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 argues that the lack of an authority higher than nation-states, causes states to act only in competitive and selfish ways, and that material power determines relations between states. John Mearsheimer supports this by saying, “States are potentially dangerous to each other. Although some states have more military might than others and are therefore more dangerous”(Mearsheimer, 70). Instead of keeping identities and interests in mind when determining relations between states, realists assert that anarchy will cause states to act solely in their best interest. Kenneth Waltz attempted to explain a structural realist perspective about anarchic structure.
Hans Morgenthau unravels the world of International Politics, leading to the term Political Realism. There are various issues this theory has elevate concerns, about the true nature of all politics. The chronicle of modern political impression is the scenario of a struggle between two schools that are contradictorily with the essence of man, society, and politics. Idealism as the opposite pertains to the moral values, and human’s nature capability of continuous malleability of politics to measure up to ethical standards. It theorizes that a rational, and moral political order originates from universally valid abstract principles, can be obtained here and now.
From a realist perspective, decisions by governments (or “states”) to go to war are the product of all states’ involuntary participation in eternal quests for power and security due to an international political environment in which each state fears the actual or potential hostility of other states. Leaders rationally calculate war’s costs and benefits in terms of their state’s power and security (Lieberfeld, 2005). Therefore, realism sees the states work in an anarchical system, meaning in the absence of higher, trans-governmental and universally recognizable authority no rules are applied in the international realm. The state exists as a full sovereign of its people and territory, and which enjoys the ultimate power of being completely self-determined. By taking into account Waltz’s structure of the international system, there are three elements that define it; its “ordering principle,” “the character of the units” that compose it, and “the distribution of capabilities” between these units.
In this quote, the realist’s position is confirmed. Indeed the antagonism in international relations currently exists in high percentages. Power politics and interests rather than democratic views are the driving forces of the word. Quoting Lord and Harris (2006) “the main criticism of cosmopolitanism is that its civilizing project presumes a degree of universality which is far from present at the global level and its morally contestable whether it should be”. Concluding this first part of explaining my thesis on why realists are against the idea of global polity and they don’t see it as a viable or practical plan at least not based on current political situation, I will now present arguments in support of why global polity can not
While Confucius would emphasize the good of the old sage-kings, Han Feizi emphasized that it was not virtue that allowed any sage-king (which the Legalists hardly believed in to begin with) but rather a combination of “timeliness of seasons, the hearts of the people, skills and talents, and position of power” (Chan p. 254). Without these attributes, no amount of virtue can resolve disorder. Legalists, rather than focus on resolving disorder with virtue and filial piety, would therefore look at a leader’s ability to enact law and enforce statecraft. Han Feizi writes “if the ruler has no statecraft, he will be ruined . .
Civil Society has become one the most important features of the Morden State, whether operate independently or cooperated by the state. The primary role for the civil society is to limit the control of power by the state but more often now more civil society organisations have been co-opted into the state. This move has been criticized as it is view as that the state only do it to advance its own interest. Starting off with the idea of civil as state society, Marx does not go with the idea that it is the state that creates and sustains civil society. Below some of Marx criticism of this idea by different scholars in discussed.
The state of nature creates a paradox where people move from complete liberation to an wholly sovereign submission. Justice has no place in the state of nature where people are led or ruled by fear to obey. Modern philosophers command their citizens to give up their freedoms and right of liberty, which is an inalienable natural right, to the collective
In between these systems is the hegemony which defines the contemporary IR. According to Watson, there cannot be case in which there is absolute anarchy or hierarchy but between the two which he used pendulum as a metaphor. International politics is explained through the terms of empire, dominion, suzerainty and independence. Order prevails in the empire and away from the core of the empire exist the anarchic system. Watson argues against the notion that the interactions between the independent states in IR is far from possibility.
Since anarchy is the structure or the situation that governs the act of the state, the use of power is not a matter of morality but rather of survival. In this theory, the individual as an actor, as well as the other societal entities, necessarily take a backseat and allows the state to rule. For a realists, the “normal state of the international system is a preponderance of