how they viewed international relations precluding
the war with how the actual state of affairs and its consequences. Prior to the first world war, the world was in a state of multipolarity with a multitude
of empires vying for power [Brown and Ainley, 21]. During this time, each empire was building up strength internally with the knowledge that any
attempt to disrupt the balance of power through external military means would be met with staunch opposition [Hill, 181]. Given that states are rational
actors concerned with survival, an assumption made by realists and their theories, they would understand that any such opposition would be a direct
threat to their security. As described by many realist theorists, polar states want to maintain the balance of power as it is. Brown and Ainley explain
that Bismarck was willing to forego expanding the German Empire into neighboring states in order to maintain the balance of power and stability
[Brown and Ainley, 102]. In the years preceding the first world war, whenrealism was the dominant political theory, states were seen to be in a
self–help system [Brown and Ainley, 133]. There was no League of Nations or council for arbitration that states could bring their grievances to be heard.

Essay about Great Power Hegemony
Name: Sayed Jamaluddin Firozi,
St no: 1B1019
Great power hegemony
There is a question that which system (empire, balance of power, concert of power or great power hegemony) provides the best conditions for
advancing peace, prosperity and civilization? There are several opinions about the advantages and disadvantages of each system and the functions,
abilities and disabilities of them to maintaining the peace and stability in international arena. But I want to argue on hegemonic power system as a
preventer of war among states and a maintainer of peace as comparison to other suggested types of system for advancing peace, stability and
civilization in all over the world. Hegemonic power system is the best system for ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
For example USA as a hegemonic state "pays the 22 percent regular expenditure of United Nation and 25 percent of the budget while UN goes for
peacekeeping operations around the world. On the other hand, "the system of balance of power doesn't seem to contribute the cooperation among
states but in contrast it pushes the states to go for a competition and armament race because each state in the system will increase its capabilities to
make the balance in the system. Eventually this competition will lead nation state to build its arm forces". However, there are some arguments
about the weakness of hegemonic power to prevent states from going to war. They argue that hegemonic power has its own limitations in term of
internal and external barriers to go as policeman around the world. This arguments see very good and logic. But they don't have any proposal that
which system could be the best to make the world more peaceful and prosperous. So, despite these points of view the other types of system such as
balance of power or concert of power likely aren't good replacement for great power hegemony system to be succeeded for making peace and stability
in the world. So I will try to give more examples from history of international relations to show the other systems (empire and balance of power or
concert of power) couldn't make a stable and peaceful world. But mostly went to war and there was fear of attack from other

Balance of Power as a Concept
Balance of Power as a concept The concept of balance of power is considered as one of the oldest and fundamental concept in the field of
international relations (Paul T.V 2004). International relations theorists had been defining balance of power differently to highlight its significance
and relevance in international politics, as David Hume declared balance of power as scientific law due to its significance in international politics.
Glenn Snyder highlighted balance of power as a core theoretical concept in international relations. Hans Morgenthau called balance of power as "iron
law of politics" and Henry Kissinger, regarded balance of power as more an art than a science (Paul T.V 2004). Significance and relevance of balance of
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Both the rival states in South Asia could not rely heavily upon internal resources due to limited internal resources and depended on external factor
to enhance and strengthen their security against each other. Additionally, cold war provided golden opportunity to find friends with great powers.
United States and Soviet Union were also looking for allies to extend their areas of influence. Alliance formation strategy to strengthen power
Second best option for any state is to reach a balancing position against strong rival which means to rely upon external resources. It may include
arms aid from friendly states against a common threat. Alliances with other friendly states can strengthen weaker state's defence. That's why states
reach alliances with other states to balance against a common threat. Advocates of 'Balance of Power theory' put forward that peace is generally
preserved when equilibrium of power exists among great powers. Power parity among states helps preventing war because no actor can expect
victory (Kenneth N W, 1979). Cold war between United States and Soviet Union remained a cold war and could not be a hot war; the reason was
quasi balance of power between both the rival states. If war could have broken out between United States and Soviet Union, it would have been a surely
mutual destruction.

