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).
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)
War is something that, at this point in history, can be arguably deemed as part of the human condition. For whatever reason, it appears that humans are destined not to get along and that violent conflict is the preferred method of solving issues that arise. Whether it be fighting for the love of Helen of Troy or espousing the likes of God and Allah as a justification, war is one thing that time has yet to see the end of. That being said, it comes as no surprise that academics, scientists, and philosophers alike have taken to attempting to understand why wars happen. A controversial and somewhat debated topic is the concept of the Just War Principles.
Realism has become a successful theory since then because it is has given meaning to the interests of states that coexist with each other in a hostile environment (Dunne and Schmidt, 2008: 92). Realism has further offered insights in how state leaders’ should conduct themselves and their foreign policies in order to maintain the security of the state; this behavior is often referred to as “reason of state” (Dunne and Schmidt, 2008: 92). In addition, realists warn state leaders’ about falling into the trap of moral principle because if they do, it will lead to them sacrificing the state’s self-interest for an ethical code. With the aforementioned, this essay will discuss the theory of realism by using two different theorists, namely Hens Morgenthou and Kenneth Waltz, to understand classical realism and structural realism. These theorists will help us understand the differences between the two and how they both relate to each other.
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.
Since publishing his first book, Wallerstein has continued to protest against deceptive epistemologies and has encouraged a macro-scale approach when attempting to analyze our modern world-system. It is however this macro-scale approach of his that one is tempted to critique at times. Analyzing a system in terms of an inter-societal and system-wide process might cause one to overlook the individual characteristics of states that determine their development. States are not self-contained entities but they are still entities, unique in terms of culture, historical background and ideology which determines how they react or conform to capitalism as core-state imposed way of global
Therefore, it provides differences between the status quo power and progressive states, while maintaining and emphasizing the importance of government at the same time. In contrary, Structural Realism is more concerned on ensuring their survival, by seeking and maintaining that power. Structural Realism would treat states as they are black boxes: they are assumed to be alike (Mearsheimer). Furthermore, Classical Realism and Structural Realism differ in their views of interconnection in international politics, fundamentally what causes the observed outcomes in relations among states. Classical Realists believe that the international world is one of interacting states, and causes run in one direction.
Morgenthau viewed that the thirst for power is an essential assumption to understand what the nature of politics is because man’s desire to gain power is evident from every society. At the international level, "politics is of necessity power politics"; political theory as applied to international relations "is the theory of survival. "Mentioning the lust of power which is a necessary component of the political process, Morgenthau referred to the “stigma of guilt” and “immorality” which is unavoidable in the political behavior. Morgenthau said" To the degree in which the essence and aim of politics is power over man, politics is evil . .
For example, dictatorships have been accused of seeking foreign advantages in order to seek an oppress domestic populations that war can only produce. -Military Determinant: Military strength is the most decisive most publicized and the most incalculable factor of power. Its role as arbiter of victory or celebrated. As long as war remains the court of last resort for international conflict, military force is vital for survival. The great importance of military power is that it is accord as a central place in contemporary society.
As in many other areas, there are competing theories and theoretic approaches in the field of international relations. Realism which emphasizes state-centric view1 and has conflictual/ competitive tendencies, idealism and liberalism which focuses on cooperation and mutual understanding is only some of them which will be also discussed in this essay. For many academicians and theorists, the driving force is ensuring a more stable and peaceful world order, but they brought out different suggestions. Both before and after World War II, the necessity of intergovernmental organizations in order to establish a cooperative international system, became one of the main subject of debates. I will proceed by analyzing the arguments of David Mitrany’s