The main theories of IR are – realism, idealism, their variants and a collection of views drawn from other schools of thought. The most prominent theories are realism and idealism, both of which have a long history. Neorealism and neoliberalism have become popular in the twentieth century. Doctrines of postmodernism and feminism have also influenced some IR theories.
Realism is an old doctrine; its lineage is traced to Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes. Thucydides (460–411 B.C.) wrote History of the Peloponnesian War – a war that Athens and Sparta fought from 431 to 404 B.C. Thucydides touches upon the usual themes of realism. Athenians affirm the priority of self-interest over morality. They say that considerations of right and wrong have “never turned people aside from the opportunities of aggrandizement offered by superior strength”. The History of the Peloponnesim war contains dialogues between protagonists of realism and idealism. Thucydides supports neither side unreservedly. He cautions both against “naïve-dreaming on international politics” and against “the other pernicious extreme: unrestrained cynicism”. A ruler should make a realistic assessment of the dangers from external enemies, and take defensive measures. He should not merely place faith in the good intentions of other rulers. At the same time, a ruler should abide by rules of good behaviour. He should not attack and annexe weaker kingdoms.
Critique of the Moral Tradition
Idealism advocates the moral point of view or ‘what ought to be’ in politics. Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero were all political idealists who believed that there are some universal moral values on which political life could be based. This view received support later from Christianity. Till Machiavelli’s times, political thinkers generally believed that politics, including the relations among states, should be virtuous, and that the methods of warfare should remain subordinated to ethical standards.
In The Prince, Machiavelli seeks “the effectual truth of the matter rather than the imagined one.” In modern terms, rulers have to face up to harsh realities and avoid chasing illusions. He outlines practical prescriptions for making both individuals and countries prosperous and strong. Machiavellianism is a radical type of political realism. It denies the relevance of morality in politics, and claims that all means (moral and immoral) are justified to achieve certain political ends. This is the doctrine of raison d’état which implies that rulers should follow whatever is good for the state and not ethical scruples or norms.
In the nineteenth-century, Hegel and Treitschke, pushedMachiavellian realism to even further extremes, and applied it to international relations. Hegel’s statement that “the state has no higher duty than that of maintaining itself,” gave an ethical sanction to the state’s promotion of its own interest and advantage against other states. For Treitschke the state was power; it has to assert itself against other equally independent powers; and its supreme moral duty is to maintain its power. States need to follow international agreements only if it is expedient to do so. These views are part of realpolitik or a ruthlessly realistic and opportunist, as opposed to a moralistic, approach to statesmanship. Realpolitik is a national policy having as its sole principle–advancement of the national interest. Traditional ethics was denied and power politics was associated with a ‘higher’ or different type of morality.
According to modern realist thinkers, in the absence of a common rule-making and enforcing authority, the international arena is essentially a self-help system. Each state has to ensure its survival, define its interests and pursue power. Anarchy (which here means absence of an effective international body which can regulate the conduct of sovereign nations) creates a situationin which power primarily shapes inter-state relations.
For realists, the world of (nation) states is anarchic, and security is the overriding goal of any state. To this end, states try to increase their power and engage in power-balancing for the purpose of deterring potential aggressors. Wars are fought to prevent competing nations from becoming militarily stronger. This is the famous concept of balance of power.
Realists doubt the relevance of morality to international politics. This usually leads them to the following conclusions: there is no place for morality in international relations; morality and successful conduct of international relations of a nation are incompatible; morality of States is different from customary morality; and morality, if any, is merely used instrumentally to justify states’ conduct. The doctrine of realism can also be applied to domestic politics. In the domestic sphere, realism sees politics in general as a conflict of interests and a struggle for power, and seeks peace by trying to recognise common group and individual interests, rather than by moralizing.
Political thinkers distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive realism. Descriptive realism claims that in real world states do not behave morally. Either they lack the moral motivation, or are unable to act morally due to competitive struggles. Moral talk centering on interstate conflict is
vacuous. States do not value morality and justice; they value power, security and national interest. States cannot afford to be moral if they want to survive in the violent international arena, and if they want to serve and protect their citizens. “Morality is simply not on the radar screen for states, given their defensive function and the brutal environment in which they subsist.”