Realism And The Theory Of Realism
Introduction
The idea of Realism was unofficially was created in fifth century BC by Thucydides, and continued through Niccolo Machiavelli. This lead to the first
official IR theory of realism in Thomas Hobbes, amd Hans Morgenthau, known as Classical Realist. From there Classical Realism evolved to the ideas
of Kenneth Waltz, which brought along the ideas of neo–realism or structural realism theory. Then came offensive, defensive, and neoclassical realism.
Overall the main idea of realism is defined by internationalrelations.org as "when looking at the political system, or more specifically, the international
system, realists focus their ideas about how international relations work based upon the concepts of power and security." ("Realism ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
This ranges from military presence to business presence. These countries want a piece of Afghanistan politics. This analysis of Realism will use this
situation as an example of why these countries are involving themselves in Afghanistan, to better understand the theory.
System and Power
A system, from a neorealist point of view is described by Waltz as "A system is composed of a structure and of interacting units. The structure is the
system–wide component that makes it possible to think of the system as a whole." Waltz furthermore goes into how to define a structure "A structure is
defined by the arrangement of its parts." (Waltz, 1979) Bringing the neorealism theory that looking at politics, structure is the arrangement of the states,
not the collection of them. This leads in to the neorealism idea that there is no central authority, and the world depends on balance (Sterling–Folker,
2013). That the one thing structure or balance depends on is the states, not NGOs or other actors. From a classical realism perspective according to
Morgenthau's "It is a characteristic aspect of all politics, domestic as well as international, that frequently its basic manifestations do not appear as what
they actually are–manifestations of a struggle for power". (Morgenthau, Thompson & Clinton, 2010) Morgenthau is saying that states are power
seekers, and strive for dominance which is

Globalization of the Economy
Economic globalization has voluminous positive influences on international security as well. The most important effect of economic globalization is
that it curbs the authority of state. It also reduces states' dependence on military based security and ultimately reduces states' monopoly on security.
This effect is considered by many, a prime factor contributing towards peace and stability. There are number of factors associated with economic
globalization which affects states authority.
Firstly, present economic globalization has opened the door of opportunities for most of the countries. Though developed countries are making most
profit from this opportunity but developing and even least developing countries are also exploiting the mutual benefit. Due to open competition local
productions in less developed and developing countries are achieving better performance and standard. Economic globalization is also creating
employment opportunities in those countries. On the other hand states are losing their monopoly on tax collection due to mismatch of economic and
political jurisdiction, and internet–based trade. Thus, on one hand economy has become priority for states, and on the other hand states losing part of its
control on economy. Therefore, economic globalization is exerting its authority on political and state power.
Secondly, with economic globalization there is an immense increase of the number of MNCs and their power in influencing politics. These MNCs, as

The Balance Of Power Theory Essay
The Balance of Power Theory
The most critical and obvious feature of international affairs is its state of anarchy. The international stage features many indepent actors each
seeking their own best interest and security . With no sovereign body to govern over these actors it would seem that the system would never be
capable of attaining any control. However this is not the reality of the system, we have seen in history that it is possible to restrain the players. It is
said to be as a result of the concept of the Balance Of Power, which dictates the actions of states and provides a basis of control that states use when
dealing with each other. This essay is aimed at investigating the concept of the balance of power and will in turn ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Under the B.O.P. theory the logic of theCold War stratagies and alliances seems apparent, with the best method of security being strength. In an
ideal system of B.O.P. all states would 1. act in relatively the same fashion and 2. would make decisions as individual structures. However it can be
seen that in the real world the system is composed of of various types of states. States can vary in their types of regimes and in their level of internal
stability. States goals vary depending on these factors and hence all states will not make similar decisions as the B.O.P. theory would suggest. In
assuming that states make decision as individual, rational actors the theory neglects the fact that though most states are run by an autonomous
executive there are also many other complex bodies involved in a states decision making.
When we veiw the individual members of these decision–making bodies we see many different motives, hence when a decision is made it may not be
the unitary rational response that the B.O.P. theory suggests. From this we can see that states are not run as individuals and so cannot be expected to
make decisions that way.
The major flaws of the B.O.P. theory appear to all converge at one point: the theory itself is oversimplified. It is difficult to suggest alterations to the
theory because its main problem is also its main goal, to give a simplified model of international relations. It is not then suggested that the theory

