I. Introduction
Realism stands as one of the foremost schools of thought in international relations, garnering widespread recognition. Within its various traditions, Realism upholds three fundamental principles often referred to as the ‘Three Ss’: Statism, Survival, and Self-Help. This paper delves into the implications of these core tenets for our comprehension of global affairs, assessing their adequacy. Furthermore, it contemplates the intellectual prowess and framework of Realism in elucidating modern-day events and charting a course for the future.
II. The three Ss
A. Statism
The first core tenet we shall look at is Statism. Statism places nation-states as the central power holders in the realist system and, as such, form the foundational unit of international relations. It sees the world as a zero-sum situation where for one state to gain power, another must lose it. State and sovereignty are the basis for the realist school of international relations. Following Max Weber’s definition, sovereignty refers to the state’s monopoly over using legitimate coercive force within the state. Power, within this framework, is inherently relative and contingent upon inter-state relations; it does not exist independently.
B. Survival
Survival posits that states place a crucial regard on their security aspects. This forms the foundation of “ethics of responsibility” and provides for the state’s survival to be above all else. In “The Prince”, Machiavelli sets out a dual moral standard between individual acts and actions to ensure the state’s survival. It explains that international politics requires different moral and political rules from domestic politics and focuses on ‘raisons d’etre’ or ‘reason of state’. In the words of Henry Kissinger, the academic realist who became Secretary of State during the Nixon presidency, a nation’s survival is its first and ultimate responsibility; it cannot be compromised or put at risk. It can be better understood by examining and understanding the anarchic nature of the international order and its various aspects. The anarchic nature of the international order can be evaluated in part by the concept of ‘Self-Help.”
C. Self-help
Self–help explains that due to the anarchic structure, no overarching authority exists to prevent the use of force, thus connecting security with self-help. This means that states are responsible for their security or, as Waltz puts it, “self-help is necessarily the principle of action,” exemplifying the ‘Security Dilemma.’ States being constantly faced with this Security Dilemma, are always unsure or suspicious of the intentions of another state. Another aspect of this dilemma is that states inadvertently make other states insecure in trying to improve their security. Wheeler and Booth have explained this with the example of how military preparations by one state, irrespective of their intended use (defensive or offensive), make other states feel insecure and suspicious.
While Realism retains its Core features, it has undergone significant change over its history to respond to contemporary global developments and has evolved to branch out into different iterations, namely: Classical Realism, Neorealism, and Neoclassical Realism.
III. Branches of Realism
A. Classical realism
Classical Realism is the first and perhaps the most well-known version of realism. It understands the world in a Hobbesian parallel wherein it is every state for itself against each other. This view has been propounded by Hans Morgenthau, the most prominent realist of contemporary times, who draws upon human nature to explain state behaviour and relations in the international arena. The work of early thinkers such as Machiavelli and Thucydides provides a historical precedent to classical realism, thus lending it credibility and supporting its claim of being ‘timeless’. This school of thought evolved in the aftermath of the Second World War and was heavily influenced by the recent experience of widespread death and destruction and the failure of the League of Nations to intervene. These issues highlighted the flaws in the framework of classical realism and led to the emergence of ‘new’ or neorealism.
B. Neorealism
The structural or neorealism view propounded by Kenneth Waltz credits the lack of overarching authority and power relations amongst states to explain the world. It focuses on the distribution of capabilities among states and how relative power between states and the international arena has a dialectical relationship. Balance of power based on dynamic and shifting alliances is a central part of these traditions. Realism and its’ contemporary version – neorealism, dominated international relations for nearly five decades and were accepted as “real” in the common narrative. Realism was the most practiced theory by world leaders around the globe, evident in both policymaking and inter-state relations. Machiavelli’s dream of Realism being a stateman’s guide was all but realized.
However, it all changed with the fall of the Berlin Wall and, eventually, the Soviet Union. The world suddenly entered a unipolar stage, with no one to counter and balance the power of the United States. While countries like China and India are rising fast, and their presence in the international scenario cannot be ignored, they still have not reached the pedestal the USSR once held. This is especially true in the case of military dominance, which, from a realist perspective, is the most crucial aspect of state power. This shift transformed the world order and exposed the flaws in existing realist perspectives. The fall of the Soviet Union can be traced back to the actions of ordinary citizens and domestic events taking place in the eastern parts of the Soviet Union, eventually leading to the disintegration of the entire state. Realism had failed to consider the actions of such non-state actors and the effect that the domestic affairs of a state have on its international orientation and, by extension, the international order itself. Thus, speculation arises as to whether Realism could explain the transformation in the world order or would give way to the dominant idealist thinking before the Great War.
