Idealism and Realism are two strongly opposed views of foreign policy. At the core of this opposition is the issue of power and security in politics. 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.
It is necessary to balance international security relating to the events of the Imjin War. Continuing the Confucian theory of war, Confucians believed that if warfare is a fact of life, there will be a problem of balance. All life is a question of balance. There is a problem of usurpation, which is taking over illegally or illegitimately problem of the usurpation of civilian power by the military. In order to prevent and limit the practice of military power over civilian power, the military has to maintain a certain quality or character, therefore the military cannot be an independent profession, rather it has to be related to the civilian bureaucracy (Magagna, 11/3).
Carl Schmitt’s claim that politics is fundamentally distinct from other spheres is persuasive on the premise that the core of politics consists on the friend/enemy theory with each side of the conflict posing a perceived existential threat of violence to one another. However, his argument is less persuasive when he uses this premise to critique liberalism because he does not provide an alternative solution to his criticism. Schmitt contends that, “the political must rest on its own ultimate distinction, [and] the specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is between friend and enemy” (Schmitt 26). Schmitt defines a political or public enemy as a collective group that poses an existential threat of violence, “the real possibility of physical killing” (Schmitt 33). Therefore Schmitt contends the political cannot exist without violence, or the threat/possibility of violence.
This is illustrated from his proclamation that "war is merely the continuation of policy by other means," the concept of "remarkable trinity" and the general uncertainties of war which he termed as ‘friction' (Moran 2007: 91-106). Many scholars have assumed that the concept of trinity is fundamentally linked to states. Thus critics claim that the end of state legitimacy brought about by the international system of nations will lead to only violent, non-Trinitarian and non-political Wars. This argument is supported by the changes of structure of modern conflicts where the confrontation between opposing armies has been replaced by contemporary wars which do not follow a conventional norm and lack rationality. According to Mary Kaldor (2005: 491-498), who is the leading proponent of new war, the primary example of the new type of warfare is the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina whereby the conflict appears to manifest in irrational traits that are guided by other factors other than politics.
Seldom, do groups remain together for centuries and as evident in the text, conflict is bound to happen. He appeals to logos by defining democracy when he states that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. In a way, this defies the current situation in Great Britain and discusses the offenses Great Britain has committed. In, “…mankind are more disposed..,” he declares that humans prefer to suffer sufferable evils than to abolish those evils they are accustomed to. He expands his purpose by showing an example of human nature and that humans do not like the unknown, even if the unknown may be somewhat positive or beneficial.
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
POLITICAL REALISM AND NATIONAL INTEREST The realist theory, including classic and neo-realists, suggest that people in general are selfish and aggressive. Hans Morgenthau, the father of Political Realism, stated that all international politics is a struggle for power, and that a state’s main goal is national security. As the international system exists in an anarchical world where there are no binding legal structures to ensure agreements concerning trade, alliance commitments or arms control. As a result, it is difficult for a state to trust
Some may argue that the government should be strictly respected because they provide and protect our basic freedoms and needs. Others may disagree and state that it is appropriate to not only rebel, but overthrow the government no matter the condition due to a lack of trust and a sense of individuality that these defiant citizens feel they possess and must preserve. I feel that these two views are too extreme and that there is no sense in having too much or too little trust in the government. People should be cautious, and should not act unless there is a sense of intense corruption within the government which can be reversed through peaceful actions, brought on by voicing an opinion, even if it is not deemed valuable by the
Securing these rights is the most fundamental responsibility of his government. Also, some people may ask that how the government balances the whim of the state and the whim of the individual. In Jefferson’s perspective, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it…” (119), what Jefferson really means is that when people feel their safety and happiness are being infringed upon, they have rights to institute a new government. But Jefferson also emphasizes that only when people suffer from “a long train of abuses and usurpations” (119), is it a good way to change the government. People only hurt themselves when they intend to change the government because of some small mistakes.
Keck and Sikkink acknowledged the power dynamics between countries but also believed that some of the most powerful countries were limited by ideologies. A list of moral do’s and don’ts restricts even the most powerful countries from doing what they want. Groups such as advocacy organizations, NGO’s, intergovernmental organizations, local movements, foundations, media, and churches come together to share information between allies in order to ensure that countries are upholding the universal morals. This creates what Keck and Sikkink call the boomerang pattern. When nations are debating issues such as universal healthcare, gun control, and capital punishment, international beliefs and national identity can come into direct conflict.