Realism And Pursuit Of National Interests
Realism is an approach to international politics that is based on the importance of power politics and the pursuit of national interests (Heywood, 2000).
According to this school of thought, the international realm is a moral free ambience in which the state is seen as a rational and uniform player which
finds itself in constant conflict with the other states of the system due to the lack of a comprehensive world government, i.e. an international anarchy
(Oldemeinen, 2010). Realism is directly contrasting to romanticism or idealism, as it offers a cold and calculating picture of how the world functions,
which is often seen as pessimistic. From an international relations perspective, realism portrays global politics in a homogeneous ... Show more content
He also wrote that "the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do
and the weak accept what they have to accept." The Melians believed that they would have the gods by their side because their position is morally
just, whereas the Athenians opposed with the view that it is the natural order of life for the strong to dominate the weak. For Thucydides, international
relations allow the rich and powerful to do as they please and force the weak to suffer as they must (Hellenic Resources Network). One of the first
classical realists in this newly established province was Morgenthau, who would have the largest impact on the field. In his book Politics Among
Nations, 1948, Morgenthau produced a report of political realism that would dominate the study of international relations for decades to come.
According to Morgenthau, realism is concerned with how the world actually is, rather than how it ought to be; it is an empirical rather than a
normative paradigm. In time, the intellectual hegemony of Morgenthau's classical realism was succeeded by the emergence of neorealism by Kenneth
Waltz. In his book Theory of International Politics, 1979, Waltz sought to develop systematic and scientific realism, which divided the theory into
classical realism and neorealism (Pashakhanlou, 2009). Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz hold their

International Relations By Jack Donnelly: Realism And...
Realism and International Relations, by Jack Donnelly, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, 2000. 231 pages.
Jack Donelly is Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver. He is also the author of The
Concept of Human Rights, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice and International Human Rights.
Realism and International Relations by Jack Donnelly provides a critical yet sympathetic survey of political realism in International Theory. Using the
six paradigmatic theories – Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz, the Prisoners' Dilemma, Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes– the book examines
realist accounts of human nature and state motivation, international anarchy, balance of power, international institutions and morality in foreign policy.
The reason for choosing this book is to assess Donnellys' argument that common realist propositions not only fail to stand up to scrutiny but are
rejected by many leading realists as well.
Theoretical Premise
Donnelly defines and summarizes Realism according to six paradigmatic models.(Donnelly, 2000, p. 13) First paradigm begins with Thomas Hobbes
who was an English polymath in the seventeenth–century. Hobbes assumes that people are naturally equal but driven by competition, diffidence, ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
"The expectation is not that a balance, once achieved, will be maintained, but that a balance once disrupted, will be restored in one way or another.
Balances of power recurrently form." (Waltz, 1979, p. 128) Donnelly successfully critices Waltz conclusion by identifying that in a multipolar world, the
existence of at least two potential threats dramatically attenuates the link between external capabilities and threat. Therefore, Waltz balancing concept
is primarily a logic of bipolar orders not of international relations in

Realism Is The Most Convincing Paradigm For International...
WOULD YOU AGREE THAT REALISM IS THE MOST CONVINCING PARADIGM FOR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS? WHAT ARE THE
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF REALISM AS A THEORY FOR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS?
Realism has dominated international relations theory since emerging in the 1930's. The era of state conflict lasting from the 1930's to the end of the cold
war in 1947, proved the perfect hostile environment to fit the largely pessimistic view of world politics. While many aspects of realism are still alive in
International Relations today; including the dominant presence of states, intrinsic of war and the decentralised government. However, realism only
reaches so far in explaining and creating a structure for international relations. Whilst the strengths of the theory lie in its pragmatic approach to power
politics and conflict. However, the realist view is weakened by changes in the way that conflict is fought, the ineffectiveness of the balance of power
model and the increasing global and interconnected world. Thus, using realism as a structure to explain international relations today is to some extent,
a theory of the past.
There are two, key conflicting theories in the study of international relations, idealism and realism, known to scholars as the 'Great Debate'. Realism,
offers an account of international affairs through four central ideas; that states are the key players in international relations, the decentralised
international stage is anarchic, actors are rational and self–interested

Hans Morgenthau Defensive Realism Essay

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Cindy Collins

More from Cindy Collins (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Hans Morgenthau Defensive Realism Essay