Some writers oppose extreme realism and argue that statesvalue morals,though they may often violate them. Two reasons are advanced to support this view. Individuals create states, and also desire that states should act decently. This is part of a deeper sense of community and justice. The “necessity” of state conduct in terms of pursuing power is exaggerated and rhetorical; it ignores the facts of foreign policy choice which states have in the international sphere. In normal times, states are not trapped into desperate do-or-die struggles. Many international problems can be sorted out through calm and reasoned discussions.
Prescriptive realism advocates that states should be prudent in their international conduct. States should be amoral – wedded neither to rigid moral or immoral conduct. Prudence requires that a state should adhere to a policy of smart self-regard in international affairs. A smart state will ignore morality when considering what to do on the international stage. If it is too moral, other ruthless states will exploit it. (Nice guys finish last.) A holier-than-thou state will offend other communities with different values. The approach can be summed up as: “Better to stick to the sober calculus of national interests and leave ethics out of it.”
Idealism may be defined as the spirit which leads an individual or group to adopt loftier moral standards than those which prevail around them. Idealism in international relations can be traced back to the practices which governed relations between rulers in olden times. One area in which the practices operated was war. Over time, norms arose which regulated conduct of war, treatment of prisoners and of the vanquished who surrendered. As wars were led by nobles who often had family ties, they tended to be merciful. Moral thinkers condemned wanton cruelty in wars.
Idealism in the sense of adherence to moral principles also became relevant to treaties which ended wars or laid down agreements between rulers. Treaties involved principles of good faith, reciprocity and honouring agreements in letter and spirit. Honouring international agreements and observing conventions of warfare becamematters of moral principles. No nationshouldviolatethese to secure any undue advantage.
Immanuel Kant is among those who anticipated many modern themes of idealism in international morals. The following observations of Kant illustrate this point.
¤ No state shall by force interfere with the internal affairs of another state.
¤ It would be fatal to divide the states according to the principle of feudal lord and vassal.
¤ No state shall, during war, permit such acts of hostility which would make mutual confidence in thesubsequent peaceimpossible.
¤ Governments need to reduce military spending and armaments. Standing armies shall in time be totally abolished. (Immanuel ftant and International Relations of Modern Times by Dr Habil Vyacheslav Dashichev)
Notwithstanding such sentiments expressed by philosophers, European diplomatic practices by and large ignored idealist considerations. The great powers pursued politics of naked power. The major European powers such as Austria, France, Germany, Russia and England were involved in a complicated game of maintaining balance of power in Europe. The idea was not to let any nation become the dominant power. This policy led to frequent wars.
We need not trace the twists and turns of nineteenth century European history. But it is this lack of idealism which led to the outbreak of the First World War (1914-1918). The war wreaked great havoc and shattered the belief in Western moral and cultural ideals. It also brought idealism to the fore of international diplomacy under the leadership of the US president Woodrow Wilson. As we shall see, realism reemerged after the failure of Woodrow Wilson’s efforts during the period between the two world wars.
The idealists of the 1920s and 1930s are also known as liberal internationalists or utopians.The main ideas of idealists were:
¤ Ensuring peace and avoiding another world conflict
¤ Creating a system of international law, backed by international organizations
¤ Viewing wars as results of imperfect social conditions and political arrangements, and not of egoistic human nature
¤ Focusing on the common interests that could unite humanity and rejecting any inevitability of conflict between states and peoples
¤ Appealing to human rationality and morality.
Efforts of idealists resulted in founding of the League of Nations in 1920; and to the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, outlawing war and providing for the peaceful settlements of disputes. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson was a prominent idealist of that period. He propounded a liberal programme of Fourteen Points during World War I.
But US finally did not join the League of Nations; Japan and Germany left it; and it could not prevent the outbreak of the Second World War. These events led to loss of faith in idealism both among academic thinkers and practical diplomats. However, United Nations, founded in 1945 after the Second World War, is an outcome of idealism. But thereafter, because of cold war between USAand USSR,realismbecameinfluential in thepolitical thinking in theinitial years of thepost-war period. The famous ‘classical’ realists of this time included Hans Morgenthau and George Kennan. However, we will first consider the realist reaction to idealism during the interwar period.