IV. Neo-classical Realism
The answer presents itself in the form of Neoclassical Realism. It adds various individual- and domestic-level factors to their world political explanations. It does not do away with the pre-existing aspects of Realism, such as the distribution of power, but merely deems them insufficient to determine state behaviour and adds factors such as the perceptions of state leaders, state-society relationships, and state identity to the mix. An eminent neoclassical realist, Stephen Walt succinctly explains domestic politics as an intervening variable between power distribution and foreign policy behaviour. Scholars such as Gideon Rose have characterised Neoclassical Realism as attempting to build a bridge between structural i.e. features of the framework and unit-level i.e. features of individual states within the framework factors This aims to include and explain the critical role played by unit-level factors, especially domestic politics within the larger umbrella of realism.
V. Advantages of Neo-classical Realism
There is disagreement between different traditions as to how to reach the balance of power. Neorealists argue that the balance of power will emerge even without a conscious policy to maintain the balance. In an anarchic system populated by states that seek to perpetuate themselves, alliances will be formed to balance against the power of threatening states. Classical realists, however, are more likely to emphasise the crucial role that state leaders and diplomats play in maintaining the balance of power. In other words, the balance of power is not natural or inevitable; it must be constructed. Neo-classical realism strikes the balance between classical and neo-realism and appears to be sufficient.
A. Domestic Politics
Domestic politics is an aspect that is usually overlooked within realism but has come to be included within the fold to an extent under the ambit of unit-level factors in neoclassical realism. It can be understood as an umbrella term that includes multiple aspects such as leaders, state power, state interests, and state ideology. An example of India in recent years can be taken to explain how the aspect of culture in foreign policy transforms into ‘soft power’ as can be seen in India’s G20 Presidency and the much-discussed aspect of ‘Vishwaguru’.
B. State Leaders
State leaders present as yet another example of the critical role played by unit-level factors within the realm of international relations. They play a huge role in determining their foreign policy, and this is based on their understanding of the distribution of power and their ability to draw resources from the state. This understanding is not necessarily rational or objective, as the example of North Korea and its leader Kim Jong Un clearly shows.
C. Revisionist and Status Quo States
Randell Schweller explains that states have differing interests and goals, thus displacing the critical security assumption in neorealism as propounded by Waltz. He makes a distinction between status quo states and revisionist states. As the names suggest, the former wish to maintain the stability of the international order, and the latter wish to disrupt it to achieve their national interest. He gives the example of present-day Germany and Nazi Germany to illustrate this. A more contemporary example can be India being a status quo state and Pakistan being a revisionist state regarding the territory of Kashmir. States also possess, in varying degrees, the ability to convert national power into state power, thus affecting the distribution of power directly. These aspects lead us to understand the flaw in Waltz’s idea of treating states like units and highlight the differences in different states and how that directly impacts the international order.
VI. Problems of Neo-classical Realism
It appears to be evident that Neoclassical Realism solves and answers the challenges posed by the shift in the world order caused by the fall of the USSR. It also appears to possess the intellectual capacity and framework to explain contemporary non-state actors such as ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups operating in West Asia and Northern Africa. Nevertheless, the question again arises: Is it sufficient? Is it sufficient to explain and even predict the nature of international order? A simple understanding leads us to several apparent problems with the framework of Realism.
A. Ignorance of non-state actors
The first concerns the ignorance towards actions of non-state actors and transnational corporations and groups, which in the last two decades have played central roles in various regions around the globe. While neoclassical realists answer it to an extent, it is not sufficient. The impact of domestic affairs on the international front and the reverse has not been explored in depth. We see how the refugee crisis has affected several European states’ foreign policy, and in the case of the UK, it can even be credited with triggering the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, signifying a significant foreign policy shift.
