Realism, Constructivism And Post-Structuralism

A different policy that shows U.S. involving realism is the Big Stick Policy. This policy had to do with what is now known as the Roosevelt Corollary, to the Monroe Doctrine. Roosevelt believed in only having to use force if he had too. Yet, long after the Monroe Doctrine, many countries in the western hemisphere had poor defense systems. Because of this, he insisted that the U.S. must use their force to be an “international police power” to preserve and protect American interests. Just another reason why America can use their military force to use other countries to their own

To move on, the theories of realism and liberalism must be expounded upon. Realism, as a theory, deals with how the world is perceived, and it predominantly focuses on the true nature of man. The state of the world is anarchy according to this theory. Realism, in its most general form, closely ties power and survival, explaining that there cannot be survival without power, and that the state consists of rational thinkers that have this is at their best interest and who act as one. The main contributors to the theory of realism include Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes. Thucydides’ contribution to the theory of realism lies mostly in one of the earliest scholarly works in history, History of the Peloponnesian War, which

Realism holds that the global framework gives impetuses to development just under particular conditions. Rebellion makes circumstances whereby the instruments that one state uses to build its security diminish the safety of different countries. This security situation makes states stress over each other's future goals and relative power. Sets of states may seek after absolute security looking for methodologies, yet accidentally create spirals of natural antagonism, or struggle. States frequently seek after expansionist approaches because their pioneers erroneously trust that animosity is the best way to make their country

Looking back over the development of the Security Studies field, there can be no doubt that the realist tradition has exercised enormous influence. Even the harshest of critics can acknowledge that with their focus on power, fear, and anarchy, realist theories have provided centrally important explanations for conflict and war (Williams, 2013). One interpretation of realism that is unbroken amongst most commentators of the theory is that realists are individuals that believe the State is the principle actor in international politics and that they are very concerned with the balance of power (Marsalis, 2013). They argue that all the State’s actions and choices are a reflection of the collective will of the people, which is also an argument

The focus of social constructivism is on human awareness or consciousness and its place in world affairs. The international system is constituted by ideas, not by material forces. Social

The current work is meant to explain the differences and similarities between the most dominant theories in international relations, Realism and Liberalism, both theories have some similarities and differences but much more important and interesting is to discuss and explain what differs and makes similar both theories.

Realism establishes a separation between politics and ethics in order to understand and comprehend international events. Realists don’t oppose morality to politics, nor power to law, but rather oppose the utopian peaceful society to the nature of society. Realists are attuned to the idea that the international system is anarchic and that serious threats emerge all the time, requiring states to secure resources for survival. This involves periodic use of force; security represents the unique and main goal of foreign policy.

Though the international system today shares many aspects of realism, neoliberalism, constructivism, and marxism, neoliberalism is the predominant principles under which the international system operates. With the formation of several influential international governmental organizations (IGOs), the world has become a much safer place. Though neoliberal ideas draw from realism in the fact that the international system is in anarchy, neoliberalism dictates that the world is in a form of structured anarchy, perpetuated by the IGOs that governments partake in. By strengthening webs of interdependence, countries find the ability to interact amicably, and build up reliance upon one another. As countries

Classical realism and structural realism are both theories of International Relations, therefore huge differences are noticed in between those two. The main difference lies in the motivation to power, which is seen differently by both theories. Classical realism is concentrated in the desire of power- influence, control and dominance as basic to human nature. Whereas, structural realism is focused on the international system anarchic structure and how the great powers behave. Classical realists believe that power is related to human nature, thus their analysis of individuals and states is similar. It believes that all individuals are born with an increasing desire to own power hardwired inside them. In these circumstances dominant states should do direct high power over their rivals. In the other hand, structural realism does not define the quest for power, instead it is focused on the structure of the international

As we can recall, liberalism, one of the main schools of international theory, is about cooperation of several characters, fostered through the democratic peace theory (democracies do not fight democracies) and international law to monitor behavior. Also, the other grand theory, constructivism, really is not represented well either. And to recap, constructivism is contrary to neo realism, in which international relations are socially constructed, that is, given a form their form interaction and social practices which are ongoing. All of these ideas seem to be missing in the structure of the

Unlike structural realism, constructivist social theory argues that “States act differently toward enemies than they do toward friends because enemies are threatening and friends are not. Anarchy and the distribution of power are insufficient to tell us which is which”(Wendt, 79). Based on Wendt’s philosophy, whether the international system is conflictual or peaceful is not due to anarchy and power but due the shared relations and social practices between states. By interacting with other states, Wendt argues that identities will form based on diplomatic gestures, which means states can be able to achieve peaceful relations. Simply put, anarchy does not control conflictual relationships between states. Since,"anarchy is what states make of it,” all states do not need to stress over their relative power and can focus on achieving long term peace.(Wendt, 79-80). While realist classical perspectives point to solely human nature and the anarchical system as the reason for conflict, Wendt provides an example showing that the self identities of states can lead to peace or conflict. He points to defining situations in context history that help determine a state 's interest. He states, “This seems to be happening today in the United States and the former Soviet Union. Without the cold war’s mutual attributions of threat and hostility to define their identities, these states seem unsure of what their ‘interests’

Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism, two of the most influential contemporary approaches to international relations, although similar in some respects, differ multitudinously. Thus, this essay will argue it is inaccurate to claim that Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism have far more similarities than differences. On the contrary, it will contend that there are, in an actual fact, more of the latter than there are of the former on, for example, the nature and consequences of anarchy, the achievement of international cooperation, and the role of international institutions. Moreover, it will be structured in such a way so as to corroborate this line of argument. In practice, that is to say, this essay will first and foremost explain what is meant by Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism. It will then hone in on a similarity of crucial importance, namely that both are in agreement that the international system is structured anarchically. The rationale behind this is twofold: firstly, anarchy lays the foundations upon which both theories are built and, secondly, it is from this similarity that fundamental points of contention come to light. For example, although there is consensus that the international system is structured anarchically, neo-realists and neoliberals hold differing views on the nature of anarchy: the former argues that anarchy is all-encompassing whereas the latter contends that

The international relations schools of thought known as Realism and Idealism identify specific and similar characteristics of actors in the conceptual development of their theories. While many of these characteristics can be generalized as being synonymous with the two theories, both theories make a separate distinction in what specifically constitutes an actor. In Realism, the term “actor” refers directly and solely to the state: a combination of government, leaders, decision-makers, etc, that act as a unitary entity to promote the interests of the state.

The theory unleashes such dynamic forces that from the time of its inception up till now it has governed the international system of the world however things one day itself fall apart. The Realists mark the State as the locus of different international circles and these sovereign states have vested interests which are always selfish. Realism is a heartless theory, man is not supposed to be selfish in the way exaggerated by the Realist thinker however [he] is a seeker of knowledge and what so ever he stumbles upon, he keeps

Kenneth Waltz is the father of neorealism. His book, Theory of International Politics, departs from the classical and neoclassical realism theories. Instead Waltz sets out to prove his international relations theory in a scientific manner, while choosing to ignore the normative concerns of classical and neoclassical realism (Jackson and Sørensen, 2003: 84). The theory of neorealism – or structural realism – focuses on structures (and on the interacting units, the constants and the changes of the system) as the determinative powers within the scope of international relations (main principle of those being that of anarchy). Jackson and Sørensen (2003: 84) also point out that actors are viewed