Sorel 's Reflections on Violence is not a mere intellectual endeavor; rather, it is a revolutionary guideline. As Chiaria Bottici notes in A Philosophy of Political Myth, this Sorel 's text 'clearly has an activist intent: to develop a severe critique of the parliamentary socialists and their neglect of the primary role played by proletarian violence in history ' (Bottici 2007, 159). In Reflections on Violence Sorel tries to develop a specific revolutionary ethics which will be true to the genuine Marxism. He explicitly states that the task of his study is 'to deepen our understanding of moral conduct ' (Sorel 2004, 40). It is crucial that moral conduct is associated here with political practices and,
Rather than focusing only on state’s selfishness and competitiveness, structural realists (neorealists) believe that states enter into alliances with other states (diplomacy) to regulate and keep a check on the power of other alliances and more powerful states. Although the school of structural realism (neorealism) is developed from the classical realist school, there are key differences between these two types of realism. According to Ferguson (2011) and the lectures and other materials of week 1-3, classical realists primarily focus on explaining the nature of man; that is, human nature is aggressive and human aggregates (states) are thus aggressive too. They argue that behaviors of states derive heavily from human nature, and self-centeredness and self-interestedness are presumed to be the fundamental principles of realism. In contrast to this, structural realists (neorealists)
Clausewitz was proposing that if states perceive war as something that is a necessary step so that they can promote their own interests and power, well then they will use it as a rational political tool. Kenneth Waltz and other modern realists have further built on Clausewitz idea of what causes wars and have also furthered and added to the idea. In Kenneth Waltz’s writing in “Man, the State and War”, he sets out three interconnected images of what causes wars. The first one, which keeps in line with a classical realist thought, is war has its origins in flawed human nature. This suggest that “the evilness of men, or their improper behaviour, leads to war” (Waltz, 2001, p.39).
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. Idealism, on the other side values morality as the basis of all relations among nations. It rejects the separation between the mind and the soul in politics. Idealists see the role of power as an undesirable factor to be eliminated.
A controversial and somewhat debated topic is the concept of the Just War Principles. These principles attempt to understand and perhaps explain the rationale behind why war is waged. There are two criteria that the principle are broken into: “the right to go to war” (jus ad bellum) and “the right conduct in war” (jus in bello). The principles associated with jus ad bellum are the following: just cause, comparative justice, competent authority, right intention, probability of success, last resort, and proportionality (Finlay, 2015). Just cause refers to the idea that war must be just in that it has to constitute something more than say simply recapturing something that has been taken or as a punishment for doing something wrong (Just War Theory).
One particular issue that they vary on would be terrorism and what role it should have in the democratic issue. They are also in opposition to the U.S. policy in regards to Isreal . Both of these differences of opinion stem from the different ideologies each country subscribes to. Secondly, the most common attack against the Democratic Peace Theory by realist is the power argument. Countries act in ways that will best promote their power .
5. CONCLUSIONS As theorised by Political Realism, all international relations is a struggle for power. States are therefore in a constant struggle to attain national security. A state’s pursuit of achieving national security results in conflict between states. However, one must understand that the struggle for national security does not always denote conflictual situation, and it can also entail cooperative situations.
This study attempt to provide complete understanding of the contemporary terrorism by utilizing theoretical perspective specially tells us about the political realities and identical actions and realities of the society which are constructed by human beings they are not inherently exist in society. This essay will analyze how in post 9/11 public discourse. “Terrorism” is constructed. We use language to structure our world. Language not only determines how we see the world, but also what kinds of actions are possible.
After the First World War, writers, known as idealists’ theorists, were trying to understand the cause of war and its existence in international politics. According to realists, the ideologies of idealists were flawed because they ignored the role that power has in international politics, they overestimated the rationality of Human beings, had an assumption that nation states shared a common interest, and they thought that humankind could put an end to war (Dunne and Schmidt, 2008: 92). The outbreak of the Second World War emphasized the above flaws of idealists, which resulted in idealism being replaced with realism. Realist writers then emphasized the power dynamics of states and the competitive nature which they hold in the international
Realist main focus is History. And for survival the competition is important. There are three types of Realism: 1) Classical Realism: Any action from the state in the International politics is due to the human nature. 2) Structural Realism: The International politics depends on International system i.e. states are in Anarchy.