B. Emergence of new challenges
The 21st century presents new challenges that cannot be solved by the self-help mechanism propounded by Realism. Challenges such as climate change and terrorism require the concerted efforts and cooperation of states worldwide to have any real impact. The historic Paris Agreement and global actions in fighting terrorism represent these challenges in the real world. We can also see that Realism offers what has been called a ‘masculine outlook’ to the world and ignores in its entirety the feminist perspective. Realism’s focus on the military and ‘hard power’ illustrates this. Aspects such as genocide question the duty of states regarding their citizens and the duty the international community has to the people. The intervention in Kosovo based on the principle of R2P(Responsibility to Protect) provides an apt example.
C. Pessimistic Perception
On a perception level, Realism can be argued to be inherently pessimistic and justify war and aggression. It also needs a method for a way forward and reduces cooperation to a non-existent idea. In turn, it ignores the reactive gains made possible through cooperation, keeping in with the theory of comparative advantage. Globalisation is based on this aspect and aims to improve all states through competition. Globalisation with increasing ‘interdependence’ and ‘interconnectedness’ can be said to be a threat to the centrality of the state from the realist perspective.
The question thus arises as to how to resolve these issues within the framework of realism. The answer to this problem lies in adopting a new approach towards understanding Realism, a Social Constructivist approach.
VII. Integrating a Social Constructivist Approach
Social constructivism argues that we make and remake the social world, so there is much more of a role for human agency than Realism and liberalism allow. This emerged in the 80s and 90s and thus coincided with the fall of the soviet union and the changes it precipitated. In the words of one of the most influential constructivist theorists, Alexander Wendt, even the self-help international system portrayed by realists is something that we make and remake: as he puts it, ‘anarchy is what states make of it’. Indeed, not only is the structure of world politics amenable to change but so also are the identities and interests that neorealism or neoliberalism take as given. This approach presents a dialectical relationship between human actions and our world. Marrying this approach to our understanding of Realism allows us to respond to the challenges presented above and the transformation that has occurred in the last three decades.
Adding this approach solves the critical flaws pointed out in the realist perspective. It allows for an emphasis on the actions of transnational and non-state actors without shifting the focus away from the state. It allows for and even supports cooperation brought about by conscious efforts to solve the pressing issues of our time and find a way forward. It brings into the fold the interplay between domestic and international politics and presents a gender-neutral lens, focusing on a more humanistic approach. The advent of globalisation can be cited as an apt example to show how the underpinning of this cooperation is based on ‘soft power’ aspects such as capitalism and how ‘interdependence’ can be treated in the sense of ‘mutual vulnerability’.
It is a logical prediction that the 21st century will be a realist century. The recent Russia-Ukraine conflict highlights that even today, states and their military capabilities play a huge role. While it is essential to include other actors and goals, the primary goal envisioned in the Treaty of Westphalia and affirmed by the Charter of the United Nations remains the same: maintaining international peace and security.
The critical point in understanding Realism is that it is a theory that argues that unsavoury actions like war are necessary tools of statecraft in an imperfect world, and leaders must use them when it is in the national interest. The exercise of these tools should be done with extreme caution and a predictive analysis of what their use might yield. This is what integrating a social constructivist approach aims to do.
VIII. The path forward
Integrating a social constructivist approach within the intellectual resources that realism commands allows us to formulate a theory that allows us to explain the world as we see it and predict how it will be in the future. It symbolises the great harmonisation or integration in the IR theoretical framework and has the potential to be the solution to the challenges of our times.
It embraces the complexity of modern geopolitics, acknowledging the roles of states and non-state actors while fostering cooperation and gender-neutral perspectives. This approach aligns with the demands of our interconnected world, where the power of ideas and interdependence hold sway. As we stand at the crossroads of history, it is not just about understanding the world but also reshaping it.
In this realist century, where the pursuit of national interests remains paramount, the inclusion of a social constructivist approach allows us to not only understand the world but also reshape it. It represents a forward-looking solution to the challenges of our time, promising a more equitable and interconnected global landscape. The legitimisation but argued illegality of the R2P principle and its use as a basis for state intervention and use of force under international law presents an apt instance of the need for the integration of the constructivist approach. It presents the secret to the resolution of the Russia – Ukraine and the Israel – Hamas conflict and leads the light into a renewed and revitalised 21st century. Realism, combined with Social Constructivism, offers a compelling path forward that holds the promise of a more cooperative, inclusive, and resilient international order.
Shaurya Mahajan is a first-year law student at Jindal Global Law School. Interests include International Relations, Sociology, Economics, and History.